TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on May 13 and 14, 1998

URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 6

1 1998 City Planning Work Program.

2 Prevention of Suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct: Mental Health Reform/Public Education and Safety Measures.

3 The Toronto Harbour Commissioners:Bill C-9 - The Canada Marine Act- Planning and Related Issues.

4 Proposed Amendments to the Railway Safety Act Municipal Enforcement of Train Speed Limits/Fencing Requirements.

5 Appointments to the Boards of Management for Business Improvement Areas and Amendments to the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas - Various Wards.

6 1998 Budgets - Business Improvement Areas.

7 1998 Membership in Ontario Traffic Conference.

8 Temporary Standing Prohibition on Dundas Street West, in Front of the Art Gallery of Ontario.

9 Safety and Operational Road Improvements for 1998.

10 Contract No. T-25-98: Prince Edward Viaduct - Don Section, Span 4 Cleaning, Painting and Repair of Structural Steel.

11Contract No. T-29-98:Bloor Street Westbound Bridge OverDundas Street Eastbound--Structure Rehabilitation.

12Contract No. T-37-98:Frederick G. Gardiner Expressway High Mast Lighting

Installation--Windermere Avenue to Dufferin Street

13Award of Contract No. 330:Asphalt Resurfacing, Pavement Repairsand Some Associated Concrete Sidewalkand Curb Repairs at Various Locations inthe City of Toronto, Scarborough District.

14Rehabilitation of the Existing Bridge Deck on theGlen Road Bridge Between South Drive andBeaumont Road - Award of Contract No. 59690.

15 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Dundas Street West and Montrose Avenue.

16 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Islington Avenue, North of Winnipeg Road.

17 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Birchmount Road and 2450/2500 Birchmount Road Driveway (Site Access to Stephen Leacock Collegiate Institute,John Buchan Senior Public School/Stephen Leacock Arena and Community Centre).

18 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Progress Avenue and William Kitchen Road.

19 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals Overlea Boulevard and William Morgan Drive

20 Proposed Introduction of a U-Turn Prohibition:Kipling Avenue in the Vicinity of the Ramp from Westbound Dundas Street West to Northbound Kipling Avenue

21 Amendments to Parking Meter Operationon Spadina Avenue, Between Queen Street and Spadina Crescent.

22 Tree Removal from the Municipal Road Right-of-Way at 77 Finch Avenue West.

23 Other Items Considered by the Committee.

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 6

OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on April 20, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on May 13 and 14, 1998

1

1998 City Planning Work Program.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the report (March 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services subject to:

(a)amending section (3), entitled "Community Projects", sub-section (a), entitled "Local Area Studies and Implementation", of the 1998 Research and Policy Program as follows:

(i)amending Project No. (7), Humber Bay Shores, by striking out the description embodied therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"Co-ordinates staff, agency, private sector, and consultant interests to create a comprehensive design for the Central site within this area. Initiated by the former Etobicoke Council.";

(ii)amending Project No. (9), Downsview Secondary Plan, by striking out the description embodied therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"Responds to the closure of CFB Downsview and several specific applications, resulting in a Secondary Plan for the Downsview lands and vicinity."; and

(iii)amending Project No. (11), Allen Sheppard Study, by striking out the description embodied therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"Primarily an urban design study addressing three corners on the north and south-east sides of Sheppard Avenue at the W.R.Allen Road. Design guidelines and possible changes to the permitted mix of uses at the corners are anticipated. An open process for the design of the City-owned land will be developed in consultation with the community and local Councillors."; and

(iv)adding thereto the following new Project No. (48):

"Kingston Road Study. To develop a vision for the revitalization of Kingston Road between the Canadian National Railway at the Guildwood GO Station easterly to Lawson Road; terms of reference to be similar to the first stage of study between Brimley Road and the Guildwood GOStation."; and

(b)amending section (3), entitled "Community Projects", sub-section (b), entitled "Updating Planning Regulations", of the 1998 Research and Policy Program by adding thereto the following new Project No. (17):

"Townhouse Zoning, Development Standards. Develops Comprehensive Standards for Townhouse Projects. Initiated by the former Etobicoke Council in 1997."; and

(2)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested:

(a)to include in the 1998 City Planning Work Program, the start of a planning review to determine:

(i)an appropriate redevelopment strategy for those lands and buildings which may become available as a result of school closures within the City of Toronto; and

(ii)whether it is necessary to acquire some of these sites, in whole or in part, for municipal purposes;

having regard for community requirements such as parks and recreation, and noting that most school yards are used by neighbours as a form of open, public space, in some instances acting as an extension of an adjacent public park;

(b)to identify whether the Standards for Row Housing study is underway and should be included in this Work Program; and

(c)in conjunction with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and in consultation with the Scarborough community and businesses, to provide staff support for the co-ordination of a Business Creation and Employment Centre at the Scarborough Civic Centre.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (March6,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report presents the 1998 city planning work program for amalgamated Urban Planning and Development Services. The work program seizes the opportunity produced by the creation of the new city to amalgamate the diverse planning activities of the seven former departments. The program addresses both city-wide issues and local community concerns.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are sufficient resources to undertake the work within the budget submitted by the Department.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Urban Environment and Development Committee endorse the planning research and policy work program of Urban Planning and Development Services detailed in this report; and

(2)request the Clerk to place this report on the April 1, 1998 agenda for all Community Council meetings with a request that any comments from the Community Councils be forwarded to the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Background:

At the January 12, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, you were notified that a report from Urban Planning and Development Services regarding its proposed work program for planning policy and research would be presented to the Committee in the first quarter of 1998. A substantial portion of this work program includes ongoing work initiated by the former Councils.

Comments:

The Department's city planning work consists of two major interrelated programs:

(1)the processing and approval of over 4,000 development applications; and

(2)a broad array of research and policy work, including the analyses needed to produce a new official plan.

About two-thirds of our efforts are devoted to processing development applications. The volume of applications grew in 1997, as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. We anticipate that 1998 volumes will meet or exceed 1997 levels. As part of the process of amalgamation we have determined the best practices for efficiently processing these applications, and these are the subject of another report on this agenda.

The other one-third of our city planning work is an extensive program of research and policy initiatives to solve urban problems and implement projects, city-wide and local. The program responds to the challenges inevitable in a large dynamic city. These challenges, often brought to us by Council on behalf of communities, include meeting housing needs, effective transportation, commercial revitalization, neighbourhood improvement, high quality urban design, environmental protection and green space preservation.

The research and policy program develops both immediate solutions and broader policies and initiatives, including a number of projects which could also provide input to a new official plan, the subject of another report on this agenda. Effective policies guide the review of the development applications the Department receives, and these applications in turn often point to issues to be addressed in this and future work programs.

The program:

(1)recognizes priorities for continuing to ensure a high quality of life in the city;

(2)includes a large number of local area projects dealing with individual neighbourhoods and locales throughout the city;

(3)addresses the city's key role in the Greater Toronto Area, and recognizes the city's potential to be a major influence in provincial and national affairs;

(4)improves customer service through effective procedures to maintain up-to-date official plans and by-laws and provides demographic and land use information to Members of Council, other municipal departments and the public;

(5)contributes to corporate policy development and decision-making, including capital budget priorities, development charges, housing, the Olympics, and social services; and

(6)provides thorough research, solid information and technical capability to support development applications, policy and plan development, local area projects and Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearings.

The program targets key priorities for the changing city as well as the essential services and activities which support the Department's mandate. The program consists of 131 projects, many merged as a result of amalgamation. The projects are grouped in four broad categories:

(1)City Building:

(a)Liveable Neighbourhoods;

(b)Environmental and Green Space Planning; and

(c)Urban Design.

(2)The City in its Region:

(a)Planning in the GTA;

(b)Framework for Economic Growth and Investment; and

(c)Transportation Planning.

(3)Community Projects:

(a)Local Area Studies and Implementation; and

(b)Updating Planning Regulations.

(4)Research Support and Customer Service.

The approximate proportion of our work which falls into each of these categories is shown in Figure3.

Research and Policy Program:

The program categories and their constituent 1998 projects are summarized below.

(1) City Building:

(a)Liveable Neighbourhoods:

People relate to their city at the neighbourhood level. A number of important issues affect the liveability of neighbourhoods, including choice, affordability, access to community services, and health and safety. Changing populations and economic conditions present a challenge to keeping our neighbourhoods liveable and vibrant. The emphasis in this program element is to identify and address pressing housing and community support issues affecting neighbourhoods across the city.

This program will require full use of the Department's existing resources for 1998, which are contingent on budget approval for staffing and other costs. Council and Committee requests for additional policy work throughout the year may result in shifts in project priorities or delays in some outputs.

Conclusions:

The amalgamated work program reflects the shared objectives and priorities of the seven former municipalities. It responds to the demands of the unified city as well as to the needs of the city's constituent communities.

Contact Name:

Mr. David Gurin, Metro Hall Office, 392-8771.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following Committee Transmittal (April4, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Etobicoke Community Council on April 1, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(a)project (3)(a)7. (Pg. 11), Humber Bay Shores be modified to read: "Co-ordinates staff, agency, private sector, and consultant interests to create a comprehensive design for the Central site within this area. Initiated by the former Etobicoke Council."; and

(b)the project Townhouse Zoning, Development Standards, originally moved back to 1999, be brought forward to the 1998 Work Program, under (3)(b)17. (Pg. 16) Updating Planning Regulations, with the following description: "Develops comprehensive standards for townhouse projects. Initiated by the former Etobicoke Council in 1997.".

Background:

The Etobicoke Community Council had before it a Committee Transmittal (March 24, 1998) from the CityClerk, advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on March 23 and24, 1998, during consideration of the 1998 City Planning Work Program, concurred with Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report (March 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, viz:

"(2)that the City Clerk be requested to place a copy of this report on the April1,1998 agenda for all Community Council meetings, with a request that any comments from the Community Councils be forwarded to the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.".

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following Committee Transmittal (April4, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The North York Community Council on April 1, 1998, concurred with the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee embodied in the Committee Transmittal (March24, 1998) from the City Clerk, save and except for the description of Project No. (9) appearing in Part (1)(a)(ii) of the Committee's recommendation which it recommends be amended to read as follows:

"Responds to the closure of CFB Downsview and several specific applications. Included in the study for the purposes of establishing appropriate principles of land use and density are the City (formerly Metro) owned lands at the south east corner of Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue West. The study will result in a Secondary Plan for the area, as well as rezoning to permit specific developments on the CFB Downsview lands."

Background:

The North York Community Council had before it a Committee Transmittal (March 24, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding a copy of a report (March 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to all Community Councils for their comments on the 1998 City Planning Work Program, and requesting that any comments be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration at its meeting of April 20, 1998.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following Committee Transmittal (April6, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting held on Thursday, April 2, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to provide staff support to co-ordinate a Business Creation and Employment Centre at the Scarborough Civic Centre, in conjunction with the Scarborough community and businesses; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to modify Section (3) (a), entitled: "Community Projects - Local Area Studies and Implementation", of the 1998 Research and Policy Program - Projects, by adding thereto the following:

"Kingston Road Study - to develop a vision for the revitalization of KingstonRoad between the Canadian National Railway at the Guildwood GOStation easterly to Lawson Road; terms of reference to be similar to the first stage of study between Brimley Road and the Guildwood GO Station".

Background:

The Scarborough Community Council had before it correspondence from the City Clerk, dated March24, 1998, forwarding a copy of the report (March 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, respecting the 1998 City Planning Work Program, and advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998 concurred with Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report, viz:

"(2)that the City Clerk be requested to place a copy of this report on the April 1, 1998 agenda for all Community Council meetings, with a request that any comments from the Community Councils be forwarded to the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee."

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (April 17, 1998) from Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, Scarborough Civic Centre:

On Monday April 20, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee will have before it Item No. 2(c), referred by the Scarborough Community Council.

At the time this issue was considered at the Community Council meeting of April 2, 1998, the position of Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism had not been confirmed. However, given the recent confirmation of Mr. Joe Halstead to the above position, I would respectfully suggest that the issue of a Business Creation and Employment Centre at the Scarborough Civic Centre should be referred to his attention.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this report.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following Committee Transmittal (April6, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The East York Community Council reports, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, having received the Committee Transmittal (March 24, 1998) from the City Clerk requesting comments from the East York Community Council on the 1998 City Planning Work Program.

The East York Community Council reports having requested the Interim Functional Lead for Planning to report on policies for the O'Connor Employment Area in conjunction with the planning application submitted by Mr. Goldman for 1590 O'Connor Drive.

Background:

The East York Community Council, at its meeting held on April 1, 1998, had before it a communication (March 24, 1998) from the City Clerk requesting comments from the East York Community Council to the April 20, 1998, Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting regarding the 1998 City Planning Work Program.

Mr. Murray Goldman, The Goldman Group, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following Committee Transmittal (April14, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The York Community Council reports having requested the York Commissioner of Development Services to report to the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, on York's proposed work program in relation to the 1998 City Planning Work Program.

Background:

The York Community Council, at its meeting held on April 1, 1998, had before it a communication (March 24, 1998) from the City Clerk requesting that all Community Councils submit comments to the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee with respect to the 1998 City Planning Work Program.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following Committee Transmittal (April9, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Toronto Community Council, on April 1, 1998, had before it a communication (March 24, 1998) from the City Clerk, respecting the 1998 City Planning Work Program.

The Toronto Community Council requested the Chief Planning Official for the Toronto community to provide a briefing note to Members of the Toronto Community Council on the impact of the Planning Department's budget on the planning initiatives in the area covered by the Toronto Community Council, such briefing to be provided after consideration of the Operating Budget by the Budget Committee and prior to its consideration by City Council.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (March 25, 1998) from the City Clerk submitting the action taken by the Committee at its meeting on March 23 and 24, 1998.

(A copy of Figures 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report dated March 6, 1998 from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the April 20, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

Prevention of Suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct:

Mental Health Reform/Public Education and Safety Measures.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (April 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services.

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

(1)received the report (April 15, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation; and

(2)directed that a copy of the aforementioned reports be forwarded to the Municipal Grants Review Committee for information when the Committee commences its consideration of the Community Grants program.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

To respond to the Urban Environment and Development Committee's request for a public education program and improved services in the area of suicide prevention.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council urge the Ontario Minister of Health to make a financial commitment to the

Mental Health Reform Strategy by:

(a)allocating funding immediately to ensure that a comprehensive crisis response system is in place for Toronto;

(b)ensuring that the community services dealing with suicide (i.e., distress centres, phone-in lines) are adequately funded to meet increased demands for these services; and

(c)implementing key components of related community-based services (e.g., case management, housing, etc.) as quickly as possible; and

(2)the Medical Officer of Health report via the Board of Health on the range of prevention and educational services already in place within the City and, in consultation with the Canadian Mental Health Association, identify further educational components needed to better equip the general public in the area of suicide awareness and prevention.

Background:

On March 23 and 24, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee dealt with various reports and communications regarding the prevention of suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct. The Committee requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with appropriate City officials, to submit a report regarding:

(a)improved services which can be implemented in an effort to prevent suicides; and

(b)a public education program which would set out actions that should be taken by members of the public if confronted with a potential suicide situation.

Comments:

In December 1996, the Metro Toronto District Health Council released its report, entitled "Metropolitan Toronto Mental Health Reform Final Report - System Design and Implementation Recommendations". This report clearly outlined the need for a minimum $5 million investment to ensure effective crisis response in the new City of Toronto. The crisis response system design addressed areas such as assessment, stabilization, accommodation and linkages. In order for a crisis response system to work, it cannot be implemented in isolation. Critical aspects of related sub-systems (e.g., housing, individual support, treatment and rehabilitation) need to be addressed in tandem or brought up to speed to ensure a co-ordinated, responsive system. Although the Ministry of Health has identified crisis as a priority area for implementation of mental health reform and has begun discussion with key providers, no commitment for additional funding has been made.

The former City of Toronto Department of Public Health has played a key role in the area of suicide prevention over the years. Staff have been involved in mental health planning at both the Metro and City level. Public Health staff along with Housing department staff were instrumental in the development and implementation of the Gerstein Centre (i.e., a 24-hour crisis intervention centre). The mental health program staff supported the development of suicide prevention networks in the former city. These networks provide suicide prevention knowledge, skills and resources to the network members which consist of staff of social services and health-related organizations. In 1997, mental health staff provided 66 educational sessions on suicide prevention reaching 1,518 people. They also had 330 direct individual/case management contacts for suicide and/or at-risk clients. As well, they were involved in a number of activities such as community development and advocacy related to suicide prevention.

An important factor that needs to be considered in suicide prevention is the knowledge and attitude of both professionals and the general public towards suicide. To this end, continued staff support and ongoing training is important. Furthermore, a key public education strategy would ensure that the general public knows how to act immediately if they feel that someone is at risk of suicide by involving others who can help (e.g., make contact with the police, emergency services, or a hospital). It should be noted that the Canadian Mental Health Association is a major community player in the development and provision of educational programs to the general public. To this end, it would be useful for Toronto Public Health staff to consult with this organization to ensure that appropriate linkages and co-ordination of educational programs to the general public are in place.

Conclusion:

Suicide is one of the major causes of premature death in our community and it is important that an effective response system is in place. However, suicide prevention needs to be seen in the context of mental health reform which requires a financial commitment and timely implementation by the Province.

Public Health will continue to work in collaboration with others to address public education and ensure effective responses to mental health needs in the community.

Contact Name:

Dr. Sheela Basrur, Medical Officer of Health, 392-7402.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (April15, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, entitled "Prince Edward (Bloor Street) Viaduct Safety Measures":

Purpose:

To respond to a request from the Urban Environment and Development Committee that a report be submitted on this matter.

Funding Sources and Requirements:

The Works and Emergency Services Department does not have funds allocated in either its Current Budget or Capital Budget for 1998 for installing barriers or safety netting on the Bloor Street Viaduct. Preliminary estimates indicate that the installation costs will range from $400,000.00 to $700,000.00 plus operating and maintenance costs ranging from $10,000.00 to $25,000.00 per year. These estimates are based on the provision of basic safety systems and do not include any costs associated with architectural or artistic enhancements.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background and Discussion:

At its meeting on March 23 and 24, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it a number of reports and communications regarding the prevention of suicides on the BloorStreet Viaduct.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee adopted four motions including:

"(4)referred the following motions by Councillor Moscoe to the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, with a request that he submit a report thereon to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on April 20, 1998:

"That the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommend that Council:

(a)support in principle the concept of barriers or safety netting to avert suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct;

(b)refer the design of the barriers or safety netting to the Toronto Historical Board, the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, and the Interim Functional Lead, Culture, Arts and Heritage, with a request that the design process be in accordance with the City's policies and that an artist be included on the design team; and

(c)that this process be fast-tracked.".

At the same meeting, the Urban Environment and Development Committee requested that a report on this matter be submitted to City Council for its meeting on April 16, 1998. This report, which is attached hereto, summarizes the progress that has been made to date with respect to this matter and provides all of the information which is available at this time.

Contact Name:

Mr. Les Kelman, Assistant Director, Construction, 392-5372.

(Report dated April7, 1998, from the

Interim Functional Lead, Transportation,

referred to in the foregoing report.)

Purpose:

To report on progress that has been made to date with respect to this matter and, specifically, on any short-term initiatives that can be implemented immediately.

Funding Requirements:

The funding requirements for installing safety devices on the Bloor Street Viaduct have not yet been finalized.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received by City Council.

Background:

At its meeting on March 23 and 24, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it a number of reports and communications regarding the prevention of suicides on the BloorStreet Viaduct.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee adopted a number of recommendations including:

"(2)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to consult with the Bridge Society of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario and submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on April 16, 1998, on any progress that has been made with respect to this matter and, specifically, on any short-term initiatives that can be implemented immediately."

Discussion:

To date, the following progress has been made:

(1)Meeting:

On March 31, 1998, representatives of the following agencies participated in an initial working team meeting:

(i)Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

(ii)Council on Suicide Prevention;

(iii)Toronto Historical Board;

(iv)Urban Design Section, City of Toronto; and

(v)Transportation, Works and Emergency Services Department.

(2)Work Plan:

At the March 31, 1998, meeting the following Work Plan was adopted.

(3)Schedule:

The working team has targeted the June 15, 1998 Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) meeting for submitting a report.

(4)Short-Term Measures:

Contact has been initiated with Bell Canada regarding the installation of four telephones on the Bloor Street Viaduct, two on the north side and two on the south side. The intent is that each telephone would have two "hot lines", one to 9-1-1 and the other to the Toronto Distress Centre. In addition, the Chief of Police has been requested to place the Bloor Street Viaduct under special attention for potential suicides.

Conclusion:

Staff, in conjunction with other interested agencies, are proceeding as quickly as possible to develop recommendations to submit to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Contact Name:

Mr. Les Kelman, Assistant Director, Construction, 392-5372.

3

The Toronto Harbour Commissioners:

Bill C-9 - The Canada Marine Act

- Planning and Related Issues.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the Senate Transportation and Communications Sub-Committee be requested to:

(a)remove Toronto from the Schedule of Canada Port Authorities contained in BillC-9 - The Canada Marine Act;

(b)amend the Act:

(i)to ensure that a Port Authority will not be unilaterally created in a given local jurisdiction without consultation and agreement of the municipality;

(ii)to provide that the Minister will consult the City of Toronto prior to issuing the Letters Patent;

(iii)to provide that only in a case where a Canada Port Authority records a profit should it pay a charge on the gross revenues to the federal government; and

(iv)to permit the City of Toronto to appoint a majority of the members of any new Port Authority;

(2)if the Act is proclaimed without the proposed amendments by the City of Toronto, the Minister of Transport be requested to:

(a)remove Toronto from the Schedule of Canada Port Authorities as it does not meet the Bill's own criteria for the establishment of a Federal Port Authority; and

(b)undertake a comprehensive financial review of the Toronto port operations to determine if and how it will be financially self-sufficient, before creating a Federal Port Authority in Toronto;

(3)if the Toronto Port Authority is established under Bill C-9, the Minister of Transport be requested to ensure that the Letters Patent of the new Toronto Port Authority will not be issued without the input and consent of City Council;

(4)the Letters Patent of the Port Authority include requirements for the involvement of City Council in the decision-making processes involving planning, spending which could affect the City's budget, and land use;

(5)the Letters Patent also provide for a Liaison Committee to be formed consisting of Members of the Port Authority and those City Councillors representing Wards included in the Port Authority's domain, plus three City Councillors appointed at-large by Council;

(6)the Letters Patent also provide that all Members of the Port Authority submit a written report to City Council, through the appropriate Standing Committee, outlining activities, budgets and initiatives on a quarterly basis and that these Members be available for a discussion of the activities of the Port Authority with Councillors;

(7)the Councillors representing the proposed Port Authority Lands (Downtown and Don River) be requested to develop and bring forward proposals for the creation of a Port Authority Advisory Committee which would meet regularly with the new members of the Port Authority created pursuant to the new Canada Marine Act;

(8)the Toronto Harbour Commissioners be requested to meet with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and interested Councillors concerning the development of the Letters Patent of the new Port Authority and the views of City staff and Councillors be incorporated into the proposed Letters Patent;

(9)any discussions involving City officials or Councillors regarding land transfers between the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO), the City, and the Harbour Commissioners be held only after the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the TEDCO Board have reported to the Toronto Community Council on the implications of any land transfers which might be contemplated;

(10)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be authorized to assist the Councillors in developing the proposal referred to in Recommendation No.(7);

(11)the appropriate City of Toronto staff be requested to take steps to:

(a)analyze the legal responsibilities of the City of Toronto concerning the operating deficit of the Port Authority and to report thereon to City Council; and

(b)analyze the implications of the taxation regime and the federal surcharge which will become payable should the Port of Toronto be included under the new Canada Marine Act;

(12)a Task Force be formed to consider and outline options relating to the form and structure of a new Port administrative body that would be able to effectively manage the changing Port operations in Toronto; and

(13)the City Clerk be requested to forward the above recommendations, as soon as possible, to the Senate Transportation and Communications Sub-Committee which is presently reviewing the Act, clause by clause, and that the City of Toronto's official position (from its meeting of February 4, 5, and 6, 1998) opposing Bill C-9 be restated to the Senate and the Minister.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1)reports having authorized the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to document the concerns that have been raised by the City of Toronto with respect to Bill C-9 -TheCanada Marine Act, and to direct the appropriate staff to present such concerns on April30, 1998, to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications during its hearings on Bill C-9; and

(2)recommends that City Council concur in the foregoing action taken by the Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (February 24, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council:

The Toronto Community Council on February 18, 1998, had before it a communication (January 27, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council respecting Status of Bill C-9, The Canada Marine Act - Implications for the Port of Toronto.

The Toronto Community Council also had before it the following reports/communications:

-(January 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services;

-(January 16, 1998) from Councillor Olivia Chow;

-Clause embodied in Report No. 1 of The Toronto Community Council, as considered by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, entitled "Status of Bill C-9, The Canada Marine Act - Implications for the Port of Toronto";

-(February 17, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Blair, on behalf of Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association;

-(February 18, 1998) from Ms. Mary Hay, Vice Chair, Toronto Waterfront Coalition; and

-(February 18, 1998) from Mr. Dalton Shipway.

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

-Mr. Dalton Shipway, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Margaret Blair/Ms. Elizabeth Borek, LANA, Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

-Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. John Darling, Toronto Windsurfing Club;

-Mr. Mac Makarchuk, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Ms. Viola Varga, Toronto, Ontario.

The Toronto Community Council received the foregoing reports/communications and requested The Toronto Harbour Commissioners to present the process respecting its land use plan for the port lands to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its information and input, at its meeting to be held on March 23, 1998.

--------

The following officials of The Toronto Harbour Commissioners made a presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter, insofar as it relates to Bill C-9 - The Canada Marine Act, and also filed a briefing book containing, interalia, their presentation material:

-Mr. Gary Reid, General Manager;

-Mr. John Morand, Director of Strategic Planning; and

-Mr. Mike Doran, Director of Port Operations.

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

-Councillor Jack Layton, Don River; and

-Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication from Councillor Chow, Downtown, submitting a copy of the Background Paper (undated), entitled "Submission by the City of Toronto to the Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications Respecting Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act".)

(Councillor Walker, at the meeting of City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause as it pertains to the operation of the outer harbour marina, in that his daughter is a summer student attendant at the marina.)

4

Proposed Amendments to the Railway Safety Act

Municipal Enforcement of Train

Speed Limits/Fencing Requirements.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 31, 1998) from the City Solicitor, subject to:

(1)deleting from Recommendation (A) the words "decide whether it wishes to"; so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(A)City Council confirm the actions taken by the Council of the formerCity of Toronto at its meetings of August21, 1997 and October 6 and 7, 1997 as follows:"; and

(2)adding to Recommendation (A)(2) the words "and the Toronto Catholic District School Board" after the words "the Toronto District School Board"; so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2)advise the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board of City Council's action.":

Purpose:

To report, as requested by the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, on the communication (January 31, 1998) to the City Clerk from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities requesting that the Council of the new City of Toronto consider the resolution by the former City of Toronto requesting "an amendment to federal legislation to empower municipal police and/or municipal inspectors to enforce one speed limit in Metropolitan Toronto, the lowest of the three speed limits".

Source of Funds:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(A)City Council decide whether it wishes to confirm the actions taken by the Council of the former City of Toronto at its meetings of August 21, 1997 and October 6 and 7, 1997 as follows:

(1)request the Federal Minister of Transportation to:

(a)consider the appointment and training of municipal employees or police officers under section 27 of the Railway Safety Act to enforce the Act, rules and regulations with respect to train speed limits and appropriate fencing of railway lands or, in the alternative, support amendments to the Railway Safety Act as set out in the schedule attached to this report to allow municipalities to appoint municipal inspectors for the purpose of enforcing speed limits and fencing requirements for trains operating in rail corridors within municipalities;

(b)support the passage of regulations under the Railway Safety Act, as set out in the schedule attached to this report, to impose a minimum requirement of two-metre high chain link fencing with respect to railway property located within the boundaries of municipalities with a population of greater than 50,000;

(c)amend the Railway Safety Rules to reduce the maximum rate of speed (preferably to 25 miles per hour) on railway tracks within the City of Toronto; and

(d)invite Ontario municipalities, along with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to take part in any future discussions concerning the development of new regulations requiring adequate fencing to secure railway property where it passes through populated areas; and

(2)advise the Toronto District School Board of City Council's action; and

(B)City Council request the City Clerk to advise the Canadian Federation of Municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario of its action with respect to this matter and request their support.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of August 21, 1997, the Council of the former City of Toronto considered Clause No.22 of Report No. 19 of The Executive Committee. That clause contained a communication (dated July14, 1997) from Councillor John Adams expressing concerns over the enforcement of present speed limits for trains passing through urban areas. As a result of its consideration, the former City Council adopted the following recommendations:

(1)that City Council seek an amendment to federal legislation to empower municipal police and/or municipal inspectors to enforce one speed limit in Metropolitan Toronto, the lowest of the three speed limits, i.e., 25 miles per hour, established by federal authority for trains on rail corridors within their respective municipalities;

(2)that City Council request the support of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the other Metropolitan Toronto Area Municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for this amendment; and

(3)that the Toronto Board of Education be advised of City Council's action.

Also contained in Clause No. 22 was a request from the Executive Committee that the City Solicitor report on seeking an amendment to the federal legislation that would allow the City of Toronto to require the railways to properly secure their property in populated areas.

Subsequently, a report (September 25, 1997) was prepared by the City Solicitor and submitted to the Executive Committee for its consideration. That report is contained in Clause No. 81 of Report No.23 of The Executive Committee, which was adopted by the former Toronto City Council at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, including the following recommendations:

(1)that City Council request the Minister of Transportation to:

(a)consider the appointment and training of municipal employees or police officers under section 27 of the Railway Safety Act to enforce the Act, rules and regulations with respect to train speed limits and appropriate fencing of railway lands or, in the alternative, support amendments to the Railway Safety Act as set out in the schedule attached to this report to allow municipalities to appoint municipal inspectors for the purpose of enforcing speed limits and fencing requirements for trains operating in rail corridors within municipalities;

(b)support the passage of regulations under the Railway Safety Act, as set out in the schedule attached to this report, to impose a minimum requirement of two- metre high chain link fencing with respect to railway property located within the boundaries of municipalities with a population of greater than 50,000; and

(c)invite Ontario municipalities, along with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to take part in any future discussions concerning the development of new regulations requiring adequate fencing to secure railway property where it passes through populated areas.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities was advised of the Toronto City Council's action and has now responded with a request that the new Council for the City of Toronto consider this matter and confirm its position.

The actions of the Council for the former City of Toronto concern the enforcement of speed limits within the City and the institution of proper fencing requirements for railway lands within urban areas.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Train Speed Limits:

At the present time, set speed limits exist for trains carrying regular cargo, dangerous goods, and special dangerous goods (i.e., explosives). With respect to other train traffic, speed limits are set in the Track Safety Rules (the "Rules") approved by the Minister of Transport. The Rules provide that different speeds will be permitted according to the "class" of the track rails and may vary from 15to110 miles per hour. In other words, where the tracks can sustain it, trains are permitted to achieve higher levels of speed. Passenger trains are permitted to travel at a greater rate of speed on any class of track than freight trains.

The speed limit of 25 miles per hour mentioned in Councillor Adams' previous recommendation is the limit imposed on freight trains travelling on "Class 2" tracks. "Class 1" tracks require a speed limit of 15 miles per hour.

Subsection 23(1) of the Railway Safety Act (the "Act") requires that a railway operate in accordance with the Rules, and subsection 28(1) of the Act allows a federal railway safety inspector to ensure compliance with the Rules made under the Act. Under subsection 31(3) of the Act, where an inspector is of the opinion that the manner of operation of a railway line poses a threat to safe railway operations (i.e., is not in accordance with the Rules or the Act), an inspector may issue an order requiring that operations cease or comply with certain conditions. Where compliance does not occur, the order may be confirmed by the Minister and enforced by the Federal Court.

Section 27(1) of the Railway Safety Act provides that the Minister of Transport may "designate any person whom the Minister deems qualified as a railway safety inspector for the purposes of the Act" and shall "designate the matters in respect of which the person may exercise the powers of a railway safety inspector". At the present time, only federal government employees and railway company employees are designated, the latter for the specific purpose of enforcing regulations with respect to the operations of their employer.

There is no apparent limitation in the legislation which would prevent the Minister from appointing a municipal employee or police officer as a railway safety inspector for the specific purpose of enforcing speed limits and fencing requirements (see discussion below) within the limits of the municipality. Given that the enforcement of speed limits is at present tied to the condition of the particular track, special training would likely be needed for any municipal employee or police officer asked to fulfil this function.

Alternatively, contained in the Schedule to this report is a suggested amendment to the Act to provide a municipality council with the power, should it wish to do so, to appoint inspectors to enforce federal railway safety regulations. This amendment would also obligate the Minister to provide appropriate training to these inspectors for the purposes of enforcing the Act.

Railway Fencing Regulations:

Originally, federal regulations relating to a fencing requirement for railways were found in section214of the Railways Act which required companies to erect on either side of the railway a wire fence with a minimum height of 4 feet 6 inches. These regulations have now been repealed by virtue of section 91 of the Railway Safety Act, proclaimed in force on October 1, 1995, under federal regulation No.SI/95-109. I have confirmed that since last October when Toronto City Council considered this matter, there are still no new regulations under the Act for, in the words of the Act, "restricting or preventing by means of fences . . . access to the land on which a line of railway is situated" so as to institute new fencing requirements for railways.

Attached to this report are proposed amendments to the regulations under the Railway Safety Act to require such fencing which were previously put forward by the former City of Toronto. The minimum technical specifications for the fencing set out in the proposed regulation are taken from Chapter 182 (Division Fences) of the former City's Municipal Code, with the minimum height increased to two metres.

Status of the Consultation Process:

In its letter of January 31, 1998, the FCM indicates that, with respect to fencing requirements to be imposed on railways where they pass through urban areas, "cattle fences in urban areas are inadequate". The FCM has presented this position to officials from Transport Canada, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, the Railway Association of Canada and VIA Rail and is expecting consultations on this issue to begin soon.

I understand that federal legislation (Bill C-43) is presently being prepared to make a number of amendments to the Railway Safety Act. However, due to the controversial nature of future fencing requirements, these are unlikely to be included in legislation at this time for fear of holding up passage of the Bill. FCM staff have advised that discussions are currently ongoing in the context of "Direction2006", a committee of representatives from Transport Canada, the FCM and the railway companies, which is considering various railway safety issues. A sub-committee of this group currently considering railway crossings may be expanded to include discussion of the fencing issue.

City Council may, therefore, wish to request the Minister to include municipalities, along with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, in any discussions concerning the development of standard regulations requiring adequate fencing to secure railway property where it is located in populated urban areas.

Conclusions:

I would, therefore, recommend that City Council consider this matter and decide whether it wishes to confirm the action taken by the Council of the former City of Toronto, and that the City Clerk be directed to forward Council's decision to the Minister of Transportation, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for their information.

Contact Name:

Mr. Edward Earle, Legal Services, 392-7226.

--------

Schedule of Proposed Amendments

(1)To the Railway Safety Act with respect to appointment of railway safety inspectors by the municipality:

Amend section 27 by adding the following subsections:

"(2)The council of a municipality may by by-law designate any municipal employee, including a police officer, whom the council deems qualified as a railway safety inspector for the purposes of enforcing this Act within the boundaries of the municipality, and shall designate the matters in respect of which the person may exercise the powers of a railway safety inspector.

(3)The Minister shall ensure that any person appointed as a railway safety inspector is properly trained to perform the duties arising out of the appointment and is properly supervised by an employee of the Ministry of Transportation."

(2)For a new regulation pursuant to subsection 24(1)(f) of the Railway Safety Act as follows:

"X.Land upon which a line of railway is situated which is located within a municipality with a population of greater than 50,000 shall be secured by fencing located on, or substantially on, the boundary between the land and adjoining lands and shall be constructed according to the following minimum specifications:

(a)Material.

(i)Posts: four centimetres outside diameter double-galvanized steel pipe, ninety-one hundredths (0.91) metre longer than the width of the wire.

(ii)Fabric: chain link galvanized steel wire, after woven, two hundredths (2.0) metres, No. 11 gauge in five-centimetre diamond-shape mesh.

(iii)Top rail: double-galvanized steel pipe.

(iv)Bottom brace: No. 6 gauge galvanized steel wire.

(b)Installation.

(i)Terminal corner posts to be imbedded ninety-one hundredths (0.91)metre in concrete.

(ii)Line posts to be placed at three-and-five-hundredths-metre intervals, and driven ninety-one hundredths (0.91) metre into the ground.

(c)Line of fence.The point of contact between the wire and metal posts shall be on, or substantially on, the boundary line between the railway line lands and the adjoining land.

(d)Siting of posts.

The posts shall be located on the lands upon which the line of railway is constructed."

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (January 31, 1998) from Mr. James W. Knight, Executive Director, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, responding to a communication (October 10, 1997) from the Assistant City Clerk of the former City of Toronto informing the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) of the City's resolution regarding the proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act; advising that at the FCM Board of Directors' meeting in December 1997, the Standing Committee on National Transportation and Communication considered the resolution by the former City of Toronto requesting "an amendment to federal legislation to empower municipal police and/or municipal inspectors to enforce one speed limit in Metropolitan Toronto, the lowest of the three speed limits"; that, in light of the recent election of a new City Council in Toronto, the Committee moved to send the resolution back to the new Council for further discussion; and setting out the FCM position with respect to railway fencing regulations.

5

Appointments to the Boards of Management for

Business Improvement Areas and Amendments to

the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20,

Business Improvement Areas - Various Wards.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 2, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development:

Purpose:

Changes to membership of Boards of Management for Business Improvement Areas require Council approval and a by-law amendment. Attached is Schedule A detailing the amendments to (former Toronto) Municipal Code, Chapter 20 and Appendix 1 listing the names of the nominees to be appointed.

Source of Funds:

No funds are required. Business Improvement Area operating budgets are raised by a special levy on members and will be brought forward in a separate report for approval.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)in accordance with the elections held at the Business Improvement Area Annual General Meetings, amendments be made to Schedule A, Individual Boards of Management, of the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas, as set out in the attached Schedule A. These changes are specific to Number of Members and Members Needed for Quorum and are highlighted by "Changes From and To";

(2)Council appoint the nominees listed in Appendix 1 of this report to the Boards of Management for Bloor/Bathurst-Madison, Keele-Eglinton, Kingsway and Lakeshore Village Business Improvement Areas. The term of office is to expire on November 30, 2000, or as soon thereafter as successors are appointed. Each of the named nominees meets the requirements of Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended by Bill 106; and

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

Comments:

Following the election held at the Annual General Meeting of Bloor/Bathurst-Madison Business Improvement Area, amendments are required to the number of members and members needed for quorum. These amendments must be reflected in Schedule A, Individual Boards of Management of the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas.

Following the elections held at the Annual General Meetings of Keele-Eglinton, Kingsway and Lakeshore Village Business Improvement Areas and as per Councils resolution at it's meeting of February 5 and 6, 1998, attached in Appendix 1 are the nominations for appointments to other Business Improvement Areas Boards of Management in the former Area Municipalities.

Conclusions:

These amendments should be reflected in Schedule A, Individual Boards of Management of the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas.

The nominees listed in Appendix 1 of this report should be appointed to the Business Improvement Area, Boards of Management. The terms of office are to expire on November 30, 2000, or as soon thereafter as successors are appointed. Each of the named nominees meets the requirements of Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended by Bill 106.

Contact Name:

Ms. Ingrid Girdauskas, 392-1134, (fax) 392-0675, (e-mail) igirdaus@city.toronto.on.ca.

--------

Schedule A

Business Improvement Areas

Individual Boards of Management

Name ofBy-lawMembers

Business WhichNumberCouncil Members Needed

ImprovementDesignatesofFor

AreaAreaMembersNumberWardQuorum

ChangedChanged

FromToFrom To

Bloor/Bathurst1995-068898 2Midtown 44

-MadisonDowntown

--------

Appendix 1

Bloor/Bathurst-Madison:

Barry AlperJuice for Life

521 Bloor Street West

Toronto, Ontario M5S 1Y4

Adam JaroszewskiFuture Bakery

483 Bloor Street West

Toronto, Ontario M5S 1X9

Patty MacPhersonPaupers Pub

539 Bloor Street West

Toronto, Ontario M5S 1Y6

Julie PelenyiElizabeth Meat Market and Deli

410 Bloor Street West

Toronto, Ontario M5S 1X5

Martin SoneShoppers Drug Mart

360A Bloor Street West

Toronto, Ontario M5S 1X1

Dave Vallance31 Dalton Road

Toronto, Ontario M5R 2Y8

Kingsway BIA:

Sandy BayzatToronto-Dominion Bank

3014 Bloor Street West.

Toronto, Ontario M8X 1C4

Rosalie LaheyNational Trust

2930 Bloor Street West

Toronto, Ontario M8X 1B6

Mary Margaret MacInnesMacInnes Pharmacy

2946 Bloor Street West

Toronto, Ontario M8X 1B7

Barry PhillipsShoppers Drug Mart

3010 Bloor Street West

Toronto, Ontario M8X 1C2

Biri SodhiWine de Vine

3042 Bloor Street West

Toronto, Ontario M8X 1C4

Henry VargaSimply Chic

3016 Bloor Street West

Toronto, Ont. M8X 1C4

Keele-Eglinton BIA:

Sydney Fisher2563 Eglinton Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario M6M 1T3

Bev FolkesA Second Chance

2518 Eglinton Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario M6M 1T1

Spencer HigginsABC Fashion

2524 Eglinton Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario M6M 1T1

Joe PiantaHomelife Treasury Realty Limited

2589 Eglinton Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario M6M 1T3

Brian Scholz2520 Eglinton Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario M6M 1T1

Steve TassesVariety and Video

2604 Eglinton Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario M6M 1T3

Lakeshore Village BIA:

Wendy DelfinThe Clock Factory

2881 Lakeshore Boulevard West

Toronto, Ontario M8V 1J3

Peter DonatoRealty Life

2858 Lakeshore Boulevard West

Toronto, Ontario M8V 1H9

Gord FaulkerFaulkner Electric

2880 Lakeshore Boulevard West

Toronto, Ontario M8V 1J2

Carlos LourencoHoliday Market

2949 Lakeshore Boulevard West

Toronto, Ontario M8V 1J5

Larry NovacCasual Wear

2921 Lakeshore Boulevard West

Toronto, Ontario M8V 1J6

John SchefferScheffer's Cleaners

2901 Lakeshore Boulevard West

Toronto, Ontario M8B 1J3

Allan WeingartenShoppers Drug Mart

2850 Lakeshore Boulevard West

Toronto, Ontario M8V 1J2

6

1998 Budgets - Business Improvement Areas.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the budget for the Islington Business Improvement Area, in the amount of $12,575.00, be approved;

(2)the Gerrard India Bazaar Business Improvement Area expenditure estimate be adopted; and

(3)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be requested to:

(a)investigate why the Islington Business Improvement Area budget was not included and the Kingsway Business Improvement Area budget was noted as being 'N/A' under the column headed 'Approved by Members' in the report dated April 3, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and advise Councillor Lindsay Luby accordingly; and

(b)investigate why the Gerrard India Bazaar Business Improvement Area expenditure estimate was not included, and advise CouncillorBussin accordingly.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2), embodied in the report (April 3, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having concurred with Recommendation No. (3), embodied in the report (April 3, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, viz:

"(3)a copy of this report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for its information.".

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 3, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

Approval to Business Improvement Area yearly budgets is required by Council as per Section 220 of the Municipal Act as amended by Bill 106.

Source of Funds:

No City funds are required since Business Improvement Area (BIA) operating budgets are raised by a special tax on members.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Urban Environment and Development Committee certify to City Council the expenditure estimates of the following Business Improvement Areas for the year 1998, in the following amounts:

Bloor/Bathurst-Madison$ 20,000.00

Bloor By The Park 38,500.00

Bloorcourt Village 52,000.00

Bloor West Village 243,308.00

Bloor-Yorkville 945,850.00

Corso Italia 160,000.00

Danforth By The Valley 64,800.00

Eglinton Way 153,900.00

Forest Hill Village 22,000.00

Greektown On The Danforth 246,526.00

Junction Gardens 77,000.00

Kennedy Road 252,500.00

Kingsway 119,270.00

Lakeshore Village 31,871.00

Little Italy 80,210.00

Long Branch 57,000.00

Mimico Village 8,000.00

Old Cabbagetown 166,992.00

Pape Village 36,000.00

Roncesvalles Village 98,300.00

Weston 133,200.00;

(2)the expenditure estimates of the above Business Improvement Areas be adopted; and

(3)a copy of this report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for its information.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The following Business Improvement Areas held meetings on the noted days at which their budgets

(see Appendix A) were approved:

Approved by Approved by

MembersBoard of Management

Bloor/Bathurst-Madison March 18, 1997March 18, 1998

Bloor By The ParkNovember 6, 1997February 12, 1998

Bloorcourt VillageNovember 19, 1997March 10, 1998

Bloor West VillageOctober 29, 1997March 10, 1998

Bloor-YorkvilleJanuary 20, 1998March 25, 1998

Corso ItaliaNovember 24, 1997March 4, 1998

Danforth By The ValleyNovember 24, 1997March 2, 1998

Eglinton WayNovember 4, 1997February 24, 1998

Greektown On The DanforthDecember 10, 1997March 24, 1998

Junction GardensDecember 2, 1997March 10, 1998

Kennedy RoadDecember, 1997January 13, 1998

KingswayN/ANovember 19, 1997

Lakeshore VillageN/AMarch 4, 1998

Little Italy February 11, 1998March 11, 1998

Long BranchN/AFebruary 18, 1998

Mimico VillageN/AMarch 9, 1998

Old CabbagetownDecember 3, 1997February 16, 1998

Pape VillageDecember 4, 1997December 4, 1997

Roncesvalles VillageNovember 25, 1997March 25, 1998

WestonFebruary 23, 1998March 26, 1998

The following tables adjust the gross budgets to arrive at net budgets for special levying purposes for these BIAs:

1998

1997 Budget

Budget Request

Bloor/Bathurst-Madison:

Expenditure Estimates$ 26,000.00$ 20,000.00

Miscellaneous Revenue(1,486.00) 0.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit(7,407.00) 0.00

Net Expenditure Budget$ 17,107.00$ 20,000.00

Bloor by the Park:

Expenditure Estimates$ 36,500.00 $ 38,500.00

Miscellaneous Revenue0.000.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.000.00

Net Expenditure Budget$ 36,500.00$ 38,500.00

1998

1997 Budget

Budget Request

Bloor Court Village:

Expenditure Estimates$ 52,000.00$ 52,000.00

Miscellaneous Revenue0.000.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit0.00 0.00

Net Expenditure Budget$ 52,000.00$ 52,000.00

Bloor West Village:

Expenditure Estimates$240,660.00$243,308.00

Miscellaneous Revenue(22,000.00) (19,000.00)

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit(9,715.00)(15,264.00)

Net Expenditure Budget$208,945.00$209,044.00

Bloor-Yorkville:

Expenditure Estimates$920,000.00$945,850.00

Miscellaneous Revenue 0.00 0.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit0.000.00

Net Expenditure Budget$920,000.00$945,850.00

Corso Italia:

Expenditure Estimates$160,000.00$160,000.00

Miscellaneous Revenue 0.00 0.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.000.00

Net Expenditure Budget$160,000.00$160,000.00

Danforth by the Valley:

Expenditure Estimates$ 56,650.00$ 64,800.00

Miscellaneous Revenue0.000.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit0.000.00

Net Expenditure Budget$ 56,650.00$ 64,800.00

Eglinton Way:

Expenditure Estimates$119,700.00$153,900.00

Miscellaneous Revenue(2,000.00)(2,000.00)

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.00(20,000.00)

Net Expenditure Budget$117,700.00$131,900.00

1998

1997 Budget

Budget Request

Forest Hill Village:

Expenditure Estimates $ 19,300.00$ 22,000.00

Miscellaneous Revenue(1,114.00) (1,050.00)

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit (1,117.00) (597.00)

Net Expenditure Budget$ 17,069.00$ 20,353.00

Greektown on the Danforth:

Expenditure Estimates$189,795.00$246,526.00

Miscellaneous Revenue 0.00 0.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.000.00

Net Expenditure Budge$189,795.00$246,526.00

Junction Gardens:

Expenditure Estimates$ 78,510.00$ 77,000.00

Miscellaneous Revenue(29,800.00)27,000.00)

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.000.00

Net Expenditure Budget$ 48,710.00 $ 50,000.00

Kennedy Road:

Expenditure Estimates$ 0.00$252,000.00

Miscellaneous Revenue 0.00 0.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.00 (27,500.00)

Net Expenditure Budget $ 0.00$225,000.00

Kingsway:

Expenditure Estimates$110,000.00$119,270.00

Miscellaneous Revenue 0.00 0.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.00 (1,446.00)

Net Expenditure Budget$110,000.00$117,824.00

Lakeshore:

Expenditure Estimates$ 33,775.00$ 31,871.00

Miscellaneous Revenue 0.00 0.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.00 0.00

Net Expenditure Budget$ 33,775.00 $ 31,871.00

1998

1997 Budget

Budget Request

Little Italy:

Expenditure Estimates$ 79,860.00$ 80,210.00

Miscellaneous Revenue0.00 0.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.00 0.00

Net Expenditure Budget$ 79,860.00 $ 80,210.00

Long Branch:

Expenditure Estimates$ 53,000.00 $ 57,000.00

Miscellaneous Revenue (3,000.00) (1,500.00)

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.00 (5,500.00)

Net Expenditure Budget $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00

Mimico Village:

Expenditure Estimates$ 0.00 $ 8,000.00

Miscellaneous Revenue 0.00 0.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.00 0.00

Net Expenditure Budget $ 0.00 $ 8,000.00

Old Cabbagetown:

Expenditure Estimates$153,500.00$166,992.00

Miscellaneous Revenue(40,200.00) (38,900.00)

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.00 (14,792.00)

Net Expenditure Budget$113,300.00 $113,300.00

Pape Village:

Expenditure Estimates$ 0.00 $ 36,000.00

Miscellaneous Revenue 0.00 0.00

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.00 0.00

Net Expenditure Budget$ 0.00 $ 36,000.00

Roncesvalles Village:

Expenditure Estimates $ 61,975.00 $ 98,300.00

Miscellaneous Revenue (5,500.00) (19,300.00)

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit 0.00 (25,000.00)

Net Expenditure Budget$ 56,475.00 $ 54,000.00

1998

1997 Budget

Budget Request

Weston:

Expenditure Estimates$131,160.00$133,200.00

Miscellaneous Revenue (81,160.00)(83,200.00)

BIA's Prior Years (Surplus)/Deficit0.00 0.00

Net Expenditure Budget $ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00

Contact Names:

Mr. Donald Altman, 392-1529, (Fax) 392-6963, (e-mail) daltman@city.toronto.on.ca.

Ms. Ingrid Girdauskas, 392-1134, (Fax) 392-0675, (e-mail) igirdaus@city.toronto.on.ca.

--------

Appendix A

Operating Budget of the Bloor/Bathurst-Madison BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 38,705.00$ 26,000.00$ 20,000.00

Expenditures:

Administration12,447.00 9,500.0010,950.00

Capital 0.00 0.00 0.00

Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00

Promotion and Advertising 30,537.0010,000.00 9,050.00

Contingency 0.00 6,500.00 0.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included) 42,984.00 26,000.00 20,000.00

(Surplus)/Deficit 4,279.00 0.00 0.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Bloor by the Park BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 45,061.00$ 36,500.00$ 38,500.00

Expenditures:

Administration 11,506.00 6,770.00 8,500.00

Capital 4,323.00 6,500.0011,050.00

Maintenance 9,600.00 11,000.00 9,950.00

Promotion and Advertising12,962.0012,230.00 9,000.00

General 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included) 38,391.00 36,500.00 38,500.00

(Surplus)/Deficit (6,670.00) 0.00 0.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Bloorcourt Village BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 42,997.00$ 52,000.00$ 52,000.00

Expenditures:

Administration 9,026.005,700.00 5,700.00

Capital 21,891.00 29,500.00 29,500.00

Maintenance1,414.00 6,000.00 6,000.00

Promotion and Advertising15,106.00 10,800.0010,800.00

General 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included) 47,437.00 52,000.0052,000.00

(Surplus)/Deficit 4,440.00 0.00 0.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Bloor West Village BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$282,713.00$240,660.00$243,308.00

Expenditures:

Administration 6,408.00 6,360.00 6,408.00

Capital 98,700.0080,500.00 65,000.00

Maintenance 27,300.0034,000.00 33,500.00

Promotion and Advertising141,141.00117,300.00135,900.00

General 0.00 0.00 2,500.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)273,549.00240,660.00243,308.00

(Surplus)/Deficit(9,164.00) 0.00 0.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Bloor-Yorkville BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997 Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$920,340.00$920,000.00$945,850.00

Expenditures:

Administration285,330.00310,000.00307,850.00

Capital150,808.00165,000.00170,000.00

Maintenance 58,153.0067,000.0096,000.00

Promotion and Advertising336,116.00355,700.00372,000.00

General 0.00 22,300.00 0.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)830,407.00920,000.00945,850.00

(Surplus)/Deficit(89,933.00) 0.00 0.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Corso Italia BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

Actual RequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$159,232.00$160,000.00$160,000.00

Expenditures:

Administration 39,375.00 25,000.00 20,000.00

Capital19,658.00 0.0020,000.00

Maintenance12,145.0022,000.0028,000.00

Promotion and Advertising106,800.00113,000.00 92,000.00

General0.000.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)177,978.00160,000.00160,000.00

(Surplus)/Deficit18,746.000.00 0.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Danforth by the Valley BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 62,324.00$ 56,650.00$ 64,800.00

Expenditures:

Administration17,430.007,000.006,430.00

Capital21,433.0018,650.0027,600.00

Maintenance0.001,500.005,000.00

Promotion and Advertising15,334.0026,750.0024,770.00

General 0.002,750.001,000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)54,197.0056,650.0064,800.00

(Surplus)/Deficit(8,127.00)0.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Eglinton Way BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$150,681.00$119,700.00$153,900.00

Expenditures:

Administration36,786.0034,000.0034,685.00

Capital4,849.0016,850.0049,500.00

Maintenance14,783.005,600.006,100.00

Promotion and Advertising65,803.0063,250.00 61,615.00

General0.00.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)122,221.00119,700.00153,900.00

(Surplus)/Deficit(28,460.00) 0.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Forest Hill Village BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApproved Budget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 25,657.00$ 19,300.00$ 22,000.00

Expenditures:

Administration5,894.001,980.002,000.00

Capital6,788.003,420.006,200.00

Maintenance4,303.006,800.007,000.00

Promotion and Advertising5,727.007,100.006,800.00

General0.000.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)22,712.0019,300.0022,000.00

(Surplus)/Deficit(2,945.00)0.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Greektown on the Danforth BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997 Council 1998

ProjectedApproved Budget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$649,525.00$189,795.00$246,526.00

Expenditures:

Administration166,440.0014,300.0024,400.00

Capital20,522.0022,700.00 40,000.00

Maintenance152.005,300.005,000.00

Promotion and Advertising500,734.00147,495.00177,126.00

General25,492.00 0.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)713,340.00188,795.00246,562.00

(Surplus)/Deficit(63,815.00)0.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Junction Gardens BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 74,812.00$ 78,510.00$ 77,000.00

Expenditures:

Administration15,148.0017,010.0016,910.00

Capital11,774.0015,000.0013,000.00

Maintenance1,725.003,500.003,000.00

Promotion and Advertising53,272.0043,000.0044,000.00

General0.000.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)81,919.0078,510.006,910.00

(Surplus)/Deficit(7,107.00)0.00(90.00)

--------

Operating Budget of the Kennedy Road BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 0.00$ 0.00$252,500.00

Expenditures:

Administration0.000.0022,700.00

Capital0.000.0090,800.00

Maintenance0.000.00 0.00

Promotion and Advertising0.000.0039,500.00

General0.000.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)0.000.0052,500.00

(Surplus)/Deficit0.000.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Kingsway BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

19971997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$108,547.00$110,000.00$119,270.00

Expenditures:

Administration21,449.0019,100.0020,800.00

Capital 0.000.000.00

Maintenance53,314.0057,900.0063,470.00

Promotion and Advertising33,784.00 33,000.0035,000.00

General0.000.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)108,547.00 110,000.00119,270.00

(Surplus)/Deficit0.000.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Lakeshore Village BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 37,188.00$ 33,775.00$ 31,871.00

Expenditures:

Administration16,385.0015,149.007,581.00

Capital0.000.000.00

Maintenance20,178.0017,626.0024,290.00

Promotion and Advertising0.001,000.000.00

General0.000.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)36,563.0033,775.0031,871.00

(Surplus)/Deficit625.000.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Little Italy BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 84,100.00$ 79,860.00$ 80,210.00

Expenditures:

Administration3,530.007,860.007,210.00

Capital23,428.0027,000.0025,000.00

Maintenance26,494.0025,000.0023,000.00

Promotion and Advertising20,270.0020,000.0025,000.00

General0.000.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)73,722.0079,860.0080,210.00

(Surplus)/Deficit10,378.000.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Long Branch BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 47,369.00$ 53,000.00$ 57,000.00

Expenditures:

Administration2,070.003,500.00 5,750.00

Capital0.0020,000.0018,000.00

Maintenance12,238.0015,500.0018,250.00

Promotion and Advertising 9,955.00 5,500.0015,000.00

General0.000.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)24,263.0053,000.0057,000.00

(Surplus)/Deficit23,106.000.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Mimico By The Lake BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 0.00$ 0.00$ 8,000.00

Expenditures:

Administration0.000.001,000.00

Capital0.000.000.00

Maintenance0.000.001,000.00

Promotion and Advertising0.000.006,000.00

General0.000.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)0.000.008,000.00

(Surplus)/Deficit0..000.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Old Cabbagetown BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$148,370.00$153,500.00$166,992.00

Expenditures:

Administration64,315.0062,800.0068,292.00

Capital13,300.0012,000.0012,000.00

Maintenance16,572.0014,700.004,700.00

Promotion and Advertising47,001.0064,000.0072,000.00

General2,473.000.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included) 143,661.00153,500.0066,992.00

(Surplus)/Deficit4,709.000.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Pape Village BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 0.00$ 0.00$ 36,000.00

Expenditures:

Administration0.000.006,000.00

Capital0.000.004,416.00

Maintenance0.000.007,100.00

Promotion and Advertising0.000.00118,000.00

General0.000.00484.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)0.000.00 36,000.00

(Surplus)/Deficit0.000.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Roncesvalles Village BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$ 57,414.00$ 61,975.00$ 98,300.00

Expenditures:

Administration11,996.00 9,475.00 9,175.00

Capital3,854.0010,000.0041,200.00

Maintenance12,960.0012,000.0014,000.00

Promotion and Advertising18,035.0030,500.0033,925.00

General0.000.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)46,845.0061,975.0098,300.00

(Surplus)/Deficit10,569.000.000.00

--------

Operating Budget of the Weston BIA

For the Year 1998

Budget Summary

1997

1997Council1998

ProjectedApprovedBudget

ActualRequestRequest

Revenue and Surplus$113,859.00$131,160.00$133,200.00

Expenditures:

Administration54,296.0056,660.0041,400.00

Capital23,934.0015,000.0019,500.00

Maintenance3,478.004,000.004,000.00

Promotion and Advertising51,468.0055,500.0068,250.00

General0.000.000.00

Total Expenditures (GST Included)133,176.00131,160.00133,200.00

(Surplus)/Deficit(19,317.00)0.000.00

7

1998 Membership in Ontario Traffic Conference.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1)Councillors Ron Moeser and Irene Jones be appointed as the representatives of the UrbanEnvironment and Development Committee on the Ontario Traffic Conference; and

(2)the selections be reported to the Administrative Assistant of the Ontario Traffic Conference.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having concurred with Recommendation No. (2), embodied in the report dated March 31, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, viz:

"(2)this report be referred to each Community Council for the selection of up to two representatives each for the Ontario Traffic Conference, and that the selections be reported to the Administrative Assistant of the Ontario Traffic Conference."

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (March31, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To select Council Members for the 1998 Ontario Traffic Conference.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost of the 1998 Ontario Traffic Conference membership is $4,000.00. This item has been included in the 1998 Current Budget estimates for the transportation component of the Works and Emergency Services Department.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)up to two elected officials from the Urban Environment and Development Committee be selected for representation on the Ontario Traffic Conference, and that the selections be reported to the Administrative Assistant of the Ontario Traffic Conference; and

(2)this report be referred to each Community Council for the selection of up to two representatives each for the Ontario Traffic Conference, and that the selections be reported to the Administrative Assistant of the Ontario Traffic Conference.

Background:

The Ontario Traffic Conference (OTC) is an organization of municipal representatives whose goal is to develop and promote traffic safety in Ontario. It was formed in 1950 with the objectives of bringing together traffic expertise related to enforcement, engineering and education to serve this goal. The following are the salient aims of the OTC:

(1)to provide a source for the dissemination of the latest information and techniques for improvement in traffic safety and management of traffic;

(2)to assist and co-ordinate with the various governmental, other agencies and organizations with an interest in the traffic fields;

(3)to develop and improve educational programs relating to the fields of traffic safety, enforcement and traffic operators;

(4)to encourage and promote technical investigations and reports on topics of current interest in the field of traffic; and

(5)to solicit participation of all persons engaged in traffic engineering and traffic safety in Ontario.

The membership of the OTC is drawn from elected representatives, police service representatives, traffic engineers, parking experts and others in related fields. This allows the OTC to promote a better understanding among the persons who have a sincere interest in the safe and efficient movement of traffic throughout the Province. The affairs of the OTC are administered by a Board of ten Directors who are elected by the membership at the Annual General Meeting. The structure of the Board offers a balanced representation of the membership.

Prior to the amalgamation, Metropolitan Toronto paid the OTC annual membership fee on behalf of the constituent municipalities. The total complement of members included up to 15 elected officials, 15 staff members, 5 Police representatives and 12 "others." The 1998 fee of $4,000.00 is a slight increase over the 1997 fee of $3,850.00.

We have discussed membership entitlement with the OTC because of the City's unique size and scope compared to other cities within the Province. A city is normally entitled to a total of six members. It has been agreed that the City of Toronto will be permitted up to 14 elected representatives, up to 14staff members and 5 Police personnel. The Police personnel and staff representatives are being identified in the normal internal process. The elected officials must be selected and their names and addresses communicated to the OTC administration. Based on the previous distribution of OTC elected officials membership, it would seem appropriate to have a balance of Community Council representation and Urban Environment and Development Committee representation. Therefore, it is proposed that each Community Council appoint up to two members and the Urban Environment and Development Committee appoint up to two members to the OTC. Appendix 1 is a listing of the 1997 OTC elected officials membership for reference and the address of the OTC.

Contact Name:

Mr. David C. Kaufman, Director of Traffic and Field Operations, 392-8431.

--------

Appendix 1

1997 Elected Representatives:

Ken Morrish (Metro)

Case Ootes (Metro)

Vacancy (Metro)

Michael Tziretas (East York)

George Vasilopoulos (East York)

Vacancy (Etobicoke)

Vacancy (Etobicoke)

Peter Li Preti (North York)

Ron Summers (North York)

Joanne Flint (North York)

L. Berardinetti (Scarborough)

P. Mushinski (Scarborough)

H. Barron (Scarborough)

M. Tzekas (Scarborough)

E. Montgomery (Scarborough)

S. Ellis (Toronto)

D. Hutcheon (Toronto)

F. Nunziata (York)

Address:Ontario Traffic Conference

20 Carlton Street, No. 121

Toronto, Ontario M5B 2H5

Phone: (416) 598-4138

Fax:(416) 598-0449

E-mail:otc@idirect.com

8

Temporary Standing Prohibition on Dundas Street West,

in Front of the Art Gallery of Ontario.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (March 30, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having directed that a copy of the report (March 30, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be forwarded to the Toronto Community Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on May 6, 1998; and having requested that the Community Council forward any comments with respect thereto directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on May 13, 1998.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (March30, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the temporary prohibition of standing on the south side of DundasStreetWest, between Beverley Street and McCaul Street, daily between 9:30 a.m. and 10:30p.m., from June 10 to September 21, 1998.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of this temporary standing prohibition are contained in the Current Budget estimates for Transportation. The estimated cost of installing a temporary standing prohibition on Dundas Street, between BeverleyStreet and McCaul Street, is $400.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)standing be prohibited every day between 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. on the south side of Dundas Street West, between Beverley Street and McCaul Street, for a period commencing June 10, 1998 and terminating on September 21, 1998; and

(2)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

By letter dated March 25, 1998, the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) has requested that parking controls on the south side of Dundas Street West, between Beverley Street and McCaul Street, be modified for the duration of the exhibition entitled "The Courtauld Collection" from June 10, 1998, to September 21, 1998, inclusive, in order to provide for the loading and unloading of the large number of buses expected relative to this exhibition. This is the same temporary bus loading plan which was implemented in 1994 in order to accommodate the large volume of visitors to the AGO for the "Barnes Foundation" exhibit.

Discussion:

"The Courtauld Collection" exhibition is a high profile event that is expected to benefit the people and the economy of the City of Toronto. It will be open seven days per week from June 10 to September21, 1998, with an anticipated attendance in excess of 400,000 people. A temporary standing prohibition on the south side of Dundas Street West, between Beverley and McCaul Streets, will facilitate the loading and unloading of the high volumes of buses for school and tour groups attending this exhibition. At present, standing is prohibited at all times in front of the AGO entrance, between a point 117 metres east of Beverley Street and a point 20 metres further east thereof (approximately in the centre of the subject area). However this permanent bus loading area can only accommodate two large buses at any one time. A much larger loading area is required for the anticipated volume of visitors.

At present, stopping is prohibited on the south side of Dundas Street West, between Beverley and McCaul Streets, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., Monday to Friday, except Public Holidays.

Within this same area, parking is permitted within 15 metered parking spaces that operate from 9:30a.m to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, except Public Holidays. Parking is currently prohibited from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, except Public Holidays.

The morning peak period stopping prohibition will be maintained and, therefore, there will be little impact on road operations.

We have consulted with staff of the Toronto Police Service's 52 Division, and with representatives of various neighbourhood associations, and they support this proposal.

It has been past practice not to seek remuneration from the AGO to compensate for the minimal cost to install the loading zone, temporarily cover/uncover the parking meters ($400.00), and also for the loss of parking meter revenue, which is estimated to be approximately $8,900.00. This is because of the overall benefits to the City derived from the AGO exhibition.

Conclusion:

The provision of a temporary standing prohibition on the south side of Dundas Street West, between Beverley Street and McCaul Street, is required to accommodate bus loading and unloading activity during "The Courtauld Collection" exhibition at the Art Gallery of Ontario between June 10 and September 21, 1998 (inclusive).

Contact Name:

Ms. Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, 397-5021.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the April 20, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (May 12, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Toronto Community Council advises that it has endorsed the recommendation to City Council embodied in Clause No. 8 of Report No. 6 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, that the report (March 30, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, headed "Temporary Standing Prohibition on Dundas Street West, in Front of the Art Gallery of Ontario" be adopted.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, on May 6, 1998 had before it a communication (April 22, 1998) from the City Clerk, respecting Temporary Standing Prohibition on Dundas Street West, in Front of the Art Gallery of Ontario (Downtown), forwarding the report (March 30, 1998) from Interim Functional Lead, Transportation; advising of the actions of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on April 20, 1998; and requesting that the Community Council forward any comments with respect thereto directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on May 13, 1998.)

9

Safety and Operational Road Improvements for 1998.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 1, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority to construct safety and operational road improvements at specific locations within the City of Toronto arterial road system and to advertise the required construction by-law.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Capital Budget for the City of Toronto, which includes this project, is scheduled to be approved by Council at its meeting on April 29, 1998. However, this report is scheduled to be submitted to Council at its meeting on May 13, 1998, after the budget has been approved. At that time, if approved, funding will be available in Capital Account C-TR-380, Safety and Operational Improvements, Capital Account C-TR-028, Humber/Gardiner Bridges, and the Scarborough Works and Environment-Public Building Services Division Capital Estimates for Fire Stations. The Treasurer has previously certified that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit approved by City Council.

Recommendations:

Subject to the approval of the Capital Works Program, it is recommended that the City of Toronto Council:

(1)authorize the construction of safety and operational road improvements described in this report, at an estimated cost of $500,000.00;

(2)approve the advertisement of the construction by-law for the safety and operational road improvements as described in this report;

(3)authorize the acquisition of lands shown as Part 1 on Sketch Z-39-5 and Part 1 on SketchZ-45-23 for an amount not to exceed $18,000.00 and, where such negotiations are unsuccessful, authorize staff to make application for approval to expropriate and to serve and publish notice of such application pursuant to the Expropriations Act;

(4)subject to the completion of construction of modifications, rescind the existing regulation which prohibits southbound left turns at all times from Trethewey Drive to Yore Road;

(5)subject to the completion of construction of the lay-by, amend the existing regulation which prohibits stopping at all times on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Stadium Road and a point 75 metres east thereof, to prohibit standing at all times in the vicinity of 633 Lake Shore Boulevard West;

(6)prohibit eastbound to westbound and westbound to eastbound "U"-turns at all times on Danforth Avenue at 3600 Danforth Avenue, subject to the completion of all road works associated with the break in the centre median;

(7)amend the appropriate City By-law(s) accordingly;

(8)authorize the introduction of any necessary Bills; and

(9)authorize to the appropriate City of Toronto officials to take any further action to give effect thereto.

Background:

The Department has an on-going program of minor intersection and road modifications, the purpose of which is to improve the safety and operational characteristics of various locations on the City of Toronto road system. Details of the proposed improvements to be undertaken in 1998 are provided in Table No. 1, in order of priority. These locations were selected through a priority setting exercise from a list of over 31locations. The priority ranking is based on: (1) pedestrian/cyclist safety; (2)motorist safety; and (3) vehicular delay, including (a) transit and (b) general traffic.

1998 Safety and Operational Improvement Locations:

The 13 safety and operational improvement locations are as follows:

(1)Queen's Park Crescent south of-Construct traffic island to

Queen's Park Circleimprove safety;

(2)Steeles Avenue East at Bestview Drive-Construct a pedestrian refuge island;

(3)Sheppard Avenue East, east of Kennedy Road-Construct a pedestrian refuge island;

(4)McCowan Road at Bridley Drive/Big Red Avenue-Construct a pedestrian refuge island;

(5)Eglinton Avenue West at Renforth Drive-Relocate a westbound TTC stop to channelling island at the intersection to improve bus safety;

(6)Trethewey Drive and Yore Road-Remove existing traffic island, realign the curbs and reorganize traffic movement to prevent neighbourhood traffic infiltration;

(7)Queen's Park, south of Bloor Street West-Extend existing bus bay for (in front of Royal Ontario Museum)disabled patrons;

(8)Lake Shore Boulevard West, east of Ellis Avenue-Construct a "U"-turn channel across the median to access beach parking;

(9)3600 Danforth Avenue, east of Wolcott Avenue-Construct a median break for fire station;

(10)Sheppard Avenue West at Laura Road-Construct a pedestrian refuge island;

(11)Bayview Avenue at Nesbitt Drive-Construct a northbound left-turn lane to resolve sight line problems;

(12)633 Lake Shore Boulevard West,-Construct drop off lay-by; and east of Stadium Road

(13)4698 Kingston Road, east of Beechgrove Drive-Construct an eastbound left-turn/"U"-turn lane.

It is proposed that the construction of these works will be undertaken in one contract. The tender for the contract will be called on April 30, 1998. Locations Nos. 1 to 11, are to be included in this contract. Approval is also sought at this time for two alternative locations (Locations Nos. 12 and13), in the event that it is not possible to construct this year any of the first 11 locations due to unforeseen utility or individual site related problems. It should be noted that the works on LakeShore Boulevard West, east of Ellis Avenue (Location No. 8) will be funded from the Humber/Gardiner Bridges Project and at 3600 Danforth Avenue, which is the construction of an access to a new fire station on Danforth Avenue (Location No. 9), will be the responsibility of the City of Toronto, Works and Environment, Public Building Services Division, Scarborough Civic Centre.

Property Requirements:

To accommodate a future improvement, small pieces of property need to be acquired at this time at the following locations in order to proceed with construction in 1999:

(a)Location No. 14 - O'Connor Drive at Curity Avenue: a 15 square metre triangular parcel of land is required to be purchased to create space for a curb realignment at the northwest corner of this intersection. The proposed improvement is to prevent right-turning trucks from encroaching into oncoming traffic or mounting the curb. It is illustrated as Part 1 on SketchZ-39-5.

(b)Location No. 15 - O'Connor Drive at Don Mills Road: a 25 square metre triangular parcel of land needs to be acquired at the northeast corner of this intersection. The land allows for a large radius to prevent right-turning trucks from encroaching into oncoming traffic or mounting the curb. It is illustrated as Part 1 on Sketch Z-45-23.

Required Work:

In order to construct these modifications some of the following work will have to be undertaken at each location:

(a)removal of concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks and medians;

(b)construction of concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks and medians;

(c)construction of concrete road base and asphalt pavement;

(d)removal and reconstruction of catch basins and connections;

(e)construction of concrete pedestrian refuge islands;

(f)relocation of underground traffic signal ducts, handwells and pole bases;

(g)alteration of traffic control devices; and

(h)utility relocation.

The attached plans show the modifications, while Table No. 1 gives an explanation of the rationale for each improvement.

Scope of Work at Bayview Avenue and Nesbitt Drive (Location No. 11):

By way of background, the proposed improvements to the Bayview Avenue/Nesbitt Drive intersection are in response to concerns raised by members of the public with respect to safety at this intersection.

On September 24 and 25, 1997, Metropolitan Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 8 of Report No.19 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, which outlined possible solutions for addressing the public's concerns about the visibility of northbound left-turning vehicles. In addition, the Commissioner of Transportation was requested to include the northbound left-turn lane at BayviewAvenue/Nesbitt Drive in the 1998 Capital Works Program.

The improvements at this intersection are proposed to be implemented in three phases: The first phase, which was completed in the fall of 1997, was the installation of advance warning signs/flashing lights to improve the visibility of the existing traffic control signals on Bayview Avenue from both the northbound and southbound approaches to the intersection. The second phase planned this year, is the installation of a northbound left turn lane. The third phase involves regrading of the intersection to achieve a 50 kilometre per hour stopping sight distance. This work is planned to coincide with the next scheduled resurfacing for this section of Bayview Avenue, currently programmed for 2003.

Traffic By-law Amendments:

At the following locations existing traffic by-laws are required to be amended upon the completion of proposed modifications:

(i)Trethewey Drive/Yore Road (Location No. 6):

Currently southbound left turns are prohibited at this intersection, which causes traffic infiltration affecting safety in the Greenhill Community. In order to alleviate this problem, the former City of York requested that this prohibition be removed which, in turn, requires the removal of the northbound channelized right turn and the existing island.

(ii)No. 3600 Danforth Avenue, east of Wolcott Avenue (Location No. 9):

A break in the existing concrete centre median on Danforth Avenue is required to provide access/egress for emergency vehicles to a new Fire Hall. In order to prevent potentially hazardous turning movements, "U"-turns should be prohibited at all times at this location.

(iii)Lake Shore Boulevard West, east of Stadium Road (Location No. 12):

In order to permit a drop off lay-by at this location the existing regulation, which prohibits stopping at all times, must be amended.

Accommodation of Pedestrians and Cyclists:

All of the proposed improvements have been developed using current departmental standards for pedestrians and cyclists, which provides for bicycle-friendly curb lanes, reduced corner radii where feasible and wider sidewalks. However, in certain cases trade-offs had to be made with respect to the space allocated to each road user.

Specifically, pedestrian refuge islands are proposed at four locations (Locations Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 10) where pedestrians are experiencing difficulty crossing the road, but where pedestrian crossovers are not warranted. These refuge islands have been placed either within existing painted centre medians or left turn lane areas. Accordingly, existing lane widths will remain the same with no provision for extra width for cycling needs.

Conclusions:

The road modifications outlined in this report are proposed to address safety and operational problems at various locations on the City of Toronto road system. The estimated construction cost of the 1998 Safety and Operational Program is $500,000.00, which has been included in the 1998 Capital Budget Estimates. Two locations are funded from the Scarborough Works and Environment-Public Building Services Division and the Humber/Gardiner Bridges Project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ms. K. P. Llewellyn-Thomas, Manager, Project Planning and Design, 392-8590, Fax - 392-4426.

(A copy of Table No. 1, the location plans and the sketches, which were appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

10

Contract No. T-25-98:

Prince Edward Viaduct - Don Section, Span 4

Cleaning, Painting and Repair of Structural Steel.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 26, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To award a contract for the cleaning, painting and repair of the structural steel on the PrinceEdwardViaduct.

Funding Source:

The total project cost is estimated to be $2,719,932.74, of which approximately $1,000,000.00 is recoverable from the Toronto Transit Commission. The cost is summarized as follows:

(1)Bid Price Amount $2,458,412.74

(2)(a) Design29,000.00

(b) Construction supervision, 28 weeks @ $5,090.00/week (estimate)142,520.00

(3)Other costs (estimate):90,000.00

(a) quality control testing and monitoring; and

(b) construction access and signs.

____________

Total project cost $2,719,932.74

The Capital Budget for the City of Toronto, which includes this project, is scheduled to be approved by Council at its meeting on April 29, 1998. However, this report is scheduled to be submitted to Council at its meeting on May 13, 1998, after the budget has been approved. At that time, if approved, funding will be available in Capital Account No. C-TR055, Bridge Reconstruction Program. The Treasurer certifies that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and that it falls within Corporate Debt Guidelines.

Recommendations:

Subject to this project being included in the approved 1998 Capital Works Program, it is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. T-25-98,for the cleaning, painting and repair of structural steel on the PrinceEdward Viaduct, be awarded to C. H. Heist Ltd. who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $2,458,412.74; and

(2)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Comments:

On March 26, 1998, the City Clerk's Department opened tenders for:

Contract No. T-25-98Prince Edward Viaduct - Don Section, Span 4

Cleaning, Painting and Repair of Structural Steel

NumberName $ Amount

4C. H. Heist Ltd.2,458,412.74

3Harrison-Muir Limited and H. M. Aquablast Limited2,465,998.24

5Clarke and Company Contractors Ltd.2,991,178.58

2383941 Ontario Limited, O/A Dayson Sandblasting Services and3,570,813.63

Coatings

1Norlag Coatings Limited3,579,793.07

Tenders Nos. 1, 4 and 5 contained minor errors in the extension of the unit prices. The revised figures are shown above.

The award is subject to receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractor and his sub-contractors, and also from the Treasurer regarding the surety company which issued the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond.

Scope of Work:

The work in this contract consists of cleaning, painting and repair of the structural steel in the fourth span of the Prince Edward Viaduct. To date we have completed the cleaning, painting and repair of three of the five spans of this structure.

Conclusion:

Contract No. T-25-98 should be awarded to C. H. Heist Ltd. who submitted the lowest price bid for this Contract.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. M. Chung, P. Eng., Manager of Structures, Metro Hall Office , 392-8311.

11

Contract No. T-29-98:

Bloor Street Westbound Bridge Over

Dundas Street Eastbound--Structure Rehabilitation.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 23, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To award a contract for the rehabilitation of the Bloor Street westbound bridge over Dundas Street eastbound.

Funding Source:

The total project cost is estimated to be $1,371,474.37 and is summarized as follows:

(1)Bid Price Amount $1,158,424.37

(2)Construction supervision, 19 weeks at $5,950.00 per week (estimate)113,050.00

(3)Other costs (estimate):100,000.00

(a) quality control testing;

(b) traffic signage; and

(c) temporary traffic control signal.

____________

Total project cost $1,371,474.37

The Capital Budget for the City of Toronto, which includes this project, is scheduled to be approved by Council at its meeting on April 29, 1998. This report is scheduled to be submitted to Council at its meeting on May 13, 1998, after the budget has been approved. At that time, if approved, funding will be available in Capital Account No. C-TR055, Bridge Reconstruction Program. The Treasurer certifies that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and that it falls within Corporate Debt Guidelines.

Recommendations:

Subject to this project being included in the approved 1998 Capital Works Program, it is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. T-29-98, for the rehabilitation of the Bloor Street westbound bridge over Dundas Street eastbound, be awarded to Belor Construction Limited who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $1,158,424.37;

(2)commencing the first day of construction (expected to be May 15, 1998) and terminating on the last day of construction (expected to be September 4, 1998);

(a)the northerly and southerly westbound lanes on Bloor Street West at Dunbloor Road be designated for westbound right turns only;

(b)the easterly northbound lane on Dunbloor Road at Dundas Street West be designated for northbound left turns, through movements and right turns only;

(c)the westerly northbound lane on Dunbloor Road at Dundas Street West be designated for northbound left turns only; and

(d)pedestrian crossings be prohibited on Dundas Street West between the west curb line of Dunbloor Road and a point 30.5 metres west thereof;

(3)the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly; and

(4)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Comments:

On March 5, 1998, the City Clerk's Department opened tenders for:

Contract No. T-29-98Bloor Street Westbound Bridge over Dundas Street Eastbound Structure Rehabilitation

NumberName $ Amount

9Belor Construction Ltd.1,158,424.37

11Bridgecon Construction Ltd. and Bridgecon Holdings Ltd.1,170,732.84

2Toronto Zenith Contracting Limited1,203,693.29

7Grascan Construction Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd.1,227,290.00

3Dagmar Construction Inc.1,227,851.58

6G. Tari Limited1,231,334.82

10Anscon Contracting Inc. and Janscon Holdings Inc.1,233,001.50

5Soncin Construction Corporation1,242,172.76

8Dufferin Construction Company, a division of1,250,575.77

St. Lawrence Cement Inc.

4Graham Bros. Construction Ltd., Fairglen Excavating Ltd.,1,336,788.72

795208 Ontario Ltd., Graham Brothers Aggregates Ltd.

1Bob Hendricksen Construction Ltd. and 568265 Ontario Ltd.1,589,239.65

Tender No. 1 contained a minor error in the extension of the unit prices. The revised figure is shown above.

The award is subject to receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractor and his sub-contractors, and also from the Treasurer regarding the surety company which issued the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond.

Scope of Work:

The work in this contract comprises the structure rehabilitation of the Bloor Street westbound bridge over Dundas Street eastbound and related roadworks at the Six Points Interchange. The work includes modification to concrete footings and abutment bearing walls; new concrete girders and deck, sidewalks, approach slabs and parapet walls; expansion joints; aluminum railing; asphalt paving and waterproofing.

To complete this project in a safe and efficient manner, Dundas Street eastbound and Bloor Street westbound, within the Six Points Interchange area, will be closed to traffic. In order to facilitate the flow of traffic during this closure, temporary traffic signals will be installed at the intersection of Dundas Street and Dunbloor Road and there will be designated left and right-turn lanes on both BloorStreet and Dunbloor Road.

Conclusion:

Contract No. T-29-98 should be awarded to Belor Construction Limited who submitted the lowest price bid for this Contract. The designated right and left-turn lanes, as recommended in this report, should be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. M. Chung, P. Eng., Manager of Structures, Metro Hall Office, 392-8341.

12

Contract No. T-37-98:

Frederick G. Gardiner Expressway High Mast Lighting

Installation--Windermere Avenue to Dufferin Street.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 26, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To award a contract for the replacement of lighting on the Frederick G. Gardiner Expressway from 12 metres west of Windermere Avenue to 50 metres west of Dufferin Street.

Funding Source:

The total project cost is estimated to be $2,500,183.75 and is summarized as follows:

(1)Bid Price Amount $1,684,183.75

(2)Construction supervision, 20 weeks at $3,800.00 per week (estimate)76,000.00

(3)Other costs (estimate):740,000.00

(a) quality control testing;

(b) traffic control;

(c) materials; and

(d) miscellaneous.

____________

Total project cost $2,500,183.75

The Capital Budget for the City of Toronto, which includes this project, is scheduled to be approvedby Council at its meeting on April 29, 1998. However, this report is scheduled to be submitted to Council at its meeting on May 13, 1998, after the budget has been approved. Funding is currently available in Capital Account No. C-TR180, F. G. Gardiner Repairs, Parkway to Humber. The Treasurer certifies that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and that it falls within Corporate Debt Guidelines.

Recommendations:

Subject to this project being included in the approved 1998 Capital Works Program, it is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. T-37-98, for the installation of high mast lighting on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway from 12 metres west of Windermere Avenue to 50 metres west of DufferinStreet, be awarded to Guild Electric Limited who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $1,684,183.75; and

(2)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Comments:

On February 26, 1998, the City Clerk's Department opened tenders for:

Contract No. T-37-98F. G. Gardiner Expressway Installation of High Mast Lighting 12metres west of Windermere Avenue to 50 metres west of DufferinStreet

NumberName $ Amount

4Guild Electric Limited1,684,183.75

1Fellmore Electrical Contractors Ltd.1,750,656.61

3Black and McDonald Ltd.1,781,163.82

2Stacey Electric Ltd.1,957,554.41

5BFC Traffic Technology2,192,726.39

Tender No. 4 contained a minor error in the calculation of the Goods and Services Tax. The revised figure is shown above. Tender No. 5 contained minor errors in the extension of the unit prices. The revised figure is shown above.

The award is subject to receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractor and his sub-contractors, and also from the Treasurer regarding the surety company which issued the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond.

Scope of Work:

The work in this contract includes the furnishing of all necessary labour, supervision, equipment and services to complete the installation of the electrical system for high mast and conventional lighting on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway from 12 metres west of Windermere Avenue to 50 metres west of Dufferin Street. Materials for this contract will be supplied under Contract No. T-68-92, which was previously awarded as a long-term supply contract for expressway lighting hardware. The estimated cost for these materials is $670,000.00, and is included in "Other Costs" in the section of this report, entitled "Funding Source".

Conclusion:

Contract No. T-37-98 should be awarded to Guild Electric Limited who submitted the lowest price bid for this Contract.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. B. I. Craig, P. Eng., Manager of Roads, Metro Hall Office, 392-8312.

13

Award of Contract No. 330:

Asphalt Resurfacing, Pavement Repairs

and Some Associated Concrete Sidewalk

and Curb Repairs at Various Locations in

the City of Toronto, Scarborough District.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 6, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To award a contract for asphalt resurfacing, pavement repairs and some associated concrete sidewalk and curb repairs at various locations in the City of Toronto, Scarborough district.

Funding Source:

Funds have been provided within the 1998 Current Budget Estimates in the following accounts:

(a)Asphalt Resurfacing-Account No. 20000-70200-73370-552;

(b)Utility Cut Restoration-Account No. 20000-70200-73710-552; and

(c)Other Roadside Activities-Account No. 20000-70200-73580-552.

Monies have been allocated within the Department's interim appropriation to accommodate these expenditures.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Contract No. 330, for asphalt resurfacing, pavement repairs and some associated concrete sidewalk and curb repairs at various locations in the City of Toronto, Scarborough district, be awarded to D. Crupi and Sons Limited who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $2,050,374.05, plus G.S.T.

Comments:

On March 5, 1998, tenders for Contract No. 330 were opened in public:

ContractorTender Price

D. Crupi and Sons Limited$2,050,374.05

Furfari Construction Ltd.$2,113,156.50

Warren Bitulithic Limited$2,152,990.95

Gazzola Paving Limited$2,276,259.00

Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd.$2,291,826.75

Fermar Paving Limited$2,525,715.45

This contract is for work related to the annual maintenance program in the Scarborough district.

Conclusion:

Contract No. 330 should be awarded to D. Crupi and Sons Limited who submitted the lowest bid for this contract.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Gary Welsh, Director, Roads and Traffic Services, Works and Environment, Scarborough District, 396-7842, Fax: 396-5681, E-mail: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca.

14

Rehabilitation of the Existing Bridge Deck on the

Glen Road Bridge Between South Drive and

Beaumont Road - Award of Contract No. 59690.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated May 8, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. 59690, for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge deck on the Glen Road Bridge between South Drive and Beaumont Road, be awarded to the low bidder, Bridgecon Construction Limited, in the amount of $2,783,136.03;

(2)the firm of R.E. Winter and Associates Limited be engaged to provide construction supervision and administration services in connection with the rehabilitation of the Glen Road bridge, in accordance with terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor, at a total cost of $91,385.00, including GST; and

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the award of the contract for the rehabilitation of the Glen Road Bridge.

Funding Source:

Funds to cover the cost of the City's share of the extended Canada Ontario Infrastructure Works Program (COIWP) were provided in 1997 from the Reserve for Mill Rate Stabilization and the Reserve for Water Rates Stabilization and Other Purposes, respectively. The balance of the required funding for this project is included in the Department's 1998 Capital Budget request.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to report directly to City Council at its May 13, 1998 meeting on the results of the tender call and recommendation for the award of Contract No. 59690 for the rehabilitation of the Glen Road bridge; and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the action necessary to give effect thereto.

Comments:

The Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting of June 2 and 3, 1997, approved the inclusion of the rehabilitation of the Glen Road bridge deck under the extended Canada Ontario Infrastructure Works Program, at an estimated cost of $1,800,000.00. The balance of the funds required for the project are included in the 1998 Capital Budget request ($1,000,000.00).

Staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing advised under date of January 22,1998, that the City's projects had received approval from the COIWP Management Committee. It is anticipated that City Council will approve the balance of the funds required for this project as part of the 1998 Capital Budget.

In order to be in a position to complete the work this year, tenders were called on March 18, 1998, and scheduled to close on April 8, 1998. This does not provide staff enough time to analyze the tenders for this complex project and prepare a recommendation report in time for your Committee's meeting. The project is scheduled to commence on June 1, 1998.

City Council at its meeting of March 4, 5, and 6, 1998, enacted By-law No. 57-1998. This By-law, the Interim Purchasing By-law to establish interim procedures and authority for procurement of goods and services, provides that bids in excess of $1,000,000.00 shall be referred to a Standing Committee of Council or to the Community Council responsible for the program or service, and the Standing Committee or Community Council shall make a recommendation in respect of same to Council. Since it is anticipated that the cost of the Glen Road project will be in excess of $1,000,000.00, its award will require the approval of Council pursuant to By-law No.57-1998.

This report is being submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee at this time to seek the Committee's authorization to report directly to City Council on this matter in order that the commencement date and overall construction schedule is not compromised.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. A. Koropeski, Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, 392-7711.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (May 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To award a contract for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge deck on the Glen Road Bridge between South Drive and Beaumont Road (Toronto Midtown) and to authorize the engagement of a consultant for construction supervision and administration.

Funding Source:

Funds to cover the cost of the bridge rehabilitation project, in the amount of $2,783,136.03, are available in Account Nos. 217719-39223-7Feat-C1201-B298-BR2000 and 293801-39223-7Feat-293801-B298-BR2000. The cost of consulting fees for this project has been accommodated within the project budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. 59690, for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge deck on the Glen Road Bridge between South Drive and Beaumont Road, be awarded to the low bidder, Bridgecon Construction Limited, in the amount of $2,783,136.03;

(2)the firm of R.E. Winter and Associates Limited be engaged to provide construction supervision and administration services in connection with the rehabilitation of the Glen Road bridge in accordance with terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor at a total cost of $91,385.00, including GST; and

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

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting of April 20, 1998, in considering the report dated April 3, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, respecting the award of Contract No. 59690 for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge deck on the Glen Road Bridge between South Drive and Beaumont Road authorized the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council at its May 13, 1998 meeting on the results of the tender call and recommendation for the award of this contract (Clause No.14 of Report No.6 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee).

Comments:

Award of Contract

The City of Toronto Tender Committee, at its meeting held on April 8, 1998, received tenders for Contract No. 59690 for the rehabilitation of the existing bridge deck on the Glen Road Bridge from South Drive to Beaumont Road, as summarized below:

Tender

No. TendererTender Price

1. Bridgecon Construction Limited$2,783,136.03

1. Underground Services (1983) Limited2,784,769.00
2. Bob Hendricksen Construction Limited2,813,775.10
3. Toronto Zenith Contracting Limited2,838,956.00
4. Belor Construction Limited2,889,423.00
5. G. Tari Limited2,931,454.74
6. Soncin Construction Corporation2,935,004.21
7. Grascan Construction Ltd./Torbridge Construction Ltd.3,362,000.00

The tender prices have been checked and mathematical errors were found in the tenders submitted by Underground Services (1983) Limited and Bob Hendricksen Construction Limited. The revised totals are shown above.

The Manager, Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office, has reported favourably on the firm recommended.

Engagement of Consultant:

In response to a request for proposals dated June 12, 1997, the firm of R.E. Winter and Associates was retained by the City to provide consulting services with respect to the condition survey of the Glen Road Bridge. An agreement was executed on July 17, 1997. Subsequently, the City entered into an agreement with R.E. Winter and Associates on November 19, 1997 for the detailed design component of the Glen Road Bridge rehabilitation project. In order to maintain continuity with respect to engineering services for this project, it is recommended that the assignment of this firm be extended to include the construction supervision and administration. There are several reasons for continuing its engagement. Specifically, the construction supervision and administration for the Glen Road Bridge requires special expertise in bridge rehabilitation. This firm has extensive experience and expertise in bridge construction and because of its previous involvement and detailed knowledge of the project, it is best suited to undertake the construction supervision and administration on behalf of the City. Secondly, the rehabilitation work is scheduled to commence in early June and be completed by the late fall of this year, and the engagement of another consulting engineer would result in a significant time delay due to recertification of the design, provision of liability insurance, etc. A delay in the project could result in increased contract costs and compromise funding under the Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Works Program.

With respect to the fee, the total cost of the engineering services related to construction supervision and administration are dependent on the construction schedule, construction progress, difficulties encountered during construction and contractor's performance. These services, therefore, are to be paid on the basis of time plus expenses and do not lend themselves to the calling of competitive bids. Finally, it is accepted practice and the recommendation of the Engineering and Consulting Profession that the Engineer who prepares the design and the contract specifications also assists the owner in Contract Administration and Supervision. This is necessary because the engineer who prepared the design has the detailed knowledge of the project to facilitate and expedite the necessary changes to specifications that may be encountered during the course of construction.

This assignment shall be performed in accordance with terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Werner Wichmann, P.Eng., City Engineer, Former City of Toronto, 392-7703.)

15

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Dundas Street West and Montrose Avenue.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Dundas Street West and Montrose Avenue.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic control signal installations are contained in the Transportation Department's proposed Capital Program under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of installing traffic control signals on Dundas Street West at Montrose Avenue is $50,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)traffic control signals be approved at the intersection of Dundas Street West and MontroseAvenue; and

(2)installation be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program and the securing of appropriate financing.

Background:

At the request of Councillor Joe Pantalone, Transportation Department staff investigated traffic operations at the intersection of Dundas Street West and Montrose Avenue.

Discussion:

Dundas Street West, in the vicinity of Montrose Avenue, is a four-lane roadway with a pavement width of 13.2 metres. Montrose Avenue is a two-lane, one-way southbound roadway and forms a "T"-type intersection at Dundas Street West on the north side. Montrose Avenue is located approximately 172 metres west of the signalized intersection of Dundas Street West and Grace Street and 193 metres east of Dundas Street West and Shaw Street. The land use is predominantly residential in this area. However, Bellwoods Park is situated on the south side of Dundas Street West in this vicinity. This park is used by the abutting community to hold numerous recreational, social and religious activities, especially during the spring and summer months.

The results of an eight-hour weekday traffic study disclosed that 359 pedestrians cross Dundas Street West in the vicinity of Montrose Avenue. Delays in excess of ten seconds are experienced by more than 50 percent of pedestrians. The number of pedestrians crossing Dundas Street West, in combination with the delays they experience, satisfy the technical requirements for the installation of a pedestrian crossover.

A review of the Toronto Police Services collision records for the five-year period ending December31, 1996, disclosed a total of 11 collisions at the intersection of Dundas Street West and Montrose Avenue. Four of these were of the type considered potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. One collision involved a pedestrian. In this particular case, which occurred in 1993, a pedestrian was struck by a westbound motorist while crossing DundasStreet West from the north side. The pedestrian sustained major injuries. The driver was not charged by the Police.

Despite fulfilling the warrant requirements for the installation of a pedestrian crossover, this location is not physically suitable for this type of device. Specifically, we have concerns with the level of parking, loading activity, and turning movements which would compromise the visibility of pedestrians within a pedestrian crossover and interfere with its operation. As an alternative, we are recommending the installation of traffic control signals.

Dundas Street West is a major arterial roadway. While the spacing between adjacent traffic control signals is less than desirable, local route speeds are sufficiently low that the installation of traffic control signals will provide overall benefits to public safety, and will not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this arterial road.

Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program, which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 29, 1998.

Conclusions:

A pedestrian crossover is warranted at the intersection of Dundas Street West and Montrose Avenue. However, this location is not suitable for a pedestrian crossover and the more positive form of pedestrian control provided by traffic control signals should be provided.

Contact Name:

Ms. Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, 397-5021.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

16

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Islington Avenue, North of Winnipeg Road.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 19, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To propose the installation of pedestrian-activated traffic control signals on Islington Avenue, approximately 25 metres north of Winnipeg Road, coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover (PXO) at this location.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic control signal installations are contained in the Department's Capital Budget Projections under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals on Islington Avenue, 25 metres north of Winnipeg Road, is $57,000.00 including the removal of the existing PXO.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)pedestrian-activated traffic control signals be installed on Islington Avenue, approximately 25 metres north of Winnipeg Road;

(2)coincident with the pedestrian-activated traffic control signal installation, the existing pedestrian crossover be removed;

(3)installation be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program and the securing of appropriate financing; and

(4)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

This location was investigated at the request of a member of the local community. There is concern that the existing PXO, which serves the local community, is unsafe for pedestrians and, therefore, should be replaced with pedestrian-activated traffic control signals.

Discussion:

Islington Avenue in this vicinity is a four-lane arterial roadway, with left-turn lanes, and a posted speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour. Winnipeg Road forms a "T"-type intersection from the east approximately 25 metres south of the existing PXO. Fenley Drive forms a "T"-type intersection from the west, approximately 50 metres north of the existing PXO. Adjacent traffic control signals on IslingtonAvenue are located approximately 510 metres to the north of the PXO, at Dixon Road, and 485 metres to the south at The Westway.

There are approximately 102 pedestrians crossing Islington Avenue at the subject PXO during an eight-hour period of a typical weekday.

We have evaluated the operational characteristics of this PXO location according to the guidelines that were developed for the "Audit of Operational and Physical Suitability at Pedestrian Crossovers in Toronto". The results are as follows:

This location does not meet four of the criteria listed above, specifically the operating speed, road width, volume of turning vehicles and the loading zones in immediate area.

Transportation Department staff reviewed the collision records provided by the Toronto Police Service for the five-year period ending December 31, 1996. During this period three collisions have occurred involving pedestrians in the PXO. One of these collisions involved a 44-year-old woman who received minor injuries. The driver of the vehicle was charged in this collision. The second collision involved a 63-year-old woman who received minor injuries. The driver of the vehicle was charged in the collision. The third collision involved two girls, one aged 12 and one aged 13. Both of the girls received major injuries. The driver of the vehicle was charged.

Islington Avenue is a major arterial road. Given the adequate spacing between adjacent traffic control signals, the replacement of the PXO with traffic control signals will not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this arterial link within the network of arterial roads.

Consideration was given to replacing the existing PXO with traffic control signals at either the "T"intersection of Islington Avenue at Winnipeg Road or at Fenley Drive. However, existing pedestrian crossing patterns are well-established at the mid-point with the TTC bus stops located adjacent to the existing PXO. A southbound far-side bus bay is also present. Furthermore, the existing PXO location, 25 metres north of Winnipeg Drive, is at the crest of a hill and is, therefore, the most appropriate location for this device from a sight line perspective.

Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program, which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 29, 1998.

Conclusion:

The existing PXO on Islington Avenue, north of Winnipeg Road, is no longer operating in a satisfactory fashion. Pedestrian-activated traffic control signals should be installed to improve pedestrian safety at this location.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Bruce Zvaniga, Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, 392-8826.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

17

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Birchmount Road and 2450/2500 Birchmount Road Driveway

(Site Access to Stephen Leacock Collegiate Institute,

John Buchan Senior Public School/

Stephen Leacock Arena and Community Centre).

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 17, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Birchmount Road and 2450/2500 Birchmount Road driveway, coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover (PXO) located immediately north of the driveway.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Transportation Department's Proposed Capital Program under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals at 2450/2500 Birchmount Road is $90,000.00 including the removal of the existing PXO.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)traffic control signals be approved on Birchmount Road at the driveway to 2450/2500Birchmount Road;

(2)coincident with the traffic control signal installation, the existing pedestrian crossover on Birchmount Road north of the driveway to 2450/2500 Birchmount Road be removed;

(3)installation be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works program and the securing of appropriate financing; and

(4)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

This location was investigated at the request of a member of the public, who expressed concern about the operation of the driveway to 2450/2500 Birchmount Road and the PXO immediately north of the driveway and requested that it be replaced with traffic control signals.

Discussion:

Birchmount Road in this vicinity is a four-lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 60kilometres per hour. At the driveway to 2450/2500 Birchmount Road, there is a northbound left-turn lane, a northbound far-side bus bay, and a southbound far-side bus bay. A PXO is locatedimmediately north of the driveway. The driveway serves as the site access to 2450Birchmount Road, Stephen Leacock Collegiate Institute and John Buchan Senior Public School, as well as 2500 Birchmount Road, Stephen Leacock Arena and Community Centre.

We have evaluated the operational characteristics of this PXO according to the guidelines that were developed for the "Audit of Operational and Physical Suitability at Pedestrian Crossovers in Metropolitan Toronto". The results are as follows:

This location does not meet five of the criteria listed above, specifically the operating speed, number of lanes, driveways in proximity, high volume of turning vehicles and loading zone locations. In addition, we conducted a review of the Toronto Police Service collision records for the five-year period ending December 31, 1996. During this period, there were three collisions involving pedestrians and 23 rear-end collisions at the PXO.

Birchmount Road is a major arterial road. Given the adequate spacing between adjacent traffic control signals, the replacement of the PXO with traffic control signals will not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this arterial within the network of arterial roads.

Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 29, 1998.

Conclusions:

The existing PXO on Birchmount Road, north of the driveway at 2450/2500 Birchmount Road, is no longer operating in a satisfactory fashion. Traffic control signals should be installed to improve the operational safety of this location.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Martin Maguire, Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.

18

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Progress Avenue and William Kitchen Road.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (March 27, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.

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

(1)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to submit a report directly to Council for consideration with this matter on May 13, 1998, outlining the process which was used for the naming of WilliamKitchen Road; and

(2)received the communication (April 9, 1998) from Councillor LorenzoBerardinetti, Scarborough City Centre.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (March27, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Progress Avenue and William Kitchen Road.

Funding Sources:

All costs associated with the subject work are to be borne by the developer, First Gulf Development Corporation.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)traffic control signals be approved at the intersection of Progress Avenue and WilliamKitchenRoad;

(2)installation be subject to the opening of William Kitchen Road and the closure of the easterly driveway at 34 Progress Avenue; and

(3)installation of the traffic control signals be subject to the receipt of funding from the developer.

Background:

In a letter dated September 26, 1996, from Mr. David Gurin, Deputy Commissioner, Metro Planning to Mr. Lorne Ross, Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, City of Scarborough, regarding the Kennedy Commons Shopping Centre development, it was stated that the developer would be responsible for all costs associated with traffic control signals at the new Public Road (WilliamKitchen Road) and Progress Avenue intersection when they are deemed warranted and have been approved by the Metro Transportation Department.

The installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Progress Avenue and WilliamKitchenRoad is one of several traffic control measures and road modifications required to accommodate traffic generated by the Kennedy Commons Shopping Centre development. All other requirements on the public roads have been approved and are in various states of completion.

Discussion:

William Kitchen Road is a new public road currently under construction. When completed it will extend from Kennedy Road, opposite from the Highway No. 401 eastbound off-ramp, to ProgressAvenue. The proposed traffic control signals at the new Progress Avenue and WilliamKitchen Road intersection would be located approximately 290 metres east of the existing traffic control signals at the Kennedy Road and Progress Avenue intersection and approximately 570metres west of the traffic control signals at the Midland Avenue and Progress Avenue intersection. The proposed traffic control signals would be approximately 110 metres west of a Canadian National Railway crossing which is at-grade with Progress Avenue.

An eight-hour traffic control signal warrant study was conducted based on projected traffic volumes generated by the shopping centre development. The results are listed below:

WarrantCompliance

(1)Minimum Vehicular Volume96 percent

(2)Delay to Cross Traffic98 percent

Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 should be 100 percent satisfied or two warrants should be 80 percent satisfied to satisfy the minimum technical requirements for the installation of traffic control signals.

A review of the driveway operations of 34 Progress Avenue revealed that traffic movements from the easterly driveway to the Toronto Bread Company at 34 Progress Avenue, immediately west of William Kitchen Road, would conflict with traffic movements at the proposed traffic control signals. Furthermore, the site traffic at 34 Progress Avenue can be adequately serviced by its westerly driveway. Therefore, in order to provide optimal safety at the proposed traffic control signals, the easterly driveway at 34 Progress Avenue should be closed. Staff are presently working with the owner of the Toronto Bread Company to identify alternate driveway options such as additional access onto William Kitchen Road.

Given the adequate spacing between adjacent traffic control signals, the installation of traffic control signals will not have a significant impact on the operation of the roads in the immediate area.

Conclusion:

The proposed installation of traffic control signals will provide a safe access to the Kennedy Commons Shopping Centre development on Progress Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Martin Maguire, Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (April9, 1998) from Councillor LorenzoBerardinetti, Scarborough City Centre:

As one of the Councillors for the area in which the Kennedy Commons Shopping Centre Development is located, I am writing to apprise Members of the Urban Environment and Development Committee that I strongly support the request from the City of Toronto (Scarborough) Works and Transportation Department for the installation of traffic signals at this location. I understand that my request will be dealt with by the Committee on April 20, 1998, and ask that my support be placed on the record.

Thank you for your consideration and attention in this matter.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report dated March 27, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 29, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report, as requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee, is to provide Council with additional information on the process by which William Kitchen Road received its name.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No financial implications have been identified to date.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting held on April 20, 1998 recommended that Council approve the installation of traffic control signals on Progress Avenue at the intersection of a new public street named William Kitchen Road. This public street is being constructed in order to serve a new development known as the Kennedy Commons Shopping Centre in the Highway 401/Kennedy Road environs. It also serves to provide a connection between Kennedy Road (at the location of the Highway 401 eastbound off-ramp) and Progress Avenue.

Committee requested the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation to submit a report directly to Council when it considers this matter on May 13, 1998 outlining the process that was undertaken to name William Kitchen Road.

Discussion:

Plans submitted to the former City of Scarborough for a proposed new shopping centre development in the Highway 401/Kennedy Road environs indicated a new public road labelled "Lansing Boulevard" extending through the project. Although no formal request was made by the applicant to register the name with the City, plans continued to informally show the proposed new street as "Lansing Boulevard".

The development was approved by the former City of Scarborough Council in 1997, and construction of the development and the associated new road was initiated that same year. Early in 1998, the developer requested street addresses from Scarborough Works and Environment for the parcels of land fronting onto the new road so that the utility companies would provide connections to the buildings. It was then determined that "Lansing Boulevard" was not yet registered; therefore, addresses could not be provided until the name was approved.

In February 1998, consistent with established procedures and policies, staff from Scarborough Works and Environment in co-ordination with staff from Metro Toronto Planning determined that the name "Lansing" was already used within Toronto (North York district) and was therefore unacceptable. The developer was informed immediately due to the urgency with which the utility connections were required. Shortly thereafter, the developer submitted five alternate names in a preferred order for consideration by City staff. Two of these five were acceptable, being William Kitchen Boulevard or William Kitchen Road (i.e., the first and second preferences of the developer). The other three were not acceptable due to conflicts with existing street names. After having selected William Kitchen Road, the developer was advised that Scarborough's policy is to advise the ward Councillors of the proposed name to determine whether they also endorse the street name. In this case Councillors Brad Duguid and Lorenzo Berardinetti were informed, and they advised that William Kitchen Road was acceptable. Street addresses were subsequently assigned by Scarborough Works and Environment staff in early March 1998 and the developer was then able to secure utility connections for the project.

Conclusions:

Although a new public street (which is currently under construction) in the Highway 401/Kennedy Road environs was informally named "Lansing Boulevard" on development-related plans, it was not until a conflict with an existing street known by the same name in Toronto (North York district) was discovered that an alternate name was chosen. The policy in the former City of Scarborough required co-ordination between former local and Metro staff to register proposed street names in order to avoid conflicts/duplicates. The policy also required staff to advise the affected ward Councillors of proposed new street names in order to receive their endorsement. The implemented practices described above reflect the process by which William Kitchen Road was named.

Contact Name:

Gary H. Welsh, Director, Road and Traffic Services, Works and Environment, Scarborough District,

Telephone: 396-5061, Fax: 396-5681, E-mail: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca.)

19

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals

Overlea Boulevard and William Morgan Drive.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 17, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of OverleaBoulevard and William Morgan Drive, coincident with the removal of the existing split pedestrian crossover (PXO) located immediately to the east of the intersection and to obtain authority to construct associated road modifications and to advertise the required construction by-law for these associated road modifications.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Transportation Department's Proposed Capital Program under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of installing traffic control signals at the intersection of Overlea Boulevard and William Morgan Drive is $90,000.00 including the removal of the existing split PXO.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)traffic control signals be approved at the intersection of Overlea Boulevard and WilliamMorgan Drive;

(2)coincident with the traffic control signal installation, the existing split pedestrian crossover be removed;

(3)authority be given to construct the road modifications described in this report;

(4)authority be given to advertise the construction by-law for the road modifications as described in this report;

(5)installation be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program and the securing of appropriate financing;

(6)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly;

(7)the introduction of any necessary Bills be authorized; and

(8)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

This location was investigated because of concerns regarding sight lines for pedestrians crossing at the subject split PXO, as well as for motorists approaching the split PXO, particularly westbound motorists.

A visibility study was conducted to identify potential sight obstructions which may limit motorist or pedestrian sight lines at the subject PXO. The study results indicated that sight lines for both pedestrians and motorists are within acceptable limits at the subject location.

Further to the above-noted study, we noted during our field observations that pedestrian and vehicular traffic had increased over previous studies conducted at this location. In view of these observed increases, we conducted a traffic signal warrant study.

Discussion:

Overlea Boulevard in the vicinity of William Morgan Drive is a four-lane, divided arterial road with a two-way, 24-hour volume of approximately 28,000. Adjacent traffic control signals are located 185metres to the west at Thorncliffe Park Drive and 605 metres to the east at Don Mills Road. William Morgan Drive is a two-lane local roadway with a two-way, 24-hour volume of approximately 2,700. William Morgan Drive intersects Overlea Boulevard on the north side.

An eight-hour traffic control signal warrant study was conducted and revealed that traffic control signals are technically warranted. The results are listed below:

WarrantCompliance

(1)Minimum Vehicular Volume 34 percent

(2)Delay to Cross Traffic100 percent

(3)Collision Hazard 40 percent

Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 should be 100 per cent satisfied or any two of the three warrants should be 80 per cent satisfied to satisfy the minimum technical requirements for the installation of traffic control signals. The "Collision Hazard" warrant is based on the number of collisions that occurred at the intersection in a three-year period which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Collision statistics provided by the Toronto Police Service indicate that six collisions occurred over the three-year period from January 1, 1994, to December31,1996, which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Based on the above information, the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are met.

As part of the traffic control signal installation, adjustments to the existing centre median island are required to accommodate north-south pedestrian crossings and eliminate the need for pedestrians to walk over the median. The following work will have to be undertaken to construct these modifications:

(a)removal of concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks;

(b)construction of concrete curbs and gutters;

(c)construction of asphalt pavement; and

(d)adjustments to catch basins.

The attached plan shows these modifications.

As indicated previously, Overlea Boulevard is an important link in the arterial system. Given the adequate spacing between adjacent traffic control signals, the replacement of the split PXO with traffic control signals will not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this arterial link within the network of arterial roads.

Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 29, 1998.

Conclusion:

Traffic control signals are technically warranted and are recommended to replace the existing split pedestrian crossover at the intersection of Overlea Boulevard and William Morgan Drive.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Martin Maguire, Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.

(A copy of the location plans, which were appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

20

Proposed Introduction of a U-Turn Prohibition:

Kipling Avenue in the Vicinity of the

Ramp from Westbound Dundas Street West

to Northbound Kipling Avenue.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 18, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To prohibit northbound U-turns at Kipling Avenue, in the vicinity of the ramp from westbound Dundas Street West to northbound Kipling Avenue.

Funding Sources:

The funds for this work are contained in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current Budget Estimates.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)northbound U-turns be prohibited at all times on Kipling Avenue from the ramp from westbound Dundas Street West to northbound Kipling Avenue to a point 50 metres further north; and

(2)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of the Toronto Police Service, the Department investigated the feasibility of prohibiting northbound-to-southbound U-turns on Kipling Avenue near the ramp from westbound Dundas Street West to northbound Kipling Avenue for safety reasons.

Discussion:

Dundas Street West is elevated at this point and passes over Kipling Avenue. Westbound traffic on Dundas Street West destined for southbound Kipling Avenue is directed to follow a route via Beamish Drive and Bloor Street West to gain access to southbound Kipling Avenue. The Toronto Police Service has reported that occasionally westbound drivers on Dundas Street West destined for southbound Kipling Avenue use the ramp to northbound Kipling Avenue and complete a U-turn immediately after entering Kipling Avenue. Completing a northbound-to-southbound U-turn at this ramp is a potential collision hazard due to restricted sightlines associated with the vertical alignment of Kipling Avenue at the Dundas Street West underpass.

During a two-hour period of observation, a total of seven northbound-to-southbound U-turns were recorded on Kipling Avenue, at the ramp from westbound Dundas Street West to northbound KiplingAvenue.

A review of the Toronto Police Service collision statistics indicated that in the five-year period ending December 31, 1996, one reported collision has occurred involving a northbound U-turn on KiplingAvenue at the ramp from Dundas Street West westbound to northbound Kipling Avenue.

Conclusion:

The introduction of a northbound U-turn prohibition on Kipling Avenue, in the vicinity of the ramp from Dundas Street West westbound to northbound Kipling Avenue, will eliminate a potentially unsafe traffic movement, and will allow for Toronto Police Service intervention at this location.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Bruce Zvaniga, Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, 392-8826.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

21

Amendments to Parking Meter Operation

on Spadina Avenue, Between Queen Street

and Spadina Crescent.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (March 27, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding the parking meters which are activated on Sundays.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (March27, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To extend the hours of parking meter operation on Spadina Avenue, between Queen Street and Spadina Crescent, to encompass evenings, Sundays and Public Holidays.

Funding Sources:

All costs associated with the proposed changes to the parking meter operation are contained in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current Budget estimates.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the parking regulations listed in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2)the parking regulations listed in Appendix 2 of this report be enacted; and

(3)the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.

Background:

At its meeting of September 25, 1997, the Metropolitan Council had before it Clause No. 23 of Report No. 19 of The Metropolitan Planning and Transportation Committee, entitled "ProposedIncrease to Parking Meter Rate on Spadina Avenue, from Queen Street West to SpadinaCrescent". This report contained a recommendation that meter rates on Spadina Avenue, from Queen Street West to Spadina Crescent, be increased from $1.00 per hour to $4.00 per hour. This rate was requested by the former City of Toronto Council.

The Metropolitan Council approved this report after amending the recommendation as follows:

"the parking meter rate on Spadina Avenue between Queen Street West and SpadinaCrescent be increased from the present rate of $1.00 per hour to $2.00 per hour".

In a supplementary report Toronto City Council, at its meeting held on September 22-23, 1997, adopted, as amended, Clause No. 55 of Report No. 11 of The City Services Committee, entitled "Increase in Parking Meter Rates - Spadina Avenue from Queen Street West to Spadina Crescent (Ward5)", which recommended as follows:

(1)that the Metropolitan Corporation be requested to authorize the adjustment of the "Parking Meter Operational Hours" of the existing parking meters on both sides of Spadina Avenue, from Queen Street West to Spadina Crescent East and West, to encompass evenings, Sundays and Public Holidays at the rate of $4.00 per hour, as follows:

(a)Spadina Avenue from Queen Street to College Street:

(i)from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily, for a maximum period of one hour; and

(ii)from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., daily, for a maximum period of three hours;

(b)on the east side of Spadina Avenue, from College Street to Spadina Crescent East:

(i)from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, for a maximum period of onehour;

(ii)from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for a maximum period of twoand a half hours;

(iii)from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, for a maximum period of one hour; and

(iv)from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, for a maximum period of three hours; and

(c)on the west side of Spadina Avenue, from College Street to Spadina Crescent West:

(i)from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for a maximum period of onehour:

(ii)from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for a maximum period of three hours;

(iii)from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, for a maximum period of one hour; and

(iv)from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, for a maximum period of three hours.

This report deals with the request to extend the hours of parking meter operation on Spadina Avenue, between Queen Street West and Spadina Crescent, to encompass evenings, Sundays and Public Holidays. As indicated, the rate issue was dealt with by the former Metropolitan Council on September 25, 1997.

Discussion:

Spadina Avenue, between Queen Street West and Spadina Crescent, is a four-lane, north-south roadway. All of the existing metered parking on Spadina Avenue from Queen Street West to CollegeStreet is contained in parking bays, and is therefore exempt from the peak period parking regulations on Spadina Avenue. On this section of Spadina Avenue parking is permitted between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday at a rate of $2.00 per hour. The parking meters on the east side of Spadina Avenue, from College Street to Spadina Crescent East, are subject to the "NoStopping" regulation from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., while the parking meters on the west side are regulated by "No Stopping" from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m..

Presently, three-hour parking is permitted free of charge during evenings, Sundays and Public Holidays on Spadina Avenue, between Queen Street West and Spadina Crescent.

The parking meters on the subject section of Spadina Avenue are extensively used during all periods of the day and evening primarily because of the commercial and entertainment destinations on the street.

The extension of the parking meter operation to include evenings, Sundays and Public Holidays would encourage parking turnover, and assist in enforcement of the time limit, in this area of high parking demand. This will not jeopardize the operational efficiency or safety of the street.

The extended hours of operation of parking meters to include evenings, and/or Sundays and/or Public Holidays has been implemented in the past on the major arterials and other streets listed in Appendix3 of this report

Conclusion:

The proposed extension of the parking meter operation will not negatively impact traffic operations on Spadina Avenue, between Queen Street West and Spadina Crescent.

Contact Name:

Ms. Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, 397-5021.

--------

Appendix 1

Regulations to be Rescinded

Parking Meters

Parking for Restricted Periods

(Schedule X of Uniform Traffic By-law)

--------

Appendix 2

Regulations to be Enacted

Parking Meters

--------

Parking for Restricted Periods

(Schedule X of Uniform Traffic By-law)

--------

Appendix 3

Parking Meters that Operate Evenings

and/or Sundays and/or Public Holidays

A list of roadways within the City of Toronto that have parking meters that operate during evening hours and/or on Sundays and/or Public Holidays is as follows:

Former Metro Roads:

Adelaide Street

Spadina Road

Former City of Toronto Roads:

Gerrard Street East

King Street West

Sherbourne Street

Lower Sherbourne Street

Spadina Road

The Esplanade

St. George Street

Cumberland Street

Scollard Street

Asquith Avenue

Augusta Avenue

Baldwin Street

Bedford Road

Christie Street

Dupont Street

Geary Avenue

McAlpine Street

Murray Street

Prince Arthur Avenue

Walker Avenue

Wilton Street

Former City of York Roads:

Buttonwood Avenue (Hospital location)

Church Street

Pine Street

Woodward Avenue

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

22

Tree Removal from the Municipal Road

Right-of-Way at 77 Finch Avenue West.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the applicant be required to replant new trees with diameters totalling that of the tree to be removed, such trees to be located to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 31, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To obtain authority to remove one tree from the right-of-way to allow vehicular access to 77FinchAvenue West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that authority be granted for the removal of a Chinese Elm tree from the right-of-way abutting 77 Finch Avenue West, subject to the receipt of the assessed value of the tree, $4,702.00, from the owners.

Council Reference/Background/History:

By-law No. 211-74 requires Council approval for the removal of a tree from the former Metro road rights-of-ways.

Discussion:

A medical office building is being constructed at 77 Finch Avenue West. In order to provide safe access from 77 Finch Avenue West to Finch Avenue West the removal of a Chinese Elm tree is required.

The tree has been valued at $4,702.00 by a certified arborist of Shady Lane Tree Care and Forestry Company Inc. The owners of 77 Finch Avenue West have agreed to pay this amount. These funds will be credited to the tree replacement account to fund the planting of trees at various locations on the City rights-of-way.

Conclusions:

A Chinese Elm tree should be removed from the road right-of-way to allow safe vehicular access to Finch Avenue West.

Contact Name:

Mr. Keeva G. Lane, Supervisor, Road Allowance Control, Transportation, 392-9312, Fax 392-9317, E-mail address: keeva_lane.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (April20, 1998) from Councillor Norman Gardner, NorthYork Centre:

In regard to Item No. (26) - Tree Removal from Municipal Right-of-Way at 77 Finch Avenue West, I wish to inform you that the 1997 North York Council voted unanimously for this application.

My predecessor, the former councillor Ron Summers, was supportive of the application.

I fully endorse the removal of the tree according to the staff recommendations.

Finch Avenue is a highly travelled area and it is imperative to recognize that access and egress is made as safe as possible for those travelling in the area.

A chronology of events is as follows:

-From May to July 1997, North York Council had four opportunities to consider the proposal and at all times recommended approval.

-A public meeting was held. Site plan and by-laws were approved with full support of staff and no objections or appeals were made.

-The present 1-1/2 storey structures are approximately 1,200-1,500 square feet in size.

-The existing tree on the Finch Avenue right-of-way has been shown as being removed on the site plan, leaving two other trees untouched.

-The applicant is adhering to the streetscape requirement of the Transportation Departments of Metro and North York.

-The driveway configuration requiring the removal of the tree is following staff recommendations as to where the driveway should be.

I would appreciate your supporting the staff recommendation on this matter.

Attached are copies of relevant information regarding the recommendation.

(A copy of the attachments to the foregoing communication dated April 20, 1998, from CouncillorNorm Gardner, North York Centre, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

23

Other Items Considered by the Committee.

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)City of Toronto Employment Picture - 1997.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following report:

(April 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services presenting the following highlights of the City of Toronto's 1997 employment picture as obtained from the annual employment survey:

(1)total employment in the City of Toronto increased for the first time since 1988/1989, growing by 24,700 or 2.1 percent to 1,178,500 between 1996 and 1997; however, total employment is still below the 1989 level of 1,356,900;

(2)notable increases were experienced between 1996 and 1997 in the office (12,900jobs), manufacturing (10,400 jobs), and service (4,400 jobs) sectors. The 6.3percent increase in manufacturing employment is particularly encouraging. Decreases were experienced in the retail (700 jobs) and institutional (4,300 jobs) sectors, the latter decrease likely a result of public sector restructuring and streamlining; and

(3)of the increase in total employment between 1996 and 1997, about 14,900 of the additional jobs are full-time while the remaining 9,800 are part-time. The percentage of total employment represented by part-time jobs continued to rise, increasing from 20.7 percent in 1996 to 21.1 percent in 1997, a significant jump from the 13.2 percent observed ten years ago;

and recommending that the Committee receive this report for information.

(b)Bayview Avenue from Balliol Street

to Soudan Avenue/Parkhurst Boulevard:

Request to Permit Parking in the Off-Peak Direction

During the Morning and Afternoon Peak Periods.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report (March 31, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation; and

(2)directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to the East York and Toronto Community Councils for their consideration and input thereon back to the UrbanEnvironment and Development Committee:

(March 31, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation assessing the implications of a proposal from merchants on both sides of BayviewAvenue, between Balliol Street and Soudan Avenue/Parkhurst Boulevard, to provide parking in the "off-peak" direction during peak periods due to a shortage of available on-street and off-street parking facilities; advising that Bayview Avenue is a four-lane arterial roadway which operates two-way on a pavement width of approximately 14 metres with a maximum speed limit of 50kilometres per hour, and that two TTC bus routes operate on the subject section of Bayview Avenue; pointing out that rescindment of the parking prohibitions on the east side in the morning, and on the west side in the afternoon, would in all likelihood result in severe traffic congestion along this section of Bayview Avenue, characterized by lengthened travel times, extensive delays and deterioration in the transit service; noting also that peak period parking in the curb lanes on Bayview Avenue would significantly impact the effectiveness of the SCOOT system (which controls the traffic control signals) to respond to traffic conditions during peak periods; concluding that the existing parking prohibitions should be maintained on both sides of Bayview Avenue during the peak periods as the adverse impacts that would result from providing parking in the "off-peak" direction during peak periods outweigh any benefits that would be gained by the business proprietors with the provision of additional on-street parking; and recommending that this report be forwarded to the Toronto and East York Community Councils for information.

(c)Update on the Humber Bridge Construction.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following Committee Transmittal to the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, with a request that he submit a report thereon to the next meeting of the Committee scheduled to be held on May 19, 1998:

(March 13, 1998) from the City Clerk of Toronto advising that the Task Force on the Lakeshore Gardiner Corridor on February25, 1998, recommended that:

(1)funding be provided for the completion of the cycling and pedestrian paths under the east side of the Humber Bridges, and that CN Rail be consulted to ensure that the pathway system on the west bank of the Humber River may be completed; and

(2)a feasibility study be conducted, in consultation with CN Rail, to determinethe feasibility of extending the pedestrian underpass of the railway corridor to accommodate completion of the connection on the west side of the Humber River.

(d)Financial Statements of the Former Parking Authority of North York

for the Period Ended December 31, 1997.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication and financial statements:

(March 16, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Parking submitting, pursuant to section208 of the Municipal Act, and in accordance with the former City of North York By-law No.31295, a copy of the financial statements of the former Parking Authority of North York for the period ended December31, 1997.

(e)Existing Environmental Committees and the Environmental Task Force.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following Committee Transmittal:

(March 25, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Works and Utilities Committee on March 25, 1998, concurred in the recommendations embodied in the report dated March 10, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting existing environmental committees and the Environmental Task Force; wherein it is recommended, interalia, that this report be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for information; and further directed that the report be referred to the Environmental Task Force for its consideration and recommendations to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

(f)Emergency and Protective Services Committee

- Time of Meetings.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication:

(April 20, 1998) from the City Clerk submitting, for information and any attention deemed necessary, Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 3 of The Emergency and Protective Services Committee, headed "Emergency and Protective Services Committee - Time of Meetings", which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on April 16, 1998; such Clause recommending that the City Clerk be directed to:

(1)reschedule future meetings of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, commencing with the meeting scheduled for April 21, 1998, to start at 9:30a.m.; and

(2)re-assign the Committee Rooms for Standing Committee meetings as follows:

(a)Room A for the first day of a Standing Committee meeting; and

(b)Room C for the second day of a meeting, when a second day is required.

(g)Transit Issues Related to Toronto's 2008 Olympic Bid.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)requested the Toronto Transit Commission to add the Humber Bay Shores to the list of alternative sites for the proposed Olympic Village;

(2)directed that a copy of the following communication be forwarded, for information, to the Economic Development Committee, once it is established; and

(3)received the following communication:

(April 9, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) on April 8, 1998, during consideration of report No.(7), entitled "Transit Issues Related to Toronto's 2008 Olympic Bid":

(1)received the report for information, noting that:

(a)effective transit services will be a critical element in plans for operating a successful Olympic Games in Toronto in 2008;

(b)the construction of any new transit facilities must be justifiable and affordable based on realistic long-term travel needs, not primarily on the needs of the Olympic Games themselves;

(c)a joint transportation operations plan, integrating TTC services, GOTransit services, and road operations, will be required;

(d)there will be significant costs involved in providing transit services for the games;

(e)the TTC's streetcar fleet cannot be easily expanded, on a short-term basis, for the Olympic games. Streetcars could be re-assigned to serve the major Olympic venues, but a large increase in the bus fleet would likely be required, on a temporary basis, to provide the overall increase in transit capacity needed during the games;

(f)for transit to be effective, a high level of transit priority will be required on the road network during the games, likely including the temporary conversion of existing roadways to transit-only use;

(g)overall transit and road capacity issues in the vicinity of Exhibition Place/Ontario Place need to be addressed before the venue locations, transit facility requirements, and transit service plans can be finalized;

(h)the proposed Olympic Village in the eastern port area is not well-located from a transit perspective. Alternative sites such as the Gooderham/Ataratiri area, the Railway Lands or the Molson's site on Fleet Street would be preferable from a transit perspective; and

(i)accessibility issues will need to be addressed, along with a full operations plan for the para-Olympics, as part of the planning associated with the TTC portion of the Olympic bid; and

(2)directed that a Task Force be established to deal with the various transit issues that will arise if the 2008 Olympic Games are held in Toronto; and that staff report back on Terms of Reference and Membership for this Task Force, pending approval of the Olympic Bid by the Canadian Olympic Association.

(h)Business Improvement Areas: Status of Funding Relationships.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following report:

(April 3, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development responding to a request made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998, for a report on the status of the funding relationships with respect to Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) and whether or not the Province of Ontario is still involved in funding BIAs; advising that BIAs do not receive direct funding from either the municipality or the Province of Ontario; that the monies required for their programs are raised by a levy collected from all of the business properties located within their boundaries; submitting, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, a more detailed report (March 19, 1998), entitled "Business Improvement Areas: Interim Administrative Procedures for 1998 and Municipal Code Amendments for the (former) City of Toronto", which is being considered by the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee at its meeting on April 7, 1998; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(i)Designation of Loading Areas and On-Street Parking Spaces

in Downtown Toronto for Use by Motor Coaches.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the report dated March 27, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, and the following motions by CouncillorMoscoe, to its next meeting scheduled to be held on May 19, 1998:

"That the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommend to Council:

(a)the adoption of the report (March 27, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation;

(b)that the parking meter rates for motor coaches be $5.00per hour within the central business district and $2.00perhour outside of the central business district;

(c)that the Interim Functional Lead, Planning, be requested to review the issue of the provision of off-street loading facilities for motor coaches with a view to ensuring that the design and location of new attractions and hotels include a mandatory requirement to provide appropriate off-street parking and loading facilities for motor coaches;

(d)that the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be requested to determine from the Metro Toronto Coach Terminal Inc. whether overnight motor coach parking could be made available at the terminal; and, if so, for what hours and at what rates; and

(e)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on:

(i)the feasibility of Parking Control Officers enforcing the City's idling by-law as it applies to motor coaches; and

(ii)whether or not the City of Toronto has the ability to impose emission standards on motor coaches operating within the City.";

(2)directed that a copy of the report dated March 27, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be forwarded to the Toronto Community Council for consideration and input thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on May 19, 1998;

(3)requested the Toronto Parking Authority and the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO) to advise the Urban Environment and Development Committee, for its meeting scheduled to be held on May19, 1998, whether there is any land within their port properties which could be utilized for motor coach parking;

(4)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Real Estate, in consultation with the Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development, to investigate whether there is any land owned by the former Metropolitan Corporation in the vicinity of the R. C. Harris Filtration Plant which could be utilized for motor coach parking; and to submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on May19, 1998;

(5)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to submit an area map to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on May19, 1998; and

(6)received the following communication (April 20, 1998) from Ms.KarenCameron, Ontario Motor Coach Association:

(i)(March 27, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation regarding the designation of loading areas and on-street parking spaces in downtown Toronto for use by motor coaches; recommending that:

(1)on-street loading areas and parking areas should be defined by appropriate signage;

(2)the parking and/or stopping regulations on the sections of AdelaideStreetWest, RichmondStreet West, Jarvis Street and UniversityAvenue (former Metropolitan roadways), identified in Appendix1 of this report, be rescinded;

(3)the parking, standing, stopping and/or parking meter regulations on the sections of AdelaideStreet West, Richmond Street West, Jarvis Street and University Avenue (former Metropolitan roadways), identified in Appendix2 of this report, be adopted;

(4)the loading, parking and/or parking meter regulations on the sections of Asquith Avenue, BayStreet, Commissioners Street, Front Street East/West, Queen Street West, Victoria Street and Wellesley Street West (former City of Toronto roadways), identified in Appendix3 of this report, be rescinded;

(5)the parking, standing and/or parking meter/machine regulations on thesections of AsquithAvenue, Bay Street, Commissioners Street, FrontStreet East/West, QueenStreetWest, Victoria Street and WellesleyStreet West (former City of Toronto roadways), identified in Appendix 4 of this report, be adopted;

(6)the appropriate City officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required to provide the legal mechanism and to amend the appropriate Sections/Schedules of the Uniform Traffic By-law and the City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(7)this report be forwarded to the Toronto Community Council for its information;

advising that in total, approximately 70 full and part-time on-street spaces will be provided for motor coaches; and that the funds associated with the implementation of the proposed plan (approximately $17,000.00) are contained in the 1998 Current Budget estimates.

(ii)(April 20, 1998) from Ms. Karen Cameron, Manager, Communications and Government Relations, Ontario Motor Coach Association, submitting an advance copy of her deputation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting on April 20, 1998.

--------

Ms. Karen Cameron, Manager, Communications and Government Relations, Ontario Motor Coach Association, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(j)Jane Street at Annette Street/Baby Point Road:

Pedestrian Crossing Safety.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following matter; and

(2)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation to meet with CouncillorsNunziata and Saundercook, and any other interested parties, respecting the safety of pedestrians crossing Jane Street at Annette Street/Baby Point Road, and to submit a report thereon to the UrbanEnvironment and Development Committee:

(April 3, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, submitting correspondence relating to the intersection of Jane and AnnetteStreets; advising that she does not concur with assessment of the Transportation Department, embodied in the attached correspondence, regarding the safety of pedestrians crossing Jane Street at Annette Street/Baby Point Road; wherein it states that, based on a review by the Transportation Department, the existing traffic signal timing is currently meeting the needs of pedestrians crossing Jane Street at the aforementioned intersection; and requesting that this matter be placed on the agenda of the next Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting for the hearing of deputations.

--------

Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(k)Contract No. T-42-98:

Don Valley Parkway Resurfacing at Two Locations.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of Recommendations Nos.(1), (2) and (3), embodied in the following report:

(April9, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, recommending that:

(1)pre-budget approval of $2,700,000.00 be granted for the 1999 Capital Works Program or, alternatively, that funds be provided from the sale of property assets as outlined in this report;

(2)subject to approval of Recommendation No. (1), Contract No. T-42-98, for the resurfacing on the Don Valley Parkway at two locations, be awarded to WarrenBitulithic Limited who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $2,554,897.17;

(3)the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto; and

(4)this report be forwarded to the Budget Committee;

advising that this project was tendered prior to budget approval, on the assumption that the 1998 Transportation Capital Works Budget would be approved at a level similar to the 1997 budget; however, based on the recommendations of the Budget Committee, the Transportation Capital Works Budget for the City of Toronto, which is scheduled to be approved by Council at its meeting on April 29, 1998, now does not include this project; explaining that an unusual situation has arisen in which the "low bidder" has indicated its willingness to proceed with this project and be paid at a later date; that this could occur next year as part of the 1999 Capital Works Program or later in 1998, if funds become available from the sale of property assets; pointing out that this was proposed by the Budget Committee in order to provide funds for works which have had to be deferred as a result of its recommendations to delete $8.4 million from the Transportation Capital Budget submission; stating that Warren Bitulithic Limited has confirmed in writing that it will conform with all of the conditions in the original tender documents and that it will not seek any compensation for "late" payment; and that this proposal does not violate the integrity of the "tender and award" process.

(l)Increased Pedestrian Safety on City Streets.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having::

(1)again recommended to the SpecialCommittee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team that separate committees be established to deal with cycling and pedestrian issues;

(2)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to establish a Pedestrian Working Group within the existing Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department; such Working Group to include a representative from the Urban Planning Division of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department;

(3)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to review all pedestrian injuries and fatalities and to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee with recommendations for changes which would assist in the reduction of pedestrian/vehicular collisions; and

(4)requested the Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee to submit to the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommendations for changes, both physical and regulatory, which would make the City of Toronto more pedestrian-friendly and safe:

(April17, 1998) from Ms. Joan Doiron and Ms. Marie Sabin, Co-Chairs, Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee, advising that the Sub-Committee on March 26, 1998, considered at length the issue of pedestrian safety on City streets, and is most concerned about the tripling of pedestrian road fatalities since 1997; seeking the support of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for the recommendations proposed by the Sub-Committee; and stating that it is most urgent that transportation and planning staff be assigned to the important task of ending the terrible fatalities and injuries on the City's streets.

--------

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

-Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Protect Established Neighbourhoods in Etobicoke, and Etobicoke Member, Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee; and filed a written brief with regard thereto;

-Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee (Downtown);

-Ms. Marie Sabin, Co-Chair, Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee (North York);

-Ms. Helen Riley, Feet on the Street, and Mobility Committee, Older Women's Network; and

-Mr. Ian Wheal, Toronto Field Naturalists; and filed a written brief with regard thereto.

(m)Quality of Life and Infrastructure Strategies

in the Greater Toronto Area and Ontario.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1)referred the report, entitled "Quality of Life and Infrastructure Strategies in the Greater Toronto Area and Ontario", to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with a request that consideration be given to incorporating into the new Official Plan some of the concepts contained therein;

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to review the feasibility of channelling the profits of the Toronto Parking Authority to support public transit, and to submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(3)directed that a copy of the report, entitled "Quality of Life and Infrastructure Strategies in the Greater Toronto Area and Ontario", be forwarded to the Toronto Transit Commission:

(December, 1996) from Ms. Lela Gary, Transit Advisory Committee, advising that the Transit Advisory Committee was established in January, 1996, for the purpose of collaborating on an action plan to consider environmental issues and infrastructure costs related to air pollutants from automobile/truck transport which have a destructive effect on quality of life in Ontario, as the high level of air pollution has raised health and infrastructure costs; and submitting a report, entitled "Quality of Life and Infrastructure Strategies in the Greater Toronto Area and Ontario".

--------

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

-Ms. Lela Gary, Co-ordinator, Transit Advisory Committee, and filed a chart with regard thereto; and

-Mr. Dave Roberts, Member, Transit Advisory Committee, and former Executive Director of Ontario Urban Transit Association.

(n)Toronto Harbour Commission: 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communications and budgets:

(i)(March 27, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on March23 and24, 1998, had before it the 1998 Capital Budget for the Toronto Harbour Commission (THC), together with two communications (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising of the action taken to date by Budget Committee with respect to the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for THC; and that the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1)advised the Budget Committee that no officials of the Toronto Harbour Commission (Commission) attended the March 23 and 24, 1998, UEDC meeting to discuss the Commission's 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets; therefore, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had no comments to make on the aforementioned Budgets; and

(2)requested the Toronto Harbour Commission to direct the appropriate officials to attend the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee scheduled to be held on April 20, 1998, in order to discuss the Commission's 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets.

(ii)the 1998 Operating Budget Estimates Capital Works Program for The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, as recommended by the Budget Committee on March 31, April 2 and 3, 1998; and

(iii)(March 2, 1998) addressed to the City of Toronto Budget Review Group from TheToronto Harbour Commissioners THC), submitting THC's draft 1998 Operating Budget.

--------

The following officials of The Toronto Harbour Commissioners appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

(1)Mr. Gary Reid, General Manager; and

(2)Mr. Alan Paul, Controller.

(o)Removal of Trees from the Bayview Avenue Right-of-Way

Between Sheppard Avenue East and Mallingham Court.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following matter to its next meeting, scheduled to be held on May19, 1998; and

(2)requested the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), in consultation with the Chair of the TTC, the local Councillors and all interested parties, to pursue a solution to this matter and report thereon to the aforementioned May 19, 1998, meeting :

(i)(February 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, recommending that authority be granted for the removal of six trees from the Bayview Avenue right-of-way between Sheppard Avenue East and MallinghamCourt; advising that the removal of the trees is required to facilitate the construction of the Sheppard Subway Bayview Station; and that the costs associatedwith this work will be the responsibility of the Toronto Transit Commission; and

(ii)(April 9, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that the Commission on April 8, 1998, during consideration of No. (6), entitled "Sheppard Subway - Bayview Station Hydro Relocation -Mallingham Court", took the following action:

(a)received the report for information;

(b)requested that this report be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, requesting the Committee to approve the required tree-cutting permit for the Mallingham Court Hydro vault at its April 20, 1998 meeting (to City Council on May 13, 1998) to allow critical Hydro infrastructure to be relocated in advance of the construction of BayviewStation;

(c)requested, in the event that this matter is not considered at the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, that the report be forwarded directly to City Council for consideration at its May 13, 1998 meeting; and

(d)requested staff to contact the local Councillor regarding this matter to see if there are any concerns.

--------

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

-Ms. Kay Fogden, North York;

-Councillor John Filion, North York Centre;

-Mr. John Sepulis, General Manager, Engineering and Construction Branch, Toronto Transit Commission; and

-Mr. Charles Wheeler, Deputy Project Manager, Facilities Design, Sheppard Subway Department, Toronto Transit Commission; and also made an overhead presentation regarding the various options for placing the Hydro vault in the vicinity of MallinghamCourt.

(p)Toronto Transit Commission:

Need for Expansion of Union Subway Station.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(A)recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of Recommendation No.(2) of the Toronto Transit Commission, embodied in the following communication (February 26, 1998) from the GeneralSecretary of the Commission, viz:

"The Commission took the following action:

(2)approved requesting the City of Toronto Council to:

(a)establish a special reserve fund for private-sector contributions toward the cost of expanding UnionSubway Station; and

(b)direct City staff to establish a mechanism for obtaining private-sector contributions to this fund as a condition of approval of all new developments within the catchment area of Union Subway Station, including the Railway Lands and Harbourfront; that is, those developments which contribute to the overcrowding of the station;";

(B)recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee that this matter be submitted to the meeting of City Council scheduled to be held on May 13, 1998;

(C)requested the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a joint report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on May 13, 1998, demonstrating how the establishment of a special reserve fund for private-sector contributions toward the cost of expanding Union Subway Station, and a mechanism for obtaining such contributions, can be achieved;

(D)referred the issue of the development of a crowd control management plan to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, with a request that she submit a report thereon to the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998; and

(E)received the following communications (March 31, 1998) from Mr.TomAnselmi, Vice-President and Project Director, Maple Leaf Gardens, Limited, and (April 17, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

(i)(February 26, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that the Commission on February 25, 1998, considered report No.(6), entitled "Need for Expansion of Union Subway Station"; and setting out the action taken by the Commission with respect thereto;

(ii)(March 31, 1998) from Mr. Tom Anselmi, Vice-President and Project Director, Maple Leaf Gardens, Limited, in response to the foregoing communication from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission; and respectfully advising that Maple Leaf Gardens, Limited is not prepared to consider contributing to the expansion of Union Subway Station; and

(iii)(April 17, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, submitting a letter dated April 17, 1998, addressed to Mr. Tom Anselmi, Maple Leaf Gardens, Limited, in response to Mr. Anselmi's letter of March31, 1998; and urging Maple Leaf Gardens, Limited (MLGL) to reconsider its position regarding a contribution toward a special reserve fund for private-sector contributions toward the cost of expanding Union Subway Station.

(q)Provincial/Municipal/Toronto Transit Commission

Capital Subsidy Agreement.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following report and communications, having regard that the Budget Committee already dealt with this matter at its meeting on April20, 1998:

(i)(April 20, 1998) addressed to the Budget Committee from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer recommending that:

(1)in exchange for prepayment to the City by the Province of an amount of $828,200,100.00 adjusted, as necessary, for changes in the prevailing interest rates and any undue delays in the receipt of payment:

(a)the City of Toronto, the Toronto Transit Commission and the Province of Ontario execute a mutual release from the Five-Year Capital Subsidy Agreement;

(b)a by-law be introduced to create two interest-bearing Reserve Funds, entitled "The TTC Capital Subsidy Reserve Fund" and "TheSheppard Subway Project Capital Reserve Fund", to be established with the proceeds of the prepayment, to be expended solely for the purposes of funding TTC capital projects in accordance with the subsidy assumptions in the 1998 Capital Program; and

(c)the Toronto Transit Commission report, entitled "Provincial/Municipal/TTC Capital Subsidy Agreement", be received for information; and

(2)the appropriate staff be authorized to undertake any necessary actions to implement these initiatives;

and setting out the policy, administrative and financial advantages for the City as a result of the proposal from the Province to prepay all future TTC capital subsidies required under the Capital Subsidy Agreement in exchange for release from the Agreement.

(ii)(April 17, 1998, from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that the Commission on April 17, 1998:

(A)authorized TTC staff to prepare a draft funding agreement surviving the existing Five-Year TTC/Provincial/Municipal Capital Subsidy Agreement, such draft to be available for consideration at the next Commission meeting on April 22, 1998; and

(B)directed staff not to exercise a release to any party of the existing Capital Subsidy Agreement until such time as an appropriate surviving agreement has been executed with the City of Toronto.

(iii)(April 9, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Commission on April 8, 1998, during consideration of report No. (1), entitled "Provincial/Municipal/TTC Capital Subsidy Agreement", took the following action:

(A)amended Conditions Nos. (1) and (5), noted on page 3 of the report, to read as follows:

"(1)two reserve funds or trust funds (if it can be accommodated without any adverse tax implications) be established--one for the Sheppard Subway project and one for the Commission's base capital program; and

(5)new projects not included in Schedule A of the 1998-2002 Capital Budget will require specific Commission and Council approval;";

(B)approved the following:

(1)the execution of an agreement to release the Province from the Provincial/Municipal/TTC Capital Subsidy Agreement in consideration of it prepaying its obligation under the Agreement, subject to the conditions set out in this report, as amended; and

(2)that this report be forwarded through the Urban Environment and Development Committee to City of Toronto Council for approval; and

(C)requested that when staff reply to the Minister regarding the release, the letter include reference to the fact that the Province does not have unilateral power to cancel the contract.

(r)Proposed Pedestrian Crossover:

Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following matter to its next meeting, scheduled to be held on May19, 1998:

(i)(March 11, 1998) from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region submitting a communication (February 16, 1998) from the Toronto Police Service indicating that a crossing guard is not warranted at Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue and will not be provided; advising that Metropolitan Council on June 4, 1997, approved Clause No. 4 of Report No. 14 of The Planning and Transportation Committee which recommended that a pedestrian crossover (PXO) be installed at the intersection of Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue, subject to a crossing guard being provided at such intersection; and stating that, given that a crossing guard will not be provided, the PXO will not be installed and the Transportation Department now considers this issue to be closed.

(ii)Clause No. 4 of Report No. 14 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, headed "Request for Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalk - Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue", which was adopted, without amendment, by the Metropolitan Council on June 4, 1997.

(s)Request to Remove Traffic Signal Co-ordination:

Danforth Avenue, East Lynn Avenue to Woodbine Avenue.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following matter to its next meeting, scheduled to be held on May19, 1998:

(April 3, 1998) from Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, advising that he does not agree with the attached report (February 25, 1998) from the Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, Metro Hall, in response to a request from the Councillor for adjustments to traffic signal co-ordination on DanforthAvenue, from EastLynnAvenue to Woodbine Avenue, due to public complaints about speeding on this portion of Danforth Avenue; wherein it states that the Transportation Department has completed its investigation and has concluded that adjustments to signal co-ordination on this section of Danforth Avenue will not necessarily result in safer or overall slower traffic operations; and requesting that this matter be placed on the upcoming agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE,

Chair

Toronto, April 20, 1998

(Report No. 6 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998.)