At its special meeting held on December 8, 1997, City Council gave consideration to the attached Clause 2, contained in Executive Committee Report No. 26 titled, AAdvertising Signage on Outdoor Telephone Booths - Metropolitan Toronto Road Allowances@.

Council took the following action:

1. Requested Metro Council to defer its consideration of Bell Canada=s proposal to erect signage for the purposes of third party advertising on outdoor telephone booths within the rights-of-way of certain Metro roads until the new City of Toronto Council has had an opportunity to review this request in light of the decision of the former City of Toronto to not permit this type of signage within the City=s road allowances.

2. Directed that, if Metro Council chooses to permit these signs on outdoor telephone booths, it exclude those portions of the Metropolitan rights-of-way that exist within the former City of Toronto boundaries from any agreement.

Council=s action is forwarded to you for your information and any necessary action.

Yours truly,

Assistant City Clerk

___tk

IR

Attach.

cc: Commissioner of Urban Development Services

New City Council

Administrator, Land Use Committee

Douglas Floyd, Metropolitan Commissioner of Transportation, 17th Floor, Station 1170, 55 John Street, Metro Hall, Toronto ON M5V 3C6

All Interested Persons (no attach.)

2

1. That City Council request Metro Council to defer its consideration of Bell Canada=s proposal to erect signage for the purposes of third party advertising on outdoor telephone booths within the rights-of-way of certain Metro roads until the new City of Toronto Council has had an opportunity to review this request in light of the decision of the former City of Toronto to not permit this type of signage within the City=s road allowances.

2. That, if Metro Council chooses to permit these signs on outdoor telephone booths, it exclude those portions of the Metropolitan rights-of-way that exist within the former City of Toronto boundaries from any agreement.

Comments:

1.0 Background

At its meeting of November 25, 1997, the Metro Planning and Transportation Committee considered a report dated November 21, 1997 from the Metropolitan Commissioner of Transportation which recommended entering into an agreement with Bell Canada concerning the installation of illuminated advertising signs on Bell Canada telephone booths on Metropolitan rights-of-way, subject to the terms outlined in his report.

The Metro Planning and Transportation Committee recommended that AMetropolitan Council approve, in principle, the concept of installing illuminated commercial advertising on telephone booths operated and maintained by Bell Canada on Metropolitan rights-of-way, subject to the booth siting for each location being approved by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service at Bell Canada=s expense@.

The Metro Planning and Transportation Committee also requested the Commissioner of Transportation to renegotiate the financial aspects of the proposed agreement for the installation of advertising panels on telephone booths and explore the feasibility of entering into a one-year agreement with Bell Canada, such agreement to be renegotiated at the end of the one year term.

The Commissioner was requested to report directly to Metro Council on this matter at its meeting of December 10, 1997. This matter was drawn to my attention by City Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczysnki.

2.0 The City of Toronto=s Position

In 1994, at the request of City Council, an extensive Request For Proposals process was conducted by the Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment to expand the advertising program for signage on street furniture, equipment, kiosks and other structures within the City=s road allowances beyond the current transit shelter program. In his report, dated May 24, 1995, the Commissioner recommended against the expansion of citywide advertising programs beyond the current transit shelter program. He cited concerns about the widespread proliferation of commercial advertising within the public road allowances which had to be weighed against the benefits of potential revenue generation. He also noted that the City had expended considerable resources over the years to improve commercial streets and promote aesthetic, streamlined designs for street furniture and facilities.

In June, 1995, City Council adopted the report recommendations of the Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment and decided not to expand its advertising program within the City=s road allowances.

My report dated December 2, 1996, indicated several planning concerns with respect to a proposal by Bell Canada to install signage on their existing telephone booths and substantially increase the number of telephone booths (all of which would contain advertising panels) within the City=s road allowances. My report discussed issues related to the proliferation of third party signage both on private property and within the City=s road allowances. There are already a number of competing interests in the road allowances, including vending, marketing areas, boulevard cafes, transit shelters, street furniture and postering on utility poles, so the amount of space in many of the high pedestrian traffic areas, which include Metropolitan road allowances, is limited.

Notwithstanding the revenue potential of this proposal, City Council decided that third party signs on outdoor telephone booths were inappropriate. At its meeting of January 13 and 14, 1997, City Council adopted the recommendations of the Land Use Committee which recommended that advertising signage on outdoor telephone booths on private property not be permitted and that City Council confirm its previous decision (June 5, 1995) not to expand citywide advertising within the City=s road allowances beyond the current transit shelter program.

3.0 Conclusions

In his November 21, 1997, report to the Metro Planning and Transportation Committee, the Metropolitan Commissioner of Transportation suggested that the City of Toronto=s concerns about additional street advertising outweighed the revenue opportunities and other benefits associated with this proposal. He added that there is a large degree of subjectivity associated with weighing the pros and cons of this kind of proposal, and in the end, a political decision is required. It is important to note that there was no consultation with the City of Toronto on this matter.

If Metro Council permits these signs on telephone booths in the Metropolitan rights-of-way within the City of Toronto, signage regulations on current City and Metro road allowances will be contradictory. There will be a significant streetscape impact on main streets. Likely, the downtown high pedestrian areas will be prime locations for Bell to erect new telephone booths with signage, as their representatives have indicated that this is the primary target market area for their program.

At its July 29,1997 meeting, the Metro Planning and Transportation Committee has also received several communications in objection to this proposal, two of which were from City Councillors John Adams and Chris Korwin-Kuczysnki along with an objection by Metro Councillor Ila Bossons. In addition, representatives of two City of Toronto residents associations expressed concerns, as well as the General Manager of the Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A. The Past President of the Seven Oaks Community Association from the City of Scarborough also registered his objections to Metro Council, at its meeting of August 13 and 14, 1997.

Notwithstanding these objections, the Commissioner of Transportation and the Metro Planning and Transportation Committee are recommending to Metro Council that it enter into a ten year agreement with Bell Canada to erect new telephone booths with signs and install signs on existing booths within the Metropolitan rights-of-way.

For the reasons stated above, I am recommending that City Council request Metro Council to defer consideration of this matter until the new City Council meets in January, 1998. This proposal has citywide implications and a consistent approach is warranted. Failing this, I would recommend that City Council request Metro Council to exclude all of the Metropolitan rights-of-way that are located within the City of Toronto=s boundaries from the proposed agreement with Bell Canada.