THIRD SUBMISSION COMMENT RESPONSE MATRIX June 6, 2022

SITE PLAN CONTROL APPLICATION NO.

LCH DEVELOPMENTS
2340 KINGSTON ROAD
PART LOT 277, PLAN
M388 CITY OF TORONTO

COMMENT
COMMENT CONSULTANT RESPONSE
ID
Urban Forestry – Janice Allen – September 27, 2022

► Urban Forestry is not opposed in principle to development of this site, however at this time we do
not support the Site Plan Control application proposal, because aspects of the overall plan for the
site are, in Urban Forestry's opinion, inconsistent with parts of the City's Official Plan and
council's objectives concerning tree canopy cover (summarized above), and do not demonstrate
compliance with Tier 1 of the TGS (ecology section). Applications and revised plans and
documents are required as noted below.
1. Existing Tree (Protection Plans)

Where it is not possible to retain a tree that qualifies for protection under the City of Toronto’s
Tree By-law(s), or where construction activity will encroach upon a protected tree’s minimum tree
protection zone, it will be necessary for the applicant to submit an application requesting
permission to injure or destroy the trees in question to Urban Forestry. There is a fee of $377.67
(subject to change) for each tree included in an application. The application fee for
boundary/neighbour trees is $790.64 for each tree included in an application. Payment may be
made by certified cheque, money order, Visa, MasterCard, AMEX or debit, and must be
submitted with the application.
a. The privately owned trees, inventoried as tree nos. 1540, 1541, 1542, 1543, C, 1544 and Understood.
1546, indicated in the Arborist Report & Tree Preservation Plan, prepared by 7 Oaks Tree
Care & Urban Forestry Consultants Inc., dated August 24, 2021, meet the criteria for
protection under the City of Toronto’s Private Tree By-law. The development proposes the
removal of tree nos. 1540, 1541, 1542, 1543, the retention with injury of tree nos. C and
1544, and the retention of tree no. 1546. As such, an application to injure and remove
private trees is required.
b. The City owned trees, inventoried as tree nos. 1538, A, B and 1539, indicated in the Understood. Tree #1539 has since been removed by the City, independent of this
Arborist Report & Tree Preservation Plan, prepared by 7 Oaks Tree Care & Urban Application. An application to remove the remaining trees will be submitted concurrently
Forestry Consultants Inc., dated August 24, 2021, meet the criteria for protection under the with this site plan application.
City of Toronto’s City Tree By-law. The development proposes the removal of tree nos.
1538, A, B and 1539. As such, an application to remove four (4) City street trees is
required.
c. Submittal of an application to injure or destroy tree(s) does not guarantee that a permit Understood.
can, or will, be issued.
d. Where an existing street tree is approved for removal, Urban Forestry will require payment Understood.
of a non-refundable Tree Loss Payment (tbd) as compensation to the City for the loss of
the tree's amenity value.
e. If removal of a City street tree is granted, a completed "Agreement for Contractors to Understood. This will be submitted X
Perform Arboricultural Services on City Owned Street Trees" form is required, prior to
removing existing City-owned street trees. The form must properly identifying the street
1
 trees to be removed (with stumps), and name the contractor or service provider that will
physically remove the trees (the form also requires submittal of proof of insurance and
WSIB eligibility).
f. Boundary line or neighbour-owned trees: Where the trunk of a private by-law protected Understood.
tree to be injured or removed straddles the property line, or is wholly located on an
adjacent property, Urban Forestry will notify the owner of the tree that an application to
injure or destroy the tree has been received. In cases where a neighbouring tree will be
affected, it is strongly recommended that the applicant contact the property owner to
discuss protection of the tree, or if this is not possible, removal and replacement. A permit
to injure or destroy a tree does not grant authority to injure or destroy a neighbouring tree
or encroach in any manner onto adjacent private properties without the neighbouring
owner's consent. The applicant is advised that the determination of ownership of any
subject tree is the responsibility of the applicant and any civil or common-law issues which
may exist between property owners with respect to the tree must be resolved by the
applicant.
g. The applicant is advised that once a complete application to injure or remove trees has Understood.
been submitted, for any healthy trees requiring removal, a notice of application must be
posted at the site for not less than 14 days, to provide an opportunity for the community to
submit comments. Once the notice expires, Urban Forestry will consult with the Ward
Councillor to determine if a permit to injure/destroy the trees in question should be issued.
2. For any remaining by-law protected trees on site, the applicant must include the trees along with TPZ has been shown and noted on Landscape Plan. See drawing L-1. All Civil
their TPZs on plans such as the Landscape Planting Plan, Site Plan, Servicing Plan, Grading engineering drawings have been revised to indicate the TPZ, including a note that
Plan, and other applicable plans. Hoarding is required to be installed to maintain the integrity of “within all TPZ's there may be no disturbance to existing grade at any time, and tree
Adesso/Lithos
the tree's TPZ, following the details of the Tree Protection Policy and Specifications for protective hoarding may not be moved or removed except by permission from Urban
Construction near Trees. Hoarding for privately-owned trees must be constructed out of 2"x4" Forestry.”
wood frames and solid plywood. These details must be provided on a Landscape Details plan.
a. Please add a clear note to the grading and servicing plans, connected to each TPZ by a Civil Engineering Drawings have been revised indicating the TPZ and including a note
line, to the effect that within any TPZ there may be no disturbance to existing grade at any that within all TPZ's there may be no disturbance to existing grade at any time, and tree
Lithos
time, and prior to moving or removing any TPZ, permission from Urban Forestry is protective hoarding may not be moved or removed except by permission from Urban
required. Forestry.
b. Engineering plans should include no notes, details or symbols within any TPZ to indicate Noted.
or suggest that excavation, grading or regrading is required therein, and should include a
note in large text directly on the plan to the effect that within all TPZ's there may be no Lithos
disturbance to existing grade at any time, and tree protective hoarding may not be moved
or removed except by permission from Urban Forestry.
3. Urban Forestry advises that removal/injury of City and privately owned trees may not occur until a Understood.
"tree removal/injury permit" has been issued by Urban Forestry on behalf of the General Manager
of Parks, Forestry & Recreation and the permitted construction and/or demolition related activities
commence in accordance with approved plans which warrant the destruction/injury of the trees
involved.
4. Please be advised that the permit process (City road allowance or privately owned application) Understood. Greg to submit following submission of this SPA Application.
has set time requirements, therefore must be submitted as soon as possible. Urban Forestry will
LCH
not give Community Planning a clearance to issue the NOAC and/or Site Plan Agreement,
without being in a position to make a permit issuance decision.
Tree Planting
1. Urban Forestry administers two separate tree planting requirements: the planting of trees as Understood.
required under the Toronto Green Standard (TGS), and the planting of trees required under the
city's tree bylaws as a consequence of the removal of protected trees. For trees to be deemed
satisfactory under either requirement, they must be i) large-growing, long-lived species (preferably
2
 native shade trees), ii) have access to the required soil volumes.
2. Bylaw-required tree planting: Under this application, as a result of four (4) private tree removals Four (4) Replacement Trees are proposed on the private property. The remaining eight
the planting of twelve (12) satisfactory replacement trees on the site will be required (standard (8) will be covered by cash-in-lieu in accordance with Urban Forestry Permit
replanting ratio of 3:1). Bylaw-required replacement trees must be planted on the private part of Requirements. See drawing L-1.
LCH
the site (the ROW is excluded). Cash-in-lieu (CIL) will be accepted for any trees unable to be
accommodated on the subject site at a rate of $583/tree. Inconsistent within the Landscape plan.
No acceptable trees are currently proposed on private property.
3. TGS-required tree planting: Please refer to the Toronto Green Standard for Mid to High Rise Understood. The application has been revised to be compliant.
Residential and all New Non-Residential Development – Version 3, concerning tree planting
requirements, which will apply to all or part(s) of the site. Unsatisfactory trees (all
upright/pyramidal shape cultivars) will not be counted towards compliance with this requirement.
There is no payment in lieu option for TGS planting shortfalls – the application is either compliant,
or it is not. As proposed, the application is not in compliance with TGS Version 3, Tier 1, Ecology
requirements.
a. Urban Forestry recommends that the applicant be required to demonstrate Tier1 The application has been revised to meet the soil volume target as outlined in the
compliance with the Toronto Green Standard Version 3.0. The applicant is reminded that Toronto Green Standard Version 3.0 Tier 1. The soil volume proposed on site is at
only large-maturing trees (preferably native shade tree species) planted with access to the 544.97 m3, which is more than the required 525.4 m3. There is a total of 13 large canopy
required volume of high quality soil may be counted towards the TGS soil volume target. deciduous trees proposed on site with each tree having access to 30 m3 of soil volume
Based on the total lot area provided (2,890m2), Urban Forestry has calculated that the with a maximum soil depth of 1.6m.
Adesso
applicant will have to provide a total amount of required 525.4m³ of soil, in order to achieve
the TGS EC 1.1 requirement. Urban Forestry will not count towards the Toronto Green A letter to confirm the total soil volume has been provided in the submission package.
Standard, any tree(s) that do not have access to the required soil volume and that are not
large-growing, long-lived species. Areas where trees are not proposed, will not be counted
towards Soil Volume requirements.
b. As per the above, please remove all areas, where trees are not proposed, from Soil The soil volume calculation has been replaced.
Volume calculations. The intent of providing soil volume is that it is directly
accessible/usable for proposed trees, in order to ensure their health and survival to
Adesso
maturity. If trees are not able to access it, the soil volume is pointless. At present, only
399.8m3 of soil volume has been proposed. Please review and revise accordingly.
Significant changes need to be made to address this shortfall.
c. Soil Volume and tree planting is required on both the City road allowance and private Ten (10) Replacement Trees are proposed in the public boulevards, all with access to
portion of the site. At present, there are no acceptable trees or soil volume proposed on 30m3 of soil volume. See drawing L-1.
the private portion of the site. Please review and revise accordingly. LCH
Four (4) Replacement trees are proposed on Private Property, all with 30 m3 of soil
volume per tree.
4. There are a number of issues with Landscape Plans, which need to be addressed, including:
a. The trees proposed adjacent to Kingston Rd., furthest west is located too close to the bus Urban Forestry is agreeable to NOT moving the planter further northward by at least
shelter on the approaching side. Due to the possible sightline issue this creates (waiting 1.0m as per an email exchange with Urban Forestry staff Sinead Goode dated May 23,
passengers' visibility to bus drivers), Urban Forestry recommends removing this tree. The 2023. Given that the bus shelter is positioned a significant distance away from the
remaining tree can be shifted 2m west at most, but should otherwise remain further east to planter (Soil Volume 4), the view of the bus stop will not be impacted from an
LCH
avoid this issue. In addition, Urban Forestry's preference would be for the remaining tree approaching westbound bus.
to be shifted northward slightly (at least 1m), further from the roadway. The minimum soil
volume per tree is 30m3, minimum depth of 0.8m and maximum 1.6m; revision is required
to achieve TPS requirements.
b. Please note, under TGS Version 3, a minimum of 0.8m and maximum of 1.6m soil depth is Currently, there is no soil less than 0.8m is proposed to meet the minimum TGS v3
allowed. Currently, 1m depths are proposed; this can be increased (within reason) to minimum requirement. The soil volume for tree planting statistics can be found in
Adesso
further increase usable soil volume on site. 0.6m of soil depth is not an acceptable depth Landscape drawing L-3.
and required to be revised with each soil area.
c. Where the Landscape Plans specify that all or a portion of the minimum required soil Adesso Site-specific, scaled, dimensioned, and detailed landscape sections of all continuous
3
 volume for tree planting (30 m3 per tree) will be provided under hardscaping (e.g. through soil trenches that show tree locations and all pertinent above- and below-grade
the use of soil cells, bridging, or similar technologies) and/or above underground structures elements have been included. See drawings L-2a and L-2b. These sections
(including parking structures), provide site-specific, scaled, fully dimensioned, and detailed demonstrate that tree planting, soil, and soil infrastructure will NOT conflict with other
Landscape Sections of all continuous soil trenches at the trees and in between trees. structures/elements, including the underground structures. Letters from Lithos (Civil)
Sections must show the tree locations and all pertinent above- and below-grade elements and Adesso (Landscape) have been provided to confirm this non-interference.
to ensure that the proposal is feasible and that tree planting, soil, and soil infrastructure
(e.g. soil cells, concrete bridging supports, etc.) will not conflict with other (Enbridge)
structures/elements such as building canopies/overhangs, underground structures, and
underground or overhead utilities.
5. Advisory: The locations of utilities and services should be planned and coordinated with planting Conflicts with existing or proposed utilities, both above and below grade, have been
plans early in the development process, to ensure that sufficient tree planting can be avoided as demonstrated in the Landscape Sections in drawing L-2a and L-2b.
accommodated and that new (or existing) utilities will not conflict with tree plantings. The Adesso
elimination of proposed new trees from plans after the commencement of construction due to poor
planning (such as utility conflicts) is not acceptable.
6. Prior to Site Plan Approval, a Tree Planting Security Deposit in the amount of $583/tree will be Understood.
required for all trees proposed on the City road allowance (future city owned street trees). If
necessary, the deposit will be drawn upon to cover all costs incurred by the City of Toronto in
enforcing and ensuring that the trees are planted and kept in a healthy and vigorous state during
the two year guarantee period. This deposit will be refunded to the applicant two years following
the date that the trees are planted, upon Urban Forestry confirming that the trees are in good
condition.
7. Site-specific Landscape Sections/Soil Volume Plan section drawings of the continuous soil Understood. Same as comment 4c above.
trenches at the trees and in between trees are required to ensure that the proposal is feasible and
that tree planting, soil, and soil infrastructure (e.g. soil cells, concrete bridging supports, etc.) will
not conflict with other structures/elements such as building canopies/overhangs, underground Adesso
structures, and underground or overhead utilities. Provide revised scaled, site-specific sections
that:

a. To assist in the design of continuous soil trenches, refer to the Design Options for Tree
Planting in Hard Surfaces drawings:

https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-transportation/enhancing-our-
streets-and-public-realm/green-streets/green-streets-projects/tree-planting-in-hard-surfaces/

b. Illustrate and specify all applicable components of a functional suspended pavement

system including, but not limited to:
i. Granular base and sub-drainage,
ii. Root barriers,
iii. Edge restraints, if applicable
iv. Irrigation/aeration collection and distribution system – including at-grade catchment
device(s) to be shown on applicable sections and plans,
v. Soil inspection ports (min. 1 port per 4 trees) – also show location(s) on applicable
plans,
vi. Applicable bridging/support system (cast-in-place or pre-cast structural concrete
panels or soil cells),
c. Label at-grade passive irrigation catchment device on applicable section(s) and plan(s) as:
"Passive irrigation/aeration catchment and distribution system to meet City standards",
d. Illustrate trench conditions at the trees (with tree location(s) shown) and in between trees,
4
 e. Illustrate (at an accurate size, height/depth, and location) and label all overhead and
underground utilities,
f. Illustrate (at an accurate size, height/depth, and location) all building components such as
canopies/overhangs and underground structures,
g. Illustrate and label all property lines,
h. Dimension all pertinent measurements including, but not limited to:
i. Widths of open tree planter and extents of available soil underground,
ii. Widths and depths of available soil for each portion of a given section where the
depth is different (e.g. open planter at tree, soil extending under suspended
pavement, etc.),
iii. Offset from tree stem to edge of available soil,
iv. Offsets from closest part of continuous soil trench assembly (including granular
base) to closest edge of adjacent underground utilities (shown at accurate depths),
v. Height of building overhangs above grade, and
vi. Offset from building walls/overhangs to tree stem.
8. The Landscape Plan do not show existing and/or proposed utilities in sufficient detail or at all. In The requirement for a Quality Level A analysis post-dates our date of application. The
order to identify potential conflicts between utilities and trees, provide revised Landscape Plans first round of comments from Urban Forestry did not request this information. Quality
with an overlay of all existing and proposed utilities, existing trees to be preserved (if any), and Level B investigations can demonstrate with confidence that there will be no conflict
proposed trees on the same plan. A detailed section drawing including accurate vertical and Adesso between the soil cells on Kingston Road and the 150mm watermain.
horizontal utility information to Quality Level A is required at all critical locations where utility-tree
conflicts may arise Proprietary QL-B standards from Bell and Enbridge also confirm that there will be no
conflicts between tree planting and communication and natural gas lines.
9. City of Toronto Planting notes (#9) refers to the owner shall notify Hai Nguyen, Planner Urban The previous note has been removed and the requested new note has been added to
Forestry, at 416-338-5056 within two weeks of the tree planting to arrange for an inspection of the the Landscape drawing on L-1.
Adesso
site. Revision required to note: Tree Protection and Plan Review (TPPR East) Scarborough Office
at [email protected]
10. Toronto Green Standards V3.0 (Performance Measure) The revised plans and statistics satisfy the EC1.1 and EC1.2 of the Toronto Green
The following TGS comments apply solely to areas regulated by MC 813 Trees. Standards V3.0.
EC1.1 – Not Met
Details: Each tree now has access to 30m2 of soil volume and enough spacing between one
- Soil volumes are inadequate, revisions required another. A new large growing tree species has been introduced. Confirm tree species
Opportunities: in response.
- Expand planting areas in the right-of-way; a minimum 30m3 of soil is required per tree.
- Expand planting areas within the site
EC1.2 – Not Met
Adesso
Details:
- Tree species not acceptable;(i.e. Bradford Ornamental Pear)
- Tree locations not spaced appropriately
- Inconsistent within all documents
Opportunities:
- Revise tree species to large growing shade tree;
- Implement 8.0 m tree spacing and locations of trees near prohibited structures.
EC1.3 – N/A
EC1.4 – Met
Additional comments — June 26, 2023
1. Confirm Watermain on Kingston Rd. not to interfere with soil cell structures/soil volume (eg. Street sections have been added in L-2a and L-2b, which show no interference between
confirm depths shown are correct and well below soil cells). Please also indicate location of Bell the soil cell structures and existing Bell lines. The Bell lines within Sharpe St. ROW are

5
 lines within Sharpe St. ROW on the PUP. also shown in the PUP (drawing PU-01).
2. 1. Soil cell information is inconsistent and inaccurate. The soil cell detail on L-4 has been revised to show 3 layers of Stratavault 45 series soil
a) Soil cell detail on L-4 indicates 2 layers of Stratavault 45 series soil modules to a modules to a depth of 1,208mm.
depth of 0.824m. However, soil volume calculations indicate 1.2m depth for all Adesso
areas where soil cells are proposed (which would require 3 layers of modules to
achieve, not two, as they each measure 0.4m in height).
b) Landscape sections E-E and C-C show 2 layers of soil cells, each measuring The landscape sections have been revised to show the correct layers of soil cells, which
~0.6m in height, for a total of 1.2m. However, this is not consistent with the actual is consistent with the soil cell detail drawing provided by the manufacturer on L-4.
Adesso
size of Stratavault soil modules. If another brand/form/type of soil cell is being
used, the relevant, Manufacturer-specific information needs to be provided.
c) Please review and revise accordingly. Soil cell drawings/details need to be A revised soil cell detail, stamped by two structural engineers, has been provided on L-
stamped by a structural engineer and provided to match what is actually proposed Adesso 4.
in terms of soil depths/volume.
3. Tree hoarding needs to be shown on ALL Plans (Civil and Architectural Site Plan), to match that The TPZ on site is shown in Civil, Architectural, and Landscape plans to match that
provided on the Tree Protection Plan (particularly in regards to trees C and 1544, to be retained). Adesso/Lithos/RAW provided on the Tree Protection Plan.
Requested notes from Urban Forestry also need to be included (see below).
a) Please add a clear note to the grading and servicing plans, connected to each TPZ by a A note that says “there may be no disturbance to existing grade at any time, and prior
line, to the effect that within any TPZ there may be no disturbance to existing grade at any to moving or removing any TPZ, permission from Urban Forestry is required” has been
Lithos
time, and prior to moving or removing any TPZ, permission from Urban Forestry is added to the site grading (SG-01) and servicing plans (SS-01).
required.
b) Engineering plans should include no notes, details or symbols within any TPZ to indicate No notes, details, or symbols have been added within any TPZ to indicate or suggest
or suggest that excavation, grading or regrading is required therein, and should include a that excavation, grading, or regrading is required therein. As mentioned above, a note
note in large text directly on the plan to the effect that within all TPZ's there may be no Lithos has been added as requested in the plan note section of SG-01 and SS-01.
disturbance to existing grade at any time, and tree protective hoarding may not be moved
or removed except by permission from Urban Forestry
4. Tree permit application should be submitted ASAP. This allows Urban Forestry to accurately A tree permit application will be submitted after this resubmission.
LCH
calculate final fees/requirements and provide clear NOAC.
Toronto Transit Commission – A.J. Takarabe – November 16, 2022

1. We note that since the initial submission, City staff have come up with plans for cycling lanes on TTC has selected the location of the new bus shelter as well as the bus stop sign. This
Kingston Road in this area. While a final design hasn’t been reached, it is anticipated that a lane has been captured in all drawing sets (Landscape, Architectural, and Civil). The current
of traffic is likely to be removed to accommodate. Hence, bus stop #4264 would need to be cycling lane design (as per City of Toronto drawing) has been implemented as a
LCH
relocated 14 metres east of its present location, and a standard raised cycle track platform to be reference in the landscape drawing. The cycling lane will be constructed by the City at
provided along with a shelter. Note that this may be changed depending on the ultimate design the City’s expense.
that the City produces.
Strategic Initiatives, Policy and Analysis – Cate Flanagan – September 26, 2022

Community Planning – Christian Ventresca – April 17, 2023 (also includes Strategic Initiatives, Policy and Analysis – Cate Flanagan – September 26, 2022)
Connecting and Expanding the Public Realm
1. City Planning staff request a meeting to determine and appropriate public art This meeting was held and the murals will be constructed by the owner (LCH) at the
LCH
process for the site. owner’s expense.
Location and Organization Relative to Streets and Open Space
2. The overall site organization should be adjusted to provide additional at grade Changes have been made to the Site plan to meet the TGS Soil Volume Requirement.
landscaping and tree planting opportunities to ensure meeting requirements for TGS Adesso See L-3 for new soil volume chart.
"Total Soil Volume". See comments under Toronto Green Standard.
Parking and Servicing

6
 3. Consider removing a few proposed at grade parking spaces at the rear of the building The parking spaces fronting the High Voltage Room cannot be replaced with
to provide opportunities for tree planting and to achieve required TGS Total Soil landscaping to ensure proper access and clearance for Toronto Hydro.
Volume. See the below sketch.
The bicycle parking spaces adjacent to the garage exhaust have been removed in
favour of a larger planting area in this location.

Soil Volume requirements have been met through other means.

RAW/Adesso

Pedestrian and Cycling Connections

4. As per the Cliffside Village Urban Design Guidelines, Bike racks should be Bike Racks have been relocated adjacent to the building lobby and retail spaces.
placed in highly active pedestrian areas throughout Cliffside Village. This
includes the main entrances of buildings and near transit stops. Relocate the 6 bike racks (each accommodating 2 bikes) have been located at the corner of Kingston
proposed bike parking spaces at the North West corner of the site closer to the main and Sharpe.
lobby entrance.
6 bike racks (each accommodating 2 bikes) have been located at the restaurant retail
RAW/Adesso
space on the west side of the site.

2 bike racks (each accommodating 2 bikes) have been located at the residential lobby
entrance.

2 bike racks (each accommodating 2 bikes) have been located along the east walkway.
5. As previously discussed relocation of some of the existing above grade utilities close The above grade utilities have been clarified to ensure a 2.1m pedestrian clearway is
to the intersection of Kingston Rd and Sharpe Street might be required to achieve maintained at the corner of Kingston Road and Sharpe Street. The landscape drawing
2.1m clearway for pedestrian sidewalk. Please update site plan to confirm all the Adesso/Lithos (L-1) has been revised to show the 2.1m walkway clearance in the new development in
location and labelling on the drawings are accurate. TP/TS and ECS staff to comment bold lines. The pedestrian crossing button has been relocated to ensure 2.1m clearance
further. between the button and the curb on the corner of Kingston Road and Sharpe Street.
Building Massing and Design
6. As discussed, remove the mechanical penthouse at the 11th storey and update all the The 11th storey mechanical penthouse has been removed, as discussed.
drawings.
7. New buildings over 1000m2 are to incorporate within the building design recognition of The plaque of recognition has been indicated on drawing A401.
the Architect of Record or primary Design Architect. The lettering for this recognition
must cover an area of at least 0.2m by 0.3m, or 0.06 square metres and be located RAW
near the main entrance or on a prominent façade of the structure. 1:50 colour
elevations are to indicate the location and specifications for the recognition.
8. As previously discussed please confirm the proposed finished floor elevation for the The proposed finished floor elevation for the live work units along Kingston Road will be
live work units along Kingston Road are at the same level as the public sidewalk. level with the public sidewalk at 159.25 and 159.40. Some of the live work units step up
Lithos
along with the building to keep the FFE level with the sloping Kingston Road sidewalk.
See SG-01 for details.

7
 9. The secondary entrance to the retail space should be relocated at Sharpe Street The secondary retail entrance/exit is located further away from the intersection at the
closer to the intersection (See Figure 2). Ensure consistency between landscape request of the retail tenant. The corner retail unit is planned as a veterinary clinic. This
drawings and Architectural drawings. RAW door is meant to exit from the Vet Clinic’s ‘Comfort Suite’ which is where clients would
typically go after a pet passes away. The secondary exit allows for a discrete exit for
clients who could be emotional and may not want to leave through the main lobby.
Amenity Area
10. Please provide a breakdown for the proposed indoor amenity space calculations. RAW Break down (here)
11. Clarify the proposed use for ground floor indoor amenity space that is located close to The indoor amenity adjacent to the loading space is a multi-purpose residents
the loading area. There is a discrepancy between the architectural set and landscape lounge/coworking space/workshop that allows residents of all ages a place to work.
RAW
drawings. On the landscape drawing it is shown as bike storage and has a different
area. Please clarify and note that bike storage is not counted as indoor amenity space.
12. Provide programming details for the indoor amenity area. Indoor amenity areas to The residents lounge/coworking space provided on the ground floor meets most of
meet the needs of all types of users. Consider flexible multi-use space that can be these needs. The full-kitchen amenity is located on the upper floors.
used for communal gathering and includes a full kitchen; homework room with wi-fi for RAW
teens located in a visible area; and toddler playrooms. Add notations on the drawings. There is no specific space for a toddler playroom, however the residents
lounge/coworking space has a couple of private rooms which could be used by families
with toddlers as a space to draw/make crafts etc.
Pedestrial-Level Wind Conditions
13. Provide details and notations on the drawings for the proposed wind screening Wind screen railing details and notations have been provided and shown in the
Adesso
railings. Landscape drawing.
Sun/Shadow Study
14. As discussed before update the sun/shadow study as per below:
a. Update the massing as per above comments for the removal of mechanical The massing has been updated to remove the mechanical penthouse.
penthouse at 11th storey.
b. Include the existing detached garages of the properties on north side of Sandown The existing detached garages of the properties on the north side of Sandown Lane
RAW
Lane. have been noted in the diagram.
c. Show property lines for properties in the surrounding areas. The Shadow Study has been updated to include property lines for properties in the
surrounding areas.
d. Show public sidewalks on the diagrams. RAW The public sidewalks have been shown in the diagram.
e. In the SketchUp model, include the models based on Kingston Rd. ZBL and Mid- A revised Sketchup model has been provided by the architect.
LCH/RAW
rise Performance Standards as well as all the angular planes.
Planning for Children
15. A critical mass of family-sized units is to be provided within this development.\ Unit The applicant has confirmed with Housing and the staff in a meeting has deemed the
layouts should reflect minimum family-size targets; two bedrooms 87 - 90m2 (936 - provided unit mix acceptable.
RAW
969sf); and three bedroom 100 - 106m2 (1076 - 1140sf). Confirm compliance with this
requirement.
16. The proposed building should provide a minimum of 25% large units as per Growing The applicant has confirmed with Housing and the staff in a meeting has deemed the
Up Study and Guidelines: 10% of the units should be three-bedroom units and 15% of provided unit mix acceptable.
RAW
the units should be two bedroom units. This requirement has not been met.
Community Planning staff to comment further.
Landscape Plans and Details
17. Opportunities for tree planting throughout the site should be maximized and hard
surfaces minimized to ensure appropriate planting conditions. See comments under Adesso
parking and servicing.

8
 18. In coordination with Urban Forestry, please explore feasibility of adding additional Two additional trees have been added on Sharpe Street. It is confirmed that these trees
Adesso
trees along Sharpe Street. will not have any utility conflicts on section A-A and B-B.
19. Provide the following additional information/drawings:
a. On the site plan and landscape plan provide dimensions for all pedestrian Dimensions of all requested notations have been provided.
Adesso
accesses to residential units, at grade terraces and rear setback.
b. A Grading Plan as part of landscape drawings, with top-of-wall and bottom-of-wall The top-of-wall and bottom-of-wall elevations for all retaining walls and planters have
Adesso/Lithos
elevations for all retaining walls and planters; been indicated in the site grading and landscape plans. See L-1 and SG-01.
Soil Volume Plans
1. Ensure there is consistency between the Soil Volume Plans and the Soil Volume
Chart. Provide the additional information/drawings:
a. Update the Soil Volume Chart to include a column for soil cells and their area, Soil Volume Chart to be updated in drawing L-3.
depths, and volume. Areas where trees are not proposed are not to be included in Adesso
soil volume calculations. (Soil area 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
b. Use different colours to clearly outline each soil volume boundary in the Soil Each soil volume boundary in the Soil Volume Plan has been revised to have a different
Adesso
Volume Plan. colour for clarity.
c. Increase soil depth for soil area 12A by lowering parking slab. The soil depth for the tree planters on the north side of the site (Sandown Lane) has
been increased by raising the planters and lowering the parking slab. The raised planter
Adesso
extends 0.6m above grade, which was determined to be the maximum height
acceptable by Urban Design. See section F-F in drawing L-2b.
d. Provide minimum 30m3 for the proposed tree at north east side of the site and The minimum soil volume per tree has been provided across the entire site. Refer to
Adesso
include the volume in the calculations. the soil volume chart on L-3.
Building/Landscape Design for Residential Units at Grade along Sharpe Street
20. Front entrances and patios along local streets: The encroachment of elements such as At a minimum, the building is 1,100mm away from the property line on Sharpe Street.
canopies, porches, terraces, and planters in the front yard setback areas should not All the residential terraces are also setback roughly 1.0m and therefore do not exceed
RAW 50% of the minimum setback.
exceed 50% of the min. setback. Provide dimensions for the at grade units along
Sharpe St and confirm compliance with this standard.
21. Consolidate the entrances of the at-grade units to maximize soft landscaping. See The entrances to the units on Sharpe St have been consolidated into one entrance that
RAW/Adesso
below sketch. is 1.30m wide. Landscaping has been increased. See L-1.
22. Extend soft landscaping to encroach into the public ROW area to create a larger Soft landscaping has been extended into the public ROW to create a larger landscaping
landscaping area. See below sketch. Adesso area. See Landscape set, drawing L-1.

9
Trees and Environment
23. Provide a cross section through the proposed tree planting along Sandown Lane.
Provide the following:
a. Consider lowering the parking slab to avoid too high edges for the proposed To accommodate the soil volume, the parking slab has been lowered by 0.8m from the
raised planters along the laneway. established grade and the planter curbs have been raised by 0.6m.
b. Clearly show the grading relation to the adjacent residential terraces. The grading relation to the adjacent residential terraces has been shown in L-2b
(Section F-F).
Streetscape Improvements
24. Update the street cross sections to show the existing hydro poles and cables along Cross sections have been provided in L-2a and L-2b. There is no conflict between the
Sharpe Street. There might be conflict with the proposed location for tree planting. UF trees and the hydro poles, cables, or underground pipe. The existing hydro pole on
to comment further. Sharpe Street close to the intersection with Kingston Road will be relocated.
25. As discussed, eliminate planting directly in front of live-work units to ensure they read The planting in front of Live-Work units has been eliminated. Please see drawing L-1.
as continuous commercial spaces.
26. Location of TTC bus stop to be coordinated with TP/TS staff. Refer to TTC comments. The TTC bus stop sign and shelter have been coordinated based on the location
Adesso/LCH/Lithos
markup provided by TTC staff. The sign and shelter are also shown in all drawings.
Lighting
28. Provide the following.
a. A photometric plan showing lighting levels across the site; and This was provided in the previous submission.
b. A Lighting Plan showing the locations, details/images of the lighting standards This was provided in the previous submission.
and fixtures; ensure that all lighting fixtures are cut-off lights.
Utilities
29. Utilities and service connections are to be located away from public streets, walkways, After considering different possible locations with Enbridge, the gas meter is proposed
RAW/Lithos/Adesso
corners, entrances and/or integrated within building massing and landscape design. to be located along the back wall of the building corner closest to the Sharpe Street –

10
 Trees, plantings and other landscape features are to be coordinated with existing and Sandown Lane intersection. A visual screen has been proposed to block any direct view
proposed utilities. from Sharpe Street. See L-1.
30. Clearly indicate the proposed location for the transformer. This project will be serviced by a below-grade customer owned substation. Therefore,
no transformer is required at-grade.
31. Provide landscaping or architectural screening for the proposed gas meter at the rear. Landscaping screening has been proposed for the gas meter at the rear of the building.
The location of the gas meter is only facing a laneway and has several objects (tree,
shrubs, and a Bell box) obstructing its view from Sharpe Street.
Toronto Green Standard
32. The proposal is to meet the Tier 1 requirements and is encouraged to pursue The project will meet the TGS Tier 1 requirements.
higher Tier standards of the TGS.
33. Urban Forest: Increase Tree Canopy (EC 1.)
a. EC 1.1 Total soil volume: This standard is not met. 79% of the required soil The project has been revised and now exceeds the soil volume requirement. Please
volume is proposed as per the statistics. Increase tree planting throughout the site see the Soil Volume Plan in L-3.
Adesso
to meet this standard. Provide additional tree planting areas. As well increase the
proposed depth of 0.6m for some of the soil areas.
We request that the following be considered during the review of this development application:
General Housing Comments
1. The provision of 22 (12%) net-new two-bedroom units and 18 (9%) net-new three-bedroom units The applicant has confirmed with Housing and the staff in a meeting has deemed the
does not adequately support the unit mix objectives of the Growing Up guidelines, Official Plan provided unit mix acceptable.
housing policies, and the Growth Plan's growth management and housing policies to
accommodate within new development a broad range of households, including families with
children.
2. The applicant is requested to increase the number of net-new two-bedroom and three-bedroom The applicant has confirmed with Housing and the staff in a meeting has deemed the
units to meet the unit mix objectives of the Growing Up guidelines. provided unit mix acceptable.
3. The applicant should provide one table clearly outlining the proposed unit sizes and unit layouts The table has been provided in consultation with the housing department.
for all net-new rental units to determine whether the guidelines of Growing Up guidelines are
satisfied by the proposal.
Comments relating to the rental housing replacement proposal
1. The applicant is requested to provide further information pertaining to the last paid rents of the This has been rectified in consultation with the housing planner on file.
vacant rental units. If no further information is provided, the vacant units will be secured at
affordable rents as that is the prevalent rent classification in the building.

2. The Architectural Plans submitted by the applicant propose a rental replacement unit mix that is This has been rectified in consultation with the housing planner on file.
not consistent with the unit mix of the existing units proposed for demolition, as required under
Official Plan Policy 3.2.1.6. The applicant is requested to increase the number of one-bedroom
rental replacement units by one.

3. In order to continue the review of the rental housing demolition application, the following additional
information and steps are required:

a. As-built floor plans of the proposed replacement units; This has been rectified in consultation with the housing planner on file.

b. The applicant is to provide one chart detailing the size of each proposed replacement This has been rectified in consultation with the housing planner on file.
rental unit and the total Gross Floor Area of all rental replacement units, in comparison to
the individual and total size of each existing rental dwelling unit;

11
 c. The development of a suitable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan, in consultation with This has been rectified in consultation with the housing planner on file.
City staff. This tenant assistance plan should include an increased notice period,
compensation beyond the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act in order to
mitigate hardship and/or the provision of an alternative rental unit, assistance to special
needs tenants, and the right to return to a replacement unit;

d. Details of proposed consultation with tenants regarding the application process and This has been rectified in consultation with the housing planner on file.
development phase such as: notification of this application; layouts of replacement units;
programming of amenity spaces and preparing the tenant relocation and assistance plan;

e. Names and mailing addresses of tenants, to be provided directly to staff; This has been rectified in consultation with the housing planner on file.

f. A City-led tenant consultation meeting once Housing Policy staff are generally satisfied This has been rectified in consultation with the housing planner on file.
with the rental replacement proposal; and

g. Further information and materials may be requested during the ongoing review of the This has been rectified in consultation with the housing planner on file.
Rental Housing Demolition application.

Comments relating to the rental housing replacement proposal

1. The City's Open Door for Housing program provides incentives for the creation of new affordable
housing beyond those required by the Official Plan, subject to certain terms and conditions. We
encourage the applicant to consider the Open Door program. Further information on the program
can be found on the Open Door Affordable Housing Program website.

https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/community-partners/housing-partners/housing-
initiatives/open-door-affordable-housing-program/

Development Engineering – Salem Khan– December 22, 2022

REVISIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR SITE PLAN, STUDIES, AND DRAWINGS
A. The owner is required to amend the Site Plan Drawings and/or Studies and/or Drawings to address the following comments and resubmit for the review and acceptance by the Chief Engineer
and Executive Director of Engineering & Construction Services prior to issuance of Notice of Approval Conditions.
1. Transportation Study
a. Provide Signs and Pavement Markings Plan considering the suggestions in the
background section below.
b. Confirm that passenger vehicles manoeuvering diagrams at critical locations such as An updated passenger vehicle maneuvering diagram at critical locations has been
on the ramp and corner parking spaces and a loading vehicle's swept path analysis provided by the transportation consultant. Convex mirrors will be provided at critical
while backing from the loading space should be safe and do not touch the proposed Paradigm turns where visibility is restricted. There are instances where the swept path of the
parking space, objects and overlaps opposite vehicle's path. vehicle intersects with vehicles coming from the opposite direction. However, due to the
low-speed condition and the provision of convex mirrors, this will not be an issue.
c. Provide and illustrate convex mirror installation location, where sightline is an issue, on The transportation consultant has indicated areas where convex mirrors must be
the relevant plans to increase safety. Paradigm/RAW provided due to sightline issues. These convex mirrors are annotated in the architectural
drawing A201.
d. Confirm that the exiting vehicles from the development have sufficient sight distance An addendum letter from the transportation consultant has been included in this
and do not impede traffic on Sandown lane. Paradigm/RAW submission to confirm that exiting vehicles from the development have sufficient sight
distance and do not impede traffic on Sandown Lane.
2. Site Plan, Drawing No. A.100, dated October 1, 2021, Revision 2, dated August 5, 2022, prepared by RAW.

12
1.1 Transportation Services
Provide and illustrate five metres corner rounding at the northwest corner of Kingston A five-metre corner rounding has been implemented on drawing A201. Other plans have
RAW
Road and Sharpe Street, the southeast corner of the property. been coordinated to reflect this change.
a. Maintain consistency in the number of parking spaces and curb radii in the drawing, Understood.
statistics and reports.
b. Provide dimensions of all parking spaces where appropriate. Understood.
c. Illustrate proposed EVSE parking spaces in the parking lot. Understood. RAW to put in their set.
d. Provide two additional accessible parking spaces to comply with City-wide Zoning By- 7 accessible parking spaces are provided across the site. 1 space is allocated for retail
law 569-2013 and confirm that accessible parking spaces are also provided for the RAW visitors at-grade. Two spaces are allocated of residential visitors below-grade. 4 spaces
visitors. are provided for the residents.
e. Provide at least a minimum residential visitor parking spaces to avoid spill of visitors 12 visitor parking spaces are provided at the request of transportation services.
RAW
to the streets close to this development.
f. Maintain consistency in the number of parking spaces provided in statistics and Understood.
RAW
actual illustrations in the plans.
g. Separate visitors and residential parking spaces with the help of physical means; A barrier/gate has been provided to separate resident and visitor parking. Please see
RAW
Gridline Q on Drawing A103.
h. Provide dimensions of bicycle parking spaces and provide a bicycle repair station. Dimensions of the bicycle parking spaces have been provided. A bicycle repair station
RAW
has also been introduced on P1 (see A103).
i. Confirm that the proposed replacement sidewalks along Kingston Road and Sharpe The landscape drawing has been revised to show a bold outline to delineate the
Street will have a 2.1 metres clearway and will be constructed according to the City of RAW sidewalk in L-1. The sidewalk will be constructed according to the City of Toronto Design
Toronto Design Standard No. T-310.010-2. Standard no. T-310.010-2 as shown in L-5.
j. Provide transition (5:1 ratio) between new and existing sidewalks at the ends of The landscape drawing has been revised to note the 5:1 transition between the new
sidewalks on Kingston Road and Sharpe Street. RAW/Adesso and existing sidewalks at the ends of sidewalks on Kingston Road and Sharpe Street
as shown in L-1. This is also shown in A201 and A101.
k. Curb taper and radii at the curb extension should be maintained as per City's Curb The curb taper and radii at the curb extension have been design as per the City of
Extension Guidelines. Toronto’s Curb Extension Guideline. See drawing L-1.

13
 l. Relocate a communication box, which is within the proposed entrance to Sandown The communication box that interferes with the entrance to Sandown Lane will be
Lane, located at the northeast corner of Sharpe Street and Sandown Lane. relocated as seen on Drawings A201 and L1.
m. Relocate the TTC shelter, so the sidewalks and TTC platform are not impeded. The TTC shelter has been located as per TTC’s location markup.
n. Suggest the type of warning system to alert drivers, cyclists and pedestrians when A note that describes the installation of a warning system to alert drivers, cyclists, and
RAW/Paradigm
loading vehicles in operation and maneuvering as an additional safety measure. pedestrians when loading vehicles are in operation has been added to A201.
o. Maintain consistency in all illustrations in Site Plan, and landscape plan (L1) with all Understood.
required dimensions and information.
The General Manager of Transportation Services may impose further changes and/or
requirements upon receipt of the revised plans and/or additional documentation required
under Section A.
1.2 Transportation Services
Nil.
1.3 Solid Waste Services
Multi Residential Component
Based upon the information available, Solid Waste Management will provide bulk lift
compacted garbage, recycling and organic collection services to this component of the
development. Collection of waste materials from this component will be in accordance
with the “City of Toronto Requirements for Garbage, Recycling and Organics Collection
Services for New Developments and Re-Developments” and Chapter 844, Solid Waste
of the Municipal Code.
14
Collection will be subject to the following conditions being met:
a. We re-iterate the previous comments that the revised drawings must clearly outline The Type G Loading Location has been identified on Drawing A201.
and annotate a Type G loading space that is 13 metres in length, 4 metres in width. RAW
The previous comments are outstanding.
b. Revised drawings must indicate and annotate the staging pad abutting the front of the The staging area has been revised to provide 20m2. Please see drawing A201.
Type G loading space will be at least 19.8 square metres. Currently when measured RAW
under scale, only 16.6 square metres is provided.
c. We re-iterate the previous comments that the revised drawings must indicate a bulky The Bulk Waste storage room has been revised to provide 16.0m2. Please see drawing
storage room of minimum 10 square metres. Currently when measured under scale, RAW A201.
only 8.6 square metres is provided. The previous comments are outstanding.
d. We re-iterate the previous comments that the revised drawings must indicate and All ground floor units are two-storey units which have direct access to the garbage chute
annotate the waste disposal method for the ground floor units. Residents must be on the second floor. The only exception is Unit 120 – which has direct access to the
able to dispose of the garbage without entering the garbage room where the second floor via the public stairwell.
RAW
compactor is located. The previous comments are outstanding.
L/W units may choose to enter the retail waste room to dispose of their garbage.

e. We re-iterate the previous comments that the revised drawings must indicate that all The type G loading space will not have an overhead door installed. The opening will
overhead doors will have a minimum vertical clearance of 4.4 metres, and a minimum RAW have a vertical clearance of 6.20m and width of more than 4.0m (see A201 and A402).
width of 4 metres.The previous comments were partially addressed. The height of the overhead garage door is 2.44m as shown in A402.
f. The planned movement of the collection vehicle is adjacent to entrance/exit from the A note has been provided, which says that a warning system for the Type G loading
parking garage revised drawings must indicate a warning system to caution motorists space should be added. The warning system will include both lights and signs. See
Paradigm/RAW
leaving the parking garage of heavy vehicles when loading operations are occurring. A201.
This warning system should include both lights and signs.
g. We re-iterate the previous comments that the revised drawings must indicate and The transportation drawing set has been revised to include a collection vehicle
annotate a collection vehicle movement diagram that has a length of 12 metres and a movement diagram that has a length of 12 metres and a width of 2.4 metres with a
width of 2.4 metres with a minimum inside/outside turning radii of 9.5 metres and 14 minimum inside/outside turning radii of 9.5 metres and 14 metres, respectively. The
metres respectively, when entering, exiting, travelling throughout the site and diagram also indicates the ability for the vehicle to enter and exit the site in a forward
Paradigm
entering/exiting the type G loading space. The diagram must also indicate the ability motion with no more than a three-point turn. See Drawing no. 2 from Paradigm.
of the collection vehicle to enter and exit the site in a forward motion with no more
than a three-point turn. Drawings must provide an accurate scale. The previous
comments are outstanding.
h. (New Comment). The planned movement of the collection vehicle is adjacent to A note that says “A warning system to caution motorists leaving the parking garage
entrance/exit from the parking garage revised drawings must indicate a warning when heavy vehicles are in loading operations is to be installed” has been added to
system to caution motorists leaving the parking garage of heavy vehicles when RAW drawing A201.
loading operations are occurring. This warning system should include both lights and
signs.
In addition to the conditions above that must be noted on revised drawings and It is understood that this will be provided upon registration of the building.
before solid waste collection services are to begin the City will need to be provided
with:

A letter certified by a professional engineer that in all cases where a collection vehicle is
required to drive onto or over a supported structure (such as an underground parking
garage and grading) the structure can safely support a fully loaded collection vehicle LCH
(35,000 kilograms) and conforms to the following:

a) Design Code - Ontario Building Code

b) Design Load - City bulk lift vehicle in addition Building Code requirements
c) Impact Factor - 5% for maximum vehicular speeds to 15 km/h and 30% for higher
speeds
15
 Non-Resi
dential Component
The commercial/retail component of this development being ineligible for City of Toronto Waste containers for the retail sector have been identified in drawing A201.
collection, must store, transport and make arrangements for collection of all waste
materials separately from the residential component. Collection of wastes from the
RAW
commercial sector of this site will be in accordance with Chapter 841, Solid Waste of the
Municipal Code. Separate retail waste containers are to be utilized and it will be
necessary for the retail sector to have their bins identified (i.e. “Retail Waste Only”).
a. We re-iterate previous comment that the revised drawings must indicate a storage A separate non-residential waste room has been provided. This would be shared among
space for the waste that will be generated by the commercial component of this the retail and live-work tenants. The corner retail unit would enter the non-residential
development. This non-residential waste room must be independent from the wate room directly.
residential waste room and must be accessible without entering the residential waste
RAW
room. The previous comments are outstanding. The restaurant tenant and live-work owners would bring garbage to this room outside
through the Type G loading space as to avoid tracking waste through the building.

b. We re-iterate the previous comment that a notation must be added if loading space is A label that says “Retail Waste Only” has been added to indicate the bins dedicated
to be shared the commercial bins must be labelled "Retail Waste Only". The previous RAW only for commercial waste. See drawing A201.
comments are outstanding.
1.4 Engineering and Construction Services
a. The Sandown Lane must be redesigned and reconstructed as per the City's standard The laneway reconstruction drawing has been prepared and can be found in the Civil
No. T-216.02-1 due to widening to 6.0m from the existing 4.57 m. (Composite set in a separate drawing LR-01. The laneway is designed as per the City’s standard
Pavement Construction for local and collector roads). The response letter reads: no. T-216.02-1 The Site Plan drawing A100 and Ground Floor Plan drawing A201 have
"Please refer to Site Grading Plan (SG‐01) for the detailed design." The standard T- RAW incorporated the laneway design.
216-02-1 was not added on the SG-01. This comment was for the architectural plans.
Therefore please revise the Site Plan, Drawing No. A.100 and Ground Floor Plan,
Drawing No.A201 accordingly and clearly show the driveway access to the site.
b. It appears that there are existing hydro poles and catch basins on Sandown Lane The new location of the hydro poles was selected by Toronto Hydro, who has worked
which requires to be relocated for the public laneway redesign and reconstruction. out the encroachments onto private property as part of its internal approvals process.
Please identify all of them on the revised plan including the new location. The LCH has no control over the location of the hydro poles. The note “"the pole to be
response letter reads: "Existing hydro poles and catch basins have been identified relocated by Toronto Hydro at the Owner's cost” has been added to Civil drawings (SS-
and relocated to new positions. Please refer to Site Grading Plan (SG‐01) for details." 01, LR-01).
We made this comment for the architectural plans. Please revise Site Plan, Drawing
No. A.100 and Ground Floor Plan, Drawing No.A201 and the proposed new location Toronto Hydro/LCH
the existing hydro poles is not acceptable and needs to be revised to be on the same
side of the laneway to maintain the current alignment and within the public laneway
and not encroach the private property as it is currently being shown on the submitted
plans. Please use an arrow which points from the existing to the new location of the
hydro poles and add the following note "the pole to be relocated by Toronto Hydro at
the Owner's cost".
c. Please label the new 2.1m sidewalk on Kingston Road and Sharpe Street as "PROP The 2.1m sidewalk on Kingston Road and Sharpe Street has been labeled as “PROP
2.1m municipal concrete sidewalk" and all the other sidewalk on private property as 2.1m municipal concrete sidewalk” in drawings A100 and A201.
"PROP. XX m private walkways". The response letter reads:"The sidewalks have
RAW/Adesso
been labelled. Please refer to Site Grading Plan (SG‐01) for details". Please ensure
the same revision is shown on the revise Site Plan, Drawing No. A.100 and Ground
Floor Plan, Drawing No.A201.
d. If soil cells are required to be installed within the public right-of-way, boulevard areas The architectural ground floor plan A201 has been revised to show the extents of the
on Kingston Road and Sharpe Street, add a note to clearly state that. The response RAW/Adesso soil cells as per landscape drawings. (not annotated)
letter reads: "Soil Cells have been annotated within the public ROW on L1, and a
16
 detail has been provided on L4." Please ensure the same information is shown on the
revise Site Plan, Drawing No. A.100 and Ground Floor Plan, Drawing No.A201.
e. Illustrate on the revised site plan the removal of the existing substandard sidewalk The note has been added to drawings A100 and A201.
and replacement with the 2.1m concrete sidewalk on Kingston Road and Sharpe
Street, removal of the existing asphalt with soft landscape along Kingston Road and
the widening of the public laneway. The response letter reads:"New sidewalks are to RAW
be constructed on Kingston Road and Sharpe Street, City standard T‐310.010‐2 is
referenced on L5." Please ensure the same information is shown on the revise Site
Plan, Drawing No. A.100 and Ground Floor Plan, Drawing No.A201.
f. Design and construct a 2.1m municipal concrete sidewalk with soft boulevard along The City of Toronto standard no T-310.010-2 is included in A100 and L-1. The sidewalk,
Kingston Road and concrete sidewalk adjacent to curb and gutter on Sharpe Street, which has been outlined in bold, has the minimum 0.3m setback required from the
as per the City of Toronto standard No. T-310.010-2. The new sidewalk setback from property line as shown in the drawings.
the property line shall be 0.5m (minimum acceptable 0.3m). Add notations to make
reference to the applicable City's standard. The response letter reads:"New sidewalks
RAW/Adesso
are to be constructed on Kingston Road and Sharpe Street, City standard T‐310.010‐
2 is referenced on L5." Please ensure the City of Toronto standard No. T-310.010-2
is being placed on the revised Site Plan, Drawing No. A.100 and Ground Floor Plan,
Drawing No.A201 and confirm the minimum 0.3m setback from the property line to
the edge of the public sidewalk by adding a label with the distance analysis.
g. The existing asphalt between the curb and the new 2.1m sidewalk must be removed The existing asphalt between the curb and the 2.1m sidewalk is being removed in favour
and replaced with a soft landscape. The response letter reads:"The revised of a mix of hard and soft landscape. The landscape drawings have been revised and
landscape drawings show sidewalks flush with the curb. See City of Toronto incorporated in the Site Plan (A100) and Ground Floor Plan (A201).
Standards referenced on L4." Please ensure that changes are shown on the revised RAW/Adesso/LCH
Site Plan, Drawing No. A.100 and Ground Floor Plan, Drawing No.A201 and Transportation Services has confirmed that the removal of street parking and the curb
confirmation from Transportation Services that elimination of the street parking is extension is acceptable.
acceptable.
h. Provide the length of new 2.1m concrete municipal sidewalk to be designed and The lengths of the new 2.1m concrete municipal sidewalk have been indicated in
constructed along Kingston Road and Sharpe Street as per the City's standard No. T- drawing A201.
310.010-2.The response letter reads:"As per a scale measurement of drawing A201
the City Standard sidewalk would run approximately 81 metres on Kingston Road and
approximately 35m on Sharpe Street." These dimensions needs to be added on the RAW
revised Ground Floor Plan, Drawing No.A201. The measurement is in conflict with the
Survey Plan which shows 37.28m property length along Sharpe Street. Please also
show on the revised drawing A201 the property boundaries information as per the
Survey Plan, dated May 7, 2021 prepared by J.D. Barnes.
i. It appears that the new 2.1m sidewalk is in conflict with the an existing traffic light at This conflict is a mislabeling of the assets at the corner. The plans have since been
the corner of Kingston Road and Sharpe Street which is not being proposed to be revised to note that it is not a traffic light interrupting the sidewalk, but a standalone
relocated. Why? The response letter reads:"The existing traffic light at the corner of pedestrian crosswalk button. The pedestrian crossing button has been relocated slightly
Kingston Road and Sharpe Street is not being proposed to be relocated because RAW/Adesso/Lithos to allow for a 2.66m gap between the curb edge and the button. The drawings show
there is sufficient space surrounding the traffic light to provide greater than a 2.1m that there is no interference between the proposed sidewalk and any other existing
pedestrian clearway in all directions travelled. This detail is expected to be further utilities or objects near the intersection. See L-1.
discussed at the City’s streetscape workshop." This comment is outstanding.
j. Please label the municipal address of the adjacent property where the Site Plan 2328,2330,2334,2340,2342,2344,236 and 2350 Kingston Road are subject to this
drawing No.A100 shows existing 2-storey building. The response letter reads:"The development proposal. 2352,2354 and 2356 Kingston Road are not a part of this
additional units have been labelled on drawing A100." The Site Plan No.A100 refers development proposal.
to "2352, 2354, 2356 KINGSTON ROAD". Please provide further details to clarify if
RAW
the properties municipally know as 2342-2346 Kingston Road and 2350 Kingston The length of property boundaries along Kingston Road is labeled on the revised
Road, shown on the Survey Plan are also owned by the same owner and subject to drawing A100 and A201.
this development proposal. The length of the property boundaries along Kingston
Road must be also labeled on the revised drawing No.A100.
17
 k. The Site Plan needs to indicate any proposed unit pavers within the public right-of- The revised landscape plan that shows no unit pavers within the Public ROW has been
way, along Kingston Road and Sharpe Street, and provide the area dimensions incorporated into the architectural drawings A100 and A201. The unit pavers next to the
(length and width). Please coordinate with the landscape and engineering plans for curb on Kingston Road has been designed as per the City of Toronto’s Standard XX
consistency. The response letter reads:" Precast concrete unit pavers are shown in
RAW
the public ROW on L1. Details can be found of L5." This comment was for the
architectural plans. Therefore please revise the Site Plan, Drawing No. A.100 and
Ground Floor Plan, Drawing No.A201 accordingly and clearly show the 2 rows of unit
pavers and label their length.
l. (NEW) The Site Plan failed to indicate the proposed soil cells on Kingston Road. Sections have been provided in the landscape set (drawings L-2a and L-2b). These
Please explain as why there are soil cells not being proposed if the width of the sections demonstrate that there is no conflict between the proposed landscaping and
boulevard area be significantly increased by the elimination of the street parking (if existing watermain.
accepted by Transportation Services), it shall be sufficient soil volume. There is an Adesso
active 150mm watermain which seems to be in conflict with the soil cells. Please
coordinate and discuss with City staff to ensure there are no conflicts before
addressing this comment.
m. The Owner's Municipal Consultant Engineer must provide engineering detailed A detailed design of the proposed reconstruction for Sandown Lane has been included
design for Sandown Public Lane reconstruction and boulevard area improvements in the updated Civil Engineering Drawing Package. Furthermore, a cost estimate of all
along Kingston Road (removal and construction of concrete, asphalt, soil cells, top works within the existing and future right-of-way has been prepared.
soil/sodding, laneway grading and paving, etc.), showing all the existing utilities,
Lithos
hydro poles, fire hydrant and catch basin relocation, including a Detailed Cost
Estimate, quantity and cost for all works required with the existing and future City's
Right-of-Way.The response letter reads:" A detailed Cost estimate will be provided at
a later stage of the application". This comment is outstanding.
n. All comments/revisions identified/required for the landscape plans and engineering Understood.
drawings must be addressed and reflected on the updated/revised architectural plan
for consistency.
2. Site Servicing Plan, Drawing No. SS-01 and Public Utilities Plan, Drawing PU-01, dated August 17, 2021, Revision 2, dated August 12, 2022, both prepared by Lithos Group Inc.
a. The proposed 4.4m-200 mm storm connection must be perpendicular to the existing Site Servicing Plan has been revised accordingly and the 200mm sanitary connection
675mm municipal storm sewer located with the public laneway. Please revise the plans Lithos is perpendicular to the existing 675mm municipal storm sewer.
accordingly.
b. The proposed 200mm site service sanitary connection is more than half the 300mm Following our coordination with the mechanical engineer a reduced 150mm diameter
diameter of the mainline sanitary sewer on Sandown Lane, therefore requires a lateral sewer will not be a feasible servicing approach for the proposed development,
maintenance hole on the sewer main as per the City's design criteria (page #78). as per the OBC a 150mm pipe is undersized based on the internal building loads.
Alternatively, the Consultant can consider to redesign and reduce the size if the 150mm will Therefore, a 200mm diameter lateral connection is proposed for the future
have sufficient capacity to convey the sanitary flows and still is in compliance with the Lithos development, connecting to an existing manhole at Sandown Lane.
minimum 2% slope and cleansing velocity of 0.6 m/s in accordance with the Design Criteria
for Sewers and Watermains. The response letter reads:"The sanitary sewer has been
redesigned and the size has been reduced to 150mm. Please refer to Site Servicing Plan
(SS‐01) for details." This is acceptable, therefore the comment was addressed.
c. Justify the size of the proposed 200mm storm connection as it appears to be oversized. Site Servicing Plan has been revised accordingly and the storm connection to the
The Consultant must explore the possibility to reduce the size to accommodate the municipal sewer has been revised to a 150mm diameter pipe with a 1.50% slope as
maximum allowable release flow rate of 14.6 L/s while ensuring compliance with the city's per City Standard T‐1006.01-1.
design criteria (minimum size 150mm @ 2% slope and cleanings velocity of 0.8 m/s). The
response letter reads:"Considering that the proposed storm flow of the proposed
Lithos
development passing through the lateral connection will be 12.6 L/s (controlled and
groundwater flow), and the proposed lateral connection should be as per City Standard T‐
1006.01; then, a 150 mm diameter lateral connection would run at approximately 68.0% of
its capacity. In order to avoid any risk of surcharging, backflow and clogging, the storm
lateral connection for the proposed development will be a 200mm diameter sewer, with a

18
 1.4% slope, as per City’s Standard, and will run at approximately 32.0% of its capacity
during a 100% event." We do not accept this explanation as the design criteria on page
#103 reads "generally, storm sewers shall be designed to flow at the full design capacity of
the pipe". Please revise accordingly.
d. Show detail design for Sandown Public Lane reconstruction and boulevard area Detailed designs of the proposed reconstruction for Sandown Lane and Kingston Road
improvements along Kingston Road (removal and construction of concrete, asphalt, soil have been included in the updated Civil Engineering Drawing Package (see Civil
cells, top soil/sodding, laneway grading and paving, etc.), showing all the existing utilities, drawing LR-01). Furthermore, a cost estimate of all works within the existing and future
hydro poles, fire hydrant and catch basin relocation as required. The response letter right-of-way has been prepared.
reads:"Site Servicing Plan has been revised accordingly." The Servicing Plan is
overcrowded and not clear as what is being proposed to be changed within the public right
of way, in addition to standard boulevard modification (sidewalk, unit pavers, sod and Lithos
driveway access). It seems that the proposal includes road and public lane modifications
for widening, eliminating the street parking, relocation of public catchbasins, utilities, curb
relocation and regrading, etc. which must be shown on a separate plan entitled "Road and
Public lane modification and improvements on Kingston Road and Sandown Lane" which
will serve as a base for the detailed cost estimate to be prepared, signed and sealed by a
Professional Engineer.
e. (NEW) The proposed new location the existing hydro poles is not acceptable and needs to The new location of the hydro poles was selected by Toronto Hydro, who has worked
be revised to be on the same side of the laneway to maintain the current alignment and out the encroachments onto private property as part of its interal approvals process.
within the public laneway and not encroached on the private property as it is currently being The proposed hydro pole locations have been incorporated into the updated Civil
Lithos/Hydro
shown on the submitted plans. Please use an arrow which points from the existing to the Engineering Drawings (SG-01, SS-01). Contact Richard Greidanus at Toronto Hydro:
new location of the hydro poles and add the following note "the pole to be relocated by [email protected].
Toronto Hydro at the Owner's cost."
f. (NEW) Explain why an overflow pipe from the tank was connected to the storm control The Site Servicing Plan (SS-01) has been revised taking into account that there is an
maintenance hole (MH1) when there is an emergency overflow storm tank access being emergency overflow tank access therefore an overflow pipe is not required for the
Lithos
proposed? subject stormwater management system. Thus, the overflow pipe has been eliminated
from the updated Civil Engineering Drawings.
g. (NEW) Revise the drawings to show a 75mm orifice reducer/pipe with a minimum length of The Site Servicing Plan has been revised accordingly and the orifice pipe is being
1.0m instead of a plate upstream of the control storm maintenance hole MH1. Lithos depicted with a 1m length. See Tank Section D-D in SS-01.

h. (NEW) The groundwater sampling port is not acceptable at this time as any private water, The Private Water Discharge Room has been introduced in the underground parking
including groundwater discharge into the municipal sanitary sewer is being highly levels on A102 and is labeled PWDS Room. A note that says all requirements of
discouraged, unless the Consultant team can demonstrate that there are no other discharge of private water into the City’s storm sewer system must be met has also
alternative methods to manage the groundwater on-site. See the below-noted comments been added in SS-01. The MECP approval process is in progress with Toronto Water.
outlined in this memorandum under the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management
Report. The response letter reads:"Taking into account that groundwater cannot be A letter confirming the review of the Aclarus system by JWA, stating that the system will
discharged into the sanitary sewer system, and the absence of available space to allow be able to bring the Manganese and TSS level to a level acceptable to the Toronto
groundwater to infiltrate into the ground; then, the accumulated groundwater will be filtered Municipal Code (TMC), has been provided in Page 33 of the FSR-SWM report.
and discharge into the storm sewer system." The proposal to discharge groundwater into
the storm sewer is acceptable if the following conditions are being met: Alcarus has provided a letter to confirm that their filter system can fit in the allocated
Lithos
• Prior to final site plan approval, the Owner's applicant must make a direct PWDS room. RAW has provided a letter to confirm that the PWDS room can fit in the
submission and obtain MECP approval for the on-site groundwater treatment facility project without impacting other facilities required (i.e., parking, garbage, or mechanical
as the quality of the Owner's P.Geo with Fisher Engineering Limited clearly room).
identified in the Report and Summary Form that the two parameters (TSS and
Manganese) are in violation of the Storm Sewer Use Bylaw limits. A 1.0 L/s has been accounted as the maximum release rate for the groundwater
• Identify/Show the location and size of the on-site groundwater treatment facility on discharge in the updated stormwater management design (FSR-SWM report, Section
all the applicable site plan drawings (architectural and civil) and provide certification 5.3.1.1).
from the architect and the Mechanical engineer that such additional facility can be
accommodated on the subject site without impacting other facilities required (i.e.,
parking supply, garbage, or mechanical room, etc.)
19
 • The Civil/Municipal Consultant must reduce the maximum allowable release flow
rate to the storm sewer with 1.0 L/s to compensate for the foundation/groundwater
discharge flow rate on a permanent basis.
i. Add notations on each ADs/CBs as where they are internally connected to the The Site Servicing Plan has been revised accordingly and notes have been added in
Manufacturing Treatment Device (OGS) or to the storm tank? The response letter reads: each AD/CB indicating where they are connected. See SS-01.
"Site Servicing Plan has been revised accordingly. "The proposed uncontrolled A4 Post
(0.014ha @ 0.83 coefficient runoff) is unacceptable and shall be controlled on-site via Lithos
additional area drains or catch basin (whatever is considered to be suitable for the area)
and the flow must be conveyed towards the manufactured treatment device (MTD)
selected.
j. Show the limits of the Ground Floor (Proposed Building Envelope), Underground Parking The Site Servicing Plan and Public Utility Plan have been revised accordingly indicating
level and Roof on the revised Site Servicing Plan (Drawing SS-01) and Public Utility Plan with different colors the limits of the roof and ground floor outlines. The updated Site
(Drawing PU-1). Add under the Legend and remove the Limit of Construction as this is Servicing Plan has been revised in a way that ensures the consistency with the public
temporary and not required. The response letter reads: "Site Servicing Plan has been utilities plan and all relevant drawings of the Civil Engineering Drawing Package.
Lithos
revised accordingly." Please clarify if the grey double line shown on the Site Servicing Plan
SS-1 is showing the underground limits and please added in the Legend. Ideally this Plan
shall be consistent with the Public Utility Plan drawing PU-01 (the underground parking
outline is blue).
k. (New Comment) Show on the Public Utilities Plan, Drawing PU-01 the proposed trees The Public Utility Plan (PU-01) has been revised accordingly, incorporating the
within the public right of-way and show the distance from the tree trunk to the existing proposed trees along Kingston Road within the public right of way. The distances from
150mm watermain to demonstrate the minimum 300mm vertical and 750mm horizontal the tree trunk to the existing 150 mm watermain have also been added with the closest
clearance are being met as per the Appendix O – City of Toronto Municipal Consent Lithos/Adesso horizontal clearance of 1,300mm, more than the minimum 750mm.
Requirements. Please ensure compliance with clearances required for other utilities as per
the same Appendix O – City's MCR clearance guidelines. A section has also been provided in the Landscape drawing (L-2a, L-2b) that shows the
vertical clearances of more than 300mm from the tree to the watermain.
l. All comments/revisions identified/required for the architectural and landscape plans must Noted.
be addressed and reflected on the updated/revised plans.
3. Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report for the Proposed Development at 2328-2350 Kingston Road, dated October 12, 2021, revised on August 12, 2022 and Servicing
Report Groundwater Summary Form, dated August 12, 2022, both prepared by Lithos Group Inc.
Chapter 5.0 Stormwater Management and Drainage
a. Section 5.1. Existing Conditions. Based on the Topographical Survey Plan it appears that a. The Functional Servicing Report has been revised accordingly, including external
the subject site receives external drainage. In the revised report the drainage area size drainage. Section 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 have been revised, indicating that the maximum
and runoff coefficient of the external site shall be determined. Any external surface runoff allowable release rate is 19.3 L/s. Please refer to page 4 and 5 of 16 in Functional
flow cannot be blocked as per the Drainage Act and must be included in the revised Servicing Report.
detailed calculation and design of the site. The response letter reads:"Functional Servicing b. Major Overland Flow route has been depicted with arrows on DAP1 and DAP2
and Stormwater Management Report has been revised accordingly." Please provide (Appendix C) accordingly, showing that the major overland flow route and patterns
clarification in the Detailed Response letter for the next resubmission as where to find the are being maintained. Furthermore, the Functional Servicing and Stormwater
information in the revised Report (page #, Section.#, Appendix #). According with the Management Report has been revised, clarifying that the existing drainage pattern
revised Figure DAP-1 (Appendix C) Pre-Development Drainage Area Plan and Table 5.1 will be maintained under post-development conditions (Section 9.2.).
and 5.2 the drainage is being split and therefore the maximum allowable release flow rate
to the storm sewer on Sandown Lane is 20.7 L/s calculated based on the A1 pre drainage
area of 0.164 ha, and to the storm sewer on Kingston Road is 14.6 L/s. It appears that the Needs to be revised to reflect the corner rounding conveyance.
release flow to Sandown Lane must be further reduced to account for the 0.011 ha area to
be conveyed to the City. Therefore the maximum allowable release flow rate to the existing
675 mm storm sewer along Sandown Lane shall be 19.23 L/s calculated based on
0.157ha. Furthermore the uncontrolled A4 Post (0.014 ha) is not acceptable and the
maximum allowable release flow rate must be recalculated in the revised report.
b. (New) Show on the Figure Nos. DAP 1 (Pre-Development Drainage Area Plan) and DAP 2
(Post-Development Drainage Area Plan) the major overland flow route and ensure the

20
 patterns are being maintained. It appears that the major overland flow route is being
shown on the grading plan towards Sharpe Street cannot be acceptable if is inconsistent
with the existing drainage patterns. The report and plans must be revised accordingly.
c. (New) Section 5.2.1 Long-Term Dewatering. Please change the subheading to Section 5.2.1 has been renamed to 5.2.1. Foundation Drainage/Groundwater Long
"Foundation Drainage/Groundwater Long-Term Discharged to Storm Sewer". The report Term Discharged to Storm Sewer and the world filtration has been replaced by on site
on page 5 of 14 reads: "Following its filtration, groundwater will be directed towards the groundwater treatment, please refer to page 5 of 16.
site’s control manhole and then to the City’s storm sewer network." We cannot accept this
statement and the revised report must replace the word "filtration" with on-site The long-term groundwater sump pump will be sized to a groundwater peak flow rate
groundwater treatment. In addition the allowable release rate must be further adjusted and of 1.0 L/s (see Section 5.2.1.). The calculations related to storage volume and orifice
reduced with 1.0 L/s, therefore all calculations related with storage volume and orifice tube/pipe have also been revised (see Table 5.5).
tube/pipe needs to be revised accordingly. Please note the acceptance of such proposal is
subject to demonstrating compliance with the following conditions:
• Prior to final site plan approval, the Owner's applicant must make a direct
submission and obtain MECP approval for the on-site groundwater treatment
facility as the quality of the Owner's P.Geo with Fisher Engineering Limited clearly
identified in the Report and Summary Form that the two parameters (TSS and
Manganese) are in violation of the Storm Sewer Use Bylaw limits.
• Identify/Show the location and size of the on-site groundwater treatment facility on
all the applicable site plan drawings (architectural and civil) and provide
certification from the architect and the Mechanical engineer that such additional
facility can be accommodated on the subject site without impacting other facilities
required (i.e. parking supply, garbage or mechanical room, etc.)
• The Civil/Municipal Consultant must reduce the maximum allowable release flow
rate to the storm sewer with 1.0 L/s to compensate for the foundation/groundwater
discharge flow rate on a permanent basis.
d. (New) Section 5.2.2 Short-Term Dewatering. Please change the subheading to "Private Functional Servicing Report has been updated accordingly. Please refer to 5.2.2.
Water (groundwater + rain water) Short-Term Discharged during construction to Sanitary Private Water/Short Term Discharged during construction to Sanitary Sewer on page 6
Sewer". of 16.
e. (New) Section 5.3.1.1 Post-Development Flows towards Sandown Road. Quantity The Functional Servicing Report has been updated to reflect the adjusted flow (19.3
Controls. Revised the Table 5.5 to reflect the adjusted flow and provide the actual L/s) and provide the actual maximum allowable release flow rate. Please refer to
maximum allowable release flow rate as per the above-noted comment a) as target flow of Section 5.3.1.1 Post-development flows towards Sandown Road on page 7 of 16.
20.7 L/s and total site release flow of 20.4 L/s are not acceptable.
f. Section 5.3.1.1 Post Development Flows towards Sandown Road. Quantity Controls. The Section 5.3.1.2 has been revised to ensure that the correct allowable release rate has
report on page 7 of 16 refers to 7.8 L/s flow from the uncontrolled area of 0.014ha @ 0.83 been considered for the stormwater management design. Furthermore, the Stormwater
coefficient runoff - A4 Post. Please provide the formula in the main body of the report as Management design has been updated so there is no uncontrolled flow towards
based on our calculation shall be 8.08 L/s. Sandown Lane.
g. Section 5.3.1.1 Post Development Flows towards Sandown Road. Quantity Controls. The Stormwater Management design has been revised so that no uncontrolled storm flow
proposed uncontrolled A4 Post (0.014ha @ 0.83 coefficient runoff) is unacceptable and will be draining towards Sandown Lane. Furthermore, all areas that may be subject to
shall be controlled on-site via additional area drains or catch basin (whatever is considered oil and grit will be directed towards the manufactured treatment device (MTD).
to be suitable for the area) and the flow must be conveyed towards the manufactured
treatment device (MTD) selected as most of the area is for surface parking therefore need
to be treated and not discharged towards the public right-of-way.
h. Section 5.3.1.1 Post Development Flows towards Sandown Road. Quantity Controls. The The Site Servicing Plan and Functional Servicing Report have been updated. The Site
report on page # 7of 14 reads:" controlled by a 75 mm orifice plate with a maximum Servicing plan has been revised to show a reduce pipe instead of plate. Furthermore,
release rate of 11.6 L/s, achieved." Please revise the calculation for a 75mm orifice Section 5.3.1.1 of the FSR has also been updated to reflect the use of 75mm orifice
reducer/pipe instead of a plate and accordingly the drawings to show a reduce pipe. tube with a maximum release rate of 14.2 L/s.
i. Section 5.3.1.1 Post Development Flows towards Sandown Road. Quantity Controls. Drainage Area A6 post has been replaced by Drainage area A5 Post and detailed
Please provide the post-development uncontrolled release rate for Drainage Area A6 calculations have been provided for the subject area in the updated Functional Servicing
calculated for 100-year storm event. and Stormwater Management Report.

21
j. Section 5.3.1.1 Underground Storage Tank. The storage volume must be revised to reflect The storage volume of the underground storage tank has been revised in Section
the revised maximal allowable release rate. 5.3.1.1 to reflect the revised maximum allowable release rate, which is 14.2 L/s for the
100-year event. As a result, the total site release rate will be 15.2 L/s, which is less than
the target flow of 19.3 L/s.
k. Section 5.3.2. Water Balance. The report is not clear as how the storm volume of 9.21 m3 Irrigation calculations and letter prepared by smart watering systems dated July 25,
retained in the dead storage of the holding tank will be utilized in within 72 hours and reads 2023 have been included in the updated Functional Servicing and Stormwater
that "details will be provided at a later stage." The revised report must include the Management Report. To meet the water balance, a greywater system will be
certification letter from the Owner and Mechanical engineer that a Greywater System will implemented in the building. Letters from the owner and mechanical engineer have
be utilized to comply with water balance criteria. been included in the report to confirm that such system will be implemented to meet the
water balance requirement.
l. Section 5.2.3. Quality Controls. A copy of the NJDEP Certification need to be added to the A signed sizing calculation and a copy of the NJDEP Certification have been included
revised Report for the selected OGS, Stormfilter SFPD 0608 with 1 cartridge, and if not in Appendix C-III of the updated Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management
available please select another MTD model. The sizing calculation needs to be signed and Report.
sealed by a Professional Engineer. The response letter reads: "A copy of the NJDEP
Certification has been added to the revised Report for the selected OGS Stormfilter SFPD
0608. The sizing calculations have been signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer."
The documents have not been found in the report. Please add them as a separate
appendix to the revised report.
m. Section 5.4. Proposed Storm Connection. The Consultant must explore the possibility to Storm service lateral connection has been revised to a 150mm diameter lateral pipe
reduce the 200mm storm service connection proposed to accommodate the maximum with a 1.5% slope as per City Standard T‐1006.01 (see Section 5.4.). Furthermore,
allowable release rate of 14.6 L/s while ensuring compliance with the city's design criteria consistency has been ensured throughout all civil documents, including drawing SS-
(minimum size 150mm @ 2% slope and cleanings velocity of 0.8 m/s). The response letter 01.
reads:"The feasibility of a 150mm diameter storm lateral connection was investigated. In
order to avoid any risk of surcharging, backflow and clogging, the storm lateral connection
for the proposed development will be a 200mm diameter sewer, with a 1.4% slope, as per
City’s Standard, and will run at approximately 32.0% of its capacity during a 100% event."
The report on page 9 of 14 reads that "The proposed development will connect to the 675
mm diameter storm sewer on Sandown Lane via a 200 mm diameter storm sewer service
connection with a minimum grade of 2.0%". The Consultant must correct the discrepancy
and ensure consistency between the drawings and main body of the report and consider
the above-noted comments for site servicing plan drawing SS-1.
n. Section 6.3. Proposed Sanitary Flow. The report included in Appendix D revised sanitary Sanitary Calculations included in Appendix D have been revised to reflect the correct
flow of 3.84 L/s but it appears that the 7 live-work units were not included. The total unit count, and the live work units have been incorporated as LW. The statistics have
number of 198 residential units is correct but there is inconsistency with the breakdown also been revised in the architectural set produced by RAW, dated August 11, 2023,
units (30 x 1 Bachelor; 114 units x 1-Bedroom; 22 units x 2-Bedroom and 18 units x 3- which is also submitted as part of this SPA resubmission. Please refer to A001.
Bedroom) shown on the architectural Site Plan drawings. In the revised report please
include a letter from the architect to avoid discrepancies.
o. Section 7.0. Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis. Revise the Table 7.1 New Developments Table 7.1 in the FSR has been revised. A column has been added clarifying which
to indicate which are approved and under review and also add an asterix * for the ones developments are approved and which are under review.
that "best efforts have been made to include all flows from Private Water discharge
agreements in the sewer shed" as noted in the Report on page 10 of 14. The Response Also, an asterisk (*) has been added for the ones, if any, that "best efforts have been
letter reads: "Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report has been revised made to include all flows from Private Water discharge agreements in the sewer shed".
accordingly." Unfortunately, there are no changes – no additional column was added to
Table 7.1 to clarify the approval status of the new development listed on page 12 of 14.
The comment is still outstanding.
p. Section 9.0. Site Grading. Drainage and Major Overland Flow Route. The report on page The page number in the report has been revised. According to the Survey Plan, it has
15 of 16 (please correct the page # of the report) for the existing grades reads that "the been ascertained that the lowest point indicated is indeed 158.21m (CB Top), which
lowest elevation is at 158.36m." without saying towards what public road/lane. However aligns closely with the proposed location for the proposed exhaust (near Sandown
the Survey Plan show an elevation of 158.21 (CB top). Please clarify the discrepancy, Lane). Consequently, under the proposed development, this elevation will no longer
persist, and instead, the lowest point will be situated at 158.52m, coinciding with the
22
 revise the report and Fig. DAP-1(Pre-development Drainage Area) accordingly. Please designated groundwater sampling port. Kindly note that both in the pre-development
clearly show the existing major overland flow route. conditions and the proposed conditions, the major overland flow route will be
maintained, and the storm runoff will continue to discharge towards the right of way.
Figure DAP-1 has been revised indicating the existing major overland flow route.

q. Section 9.0. Site Grading. Drainage and Major Overland Flow Route. The report reads that The lowest point will be located at 158.52m, designated as the groundwater sampling
the "The lowest elevation point (spill over) will be at 158.53m". Please clarify in the main port site. Both in the pre-development state and under the proposed conditions, the
body of the revised report and show on Figure DAP-2 (Post-Development Drainage Area major overland flow route will be maintained, and the storm runoff will continue to
Plan) the proposed major overland flow route. discharge towards the right of way. In the event of a failure within the stormwater
management system, excess storm runoff will discharge through the perforated hatch
of the underground tank, directed towards the City's right-of-way. Furthermore, to
eliminate the possibility of drainage from another point within the site, backflow
preventers will be installed in all area drains and trench drains. Kindly note that DAP-2
has undergone the necessary revisions.
r. Section 9.0. Site Grading. Post-Development Drainage Area Plans (Figures DAP1 and The Stormwater Management report and grading design have been updated to
DAP2) shall be revised to reduce the uncontrolled drainage areas A4 (Sharpe Street), A5 minimize the amount of uncontrolled flow towards the adjacent right-of-way.
(Sandown Lane) and A6 (Kingston Road). The response letter reads: "Uncontrolled area
has been reduced and runoff coefficient has been decreased". We have noticed that now The drainage area plan has been revised and the overall uncontrolled drainage area
the A5 post-development (driveway access) had been controlled however we still have has been reduced significantly. Some drainage areas have been combined with some
concerned with the large A4 post-development of 0.014ha which shall be also controlled other, resulting in more total controlled drainage area. Drainage area where the parking
(parking spaces). Please revise the report and calculations accordingly. spaces are located is now controlled. The calculations have been revised and can be
found in Figure DAP-2.

s. Section 10.0. Conclusions and Recommendation. The report on page 15 of 16 reads that Section 10.0 in Functional Servicing Report has been revised to include the proposed
"The site stormwater discharge will be controlled to the 2-year pre-development flow and permanent discharge of the foundation drainage/groundwater and the on-site
will be directed to the existing 675mm storm sewer on Sandown Lane" without mentioning groundwater pre-treatment required in this development.
the proposed permanent discharge of the foundation drainage/groundwater and on-site
groundwater pre-treatment required. However, the owner and entire design team needs to
be aware of the direct application and Environmental Compliance Approval from the
Ministry of Environment, Conversation and Parks (MECP) required prior to the site plan
approval and agree on the final solution.
t. Conclusion and recommendation Section needs to be revised to reflect all the changes. The conclusion section of the Functional Servicing Report has been revised to reflect
all the other changes to the body of the report.

4. Site Grading Plan, Drawing No. SG-01, dated August 18, 2021, Revision 2, dated August 12, 2022, prepared by Lithos Group Inc.
a. The existing catch basins (CBs) located within the public Sandown Lane must be shown in Laneway Reconstruction Plan (LR-01) has been included to the Civil Engineering
bold on the revised Grading Plan and analyse if needs to be relocated due to the proposed Drawings Package, illustrating all proposed catchbasin and hydro poles relocations.
adjustments of the existing grading required for land conveyance and the laneway Furthermore, cross sections for all catchbasin relocations have been included in the
boundary changes. The Response letter reads: "The existing catch basins have been subject drawing.
shown and removed, where it was necessary, on the revised Site Grading Plan (SG‐01)."
The plan shows many new CBs and also relocation of the existing ones within the
Sandown Lane and Kingston Road. Therefore a separate plan and profile is required to
show existing and proposed grades and also to illustrate detailed cross-section for each
new catch basin.
b. (New) The plan has the following notation "SANDOWN LANE RECONSTRUCTION AS Sandown Lane will be reconstructed as per City’s Standard T-216.02-1. Civil Engineering
PER CITY'S STANDARD T-213.02-1". Please clarify is this is an active Standard or Drawings have been revised indicating this fact.
Archived (Retired) and refer to the City's standard which is applicable for lane design.
c. Please add a note that existing curbs cuts and driveways must be removed and restored Appropriate notes with arrows have been included in the Site Grading Plan. (no arrows)
to the City satisfaction. The notation was added however there are no arrows to indicate
23
 where are the applicable locations. The comment was partially addressed. Please revised
the plan accordingly.
d. Please add a note that existing curbs cuts and driveways must be removed and restored Appropriate notes with arrows have been included in the Site Grading Plan. (no arrows)
to the City satisfaction. The notation was added however there is no arrows to indicate as
where is the existing driveway access location. In fact the plan labels the Public Lane as
"Prop. 6.0m driveway width" This is incorrect and needs to be removed. The access
driveway must the one from the Public Lane to the private property and the plan must be
revised accordingly.
e. (New) It is unclear as why the plan add the City's standard T-310-050-1 for Vehicle The driveway entrance is from Sandown Lane and the entrance into the property is
entrance in combined curb and sidewalk if the proposed driveway access to the site is through the depressed curb, which is indicated in the Site Grading Plan (SG-01).
from the Public Lane and not from Kingston Road or Sharpe Street. Please explain and
revise the plan accordingly. The standard is used because there is a combined curb and sidewalk going into the
Sandown Lane that will be reconstructed. The current curb and sidewalk design does
not meet the City standard.

f. (New) It appears that the major overland flow route is being shown on the grading plan The Site Grading Plan has been revised in a way that ensures that the existing drainage
towards Sharpe Street cannot be acceptable if is inconsistent with the existing drainage pattern is maintained to the extent feasible. The subject area’s grading design has been
patterns. The plan must be revised accordingly. revised accordingly.

g. The ground floor outline and more important the underground line must be shown on the The roof outline and the underground line have been included on the updated Grading
revised grading plan and added to the legend (similar with the Public Utility Plan drawing Plan as requested.
PU-01).
5. Details Plan, Drawing DD-01, dated August 17, 2021, Revision 2, dated August 12, 2022 and Erosion and Control Plan, Drawing EC-01, dated August 17, 2021, Revision 2, dated August 12,
2022, both prepared by Lithos Group Inc.
a. Please remove the Engineering and Construction Services Signature block as we are not Engineering and Construction Services Signature block has been removed from Plans
signing for acceptance of City's standards or other utilities location. Lithos accordingly.

6. Hydrogeological Investigation, dated, May 25, 2021, updated January 24, 2022, revised July 11 2022 and Hydrological Review Summary Form, dated May 25, 2022, revised July 11, 2022, both
prepared by Fisher Engineering Limited.
a. Please revise the Hydrological Review Summary Form to include on page #5 the value A revised Hydrological review summary form and report have been included in the
(masl) of the estimated seasonally high groundwater level.The response letter submission package.
Fisher
reads:"Groundwater levels were monitored over the period April to July 2021 to determine
seasonal high-water levels." and the Summary Form refers to Section 6.1 on page 6 of the
24
 Hydrological Report. This is not the response we need as in the Summary Form we need
to know what the estimated value of the seasonally high ground water level (i.e. 157.04
masl or higher) based on the P.Geo.'s professional judgement. Therefore the comment is
still outstanding.
7. Landscape Plans, Drawings Nos. L-1 through L-5, dated September 29, 2021, Revision 2, dated August 11, 2022, prepared by Adesso Design Inc.
a. A proposal for a curb extension along Kingston Road fronting the proposed development is Detailed dimensions of the curb extension have been provided on L-1. Details of the
shown on the relevant plan. This proposal will provide public realm, street furniture, curb extension are also available in the Landscape set L-1 to L-5.
greenery and open space for the public as well as for the retails and residents. At least five
parking spaces will be lost by providing this curb extension in comparison with the existing
condition. The soil volume may not be sufficient for the trees, as shown in the plan, without
expanding soil cells to the sidewalks. It may impact the water mains, which is along the
boulevard. However, it can't be said till the updated landscape plan with detail dimensions
is not received.
b. It is unclear if soil cells are required as the boulevard width is more than 6.0 m. We only A soil cell design has been proposed. Two (2) structural engineer stamps have also
require 2.1m wide concrete sidewalk and the remaining boulevard area can be soft been provided to confirm that the sidewalk, together with the underlying soil cell system
landscape (grass/trees). Please note that the City requires special design and the and soils, are able to withstand vehicular loading pursuant to the current version of the
maintenance/repair will be the Owner's responsibility in the future if the Municipal sidewalk Canadian Highway Bridge Code.
is located on top of continuous soil cell trench along Kingston Road and there are Key
Performance Criteria for soil cell design which involves two (2) structural engineers'
responsibilities for design. Therefore please provide two (2) structural engineers stamps,
signed and dated, on the landscape drawing (L-1) that relate to suspended concrete over
soil cell systems to confirm that the design of the sidewalk, together with the underlying soil
cell system and soils, are able to withstand vehicular loading pursuant to the current
version of the Canadian Highway Bridge Code. Note that this includes any City standard
depicting the suspended soil system. The two (2) stamps must be accompanied by the
following notation: Adesso

"The design of the sidewalk, together with the underlying soil cell system and soils, are able
to withstand vehicular loading pursuant to the current version of the Canadian Highway
Bridge Code."

The response letter reads:"Structural certification would be provided following the

finalization of the Landscape Plans." Please explain as why there are soil cells being
proposed if the width of the boulevard area be significantly increased by the elimination of
the street parking (if accepted by Transportation Services), it shall be sufficient soil volume.
There is an active 150mm watermain which seems to be in conflict with the soil cells.
Please coordinate and discuss with City staff to ensure there are no conflicts before
addressing this comment.
c. If any relocation of existing utilities and above ground features are required please provide The new location of the hydro poles was selected by Toronto Hydro, who has worked
appropriate notations. The response letter reads:" The revised Site Plan indicates revisions out the encroachments onto private property as part of its interal approvals process.
for the Toronto Hydro Poles to be relocated."The proposed new location the existing hydro Contact Richard Greidanus at Toronto Hydro: [email protected].
poles is not acceptable and needs to be revised to be on the same side of the laneway to
maintain the current alignment and within the public laneway and not encroached on the
private property as it is currently being shown on the submitted plans. Please use an arrow
which points from the existing to the new location of the hydro poles and add the following
note "the pole to be relocated by Toronto Hydro at the Owner's cost." The comment was
partially addressed.
8. Submit a Draft 66R-Plan to show the land to be conveyed to the City
a. The plan should: The Draft R Plan has since been submitted.
Fisher

25
 i. In metric units and integrated to the 1983 North American Datum (Canadian Spatial
Reference System) and the 3 degree Modified Transverse Mercator projection;
ii. Delineate by separate PARTS the lands to be conveyed to the City, the remainder of the
site and any appurtenant rights-of-way and easements; and
iii. Show the co-ordinate values of the main corners of the subject lands in a schedule on
the face of the plan.

The response letter reads "A Draft Reference Plan will be submitted in a later stage of the
SPA process." The comment is still outstanding.
9. Information Required Pertaining to Environmental Site Assessment of Lands to be conveyed to the City
a. Submit a Qualified Person Preliminary Statement Letter (Attachment 1 template), that is The materials related to the ESA Peer Review have been submitted. Revisions to the
dated and signed by the applicant's Qualified Person, as defined in O. Reg. 153/04, as ESA Materials based on the Peer Reviewers comments are underway and will be
amended, describing the lands to be conveyed to the City, and identifying what submitted seperately from this SPA submission.
environmental documentation will be provided to the City's peer reviewer to support this
conveyance; all environmental documentation consistent with O. Reg. 153/04
requirements shall be submitted with reliance extended to the City and its peer reviewer
and any limitation on liability and indemnification is to be consistent with Ontario
Regulation 153/04, as amended, insurance requirements or such greater amount specified
Fisher
by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering & Construction Services (see
the Policy for Accepting Potentially Contaminated Lands to be Conveyed to the City under
the Planning Act adopted by City Council on February 10 and 11, 2015 at:
www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-74422.pdf)

The response letter reads "Information pertaining to the Environmental Site Assessment of
Lands to be conveyed to the City will be provided in a future submission." The comment is
still outstanding partially addressed.
10. Detailed Engineering Plans and Cost Estimate for work within public ROW
a. The applicant must provide detailed cost estimate and engineering detailed design, signed A cost estimate of all works within the existing and future right-of-way has been
and sealed by a Professional Engineer (Municipal/Civil), for Sandown Public Lane prepared.
reconstruction and boulevard area improvements along Kingston Road (removal and
construction of concrete, asphalt, soil cells, top soil/sodding, laneway grading and paving, Lithos
etc.), showing all the existing utilities, hydro poles, fire hydrant and catch basin relocation,
including a Detailed Cost Estimate, quantity and cost for all works required with the
existing and future City's Right-of-Way.
D. ADVISORY OF OTHER CITY APPROVALS & REQUIREMENTS
The owner is advised that the following approvals and/or permits are required for this development:
1. Transportation Services
Road Allowance Permits

The applicant must obtain an access permit from Transportation Services prior to the construction
of this project. Other permits/licences associated with construction activities (such as hoarding,
piling, shoring, etc.) may also be required. For the access permit and to provide securities, the
applicant must be advised to contact the Permits and Enforcement (formerly Right-of-Way
Management) section at (416)396-7505 or [email protected] regarding the site-
specific permit/licence requirements and associated securities and obligations.

Prior to issuance of any permit from Permits & Enforcement (formerly Right-of-Way Management)
section, the applicant shall provide an adequate financial guarantee to ensure the satisfactory
completion of all required work in the City’s rights-of-ways, excluding service connections, pay
26
engineering and inspection fees (5% of the estimated construction cost of the work) and provide
public liability insurance. The applicant is required to contact the City's inspector at least one week
prior to commencing any work within the City's right of way.

Make satisfactory arrangements with Engineering and Construction Services for Work on the
City's ROW and enter into a financially secured Municipal Infrastructure Agreement (MIA), provide
financial security in the amount of $ (to be determined – no HST), submit a 5% engineering and
inspection fee in the amount of $ (to be determined – 5% of security amount plus HST), and
provide insurance as required. The Owner is required to enter into a financially secured Municipal
Infrastructure Agreement (MIA) for work on City's ROW, if there is any work within the travelled
portion of the road or laneway is required, within the pavement area of the public right-of-way,
provide financial security in the amount of $ (to be determined), submit engineering and inspection
fees in the amount of $ (to be determined) and insurance as required in the MIA.

The following is a breakdown of the financial security amount of $ (to be determined) required for
the work on the City’s ROW:

• $ (to be determined) for the installation of a 2.1 metre municipal sidewalk along the entire
Kingston Rd. frontage of this property.
• $ (to be determined) for the roadway/laneway works required for widening;
• $ (to be determined) for boulevard restoration works.
• $ (to be determined) for the proposed access.

In order to obtain approval for work in the City's right-of-way the Owner will be required to provide
up to date stake out information for most construction related work, for further information, please
contact Ontario One Call at 1-800-400-2255 to arrange for an appointment.
Construction Management Plan

We advise the applicant to submit a comprehensive construction management plan for each stage
of the construction process. This plan must illustrate the location of employee/trades parking,
heavy truck access points, material storage, construction site fencing and overhead cranes. We
advise the applicant that they cannot use the municipal right-of-way for construction-related
purposes without receiving written authorization from our Permits and Enforcement (formerly
Right-of-Way Management) section, including payment of the necessary fees.
Encroachments

Any encroachments within Municipal Road Allowances will not be permitted unless they are
explicitly approved by the Permits and Enforcement Section of the Transportation Services
Division. The applicant must contact the section through the permit approval process to obtain the
exact particulars of these requirements. For further information, please contact the Permits and
Enforcement (formerly Right-of-Way Management) Section, Scarborough District, at (416) 396-
7505, or [email protected]
Street Furniture

That approval for all work that will be carried out within the abutting public rights-of-way, which
may include but not be limited to financial responsibility for removal, installation or reinstallation of
existing street furniture (bicycle locking rings, transit shelters, benches, litter bins, etc.). The
property owner must contact Street Furniture Management to co-ordinate the removal, installation
or reinstallation of bicycle locking rings or Astral street furniture. There are costs associated with
the removal, installation and reinstallation of City of Toronto bicycle locking rings and Third Party
27
 Costs for the removal and reinstallation of Astral street furniture. The City and Astral will not
undertake any work associated with the removal, installation and reinstallation of existing street
furniture until it receives payment. If clarification is required on how the above standards will apply
to this site, the applicant can contact the Street Furniture Management Unit at
[email protected].
Toronto Hydro Approval

The applicant must obtain approval from Toronto Hydro Street Lighting Incorporated before
removing and/or relocating any utility with attached municipal street lighting.

Of the need to make separate applications to the General Manager of Transportation Services for
permits to carry out any works involving the construction or occupancy of the abutting public
rights-of-way.
2. Site Servicing Connections
The owner will be required to make an application to Toronto Water Division, 150 Disco Rd, for
the installation of any proposed services within the City right-of-way after acceptance of the
stormwater management report and site servicing plan.

For further information, please contact Toronto Water at [email protected].

These shall include one water and one sanitary service connection for each freehold residential
unit or each single entity development such as a condominium, co-operative or rental property to
be held under separate ownership, plus any necessary storm service connections. The owner is
responsible to provide for the installation of the water, sanitary and any necessary storm service
connections from the building to the City services at the property line.

Servicing on private property requires plumbing approval under the Ontario Building Code, and
accordingly, application for the necessary permits should be made to the Toronto Building
Division.
3. Fire Services
As established by Toronto By-Law, Chapter 880, it is required that an approved fire access route
be provided. An application shall be submitted to Toronto Fire Services prior to occupancy.
4.
The applicant is advised to contact municipal numbering staff at [email protected] to
obtain or verify new municipal addresses prior to submitting a building permit application. It should
be noted that all addressed parcels and structures must have the correct municipal addresses
posted.

Please see https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/municipal-numbering-

of-a-property/ for details.

The municipal addresses will be required for the purpose of setting up the water account with the
City of Toronto when application is made for the proposed sewer and or/water service connection
(as applicable).
5. Construction Management Plan
A Construction Management Plan is to be received by the Chief Engineer & Executive Director of
Engineering and Construction Services showing the following items:

a) Dust/mud control on and offsite

28
 b) Location of truck loading points, trailer parking
c) Location of temporary material storage areas
d) Access/truck routing
e) Provision of hoarding, temporary fencing & covered walkways
f) Location and extent of aerial crane operations
g) Parking for construction trades
h) Procedure to deal with vermin and rodents
6. Toronto Green Standards
The following Toronto Green Standards Tier 1 Performance Measures have, or have not, been
met where appropriate:

AQ 1.1 – Single Occupant Vehicle Trips has not been satisfied

AQ 1.3 – Electric Vehicle Infrastructure has been satisfied
AQ 2.1 – Bicycle Parking Rates has been satisfied
AQ 2.2 – Long – Term Bicycle Parking Location has been satisfied
AQ 2.3 – Short – Term Bicycle Parking Location has been satisfied
AQ 3.1 – Connectivity has been satisfied
AQ 3.2 – Sidewalk Space has not been satisfied
SW 1.1 – Waste Collection and Sorting has been satisfied
SW 1.2 – Waste Storage Space has not been satisfied
SW 1.3 – Bulky Waste has not been satisfied
SW 1.4 – Compaction has been satisfied
WQ 1.1 – Erosion & Sediment Control has been satisfied
WQ 2.1 – Stormwater Retention & Reuse (balance) has not been satisfied
WQ 3.1 – Total suspended solids (TSS) has not been satisfied
7. Street Lighting
Toronto Hydro will assess, comment upon and ultimately approve all proposed street lighting
proposals and the associated changes or additions to the existing street lighting system.
8. Superior Performance Asphalt Pavements
Superpave asphalt mixes is mandatory for all projects in the city of Toronto as per following
specifications.

TS 1101 Material Specification for Performance Graded Asphalt Cement, dated

September 2017
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/995b-ecs-specs-roadspecs-
TS_1101_Sep2017.pdf

TS 1151 Material Specification for Superpave, Stone Mastic and Warm Mix Asphalt,
dated September 2017
https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/98db-ecs-specs-roadspecs-
TS_1151_Sep2017.pdf
9. Construction Dewatering During Excavation
Discharge of Private Water (including but not limited to groundwater, construction wastewater,
etc.) directly or indirectly into City’s sewage works is prohibited under Toronto Municipal Code
(MCC) Chapter 681 – Sewers, unless the subject property has obtained discharge approval in the
form of a Discharge Agreement under MCC 681-6 from Toronto Water, Environmental Monitoring
and Protection Unit.

29
 If the Owner wishes to discharge groundwater to the City’s sewers, the Owner shall apply and
obtain short-term discharge approval from Toronto Water, Environmental Monitoring and
Protection Unit.

In the absence of a short-term discharge approval, the Owner shall ensure any private water
(including but not limited to groundwater, construction wastewater, etc.) collected from the subject
property is hauled away using a Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP)
approved hauler to ensure that no private water is discharged directly or indirectly into the City’s
sewage works and thereby comply with Municipal Code Chapter 681 – Sewers.
F. BACKGROUND
ROADWAYS

The proposed site is located on the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Sharpe Street.
Kingston Road is a six-lane major arterial roadway. No additional land is required for Kingston
Road. The requirement of a 36 metres wide right-of-way has been satisfied.

Sharpe Street is a two-lane, two-way local roadway. This road is not identified in the Official Plan
as a road to be widened.

There is a public lane, Sandown Lane, back side of the property. It has an approximate width of
4.57 metres. A 1.22 metres lane widening is required along the rear of the property to satisfy the
requirement of a 6 metres wide lane right-of-way.
A 5.0 metres corner rounding is required at the southeast corner of the site, the northwest corner
of Kingston Road and Sharpe Street.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The applicant submitted a review of the Transportation Impact and Parking Study, prepared by
Paradigm Transportation Solution Limited, revision date July 2022 in a contest of the Site Plan
Review. The development is proposed a mixed-use condominium building consisting of 198
dwelling units (previously 187). Two retail units with 478 square metres and 7 live-work units are
proposed at grade along Kingston Road.

The consultant considered the following intersections in the Transportation Study:

Kingston Road and Sharpe Street/Ridgemoor Avenue (Signalized), and
Sharpe Street and Sandown lane (Unsignalized),

The consultant estimated that the proposed development will generate 94 (33 Inbound and
61outbound) in the morning peak hour and 110 (66 inbound and 44 outbound) trips in the
afternoon peak hours based on the ITE trip generation land use Code (LUC) 221 Multifamily
Housing (Mid-rise). The capacity analysis for the total future condition indicated that the above-
mentioned intersections would continue to operate with acceptable overall B or better in the
morning and afternoon peak hours without any measures. The level of service of individual turning
movements of the intersections is also 'D' or better. 95th percentile queue length in the total
condition for the eastbound and westbound left turns is less than the available storage length.
Based on the conclusion, the incremental impact of the proposed mixed-use residential
development is considered minor. The existing transportation network can accommodate the
additional site-generate traffic without any geometric improvements. This is acceptable.

30
Based on the report considered the trips generated from the nearest developments. However,
they left to consider trips generated by the nearest development, 2380 Kingston Road. The old
traffic data, which was taken from the City of Toronto, was used for the capacity analysis at the
intersection of Kingston Road and Sharpe Street, considering a 2% growth rate. At the same time,
traffic data was collected from the observations at Sharpe Street and Sandown Lane.

The access to the proposed development is proposed from Sandown Lane. Sandown Lane will
have 5.8 metres width after 1.22 metres of land conveyance, rear of the proposed site.
The consultant has reviewed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan and
recommended the following measures to reduce single-occupant vehicular trips:

Unbundling of residential parking spaces from the unit sale/lease,

Provide less number of parking spaces than the minimum required according to the By-law,
Provide information and communication items that outline the availability of alternative travel
modes to and from the site. This could also include encouraging residents to enroll in the Smart
Commute program, which matches up commuters traveling to and from similar areas,
Provide a high-quality pedestrian realm along the site to enhance and encourage pedestrian
access and walkability,
Encourage bicycle use by providing conveniently located and accessible long-term bicycle
parking facilities in the building and easily and readily accessible short-term bicycle parking
spaces;
Encourage the use of transit by providing transit incentives to purchasers of new residential
units through pre-loaded Presto cards and information packages containing route maps,
schedules and other applicable information which can be shared within a common area or be
distributed to all new residents.

These measures are acceptable to reduce single occupancy vehicles (SOV) and vehicular trips;
however, it cannot be determined the reduction of the percentage of SOV will be 15% as the
consultant reported. Also, the applicant has to determine the amount (Presto card with the 50
rides) proposed to provide occupants as a form of Presto to encourage residents' transit use. It is
recommended to provide a bicycle repair station in the building to facilitate bicycle users.

The City has proposed to install a bike lane along Kingston Road (Cycling Network Near-Term),
between Eglinton Avenue East to Cliffside Drive, in 2022-2024. The applicant has not considered
this plan in the proposal. It might help to reduce vehicular trips.
Based on the vehicle manoeuvering analysis, the consultant concluded that the loading truck,
moving/delivery trucks and passenger vehicles could circulate within the proposed site without
any issues. However, Manoeuvering a garbage truck while exiting, passenger vehicle movements
in opposite directions along the ramp, and passenger car manoeuvering at the corner parking
spaces seem difficult.

A signs and pavement markings plan is not provided with the application. Due to the proposed
curb extension along Kingston Road, a stopping/standing provision should be introduced where
the parking bay exists. Similarly, parking should be prohibited along Sandown Lane. Signage
should be installed to support these regulations. Also, signs and pavement marking within site,
such as loading area, ramp direction, truck entering and exiting alert signs, accessible parking
signs, visitor parking signs and fire route - no parking area should be clearly shown in the signs
and pavement markings plan. These signs and pavement markings should comply with Ontario
Traffic Manuals (books 5, 6, and 11).

31
Access to the site and vehicular circulation, parking, and loading submitted in the Transportation
Study prepared in July 2022 and October 2021 are discussed in the separate topics below.
DRIVEWAY ACCESS AND SITE CIRCULATION

Vehicular access is provided through Sandown Lane, the rear of the property. The width of this
laneway will be about 5.8 metres after the widening of 1.22 metres. The width of the ramp to the
underground parking lot and drive aisle is provided 6.0 metres and more. This is acceptable. Also.
The maximum 15% slope with the 7.5% transition at the top and bottom of the slope is
acceptable; however, the length of these slopes in the ramp is not provided. Also, the length from
the entrance to the site and garage door is not provided. This length should be sufficient for
vehicles to wait for the entrance so that the waiting queue should not interrupt vehicular
movement along Sandown Lane.

The applicant's consultant has provided truck and passenger car manoeuvering diagrams
(drawing No AT1-AT7) in the transportation Study. A garbage truck is touching (AT-7) a parking
space designated for the visitors at the grade while backing from the loading space for the forward
motion. Also, a passenger car manoeuvering diagram (AT2-4) along the ramp and at the critical
parking spaces in the corner has a similar issue. To avoid these issues, a visitor parking space at
the grade and a permanent structure (wall) at the corner parking spaces should move a little
further to provide sufficient space while vehicle manoeuvers.

Based on the vehicle manoeuvering analysis, the consultant concluded that the loading truck,
moving/delivery trucks and passenger vehicles could circulate within the proposed site and
Sandown Lane without any issues. However, manoeuvering a garbage truck while exiting,
passenger vehicle movements in opposite directions along the ramp, and passenger car
manoeuvering at the corner parking spaces seem safety issues. The consultant should confirm
that there are no issues in vehicle manoeuvering with the site entering and/or exiting from the site.
Convex mirrors should install in the parking lots, including ramps at those locations where
sightlines are obstructed or upcoming vehicles cannot be visible within the stopping sight
distance.

The width of the driveway aisle is provided at 6.0 metres, which complies with the By-law. The
maximum grade of the ramp is 15%, with a transition slope of 7.5% at the top and bottom is
acceptable. However, the transition length is not depicted. It should be sufficient for safety and
comfort.

A curb radius is provided at the northeast corner of Sharpe Street and Sandown Lane and
illustrated on the site plan. This is acceptable, but this radius is not shown in the Landscape Plan
and the dimension is not shown. Also, a communication box located at this corner is not proposed
to relocate, as this might obstruct the turning movement of the vehicle.

Vehicles exiting from the site to Sandown Lane may not see upcoming vehicles from both sides.
The exiting vehicles should go further out to see the upcoming vehicle. The applicant should
maintain the property line such that the exiting vehicle can see upcoming vehicles. The length
between the transition slope at the top of the ramp at the grade and Sandown Lane seems short.
The consultant should confirm that this length should be sufficient for 1-2 vehicles, so the queue
of the entering vehicles does not spill on the laneway.
PARKING

The parking requirements for this development are governed by the applicable parking provisions
contained in the Scarborough Community By-law No 9364.
32
Based on the site statistics, drawings and Site Plan Review document, a total of 152 parking
spaces is provided at the grade, P1 and P2 parking levels. Nine of them are proposed for retail. A
total of 203 parking spaces are required to comply with the By-law. The requirement for parking
spaces is shown in table 1 below. Fifty-one parking spaces is less than the minimum required.

A calculation of required minimum and maximum parking spaces based on the By-law 569-2013
is shown below in table 1 for comparison purposes. Based on the calculations, the required
minimum number of parking spaces for the proposed development is six and the required
maximum number of parking spaces is 212.

The minimum dimensions of parking spaces should be 2.6 metres in width, 5.6 metres in length
and a vertical clearance of 2.0 meters. The dimensions of most of the parking spaces are
provided in the relevant drawings/plans. The dimensions of a few parking spaces are still missing.
The width of a parking space should increase by 0.3 metres if space is obstructed by a fixed
object such as a wall, column, fence, or pipe and they are more than 1.0 metre from the front or
rear of the parking space, an extra clearance of 0.3 metres should be provided. Dimensions of
each parking space with the obstructed object are depicted in the relevant plans. This is
acceptable. Three parking spaces are proposed for small cars where 0.3 metres clearance is not
available.
`
Five (three on P1 and 2 on P2) out of 152 parking spaces are proposed for barrier-free parking.
All of them are proposed for residents. These parking spaces are proposed close to the elevators.
This is acceptable. Barrier-free parking spaces are not proposed for visitors. Based on the By-law
569-2013, a minimum of 7 barrier-free parking spaces (effective parking space =185 spaces))
should be provided in this development. As per By-law (Ch. 200.15.10.10) "if the number of
effective parking spaces is more than 100, a minimum of 5 parking spaces plus 1 parking space
for every 50 effective parking spaces or part thereof in excess of 100 parking spaces must comply
with all regulations for an accessible parking space in Section 200.15".

The dimensions provided in the plans, the width of the parking space is proposed at 3.4 metres
with 1.5 metres of the barrier-free aisle. These dimensions comply with the By-law.

The minimum drive aisle is provided at 6.0 metres. The applicant’s traffic consultant (Paradigm
transportation solutions) provided passenger car manoeuvering diagrams at a few critical
locations such as ramps and corner parking spaces. Based on the diagram, the passenger car
turning path overlaps with the turning path of the vehicle in the opposite direction. The swept path
analysis diagram shows that passenger cars are unsafe to turn at critical locations. Therefore, the
consultant should revise these analyses. Two passenger cars in opposite directions should be
passed safely and acceptably at those locations. Convex mirrors should be installed at critical
locations where sightlines are obstructed and do not have sufficient stopping sight distance. Also,
it is suggested to install signs to direct and alert drivers before reaching these critical locations.

33
 Table 1. The required number of parking spaces based on the by-law 9364, 569-
2013 and parking spaces provided on the site.

The applicant should provide signs and pavement marking plans within the site. Signs
should be installed for all designated parking spaces, such as visitor parking, barrier-free
parking and EVSE parking. The proposed signs and pavement markings should not
conflict with the Ontario Traffic Manuals (Volumes 5, 6 and 11). Visitors' parking and
resident parking should be separated by physical means.

It was mentioned that 30 (20% of 152 parking spaces) EVSE parking spaces are
proposed to provide. They will be on the P1 parking level. But EVSE parking spaces are
not illustrated in the plans. It is also mentioned that all car parking spaces will be
designed to permit future EVSE infrastructure. This is acceptable.

The bicycle parking requirements for this development are governed by the applicable
parking provisions contained in the Scarborough Community By-law No 9364. A total of
149, long-term 119 and short-term 30, bicycle parking spaces are required. A total of
158, 128 long-term and 30 short-term, bicycle parking spaces are provided in the
proposed development. Nine long-term bike parking spaces are more than the minimum
required.

The long-term bicycle parking spaces are proposed at P1 parking level in the secure
room. At the same time, short-term bicycle parking spaces are proposed at the grade at
three locations. They are visible and accessible to all visitors. The location of long-term
and short-term bicycle parking spaces is acceptable.

The calculation of required bicycle parking spaces based on the By-law 569-2013 is also
shown in table 2 below for comparison purposes. Based on these calculations, the
required minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for the proposed development is
155, long-term 136 and short-term 19.

The bicycle parking space must comply with the minimum dimensions, 1.8 metres (if the
bicycle will be parked horizontally) or 1.2 metres (If a bicycle will be parked vertically) in
length, 0.6 metres in width and a vertical clearance of 1.9 metres. The dimension of the
proposed bicycle parking spaces are not provided, but a typical bike rack specification is
provided.
Table 2. The required bicycle parking spaces are based on the by-law 9364 and
569-2013

A working station (bicycle repair station) is not provided in the proposed

development. The minimum dimensions of the bicycle maintenance facility must be 1.8
in length, 2.6 m in width and a vertical clearance of 1.9 metres.

The City's near-term bike lane implementation program along Kingston Road (Cycling
Network Near-Term), between Eglinton Avenue East to Cliffside Drive, will increase
demand of bike parking spaces in the building. The applicant has not consider this plan in
the proposal.
LOADING

The loading space requirements for this site are based on the By-law 569-2013. Based on this by-
law, a minimum of one Type "G" loading space (one for 31 to 399 dwelling units) should be
34
provided in the proposed development. No loading space is requiredfor the retail space with area
of o to 499 square metres. One Type "G" loading space is provided in this development. This is
acceptable. Type G loading space means a loading space that is a minimum of 4.0 metres wide,
13.0 metres long and has a minimum vertical clearance of 6.1 metres. The dimensions (8.19
metres in width and a vertical clearance of 6.26 metres) of the loading space provided. It comply
with By-law 569-2013.

The loading vehicle circulation diagrams are provided in the Transportation Study, prepared by
Paradigm Transportation Solutions. The loading vehicles can enter, manoeuver within the site and
exit from the site. A parking space on the right side is touching while backing in the process of
exiting. The parking space should be adjusted. Also, a loading/delivery truck uses Sandown Lane
while backing in the exiting process. It will be a safety issue for other users. The applicant has
confirmed that a trained person, building staff, will be present and work as a flag person to control
other users, vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, while loading vehicles and delivery trucks enter,
manoeuver within the site and exit from the site. Parking prohibitions signs and markings within
the loading space should be provided so loading space will be free from parking.
TORONTO GREEN STANDARDS

This site must comply with Toronto Green Standards (TGS) Version 3.0. A Version 3.0 checklist
was provided by the applicant and addressed the following sections:

AQ 1.1 (Single Occupant Vehicle Trips): The applicant has provided Transportation Demand
Management Plan to reduce single occupant vehicular trips, such as unbundling parking space to
discourage vehicular ownership, provision to provide Presto card with a certain amount in the sale
or lease to attract transit use, providing bicycle parking spaces, providing information package and
provide good connectivity for walking and cycling.

AQ 1.3 (Electric vehicle infrastructure): The applicant has provided 20% (30 spaces) EVSE
parking spaces and mentioned that all parking spaces will be designed to permit future EVSE
infrastructure.

AQ 2.1 (Bicycle parking Rates): The bicycle parking rates are based on the Scarborough
Community By-law No 9364. Bicycle parking spaces are provided more than the minimum
requirement, especially long-term bicycle parking spaces.

AQ 2.2 (Long-term Bicycle Parking Location): The long-term bicycle parking spaces are located in
secure places on Level P1.

AQ 2.3 (Short-term Bicycle Parking Location): All 30 short-term bicycle parking spaces are
proposed at the grade at three locations. They are visible and accessible to visitors.

A, AQ 3.1 (Connectivity): The main pedestrian entrance into the building is fronting Kingston
Road. A 2.1 metres sidewalk is proposed to provide along Kingston Road. This is connected to
the transit stops.

AQ 3.2 (Sidewalk Space): An n existing substandard sidewalks along Kingston Road and Sharpe
Street are proposed to replace a new 2.1 metres wide public sidewalk, which should be clear of
any obstructions.
SIDEWALKS / BOULEVARDS / STREETSCAPING

CURB EXTENSION
35
A proposal for a curb extension along Kingston Road fronting the proposed development is
shown in the relevant plans by the applicant. This proposal will provide public realm, street
furniture, greenery and open space for the public as well as for the retails and residents. At
least five parking spaces will be lost by providing this curb extension in comparison with the
existing condition.

The soil volume may not be sufficient for the trees, as shown in the plan, without expanding
soil cells to the sidewalks. It may impact the water mains, which is along the boulevard.
However, it can't be said till the updated landscape plan with detail dimensions is not
received. Also, it should be noted that the associated cost of this curb extension, including
relocation of the catchment basin, will be a part of the proposed development and it should be
constructed according to the City standard. Also, Toronto Water should be consulted in the
design and construction process.

The applicant is required to prepare a sign and pavement marking plan in conjunction with
this curb extension, such as stopping prohibition in front of the curb extension. The curb taper
should be designed and constructed as per the City's Curb Extension Guidelines. The curb
taper ratio should be from 3:2 (minimum) to 1:1 (maximum) and curb taper radii should be a
maximum of 3.0 metres to a minimum of 2.0 metres.

SIDEWALK
Based on the ground floor and landscape drawings, the applicant is replacing existing
substandard sidewalks with new 2.1 metres wide sidewalks along Kingston Road and Sharpe
Street. This is acceptable. But the widened sidewalks should be free from any obstructions
such as light poles, fire hydrants, and communication boxes. A horizontal clearance of 1.0
metre must be provided to all edges of the fire hydrant. A clearance must be provided
between the utility pole and the edge of the new municipal sidewalk. Also, the clearances
must be dimensioned for the reconstructed 2.1 metres wide municipal sidewalks. The
sidewalk should be designed and constructed according to the City of Toronto's design
standard T-310.010-2. A transition (5:1) should be provided at both ends of the new sidewalks
at Kingston Road and Sharpe Street behind the property line.

UNIT PAVER
Unit pavers along the curb extension within the boulevard area are recommended, other than
the required pedestrian clearway. The owner will be required to provide a one-time lump sum
fee to cover future maintenance. The owner will be required to pay for a cash-in-lieu of
maintenance fee of $59.43/m2 of the total unit paving area and possibly an additional
percentage of up to 15% of the above fee for complex designs. The final cost and collection of
these fees will be a part of the streetscape permit process.

TTC BUS STOP

As per TTC, The applicant has provided the concrete platform with the dimensions of 16
metres in length and 2.4 metres in width for the westbound bus stop on Kingston Road, east
of Sharpe Street, the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Sharpe Street. The bus shelter
is proposed to rebuild within the platform. It should be relocated behind the sidewalk, close to
the property line.

BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT

36
The site plan and landscape drawings should be designed to demonstrate compliance with
the City standard, conform to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), and
support the requirements of the City's Complete Streets and Pedestrian Priority Guidelines.

The applicant must ensure that any streetscape designs proposed within the municipal right-
of-way comply with the requirements of this Division. We emphasise that anything other than
municipal sidewalks, street trees and sod are encroachments that the property owner must
recognize in either a site plan or encroachment agreement that is registered on title to the
property. The property owner is responsible for designing, constructing and maintaining these
encroachments. The applicant will be financially responsible for all proposed work within the
municipal boulevard, as identified on the approved drawings, including but not limited to the
reconstruction of the sidewalks, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive
Director of Engineering and Construction Services.

The applicant must restore those sections of the municipal boulevard where they propose to
close existing driveway(s), replace the access point(s) with appropriate landscaping and
continuously poured raised concrete curbs.
Community Planning – Christian Ventresca – April 17, 2023
Connecting and Expanding the Public Realm
27. City Planning staff request a meeting to determine and appropriate public art
process for the site.
Location and Organization Relative to Streets and Open Space
28. The overall site organization should be adjusted to provide additional at grade
landscaping and tree planting opportunities to ensure meeting requirements for TGS
"Total Soil Volume". See comments under Toronto Green Standard.
Parking and Servicing
29. Consider removing a few proposed at grade parking spaces at the rear of the building
to provide opportunities for tree planting and to achieve required TGS Total Soil
Volume. See the below sketch.

Pedestrian and Cycling Connections

30. As per the Cliffside Village Urban Design Guidelines, Bike racks should be
placed in highly active pedestrian areas throughout Cliffside Village. This
includes the main entrances of buildings and near transit stops. Relocate the

37
 proposed bike parking spaces at the North West corner of the site closer to the main
lobby entrance.
31. As previously discussed relocation of some of the existing above grade utilities close
to the intersection of Kingston Rd and Sharpe Street might be required to achieve
2.1m clearway for pedestrian sidewalk. Please update site plan to confirm all the
location and labelling on the drawings are accurate. TP/TS and ECS staff to comment
further.
Building Massing and Design
32. As discussed, remove the mechanical penthouse at the 11th storey and update all the
drawings.
33. New buildings over 1000m2 are to incorporate within the building design recognition of
the Architect of Record or primary Design Architect. The lettering for this recognition
must cover an area of at least 0.2m by 0.3m, or 0.06 square metres and be located
near the main entrance or on a prominent façade of the structure. 1:50 colour
elevations are to indicate the location and specifications for the recognition.
34. As previously discussed please confirm the proposed finished floor elevation for the
live work units along Kingston Road are at the same level as the public sidewalk.
35. The secondary entrance to the retail space should be relocated at Sharpe Street
closer to the intersection (See Figure 2). Ensure consistency between landscape
drawings and Architectural drawings.
Amenity Area
36. Please provide a breakdown for the proposed indoor amenity space calculations.
37. Clarify the proposed use for ground floor indoor amenity space that is located close to
the loading area. There is a discrepancy between the architectural set and landscape
drawings. On the landscape drawing it is shown as bike storage and has a different
area. Please clarify and note that bike storage is not counted as indoor amenity space.
38. Provide programming details for the indoor amenity area. Indoor amenity areas to
meet the needs of all types of users. Consider flexible multi-use space that can be
used for communal gathering and includes a full kitchen; homework room with wi-fi for
teens located in a visible area; and toddler playrooms. Add notations on the drawings.
Pedestrial-Level Wind Conditions
39. Provide details and notations on the drawings for the proposed wind screening
railings.
Sun/Shadow Study
40. As discussed before update the sun/shadow study as per below:
f. Update the massing as per above comments for the removal of mechanical
penthouse at 11th storey.
g. Include the existing detached garages of the properties on north side of Sandown
Lane.
h. Show property lines for properties in the surrounding areas.
i. Show public sidewalks on the diagrams.
j. In the SketchUp model, include the models based on Kingston Rd. ZBL and Mid-
rise Performance Standards as well as all the angular planes.
Planning for Children
38
 41. A critical mass of family-sized units is to be provided within this development.\ Unit
layouts should reflect minimum family-size targets; two bedrooms 87 - 90m2 (936 -
969sf); and three bedroom 100 - 106m2 (1076 - 1140sf). Confirm compliance with this
requirement.
42. The proposed building should provide a minimum of 25% large units as per Growing
Up Study and Guidelines: 10% of the units should be three bedroom units and 15% of
the units should be two bedroom units. This requirement has not been met.
Community Planning staff to comment further.
Landscape Plans and Details
43. Opportunities for tree planting throughout the site should be maximized and hard
surfaces minimized to ensure appropriate planting conditions. See comments under
parking and servicing.
44. In coordination with Urban Forestry, please explore feasibility of adding additional
trees along Sharpe Street.
45. Provide the following additional information/drawings:
c. On the site plan and landscape plan provide dimensions for all pedestrian
accesses to residential units, at grade terraces and rear setback.
d. A Grading Plan as part of landscape drawings, with top-of-wall and bottom-of-wall
elevations for all retaining walls and planters;
Soil Volume Plans
2. Ensure there is consistency between the Soil Volume Plans and the Soil Volume
Chart. Provide the additional information/drawings:
e. Update the Soil Volume Chart to include a column for soil cells and their area,
depths, and volume. Areas where trees are not proposed are not to be included in
soil volume calculations. (Soil area 3, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
f. Use different colours to clearly outline each soil volume boundary in the Soil
Volume Plan.
g. Increase soil depth for soil area 12A by lowering parking slab.
h. Provide minimum 30m3 for the proposed tree at north east side of the site and
include the volume in the calculations.
Building/Landscape Design for Residential Units at Grade along Sharpe Street
46. Front entrances and patios along local streets: The encroachment of elements such as
canopies, porches, terraces, and planters in the front yard setback areas should not
exceed 50% of the min. setback. Provide dimensions for the at grade units along
Sharpe St and confirm compliance with this standard.
47. Consolidate the entrances of the at-grade units to maximize soft landscaping. See
below sketch.
48. Extend soft landscaping to encroach into the public ROW area to create a larger
landscaping area. See below sketch.

39
Trees and Environment
49. Provide a cross section through the proposed tree planting along Sandown Lane.
Provide the following:
c. Consider lowering the parking slab to avoid too high edges for the proposed
raised planters along the laneway.
d. Clearly show the grading relation to the adjacent residential terraces.
Streetscape Improvements
50. Update the street cross sections to show the existing hydro poles and cables along
Sharpe Street. There might be conflict with the proposed location for tree planting. UF
to comment further.
51. As discussed eliminate planting directly in front of live-work units to ensure they read
as continuous commercial spaces.
52. Location of TTC bus stop to be coordinated with TP/TS staff. Refer to TTC comments.
Lighting
34. Provide the following.
c. A photometric plan showing lighting levels across the site; and
d. A Lighting Plan showing the locations, details/images of the lighting standards
and fixtures; ensure that all lighting fixtures are cut-off lights.
Utilities
35. Utilities and service connections are to be located away from public streets, walkways,
corners, entrances and/or integrated within building massing and landscape design.
Trees, plantings and other landscape features are to be coordinated with existing and
proposed utilities.
40
 36. Clearly indicate the proposed location for the transformer.
37. Provide landscaping or architectural screening for the proposed gas meter at the rear.
Toronto Green Standard
38. The proposal is to meet the Tier 1 requirements and is encouraged to pursue
higher Tier standards of the TGS.
39. Urban Forest: Increase Tree Canopy (EC 1.)
b. EC 1.1 Total soil volume: This standard is not met. 79% of the required soil
volume is proposed as per the statistics. Increase tree planting throughout the site
to meet this standard. Provide additional tree planting areas. As well increase the
proposed depth of 0.6m for some of the soil areas.
Policy Planning Comments
Housing

41