TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998

URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 7

1Sheppard Subway Bayview Station Commuter Parking;and Removal of Trees from the Bayview Avenue Right-of- Way Between Sheppard Avenue East and Mallingham Court.

2Proposed Interim Sign By-law to Prohibit Advertising Signs Abutting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (formerly the Queen Elizabeth Way), Eglinton Avenue West, Highway 2, Highway 2A, and Highway 27.

3Designation of Loading Areas and On-Street Parking Spaces in Downtown Toronto for Use by Motor Coaches.

4City Powers, Policies and Procedures Regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition on Rental Housing Before and After the Proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act.

5Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application - Humber River Regional Hospital 200 Church Street, UDZ-98-05 (York Ref. No. R98-002)

6School Board Contributions and the Development Industry.

7Proposal to Commence Negotiations for a New Agreement With the Region of York Regarding Steeles Avenue.

8Contract No. T-34-98:Don Valley Parkway at Lawrence Avenue East- Don River Channel Restoration.

9Reconstruction of Pavements, Sidewalks and Curbs on Bay Street, Orde Street and Murray Street - Contract No. 59696, Tender No. 20-1998

10Contract No. T-38-98:Road and Track AllowanceReconstruction at Four Locations.

11Appointment of Consultant for Design and Supervision of Construction Services for the Humber Bridges Project - Bridges Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

12Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:Wilson Avenue at 1201 Wilson Avenue Access.

13Proposed Installation of Traffic ControlSignals Near 1775 Weston Road.

14Proposed Installation of Parking Meters on the South Side of Richmond Street West, Between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street.

15Parking Meter Installation on Richmond Street East, Between George Street and Sherbourne Street.

16Road Modifications Required for PrivateSector Developments: Various Locations.

17Proposed Northbound U-Turn Prohibition on Yonge Street Between the Esplanade and Front Street.

18Proposed Westbound Right-Turn-on-Red Prohibition at Eglinton Avenue West and Chaplin Crescent

19Proposed Southbound Right-Turn-on-Red Prohibitionat Bloor Street West and Symington Avenue.

20Proposed Rescission of the WestboundReserved Bus Lane on Eglinton Avenue West,Between Old Park Road and Rostrevor Road.

21Designation of Left-Turn Lanes:St. Clair Avenue West and Caledonia Road.

22Proposed Two-Way Left-Turn Lane Designation:Bayview Avenue Between York Road/Wilket Roadand 180 Metres South of Post Road.

23Proposed Two-Way Left-Turn Lane Designation:Scarlett Road Between Lawrence Avenue Westand Yorkleigh Avenue/Vista Humber Drive.

24Other Items Considered by the Committee.

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 7

OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on May 19, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998

1

Sheppard Subway Bayview Station Commuter Parking;

and Removal of Trees from the Bayview Avenue Right-of-Way

Between Sheppard Avenue East and Mallingham Court.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, received this Clause.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that Council:

(1)approve the actions taken by the Toronto Transit Commission at its meeting held on February 25, 1998, as embodied in the communication dated February 26, 1998, from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, viz:

'The Commission approved the Recommendations contained in the memorandum, entitled "Staff Response to Commission Inquiry -Sheppard Subway Bayview Station Bus Loop and Commuter Parking", as listed below:

"It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)approve elimination of the construction of a commuter parking lot from the Bayview Station concept;

(2)confirm the requirement for an exclusive off-street bus loop for BayviewStation;

(3)authorize staff to negotiate a permanent exclusive easement for an off-street bus loop (at the north end of the Dangreen property) now as part of the property settlement with Dangreen, potentially at no cost to the project;

(4)authorize staff to work with the developer and City staff to investigate alternative off-street bus loop locations that can be integrated with the proposed Dangreen development, provided that the new off-street bus loop configuration is acceptable to the TTC with respect to operations and customer convenience, particularly with regard to an exclusive access to/from BayviewAvenue; and

(5)confirm that the provision of an off-street bus loop, satisfactory to the TTC, be made a condition of the planning approvals for any development on the Dangreen site."'; and

(2)give consideration in camera to the issues of the removal of trees from the BayviewAvenue right-of-way between Sheppard Avenue East and Mallingham Court and commuter parking at the Sheppard Subway Bayview Station.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a confidential report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on June 3, 1998, on the nature of the financial agreements that have been negotiated and the implications of such agreements for the City of Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held April 16, 1998, had before it Clause No. 9 of Report No.4 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Toronto Transit Commission: Sheppard Subway Bayview Station Bus Loop and Commuter Parking".

Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration, with a request that the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, be in attendance at such time as this matter is again before the Committee.

--------

(Clause No. 9 embodied in Report No. 4 of

The Urban Environment and Development Committee,

referred to above.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration, with a request that the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, be in attendance at such time as this matter is again before the Committee.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to defer elimination of the construction of a commuter parking lot from the Bayview Station concept at this time.

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

(1)directed that a copy of the following communications be forwarded to the North York Community Council for consideration:

-(February 26, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission;

-(March 20, 1998) from Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights; and

-(March 20, 1998) from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South; and

(2)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Planning, in consultation with the appropriate officials from the Planning Department in the North York Civic Centre, to submitan updated report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, through the North York Community Council, on the entire block bounded by SheppardAvenue East, BayviewAvenue, BayviewMews Lane and Hawksbury Drive.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (February 26, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, February 25, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) considered the attached memorandum, entitled "Staff Response to Commission Inquiry--Sheppard Subway Bayview Station Bus Loop and Commuter Parking".

The Commission approved the Recommendations contained in the above memorandum, as listed below:

"It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)approve elimination of the construction of a commuter parking lot from the Bayview Station concept;

(2)confirm the requirement for an exclusive off-street bus loop for BayviewStation;

(3)authorize staff to negotiate a permanent exclusive easement for an off-street bus loop (at the north-end of the Dangreen property) now as part of the property settlement with Dangreen, potentially at no cost to the project;

(4)authorize staff to work with the developer and City staff to investigate alternative off-street bus loop locations that can be integrated with the proposed Dangreen development, provided that the new off-street bus loop configuration is acceptable to the TTC with respect to operations and customer convenience, particularly with regard to an exclusive access to/from BayviewAvenue;

(5)confirm that the provision of an off-street bus loop, satisfactory to the TTC, be made a condition of the planning approvals for any development on the Dangreen site; and

(6)forward this report to the City of Toronto."

The foregoing is forwarded to the City of Toronto for information.

(Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 25a, entitled

"Staff Response to Commission Inquiry--Sheppard Subway

Bayview Station Bus Loop and Commuter Parking".)

At its meeting of December 16, 1997, the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) deferred consideration of Report No. 26, entitled "Sheppard Subway--Bayview Station Commuter Parking Lot", to "permit further consultation between staff, Vice-Chair Moscoe, Councillor Shiner and Councillor King". This report responds to that request.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)approve elimination of the construction of a commuter parking lot from the Bayview Station concept;

(2)confirm the requirement for an exclusive off-street bus loop for Bayview Station;

(3)authorize staff to negotiate a permanent exclusive easement for an off-street bus loop (at the north-end of the Dangreen property) now as part of the property settlement with Dangreen, potentially at no cost to the project;

(4)authorize staff to work with the developer and City staff to investigate alternative off-street bus loop locations that can be integrated with the proposed Dangreen development, provided that the new off-street bus loop configuration is acceptable to the TTC with respect to operations and customer convenience, particularly with regard to an exclusive access to/from Bayview Avenue;

(5)confirm that the provision of an off-street bus loop, satisfactory to the TTC, be made a condition of the planning approvals for any development on the Dangreen site; and

(6)forward this report to the City of Toronto.

Funding:

Sufficient funds for this Sheppard Subway project expenditure are included in the TTC 1998-2002 Capital Program (as set out on pages 695-705 - Sheppard Subway Category) which was approved by the Commission on November 18, 1997.

Background:

At the December 16, 1997, Commission meeting, the Commission deferred consideration of the recommended configuration of the Bayview Station bus loop and commuter parking lot to permit further consultation between staff, Vice-Chair Moscoe and Councillors Shiner and King. TTC and City staff met with Councillors King, Shiner and Moscoe on February 4, 1998.

Discussion:

Concern has been expressed from the area City Councillors and the local community about the location of both the recommended bus loop and the commuter parking lot to be located south of the bus loop (see Exhibit 1).

(a)Commuter Parking:

The commuter parking lot has been seen as a factor in constraining the proposed development of the Dangreen site to the southern half of the property and TTC staff agree that such a small commuter parking lot (65 spaces) should not be a constraint to re-development. Consequently, it is recommended that the commuter parking lot be eliminated from the Bayview Station concept. The elimination of the lot is not expected to result in an appreciable reduction in station ridership and provides more flexibility to re-develop the site. The elimination of the lot, will however, likely be opposed by OrlandoCorporation (the owner of Bayview Village Mall located to the east of the Dangreen site) which believes that there is a demand for 400 commuter parking spaces at Bayview Station.

(b)Bus Loop:

Currently, the 11A branch of the 11 Bayview bus route turns back to the south on-street via Sheppard Avenue, Hawksbury Drive, Bayview Mews Lane and Bayview Avenue (seeExhibit2). This allows a higher level of service to be provided south of SheppardAvenue to match customer demand. The current daily ridership on the loop itself is extremely low (10-20 trips per day) and would not meet current TTC standards for providing service on these streets.

With the construction of Bayview Station (including two new entrances on the east and west sides of Bayview Avenue, north of Sheppard Avenue), service plans require that the 11/11ABayview and 78 St. Andrews bus routes connect with the subway entrances in both directions on Bayview Avenue to provide direct subway/bus transfers as is done at most other stations in the system. Eighty percent of the customers to this station are expected to arrive by bus.

This plan would result in the elimination of the on-street loop and the construction of a new off-street bus loop at the north end of the Dangreen site (see Exhibits 3 and 4) to serve the 11A Bayview and 78 St. Andrew bus services which will turn around at this location when the subway is opened for revenue service. An off-street bus loop is the only acceptable design because only that would allow all passengers transferring from the bus to the subway to do so without crossing either BayviewAvenue or Sheppard Avenue. Locating the off-street bus loop at the north end of the Dangreen site leaves 85 percent of the site available for development.

There are no acceptable on-street loop options.

If an off-street bus loop is not provided on the Dangreen property, service would have to loop on-street. A clockwise looping (see Exhibit 5) would not allow the 11A Bayview or 78 St. Andrews buses to connect to the subway in the southbound direction (with the resulting passenger confusion) and, therefore, would be unacceptable from a customer service perspective. The counter-clockwise looping (see Exhibit 6) would also be unacceptable from a service point-of-view, as customers would cross Sheppard Avenue (eight lanes) to access the subway. It should also be noted that with a counter-clockwise looping, passengers getting off the bus to access the subway cannot use the YMCA Entrance on the south side of Sheppard Avenue as it is not staffed and currently cannot accept bus transfers.

Any on-street looping would result in unproductive additional round-trip time on the routes, and would result in a lower frequency of bus service south of Sheppard Avenue, inconveniencing approximately 4,100 customer trips per day and, overall, would provide a poorer quality of service than can be provided with the recommended bus loop. The use of an on-street loop would result in additional annual operating costs of $25,000.00 which can be avoided with a new off-street bus loop. In the long term, the delays to service resulting from on-street looping would result in the need to add a bus to the route earlier, with the resulting annual operating cost impact of $150,000.00 per year and the capital cost of an additional bus ($400,000.00). Re-design of the station to accommodate either of the on-street loops would significantly delay the construction of Bayview Station and would involve significant re-design costs.

Given the above, the protection for an off-street bus loop should be obtained as follows:

-obtain a permanent surface easement (rather than full acquisition), for the recommended off-street bus loop, now as part of a negotiated settlement with Dangreen, potentially at no cost to the project;

-staff consider alternative locations for the off-street bus loop on the Dangreen site as part of the development process provided that the revised location of the loop is operationally acceptable with respect to operations and customer convenience. In particular, the TTC requires an exclusive bus access to/from Bayview Avenue;

-the requirement to satisfy the TTC on the configuration of the off-street bus loop would be made a condition of the planning approvals (official plan amendment, zoning, site plan) for the development of the Dangreen site;

-the TTC would not make a site plan application for an off-street bus loop at this time. The TTC's site plan application can be delayed until 2001 when it is anticipated that the configuration of the development will be known.

Justification:

The TTC requires an off-street bus loop at Bayview Station to maximize passenger convenience and minimize future operating costs whether or not a development proceeds on the Dangreen site. Proceeding as recommended ensures that property is made available for an off-street bus loop.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (March 20, 1998) from Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights:

A comprehensive plan for the entire block, which would contain the Sheppard Subway Bayview Station Bus Loop and Commuter Parking, is being considered by North York Planning Department staff, in conjunction with the Toronto Transit Commission, Dangreen and the Orlando Corporation. Orlando has been meeting with Dangreen and has advised the Planning Department that they will be submitting a proposal within the next two weeks and that these plans include commuter/community parking.

As the Toronto Transit Commission's proposal is only dealing with the narrow strip of land along Bayview Avenue, I would, therefore, request your Committee to recommend that the Toronto Transit Commission defer eliminating the commuter parking lot from the construction plans at this time, and that an updated report be requested from the North York Planning Department on the entire block bounded by Sheppard Avenue East, Bayview Avenue, Bayview Mews Lane and Hawksbury Drive.

I am unable be at your March 23, 1998, meeting in the morning; however, if the Committee would like me to address this issue, I will be pleased to attend after your lunch break.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (March 20, 1998) from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South:

I urge, in the strongest possible terms, that Committee Members recommend against the elimination of proposed parking at the Bayview Subway Station.

The residents of Ward 9 have been assured since the start of subway discussions that there would be adequate parking for commuters and a drop off/pick-up area at the Bayview Station. The Ward9 residents would be the first to suffer the negative and irritating effects of "spill-over" parking on their streets should the long-promised parking at the Bayview Station not be provided.

(A copy of Exhibits 1-6, referred to in the foregoing TTC Report No. 25a, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the March 23 and 24, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the CityClerk.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (February 20, 1998), entitled "Removal of Trees from the Bayview Avenue Right-of-Way Between Sheppard Avenue East and Mallingham Court", from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To authorize the removal of six trees in connection with the construction of the Sheppard Subway Bayview Station.

Funding Sources:

The costs associated with this work will be the responsibility of the Toronto Transit Commission.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that authority be granted for the removal of six trees from the Bayview Avenue right-of-way between Sheppard Avenue East and Mallingham Court.

Background:

Metro By-law No. 211-74, Section 10, subsections (i) and (ii), provides that, "no person shall injure, destroy, or cut down any tree on a Metropolitan Road without the approval of Metropolitan Council".

Discussion:

As a precursor to the construction of the Bayview Station a series of overhead and underground utilities must be relocated out of the way of the subway structure and work area. Among these are an existing hydro vault and chamber at the northeast corner of the Bayview Avenue/Sheppard Avenue intersection.

This plant must be relocated to another location along Bayview Avenue and will consist of one underground and one above-ground vault. To relocate the plant to the east side of Bayview Avenue would require the acquisition of a sizeable easement due to limited right-of-way width. This would be expensive and would introduce constraints on the future development of the adjacent property. On the west side of Bayview Avenue there are two locations where sufficient right-of-way exists, approximately ten metres south of Mallingham Court and approximately 15 metres north of Mallingham Court. Both of these locations provide sufficient property for the construction of the plant and access by hydro crews for future maintenance. At the northerly location, however, a significant grade difference of approximately five metres exists between the existing landscaped area of the right-of-way and the sidewalk/roadway elevation. Extensive grading, some tree removal, and the construction of a retaining wall would be required to utilize this site. The southerly location would require the removal of six mature trees but no significant re-grading. A detailed cost/benefit analysis determined that the southerly location imposes the lowest overall cost for the relocation of the hydro plant.

The trees to be removed (two maple, four pine) are located adjacent to the front and side yard of the end townhouse on the south side of Mallingham Court. The specific hydro vault location preserves a group of trees adjacent to the backyard of the townhouse. The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) proposes the installation of a 2.5 metre cedar fence to screen the townhouse from Bayview Avenue following the tree removal.

The trees to be removed have a replacement value of $4,636.00. The TTC is responsible for the replacement value plus associated costs. These funds, and other funds collected as the result of Sheppard Subway work will be used in the Sheppard Avenue corridor to enhance the streetscape of areas disturbed by construction. Installation of appropriate streetscaping will occur upon final restoration of Sheppard Avenue after completion of the subway.

Conclusion:

In order to facilitate the construction of the Sheppard Subway, Bayview Station, it is recommended that approval be granted to remove six trees.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. David Butler, Manager, Sheppard Subway Traffic Operations, 392-5285.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (April 9, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, April 8, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) considered the attached report, entitled "Sheppard Subway - Bayview Station Hydro Relocation -Mallingham Court".

The Commission 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 Bayview Station;

(c)requested that 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 foregoing is forwarded to the City of Toronto for the necessary approval, as detailed in the report.

(Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 6,

entitled "Shepard Subway - Bayview Station

Hydro Relocation - Mallingham Court.)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commission:

(a)receive this report for information;

(b)forward this report 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 Bayview Station; and

(c)in the event that this matter is not considered at the April 20, 1998 meeting, forward this report directly to City Council for consideration at the May 13, 1998 meeting.

Funding:

Sufficient funds for this Sheppard Subway project expenditure are included in the TTC 1998-2002 Capital Program (as set out on pages 695-705 - Sheppard Subway Category) which was approved by the Commission on November 18, 1997.

Background:

Aerial Hydro infrastructure and an existing underground Hydro switch vault must be relocated in advance of the construction of Bayview Station. The schedule for this work is as follows:

-Hydro design work Complete

-Award of Hydro constructionWeek of May 19

-Hydro relocationsJune - September

-Bayview Station

- Tender PeriodJune 30 - September 2

- AwardSeptember 23

The preferred new location for the Hydro equipment (one underground, one above-ground) is on the west side of Bayview Avenue, south of Mallingham Court. This location requires some trees to be cut down in the Bayview Avenue road allowance. The tree-cutting permit to allow the Hydro work to proceed was deferred from the March 23, 1998 meeting to the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee at the request of Councillor Filion. This deferral was to allow time for public consultation on this issue.

This matter must be considered by the Committee on April 20, 1998 (to Council May 13, 1998) or this critical Hydro work will be delayed with the resulting impact on the upcoming construction of Bayview Station.

Discussion:

As outlined in Exhibit 1, there are three possible locations for the relocation of the Hydro vaults. Option A is strongly preferred (see also Exhibit 2) as it is the least cost option, requires no property acquisition, has similar tree removals in comparison to the other options and the Hydro relocation contract (which is ready for tender) is based on the implementation of Option A.

Option B is not preferred as it still requires tree removals, results in a $25,000.00 cost premium, and requires the construction of a 1-2 metre high retaining wall 2.5 metres from the exterior wall of the end townhouse unit on Mallingham Court. Implementation of Option B would require the re-design of the Hydro work (2-3 months delay) with the resulting impact on the schedule for the construction of Bayview Station.

Option C requires the acquisition of private property as the Hydro vaults cannot be located within the road right-of-way. Consequently, Option C has a $200,000.00 - $350,000.00 cost premium and places the Hydro vaults in the centre of the proposed Dangreen development. Option C also requires some tree removal and again would require the re-design of the Hydro contract with the resulting delays to construction.

Given the above, Option A is recommended; and to address potential concerns about the loss of trees the TTC has proposed to extensively re-landscape the area south of Mallingham Court (see Exhibit3) in order to implement the recommended option. As well, the following public consultation has taken place with respect to the Hydro equipment and the landscaping concept:

-a meeting was held with Councillor Filion on March 11, 1998, to discuss the issue;

-a letter to Councillor Filion dated March 20, 1998, outlined the detailed rationale for the recommended location of the Hydro equipment and the proposed re-landscaping plan;

-a brochure inviting residents in the entire station area to a public meeting concerning Bayview Station was distributed the week of March 16, 1998;

-on March 20, 1998, a letter outlining the Hydro re-location concept (including the landscaping plan) was hand-delivered to all residents of Mallingham Court; and

-a public meeting/open house concerning the Bayview Station finishes and landscaping concepts was held on March 31, 1998.

In response to the above efforts, no member of the public asked a question at the public meeting or has submitted a written comment about the proposed Hydro work or the landscape plan. TTC staff received a phone call on April 6, 1998, from the owner of 3 Mallingham Court (the unit affected by the implementation of the recommended option), expressing concern about the proposal. TTC staff are attempting to meet with the property owner prior to the April 8, 1998 Commission meeting.

The TTC believes that Option A is the preferred one, that the Hydro work can and should proceed on schedule and that the necessary tree-cutting permit should be approved by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its April 20, 1998 meeting. This will allow Council to consider this issue on May 13, 1998, allowing this critical work to proceed on schedule.

Justification:

Further delays in approving the necessary permits for the Bayview Station advance Hydro relocation contract are not warranted and will delay the construction of Bayview Station.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (April 22, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, April 8, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) considered a report, entitled "Sheppard Subway - Bayview Station Hydro Relocation - Mallingham Court", and 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 allow critical Hydro infrastructure to be relocated in advance of the construction of Bayview Station;

(c)requested that 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.

I have now been advised that this matter was deferred at the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee until its next meeting. In view of this decision and the resultant $1 million-$2 million/month cost impact if work is delayed, I would request, as per the Commission's formal direction noted above, that this matter be forwarded directly to City Council for consideration at its meeting on May 13, 1998.

Your assistance with respect to the foregoing would be greatly appreciated.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having had before it a confidential communication (May 12, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, regarding commuter parking at Bayview Station and the removal of treesopposite 3 Mallingham Court for Bayview Station Hydro vaults.

Mr. Andy G. Bertolo, Chief Project Manager, Sheppard Subway, Toronto Transit Commission, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of each of the following attachments has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the May 19, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(i)Exhibits 1-6, referred to in TTC Report No. 25a, which were appended to the foregoing communication dated February 26, 1998, from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, regarding the Sheppard Subway Bayview Station bus loop and commuter parking;

(ii)the two location plans, which were appended to the foregoing report dated February 20, 1998, entitled "Removal of Trees from the Bayview Avenue Right-of-Way Between SheppardAvenue East and Mallingham Court", from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation; and

(iii)Exhibits 1-3, referred to in TTC Report No. 6, which were appended to the foregoing communication dated April 9, 1998, from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, regarding the Shepard Subway Bayview Station Hydro Relocation - Mallingham Court.)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998 had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following confidential reports, such reports to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act:

(i)(June 2, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(ii)(May 12, 1998) addressed to the Urban Environment and Development Committee from the City Solicitor; and

(iii)(May 12, 1998) addressed to the Urban Environment and Development Committee from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission.)

(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that the applicant's solicitor is a partner at the same law firm as his son.)

2

Proposed Interim Sign By-law to Prohibit Advertising Signs

Abutting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (formerly

the Queen Elizabeth Way), Eglinton Avenue West,

Highway 2, Highway 2A, and Highway 27.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that Council enact the proposed by-law to prohibit third party signs, as an interim measure, on lands adjacent to certain former provincial highways.

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

(1)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to submit a report to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee on a variance/appeal process, and that representatives of the sign industry be consulted during the preparation of such report; and

(2)requested the Road Allowance Sub-Committee to meet prior to June 15, 1998, to consider the report referred to in (2) above; and to submit its decision on such report to the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee scheduled to be held on June15, 1998.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (May 6, 1998) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its Special Meeting held on April28 and May1, 1998, had before it Clause No.1 of Report No.5 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Prohibition of Advertising Signs Abutting the F. G. Gardiner Expressway (formerly the Queen Elizabeth Way), Eglinton Avenue West, Highway No.2, Highway No.2A, and Highway No.27".

Council struck out the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and inserted in lieu thereof the following:

"WHEREAS by Orders in Council 534/97, 535/97 and 647/97 the City has acquired former provincial highways with the result that the provincial regulations with respect to signs on the lands abutting those highways have ceased to apply; and

WHEREAS it would be prudent to prohibit third party signs on the lands abutting the newly acquired highways;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(1)Council propose to enact a sign by-law as an interim measure pursuant to the Municipal Act, to prohibit third party advertising within 400 metres of any limit of the sections of highway generally described as: the F.G. Gardiner Expressway from Highway 427 to Humber River; Eglinton Avenue from TheEast Mall to a point0.5kilometres east; Highway 2A from Highway 401 to old Highway 2 (Kingston Road); Highway 27 from Highway 401 to SteelesAvenue; and Highway2 from Highway 401 to the City of Toronto and Durham boundary;

(2)Council delegate to the Urban Environment and Development Committee the function of hearing deputations from the public on the proposed by-law; and

(3)City staff be directed to give notice, in accordance with the Municipal Act, of the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting at which the proposed by-law is to be discussed and to take any other steps necessary to give effect to this resolution".

--------

(Clause No. 1 embodied in Report No. 5 of

The Urban Environment and Development Committee,

referred to above.)

(City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"WHEREAS by Orders in Council 534/97, 535/97 and 647/97 the City has acquired former provincial highways with the result that the provincial regulations with respect to signs on the lands abutting those highways have ceased to apply; and

WHEREAS it would be prudent to prohibit third party signs on the lands abutting the newly acquired highways;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(1)Council propose to enact a sign by-law as an interim measure pursuant to the Municipal Act, to prohibit third party advertising within 400 metres of any limit of the sections of highway generally described as: the F.G. Gardiner Expressway from Highway 427 to Humber River; Eglinton Avenue from TheEast Mall to a point 0.5kilometres east; Highway 2A from Highway 401 to old Highway 2 (Kingston Road); Highway 27 from Highway 401 to SteelesAvenue; and Highway 2 from Highway 401 to the City of Toronto and Durham boundary;

(2)Council delegate to the Urban Environment and Development Committee the function of hearing deputations from the public on the proposed by-law; and

(3)City staff be directed to give notice, in accordance with the Municipal Act, of the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting at which the proposed by-law is to be discussed and to take any other steps necessary to give effect to this resolution.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (April15, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.

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

(1)directed that this matter be forwarded to Council for consideration at its special meeting scheduled to be held on April 28, 1998;

(2)requested the City Solicitor to submit directly to Council on April 28, 1998:

(a)a confidential report on the implications of this matter; and

(b)an interim control by-law to reflect the intent of the report (April 15, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation;

(3)requested, in the interim, that the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, conduct a study with respect to signage on former provincial highways;

(4)directed that a copy of the report (April 15, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be forwarded to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee, with a request that the Sub-Committee meet with representatives of the sign industry and the appropriate City officials to discuss the industry's concerns, and report thereon back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee prior to the finalization of the sign by-law; and

(5)received the following report (March 5, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, and the communications (April 17, 1998) from Mr. Blair Murdoch, Director, Outdoor Advertising Association of Canada, and (April 14, 1998) addressed to the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, from Mr.BlairSinclair, President, Maypole Dairy Products Limited.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 15, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to extend the existing municipal codes/by-laws to control the location of third party advertising signs abutting the sections of former provincial highways that were transferred to the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on April 1, 1997.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications to the City through the enactment of the requested regulation.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)a sign by-law/municipal code provision be enacted to prohibit third party advertising within 400metres of the road sections shown in Table No. 1, entitled "Third Party Advertising (400m Prohibition)", attached to this report, and to authorize appropriate staff to take the necessary steps to give effect thereto;

(2)the Urban Environment and Development Committee direct staff to give public notice as to hearings on a proposed sign by-law; and

(3)Council delegate to the Urban Environment and Development Committee the authority to hear the public on this matter.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of March 23 and 24, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee deferred consideration of a report dated March 5, 1998, entitled "Prohibition of Advertising Signs Abutting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (formerly Queen Elizabeth Way), Eglinton Avenue West, Highway 2, Highway 2A and Highway 27", in order to give staff the opportunity to review the matter further particularly with respect to the question of whether a 400 metre restrictive zone, as previously imposed by the Ministry of Transportation, would be possible. (See attached Tables Nos.1 and 2.)

Discussion:

The recommendation in the report dated March 5, 1998, entitled "Prohibition of Advertising Signs Abutting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (formerly Queen Elizabeth Way), Eglinton Avenue West, Highway 2, Highway 2A and Highway 27", was to extend the 45 metre sign prohibition contained in Metro By-Law No.211-79 to all controlled access roads in the City as allowed under authority of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. The relevant sections of the Act allowed the former Metropolitan Council to exercise the powers under the Planning Act to control zoning on all lands lying within a distance of 45 metres from any limit of a Metropolitan Toronto road.

As a result of the directive from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, staff of the Toronto, Etobicoke, Scarborough and Metro service areas met to discuss the proposed 45metre sign prohibition in the context of the development of a consolidated sign by-law/municipal code provision. It was the consensus that the sign and zoning by-laws/municipal codes do not adequately protect against a potential proliferation of third party advertising signs in proximity to the recently acquired roads. Until the assumption by the former Metro government, no third party commercial advertising was allowed within 400metres of the previously mentioned controlled access highways due to the prevailing provincial legislation.

The staff group felt that as an interim measure, prior to the enactment of a consolidated sign by-law, it would be preferable to enact a sign by-law containing a prohibition on third party commercial advertising equal to that previously imposed under provincial legislation. To enable the City to impose such a regulation, it was concluded that the power contained in the Municipal Act to pass a sign by-law prohibiting or regulating signs on defined areas or on areas abutting defined highways should be utilized.

The Municipal Act requires that notice be published in a newspaper 14 days in advance of Council's meeting and that Council hear any person who "applies to be heard". Council, if it desires, may delegate the function of hearing the public to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

In the interim, it is proposed that staff will hold all applications for third party advertising in the areas outlined in the body of this report until Council has made its decision. Staff will also advise those making such an application of the opportunity to make a deputation at the public meeting being held to discuss this matter.

Conclusion:

The prohibition of third party commercial advertising within 400metres of the road sections previously legislated by the Province should be continued.

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.

--------

Table No. 1

Third Party Advertising

(400 metre Prohibition)

Note:See attached sketch maps for graphic depictions of the proposed third party sign prohibitions abutting the road sections indicated on Table No. 1, entitled "Third Party Advertising (400metre Prohibition).

--------

Table No. 2

Existing Third Party Advertising

(45 metre Prohibition)

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (March 5, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain authority to amend former Metropolitan Toronto By-lawNo.211-79 to prohibit the installation of third party advertising signs abutting those sections of former provincial highways transferred to the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on April1, 1997.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications to the City through the enactment of the requested by-law amendment.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the former Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 211-79 be amended to include the road sections shown in Table No.1, entitled "Third Party Advertising (45 metres Prohibition)" attached to this report, and to authorize the appropriate staff to take the necessary steps to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of March 26, 1997, the former Metropolitan Council adopted Clause No. 1 of Report No.7 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, entitled "Transfer of Parts of the QueenElizabeth Way, Eglinton Avenue West, Highway No. 2, Highway No. 2A and Highway No.27". In adopting the report, Council:

(1)designated the aforementioned roads as controlled access roads;

(2)designated them a through highway; and

(3)enacted regulations pertaining to the control of traffic on the subject sections of road.

Discussion:

For the purpose of this report first party signs are defined as those directly associated with the ownership of the property on which they are erected. Second party signs are defined as those advertising the goods, wares or services of the tenant(s) or occupant(s) of the property owner on which the sign(s) is erected. Third party signs are defined as those advertising the goods or services of a company or individual who is neither the owner(s), tenant(s) or occupant(s) of the property on which the sign is erected.

Prior to the road sections mentioned earlier in this report being transferred to Metropolitan Toronto, signs abutting them were regulated by Section No. 34 (2)(c), of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act. Under the Act, no person shall, except under permit therefor from the Minister:

1. place any sign notice or advertising device whether it contains words or not other than one sign not more than 60 centimetres by 30 centimetres in size displaying the name or the name of the occupation of the owner of the premise to which it is affixed or the name of such premise within 400 metres of any limit of a controlled access highway.

When the road sections were transferred to Metropolitan Toronto, the provisions of this section ofthe Act lapsed and, therefore, it is now necessary to enact appropriate regulations. The placement of signs adjacent to a number of sections of the former Metro road system is regulated by By-lawNo.211-79 which reads, in part, as follows:

(1)no person shall use any land within any land hereinafter defined for the erection or the display of any sign, bill board or advertising device other than signs advertising the property on which they are erected for sale or signs identifying or advertising ownership or the products of the owners or occupants of such land or directional signs at each point of ingress or egress from such land.

This restriction applies to an area within 45 metres of the designated road section as itemized in Table No.2.

Between April 1, 1997, to date, there have been six sign approvals granted for lands abutting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (formerly the Queen Elizabeth Way) and four for lands abutting Highway27. These signs were located at a distance greater than 45 metres (approximately 150feet) from any portion of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (formerly the Queen Elizabeth Way) and Highway27.

The proposed amendments to By-law No. 211-79 will add the road sections listed in Table No. 1 to the list of roads in By-law No. 211-79 whereby the placement of third party signs is restricted to a distance greater than 45 metres (approximately 150 feet) from any portion of the designated road section.

Conclusions:

The sections of roads transferred to the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto by the Province should be protected from advertising signs to the same degree as comparable road sections existing within the City of Toronto main (formerly Metro) road network.

Contact Name:

Mr. Keeva G. Lane, Supervisor, Road Allowance Control, Transportation, 392-9312.

Fax: (416) 392-9317. E-mail address: keeva_lane.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

--------

Table No. 1

Third Party Advertising

(45 metres Prohibition)

--------

Table No. 2

Existing Third Party Advertising

(45 metres Prohibition)

--------

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

(i)(April 17, 1998) from Mr. Blair Murdoch, Director, Outdoor Advertising Association of Canada, advising that the Association has only recently learned that the Urban Environment and Development Committee is reviewing the regulations with respect to signs along the newly-assumed QueenElizabeth Way; that the Association was not informed of the initial recommendations or of the subsequent review of this matter; and requesting that the Association, and its members, be given an opportunity to review the recommendations embodied in the latest staff report, and to meet with staff to provide input to this issue.

(ii)(April 14, 1998) addressed to the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, from Mr.BlairSinclair, President, Maypole Dairy Products Limited, advising of the serious financial implications for his firm as a result of the proposed changes in the Toronto Transportation policy with respect to the setback regulations for signs facing the F.G.Gardiner Expressway; and urging that Maypole Dairy Products Limited not be denied the opportunity to generate some additional revenue which is essential to the firm's future growth.

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

-Mr. Just Cole, Permits Co-ordinator, Leasing and Legislation, Gould Outdoor Advertising;

-Mr. Ross Muzylo, President, Outdoor Opportunities Inc., on behalf of Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railways; and

-Mr. Blair Murdoch, Director, Outdoor Advertising Association of Canada, and GeneralManager and Vice-President of Mediacom.

(City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (April 27, 1998) from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with Section 55(9) of the Municipal Act.)

(City Council also had before it during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April27, 1998) from the General Manager, Sign Association of Canada, requesting that the proposed sign control interim by-law not be approved and requesting, in its stead, that the 45 metre set-back allowance agreement be maintained pending the decision reached at a meeting with the Road Allowance Sub-Committee.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (May13, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise Committee members as to the history and status of the process to enact a prohibition on third party advertising signs abutting sections of the former Provincial highways noted above.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications to the City.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of April 28, 1998, Council adopted as amended Clause No. 1 of Report No.5 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, entitled "Prohibition of Advertising Signs Abutting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (formerly the Queen Elizabeth Way), Eglinton Avenue West, Highway2, Highway 2A and Highway 27". In giving consideration to the matter Council directed:

(1)that it proposes to enact a sign by-law as an interim measure pursuant to the Municipal Act, to prohibit third party advertising within 400 metres of any limit of sections of highway generally described as the F.G. Gardiner Expressway from Highway 427 to Humber River; Eglinton Avenue from The East Mall to a point 0.5 kilometres east; Highway 2A from Highway 401 to Old Highway 2 (KingstonRoad); Highway 27 from Highway 401 to SteelesAvenue; Highway 2 from Highway 401 to the City of Toronto and Durham boundary; and

(2)that it delegates to the Urban Environment and Development Committee the function of hearing the public on the proposed by-laws; and

(3)staff to give notice, in accordance with the Municipal Act, of the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting at which the proposed by-law is to be discussed and to take any other steps necessary to give effect thereto.

This report is being submitted at the request of Councillor Pantalone, Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, in order to outline the recent events pertaining to this matter.

Discussion:

At its meeting of March 23 and 24, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee gave consideration to a report dated March 5, 1998, entitled "Prohibition of Advertising Signs abutting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (formerly the Queen Elizabeth Way), Eglinton Avenue West, Highway2, Highway 2A and Highway 27". These sections of highways were transferred by the Province of Ontario to the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on April 1, 1997. The report recommended the enactment of a sign by-law/municipal code provision to prohibit third party signs within 45 metres of the subject sections of highway, similar to the existing restriction on comparable former Metro roads. This was proposed as an interim measure until a consolidated sign by-law is completed later this year.

It was noted in the report that under the provision of the Provincial Legislation (Section No. 34 (2)(c) of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act) no third party signs were permitted within 400 metres of Provincial Highways without a Minister's permit. According to members of the sign industry there are a number of third party signs within the designated areas that have been approved under Minister's permit.

It was the decision of the Committee to defer consideration of the report in order to give staff the opportunity to review the matter further, and report back particularly with respect to the question of whether a 400 metre restriction zone, as previously imposed by the Ministry of Transportation, would be possible.

On April 20, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee gave consideration to the April 15, 1998 report from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation. The recommendation in the report to enact a by-law to prohibit signs within 400 metres of the subject highways was based on the collective view of staff of the affected service areas.

Representatives of the sign industry who made deputations to the Committee indicated that the lack of sufficient notice of the proposed by-law/municipal code provision prevented them from presenting their views on the matter and therefore the recommendation would have an adverse impact on them.

The Committee recommended to Council the adoption of the April 15, 1998 report from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation and directed that:

(1)the matter be forwarded to Council for its consideration on April 28, 1998;

(2)the City Solicitor submit directly to Council:

(a)a confidential report on the implications of this matter; and

(b)an interim control by-law to reflect the intent of the aforementioned report; and

(3)a copy of the April 15, 1998 report be forwarded to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee, with a request that the Sub-Committee meet with representatives of the sign industry and appropriate City officials to discuss the industry's concern and to report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee prior to finalization of the sign by-law.

At its meeting on May 12, 1998, the Road Allowance Sub-Committee received the referral from (3)above since the Urban Environment and Development Committee will be hearing deputations on this matter at its May 19, 1998 meeting.

Since the transfer of the highways on April 1, 1997, and as of May 13, 1998, there have been applications for twenty-eight (28) sign locations abutting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway and Highway27, ten (10) of which are within the 45 metre limit and eighteen (18) outside the 45 metre limit. It should be noted that of these twenty-eight (28) locations, twenty-two (22) have been requested since March 24, 1998, that being the date when the Committee indicated interest in enacting a 400 metre sign prohibition. No requests have been received for the other highwaysections. For detailed information on the above-noted applications, refer to the attached Table No. 1 entitled "Sign Applications" and the respective drawings (Appendix 1).

Contact Name:

Mr. Keeva G. Lane, Supervisor, Road Allowance Control, Transportation, 392-9312.

Fax No.: (416) 392-9317. E-mail Address: keeva_lane.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

--------

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

(i)(May 12, 1998) from the City Solicitor, entitled "Signs Along Recently Transferred Former Provincial Highways";

(ii)(May 13, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Road Allowance Sub-Committee on May 12, 1998, had before it a communication (April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk respecting the prohibition of advertising signs abutting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (formerly the Queen Elizabeth Way), Eglinton Avenue West, Highway 2, Highway 2A and Highway 27, and Clause No. 1 of Report No. 5 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its Special Meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998; and stating that the Sub-Committee noted that this matter would be discussed at the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on May 19, 1998, and received the foregoing communication; and

(iii)(April 27, 1998) from Ms. Elise Gagnon, General Manager, Sign Association of Canada, requesting that the proposed interim sign control by-law not be approved; and that the 45metre set-back allowance agreement be maintained pending the decision reached at a meeting with the Road Allowance Sub-Committee.

--------

Authority:Urban Environment and Development Committee

Report No. Draft

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To prohibit third party signs, as an interim measure, on lands adjacent to certain former provincial highways

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Act, Council may enact a by-law to prohibit signs and other advertising devices within any defined area or on land abutting any part of a highway; and

WHEREAS it would be prudent to prohibit the use of lands abutting certain of the former provincial highways for the purpose of third party signs until such time as Council has had an opportunity to enact a comprehensive sign by-law;

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.The following definitions apply in this by-law:

"Highway" includes the area between the lateral property lines of the highway.

"Sign" means any device, structure or medium that uses any colour, form, graphic, illumination, symbol or writing to convey information of any kind to the public.

"Third Party Sign" means any sign other than one which is intended to advertise or promote a business, product or service of the owner or occupant of the land on which the sign is located, but does not include the following:

(i)a sign which advertises for sale the property on which it is located;

(ii)a directional sign at each point of ingress or egress from the land.

2.No person shall erect or use any Third Party Signs on any of the lands within 400metres of any limit of the following sections of highway:

(a)F.G. Gardiner Expressway from Highway 427 to the Humber River, transferred from the Province by Order in Council 534/97;

(b)Highway 27 from Highway 401 to Steeles Avenue, transferred from the Province by Order in Council 535/97;

(c)Highway 2A from Highway 401 to Old Highway 2 (Kingston Road), and Highway2 from Highway 401 to the City of Toronto and Durham boundary, transferred from the Province by Order in Council 647/97; and

(d)the portion of Highway 427 referred to as Eglinton Avenue, from The East Mall to a point 0.5 kilometres east, and transferred from the Province by Order in Council 533/97.

3.With the exception of those by-law provisions relating to third party signs, all other by-laws of the City shall continue to apply to the lands described in section 2 above.

4.Where this by-law conflicts with any other by-law, this by-law prevails to the extent of the conflict.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1998.

MayorCity Clerk

--------

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

-Mr. Just Cole, Permits Co-ordinator, Leasing and Legislation, Pattison Outdoor Advertising;

-Mr. Blair Murdoch, Director, Outdoor Advertising Association of Canada, and General Manager and Vice-President of Mediacom;

-Ms. Ingrid Brooks, Operations, Omni, The Outdoor Company; and

-Ms. Shelley Muzylo, Outdoor Opportunities, on behalf of Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railways.

(A copy of Appendix 1, which includes Table No. 1 and seven sketches, which was appended to the foregoing report dated May13, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the May 19, 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 June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following confidential reports, such reports to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act:

(i)(June 3, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(ii)(May 12, 1998) addressed to the Urban Environment and Development Committee from the City Solicitor.)

3

Designation of Loading Areas and On-Street Parking

Spaces in Downtown Toronto for Use by Motor Coaches.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated June 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, entitled 'Off-Street Parking and Loading Facilities for Motor Coaches (Ward - Citywide)', embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services examine the appropriateness of a requirement for off-street motor coach parking and loading facilities for new hotels within the central area, in consultation with appropriate Departments and Agencies.' ")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (March 27, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, subject to amending Appendices 2 and 4 to provide that parking meter rates for motor coaches be $5.00 per hour within the central business district and $2.00 per hour outside of the central business district.

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

(1)requested the President of the Metropolitan Toronto Coach Terminal Inc. to submit a further report thereon directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on June3, 1998; such report to include comment on the cost of commercially parking a bus off-street in the City of Toronto;

(2)requested the Executive Director and Chief Planner, Urban Planning Division, 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; and to submit a report thereon directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on June3, 1998; and

(3)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on June3, 1998, on:

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

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

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

Purpose:

The purpose of this proposal is to implement a program which will assist in organizing the loading/unloading and mitigate the impacts of on-street parking activity by motor coaches in the downtown area of the City of Toronto. In total, about 60 loading spaces would be delineated while about 70 longer stay bus parking spaces would be provided at various locations on City streets.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed plan (approximately $17,000.00) are contained in the 1998 Current Budget estimates.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that in order to provide positive guidance to the operators of motor coaches:

(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 Adelaide Street West, RichmondStreet West, Jarvis Street and University Avenue (former Metropolitan roadways) identified in Appendix 1 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 Appendix 2 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, VictoriaStreet and Wellesley Street West (former City of Toronto roadways) identified in Appendix 3 of this report be rescinded;

(5)the parking, standing and/or parking meter/machine regulations on the sections of AsquithAvenue, Bay Street, Commissioners Street, Front Street East/West, QueenStreetWest, Victoria Street and Wellesley Street 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.

Background:

Based on the findings of a consultant's report prepared in 1996, an estimated 200 buses daily are generated by hotels and entertainment venues in downtown Toronto with each tour or charter bus group injecting between $7,000.00 and $11,000.00 daily into the local economy. Nevertheless, the motor coach industry maintains that Toronto is one of the most restrictive municipalities in NorthAmerica when it comes to on-street parking and loading operations by tour buses and that more accommodating measures should be implemented to enhance these operations, encourage continued patronage to Toronto and ensure a growth in the tourism industry in the City.

With this in mind, in September 1997 an ad hoc committee comprised of representatives from the Metro Chairman's Office, the Toronto Police Service, the Transportation Department, Toronto Works Services, Tourism Toronto, the motor coach industry, and the hotel association started a series of meetings to review motor coach activities in downtown Toronto. The mandate of the committee was to recommend a strategy which would facilitate on-street motor coach loading/unloading activities and on-street parking, and to have this strategy in place for the 1998 tourist season. This strategy was requested by the various affected industry associations to provide positive guidance to motor coach operators, to further promote the tourist industry in Toronto, and to provide a simple and fair enforcement policy. This report details a strategy which addresses the loading/unloading and on-street parking needs of the motor coach industry in downtown Toronto. (A similar process is underway to devise an integrated off-street parking strategy for motor coaches, with an expected completion date of early 1999.)

Discussion:

The objectives of the motor coach strategy are:

(1)to identify suitable locations in downtown Toronto to allow loading/unloading of motor coaches; and

(2)to identify suitable locations in other distinct areas for on-street parking of motor coaches.

The work plan used to develop this strategy included a detailed site inventory of current motor coach loading/unloading and parking activity; existing parking controls; analysis of road and traffic data; identification of conflicting demands for curb-side space; and the solicitation of comments from affected stakeholders including the use of a questionnaire which was mailed to about 50 hotels and entertainment venues.

It should be noted that this report does not amend the current by-law which prohibits the idling of motor coaches. The proposed loading and parking program will not encourage the idling of these vehicles. Rather, the designation of loading and parking spaces is expected to assist in the control of bus activity and may result in a reduction to illegal idling of motor coaches.

This discussion is divided into four sections: A - loading/unloading activity; B - on-street parking; C - fee structure; and D - promotion.

A - Loading/Unloading:

Generally speaking, loading/unloading occurs within close proximity to an attraction and is usually of short-term duration (e.g., 15 minutes). This activity is permitted under the current "No Standing" and "No Parking" regulations. However, these parking regulations also permit the shared curb-side use by private and other commercial vehicles engaged in similar activities.

Of the locations inventoried, the vast majority do not experience significant loading/unloading problems. Motor coach drivers successfully gain access to the curb to perform loading/unloading activities while competing with other curb-side demands at these locations. Therefore, we do not require changes to the curb-side regulations at these non-problematic locations. However, to reinforce the expectation that motor coach loading will take place at these locations, and to provide positive guidance to motor coach operators, special signs will be installed to identify the area for motor coach loading activity.

Motor coaches were found to have significant loading difficulties at five locations. These locations are:

(i)Toronto City Hall, the Queen Street West frontage;

(ii)Sutton Place Hotel, the Bay Street frontage at Wellesley Street West;

(iii)Primrose Hotel, the Carlton Street frontage at Jarvis Street;

(iv)Sheraton Centre, the Richmond Street West frontage at York Street; and

(v)Hilton Hotel, the Richmond Street West frontage at University Avenue.

These problematic locations are characterized in part by an insufficient supply of available loading/unloading zones, and the presence of Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) facilities, bicycle lanes, metered parking spaces, taxi stands, and/or competing use of curb-side space by vendors.

There are measures available to mitigate the difficulties motor coach operators experience at these locations.

Toronto City Hall:

On the north side of Queen Street West, west of Bay Street, the existing "School Bus Loading Zone" installed several years ago as a temporary measure to provide a passenger loading/unloading area is no longer an appropriate means of dealing with bus operations in the vicinity of City Hall. In place thereof a "No Standing" regulation should be implemented and appropriate signs should be installed to identify a motor coach loading/unloading zone. Approximately eight buses can be accommodated in this area (from 39.6 metres west of BayStreet to 121.9 metres west thereof).

Sutton Place Hotel:

It is possible to create a motor coach loading/unloading zone on the north side of WellesleyStreet West (from 49 metres east of Bay Street to 16.5 metres further east thereof). The installation of the loading/unloading zone will require the removal of one metered parking space on Wellesley Street West, east of Bay Street, and the designation of a "No Standing" zone.

Primrose Hotel:

Motor coach loading/unloading can occur on the west side of Jarvis Street, south of CarltonStreet (from 30.5 metres south of Carlton Street to 26 metres south thereof). This loading/unloading zone can also serve the needs of the Clarion Hotel, which is located on the west side of Jarvis Street, south of Carlton Street. Three metered parking spaces on JarvisStreet, south of Carlton Street, will be removed, and designated as a "No Standing" zone.

The southbound curb lane of Jarvis Street approaching Carlton Street operates as a defacto right-turn lane. Therefore, the proposed designation of a "No Standing" zone will allow on-street motor coach loading/unloading activities to occur at all times of the day without resulting in significant impacts to the flow of traffic on Jarvis Street.

Sheraton Centre:

The Richmond Street West frontage, east of York Street, is presently used to facilitate motor coach loading/unloading activities at the Sheraton Centre. The designation of a "NoStanding" zone (from 53 metres east of York Street to 36 metres east thereof) is feasible at this location because Richmond Street West is four lanes wide. Delays to traffic will be minimal because these activities will be limited to short durations.

Hilton Hotel:

Motor coach operators experience difficulties for loading/unloading activities at the HiltonHotel because of conflicts associated with taxis parked on the south side of RichmondStreet West, east of University Avenue. The designation of a loading/unloading zone on the east side of University Avenue, immediately south of Richmond Street West, will alleviate this difficulty for motor coach operators. The impact to northbound traffic is expected to be minimal if a "No Standing" zone for motor coach loading/unloading is designated on University Avenue (from 30.5 metres south of Richmond Street West to 45metres south thereof) at the Hilton Hotel.

Since the tourist, convention and motor coach industry is dynamic, and seasonal demands are difficult to predict, the process to identify additional problematic locations will be on-going and staff will report further if and when additional motor coach loading problems are identified.

The estimated cost for City staff to fabricate and install appropriate signs at the five proposed locations outlined above, and at the other locations where the placement of signs would enhance motorists awareness of bus loading activity occurring, is approximately $7,500.00.

B - On-Street Parking:

One of the key elements of the proposed strategy is to provide appropriate curb-side locations for motor coach operators to park once they have completed their unloading activities. In some cases, motor coach operators require on-street parking for a short period of time, especially in the downtown area near attractions. In some cases they require longer on-street parking, including overnight. In determining appropriate areas for parking, it is necessary to weigh public concern into our evaluation. Many complaints about bus operations and their impact on environmental issues such as noise and fumes and neighbourhood aesthetics are received annually by City staff. Therefore, these concerns had to be considered at the locations selected.

Representatives of the motor coach industry have advised us that the time limits for on-street parking must range from a three hour to a 24 hour maximum, including overnight, to accommodate their wide range of needs.

Staff suggest that on-street motor coach parking be provided on roadway segments which are currently regulated by a "No Parking" prohibition. In this way, the likelihood of replacing other valuable parking needs with motor coach parking is minimized.

We evaluated several roadways in downtown Toronto and immediately adjacent to the downtown. The criteria used to identify locations where on-street parking could be allowed includes roadway geometry, adjacent land use, proximity to TTC routes for motor coach operators, proximity to attractions, and minimal access conflicts. The majority of downtown routes would not be appropriate for on-street motor coach parking because of competing demands for curb-side space and the high daytime traffic volumes.

There are three different motor coach parking facilities being proposed:

(a)any time of the day, evening and weekends in the Central Business District;

(b)evening and weekends in the Central Business District; and

(c)long-term outside the Central Business District.

(a) Motor Coach Parking - Any Time Of The Day - Central Business District:

On-street motor coach parking can be provided at all times at the following downtown locations where competition for curb-side space is minimal:

(i)on the west side of Bay Street at Toronto City Hall, north of Queen Street West;

(ii)on the west side of Victoria Street, north of Queen Street East; and

(iii)on the south side of Asquith Avenue, east of Yonge Street.

Bay Street:

As noted in the loading/unloading section of this report, Toronto City Hall is a significant generator of motor coach volumes. The measures suggested on Queen Street West to provide an area where passengers can be loaded/unloaded addresses one need of tour operators. The other, which is where to park their bus, can be rectified to some degree by identifying a parking area for two buses on the west side of Bay Street, in the lay-by north of Queen Street West.

Victoria Street:

Parking meters were removed several years ago on the west side of Victoria Street north of Queen Street East to enable the delivery and storage of materials/equipment during the refurbishing of the Elgin/Winter Garden Theatre. These parking meters were never reinstalled. Two motor coach parking spaces can be delineated in this area at the rear of the Elgin/Winter Garden Theatre without affecting traffic operations on this street.

Asquith Avenue:

Motor coaches unload tour groups for shopping excursions in the Yonge/Bloor/Yorkville area. Based on our assessment a parking space for one bus can be provided relatively close by on the south side of Asquith Avenue, between Yonge Street and Park Road.

In order to promote turnover during daytime hours, the maximum duration between 7:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. will be three consecutive hours at these three locations. However, motor coaches can be parked continually during evenings and overnight from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. at these locations.

(b)Motor Coach Parking - Evenings and Weekends - Central Business District:

On-street motor coach parking can be provided after 6:30 p.m. on weekdays and all day on weekends at the following locations:

(i)on the north side of Richmond Street West, between York Street and Bay Street;

(ii)on the north side of Richmond Street West, between Bay Street and Yonge Street;

(iii)on the south side of Adelaide Street West, between Bay Street and Yonge Street; and

(iv)on the south side of Front Street, between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue.

Generally speaking, traffic volumes start to decline on some downtown streets after 6:30 p.m. On Richmond Street West and Adelaide Street West, which are one-way multi-lane streets, there are three locations where motor coaches can park without significantly interfering with traffic operations and retail establishments. There will not be a significant impact on roadway capacity between 6:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. on weekdays and all day on weekends. Motor coach parking can be provided on the north side of Richmond Street West, between YorkStreet and Yonge Street, and on the south side of Adelaide Street West, between Bayand Yonge Streets. Similarly, on the south side of Front Street, between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue, a motor coach parking zone can be established for the same time periods. These three locations are within close proximity to entertainment and sports venues in downtown Toronto and can be easily accessed.

The maximum time period for each of these overnight and weekend locations will be 13 hours in order to prevent a few operators from monopolizing spaces.

(c)Motor Coach Parking - Long Term - Up to 24 Hours - Outside Central Business District:

To satisfy the longer term parking needs, on-street motor coach parking can be provided on local streets in the Cherry/Don River area (former Ataritiri site), specifically:

(i)on the south side of Front Street East between Cherry Street and Overend Street;

(ii)on the west side of Overend Street between Front Street East and Mill Street; and

(iii)on the north side of Mill Street between Overend Street and Cherry Street.

Additional longer term parking can be provided in the eastern port lands area, specifically:

(iv)on the north side of the north branch of Villiers Street between the Don Roadway and Munition Street;

(v)on both sides of Cherry Street between Unwin Street and the Ship Channel; and

(vi)on the north side of Commissioners Street between the Don Roadway and MunitionStreet.

Parking is currently allowed for a maximum period of three hours at any time on each of these sections of roadway, with the exception of Front Street East where parking is restricted to one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

Our examination of these locations has revealed that parking by motorists occurs infrequently and that these streets can accommodate longer term parking (up to 24 hours) by a significant number of buses while maintaining parking for other road users. Traffic volumes are relatively light during all periods of the day and each location is conveniently located a short distance from downtown and with easy access to public transit service. We consider these sites to be the most appropriate for longer term motor coach parking, particularly during weekdays.

To provide positive guidance to motor coach operators, special signs will be installed to identify and control these parking areas. The estimated cost to install motor coach parking signs at these proposed locations is approximately $6,000.00.

C - Fee Structure:

There will be no fee for the use of the loading/unloading zones.

At the specially signed on-street parking locations within the Central Business District, motor coach operators will pay for their parking at a rate of $2.00 per hour. At two of these locations, specifically Bay Street and Asquith Avenue, specially identified parking meters will be installed. This rate is competitive and would promote turnover in the on-street motor coach parking areas.

At locations where several bus parking spaces are provided such as Front Street West, RichmondStreet West, Adelaide Street West and Victoria Street, parking will be regulated by a "Pay and Display" system which will require the motor coach operator to purchase a ticket from a parking machine and display the ticket in the windshield of their bus. City Works Services currently has six parking machines in storage which can be used for this purpose.

In order to encourage motor coach operators to use the on-street parking areas outside the Central Business District, these parking spaces will be provided free of charge.

The estimated cost of installing the parking machines and purchasing and installing the three parking meters is about $3,000.00. The annual revenue that may be generated by the proposed parking program is estimated to be $175,000.00.

D - Promotion:

A communications plan to inform the motor coach industry and the attractions of the loading/unloading and on-street parking areas is being developed. This process includes the preparation of a brochure which would be distributed through Tourism Toronto, the hotel associations and other interested parties. Also, notification would occur in newsletters of various professional associations. Furthermore, this information would be communicated through the appropriate Internet Web-Site.

Conclusions:

The above-mentioned strategy for the control of on-street curb-side space for motor coach loading/unloading and parking is intended to address the need of the motor coach operators. There will be a minimal impact to existing on-street parking and to downtown traffic operations as a result of this plan. In total, approximately 70 full and part-time on-street spaces will be provided for motor coaches. Although this plan is unlikely to solve the entire problem, it will provide positive guidance to motor coach operators, promote the tourist industry in Toronto, and provide a simple and fair enforcement policy.

Staff have consulted at length on these issues with representatives of the affected stakeholders and have assured them that we will continue to monitor the motor coach loading/unloading and parking operations in the summer of 1998. Further adjustments may be necessary because of the dynamic nature of the tourist industry.

Contact Names:

Mr. Peter Hillier, Senior Manager, Traffic Regions, 392-5348.

Mr. Stephen Benjamin, Manager, Transportation Operations, 392-7773.

--------

Appendix 1

Regulation to be Rescinded

on Former Metropolitan Roads

No Parking

--------

No Stopping

--------

Appendix 2

Regulations to be Enacted

on Former Metropolitan Roads

No Parking

--------

No Stopping

--------

No Standing

--------

Parking Meters

--------

Appendix 3

Regulations to be Rescinded

on Former City of Toronto Roads

School Bus Loading Zones

HighwayLocation

Queen StreetNorth side, between a point 39.6 metres west of

WestBay Street and a point 121.9 metres further west

--------

No Parking Certain Times

Prohibited

HighwaySideBetweenTimes or Days

AsquithSouthYonge Street andAnytime

AvenueChurch Street

Bay StreetWestA point 198 metresAnytime

south of

Hagerman Street

and

Queen Street West

CommissionersNorthDon Roadway andAnytime

Streeta point 158 metres

east of

Munition Street

Front StreetBothCherry Street andAnytime

EastBayview Avenue

Front StreetSouthA point 50 metresAnytime

Westeast of

Spadina Avenue

and

Bathurst Street

Queen StreetBothBay Street andAnytime

WestSimcoe Street

WellesleyBothBay Street and aAnytime

Street Westpoint 55 metres

east of it

--------

Time Limit Parking

Maximum

Period

HighwaySideBetween Times or Days Permitted

FrontSouthA point 30.5 metres east 8:00 a.m. to 60 minutes

Streetof Cherry Street to 6:00 p.m.,

EastOverend Street Monday to

Friday

WellesleyBothQueen's Park 8:00 a.m. to 60 minutes

StreetCrescent East and 6:00 p.m.,

WestYonge Street Monday to

Saturday

--------

Parking Meters

Hours (daily

except Sunday Maximum

and public Parking

Highway Side Between holidays) Fee; Time Limit Period

Victoria West Queen Street 8:00 a.m. to $0.25 for 60 minutes

Street East and 6:00 p.m., 15 minutes

Dundas Square Monday to $1.00 for

Saturday 60 minutes

Wellesley North Yonge Street 8:00 a.m. to $0.25 for 60 minutes

Street and 6:00 p.m., . 15 minutes

West Bay Street Monday to $1.00 for

Saturday 60 minutes

--------

Appendix 4

Regulations to be Enacted

on Former City of Toronto Roads

No Parking Certain Times

Prohibited

HighwaySideBetweenTimes or Days

AsquithSouthPark Road to a pointAnytime

Avenue45 metres west

AsquithSouthA point 60 metres westAnytime

Avenueof Park Road and

Yonge Street

Bay StreetWestA point 198 metresAnytime

south of Hagerman Street

and a point 20 metres

further south

Bay StreetWestA point 248 metres Anytime

south of Hagerman Street

and Queen Street West

CommissionersNorthDon Roadway and aAnytime

Streetpoint 58 metres west

Commissioners NorthA point 208 metres west of Anytime

StreetDon Roadway and a point

98 metres further west

Front StreetNorthCherry Street andAnytime

EastBayview Avenue

Front StreetSouthOverend Street andAnytime

EastBayview Avenue

Front StreetSouthBathurst Street and aAnytime

Westpoint 140 metres east

Front StreetSouthA point 140 metres east of 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.,

WestBathurst Street and aMonday to Friday

point 158 metres further

east

Front StreetSouthA point 298 metres east Anytime

Westof Bathurst Street and a

point 50 metres east of

Spadina Avenue

Queen StreetSouthBay Street andAnytime

WestSimcoe Street

Villiers StreetNorthDon Roadway and aAnytime

(North Branch)point 30 metres west

WellesleySouthBay Street and aAnytime

Street Westpoint 55 metres

east

--------

Time Limit Parking

Maximum

Period

HighwaySideBetween Times or Days Permitted

AsquithSouthA point 45 metres west 7:30 a.m. to 3 hours

Avenueof Park Road and a 6:30 p.m. (Buses Only)

point 15 metres further

west

AsquithSouthA point 45 metres west 6:30 p.m. to 13 hours

Avenueof Park Road and a 7:30 a.m. (Buses Only)

point 15 metres further

west

Bay StreetWestA point 218 metres 7:30 a.m. to 3 hours

south of Hagerman Street 6:30 p.m. (Buses Only)

and a point 30 metres

further south

Bay StreetWestA point 218 metres 6:30 p.m. to 13 hours

south of Hagerman Street 7:30 a.m. (Buses Only)

and a point 30 metres

further south

CherryEastA point 25 metres north Anytime 24 hours

Street of Unwin Street and a (Buses Only)

point 50 metres further

north

CherryEastA point 130 metres north Anytime 24 hours

Street of Unwin Street and a (Buses Only)

point 30 metres further

north

CherryWestA point 138 metres south Anytime 24 hours

Street of the ship channel and a (Buses Only)

point 50 metres further

south

CommissionersNorthA point 58 metres west of Anytime 24 hours

StreetDon Roadway and a point (Buses Only)

150 metres further west

FrontSouthA point 30.5 metres east 8:00 a.m. to 60 minutes

Streetof Cherry Street and a point 6:00 p.m., Monday.

East27.5 metres further east to Friday

FrontSouthA point 58 metres east of Anytime 24 hours

StreetCherry Street and a point (Buses Only)

East36.5 metres west of

Overend Street

FrontSouthA point 140 metres east 6:30 p.m. to 13 hours

Streetof Bathurst Street and a 7:30 p.m., Monday (Buses Only)

Westpoint 158 metres further to Friday and

east anytime,

Saturday, Sunday

and Public

Holidays

MillNorthA point 36.5 metres west of Anytime 24 hours

StreetOverend Street and a point (Buses Only)

36.5 metres east of

Cherry Street

OverendWestA point 25.5 metres south Anytime 24 hours

Streetof Front Street East and a (Buses Only)

point 25.5 metres north of

Mill Street

VictoriaWestA point 54.7 metres north 7:30 a.m. to 3 hours

Street of Queen Street East and a 6:30 p.m. (Buses Only)

point 54.7 metres further

north

VictoriaWestA point 54.7 metres north 6:30 p.m. to 13 hours

Street of Queen Street East and a 7:30 a.m. (Buses Only)

point 54.7 metres further

north

VilliersNorthA point 30 metres west of Anytime 24 hours

StreetDon Roadway and a point (Buses Only)

(North Branch)250 metres further west

WellesleyNorthYonge Street and 8:00 a.m. to 60 minutes

Streeta point 128 metres 6:00 p.m., Monday

Westwest to Saturday

WellesleyNorthBay Street and 8:00 a.m. to 60 minutes

StreetQueen's Park 6:00 p.m., Monday

Crescent East to Saturday

WellesleySouthQueen's Park 8:00 a.m. to 60 minutes

StreetCrescent East and 6:00 p.m., Monday

WestYonge Street to Saturday

--------

No Standing

Prohibited

HighwaySideBetween Times or days

Queen StreetNorthA point 39.6 metres west of Anytime

WestBay Street and a point

121.9 metres further west

WellesleyNorthA point 128 metres west of Anytime

Street WestYonge Street and Bay Street

--------

Parking Meters

Hours (Daily Except Sunday Maximum and Public Parking

Highway Side Between Holidays Fee; Time Limit Period

Asquith South A point 7:30 a.m. to $0.50 for 3 hours

Avenue 45 metres 6:30 p.m., Daily 15 minutes

west of $2.00 for

Park Road 60 minutes

and a point

15 metres

further west

Asquith South A point 6:30 p.m. to $0.50 for 13 hours

Avenue 45 metres 7:30 a.m., Daily 15 minutes (Buses Only)

of Park Road $2.00 for

and a point 60 minutes

15 metres

further west

Bay Street West A point 7:30 a.m. to $0.50 for 3 hours

218 metres 6:30 p.m., Daily 15 minutes (Buses Only)

south of $2.00 for

Hagerman Street 60 minutes

and a point

30 metres

further south

Bay Street West A point 6:30 p.m. to $0.50 for 13 hours

218 metres 7:30 a.m., Daily 15 minutes Buses Only)

south of $2.00 for

Hagerman Street 60 minutes

and a point

30 metres

further south

Victoria West Dundas Street 8:00 a.m. to $0.25 for . 60 minutes

Street East and a 6:00 p.m., Monday 15 minutes

point to Saturday

71.5 metres

south of

Shuter Street

Wellesley North Yonge Street 8:00 a.m. to $0.25 for 60 minutes

Street and a point 6:00 p.m., Monday 15 minutes

West 128 metres to Saturday $1.00 for

west 60 minutes

--------

Parking Machines

Maximum

Fee Time

Street Side Between Effective and Hours Limit

Front South A point 6:30 p.m. to $0.50 for 13 hours

Street 140 metres 7:30 a.m., Monday. 15 minutes (Buses Only)

West east of and Anytime

Bathurst Street Saturday,

and a point Sunday and

158 metres Public Holidays

further east

Victoria West A point 7:30 a.m. to $0.50 for 3 hours

Street 54.7 metres 6:30 p.m 15 minutes (Buses Only)

of Queen $2.00 for

Street East 60 minutes

and a point

54.7 metres

further north

Victoria West A point 6:30 p.m. to $0.50 for 13 hours

Street 54.7 metres 7:30 a.m. 15 minutes (Buses Only)

north of $2.00 for

Queen Street 60 minutes

East and a

point

54.7 metres

further north

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following joint communication (May 8, 1998) from Mr. Erkki Pukonen, President and Chief Executive Officer, City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation, and Mr. Maurice Anderson, President, Toronto Parking Authority:

At its April 20, 1998 meeting, the Urban Environment and Development Committee passed a motion requesting:

"[¼] 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 May 19, 1998, whether there is any land within their port properties which could be utilized for motor coach parking."

TEDCO:

TEDCO has met with several groups over the past few years seeking land for the establishment of a bus parking/maintenance facility. Over 1995-96, one tenant briefly operated a bus parking facility on Cherry Street. The business was not successful since many motor coach operators would not pay a fee to use the facility when they could park on City streets free of charge. To date, deals with other operators have been inhibited because TEDCO does not have sites of an adequate size, the market-based rents for the site are more than they are prepared to pay, and/or the proponents have been unable to arrange financing.

TEDCO has a number of sites slated for redevelopment for industrial purposes of four to ten acres. However, it currently has no other sites in the ten acres range, most recently sought by a consultant acting for potential motor coach facility investors.

It is TEDCO's experience that large serviced sites that are required for this type of development do not stay uncommitted in the Port Area for any length of time. Large unserviced sites are also in demand. TEDCO has a serviced site of approximately five acres on Leslie Street and an unserviced site on Unwin Avenue that is approximately eight acres that could be suitable for this type of use.

Toronto Parking Authority:

The Parking Authority of Toronto operated a bus parking facility for a period of time of approximately one year during 1993/1994. The lot was on the C2 lands south of The Esplanade which have now been redeveloped for housing. The facility was lightly utilized. At present, the Toronto Parking Authority has no other lands on which a tour bus parking operation could be undertaken.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (May 8, 1998) from Mr. David L. Gunn, President, Metropolitan Toronto Coach Terminal Inc.:

In response to the motion made by Councillor Howard Moscoe during the April 20, 1998 meeting of your Committee, I can advise you that overnight parking cannot be made available. The Terminal is an around-the-clock operation and sufficient capacity for the existing seven tenant carriers is currently an issue at times.

Operators making parking inquiries to terminal staff are referred to Greyhound's Lakeshore Garage as a potential alternative.

MTCT is a break-even operation that relies on revenues from ticket sale commissions and platform use charges from Greyhound, Trentway, PMCL, GO Transit, ONTC, Transtario and Can-ar. From MTCT's perspective, changes to regulations regarding loading/unloading, standing, parking, etc., should be drafted with care. Should an opportunity develop to conduct operations from the sidewalk, particularly under a deregulated environment, operators may seek to avoid payment of ticket commissions and platform fees with a severe adverse impact on MTCT. Further, the market position of MTCT's tenant carriers could be eroded if new operators are allowed to enter without the cost of using a terminal, again to the detriment of MTCT.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (May15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide information regarding the viability of using the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant site for motor coach parking.

Recommendation:

That the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant site not be utilized for motor coach parking.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of May 13, 1998, Council considered Clause No. 23 of Report No. 6 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee. This Clause refers to designation of loading areas and on-street parking spaces in downtown Toronto for use by motor coaches. The potential use of the R.C. Harris Filtration Plant site for motor coach parking was identified through this process.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The R.C. Harris Plant is located on Queen Street at the foot of Victoria Park Avenue. The plant is the City's largest water treatment plant which supplies water to more than a million residents daily. Vehicle access is provided at the corner of Queen Street and Nursewood Road. The existing roadways must be kept clear to allow access for delivery trucks required for plant operations. The plant has limited parking space available in the south-east corner of the property. The existing parking areas are used by plant staff during working hours and are also used by members of the public who visit to enjoy the plant and grounds. The plant is viewed as an historic site and enjoyed by many members of the public for passive pedestrian use. As the plant is recognized as a Heritage site, we have committed to obtaining public input to all proposed changes that impact the plant buildings and grounds. While there is some space available to expand the existing parking area this is not feasible at this time. There is currently an Environmental Assessment and Predesign Study underway regarding the construction of a plant residue waste management facility. This facility is required to treat the filter plant back wash water prior to its discharge into Lake Ontario. While the exact nature of the facilities have not yet been determined they may be significant. Construction is expected to take place in the years 2000 to 2002 and much of the existing space at the plant will be required during this phase. Expansion of existing parking facilities cannot be considered at this time.

Conclusion:

The R.C. Harris Filtration Plant is not a suitable site for motor coach parking due to limited parking facilities and requirements to keep plant roadways clear for required deliveries. Expansion of parking facilities cannot be considered at this time as a result of planned construction of a residue management facility.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. H.A. Taniguchi, P. Eng., Director of Water Supply Division, 392-8220.

Fax: (416) 392-3639. E-mail: htaniguchi@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

--------

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

(i)(May 4, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on April20, 1998, during consideration of a report (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, inter alia, deferred consideration of the aforementioned report, 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 $5.00 per 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.".

(ii)(May 12, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Toronto Community Council on May6, 1998, submitted the matter of the designation of loading areas and on-street parking spaces in downtown Toronto by motor coaches to the Urban Environment and Development Committee without recommendation.

(A copy of the map, entitled "C.B.D. Tour Bus Parking and Loading Study Investigation Sites", 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 May 19, 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 June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report outlines the work that is being done to address off-street parking and loading facilities for motor coaches.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendation:

That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services examine the appropriateness of a requirement for off-street motor coach parking and loading facilities for new hotels within the central area, in consultation with appropriate departments and agencies.

Council Reference:

At its meeting of May 19, 1998, in considering Clause No. 3 of Report No. 7, the Urban Environment and Development Committee requested the Executive Director and Chief Planner, Urban Planning Division, to review 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, and to submit a report thereon directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on June 3, 1998.

Comments:

The provision of off-street loading and parking facilities for new attractions within the central area has been a key factor in the approvals process in recent years. The process that appears to work best for attractions is one of examination and determination of need on a project-by-project basis. Recent approvals for the Air Canada Centre include provision for 15 bus parking spaces secured in the by-law. Approvals for Phase II of the CN Tower Expansion include provision for 37 bus parking spaces and a designated on-site pick-up and drop-off area as part of the Zoning By-law. The agreements for both the Air Canada Centre and the CN Tower Expansion include a one-year monitoring program. The Metro Toronto Convention Centre was also examined at the development approval stage, and it was determined that the existing internal driveway in the north building and the pick-up and drop-off at the south building addressed the loading issue.

No bus parking was specifically required because the needs of the Convention Centre are different from other attractions in that their clientele arrive mostly in shuttles or walk to the site from downtown hotels.

The value of a mandatory provision for off-street loading and parking facilities for new hotels within the Central Area is somewhat more difficult to ascertain. Issues of practicality and feasibility would have to be examined in more detail and in consultation with other agencies and departments before the benefits and appropriateness of a mandatory requirement could be assessed.

In terms of dealing with the need for off-street parking for motor coaches for existing facilities, staff have been working to secure such a facility within the downtown core. Discussions are currently underway with the Province and Concord Adex to find a permanent alternative for motor coach parking for SkyDome events. The by-law for the Railway Lands requires the provision of 125 bus parking spaces. These spaces are currently located in a temporary facility on blocks 20/23 to the south of Skydome. The Provincial Government and SkyDome are jointly obligated to maintain 125 bus parking spaces to serve SkyDome events in a permanent facility in the Railway Lands Central. Given the costs associated with an underground facility, the Province and Concord Adex are examining alternative solutions to accommodate such a facility. A key criteria for acceptance of any proposed alternative by the City would be the number of buses that could park in the new facility and the ability for such a facility to serve other bus parking needs for the downtown area during times that the facility is not required for SkyDome events. Staff will report to Toronto Community Council if there is an application to amend the current bus parking provisions for SkyDome.

Furthermore, staff of both the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department and Urban Planning and Development Services are currently examining solutions for the long term, to accommodate the needs that are not served by a downtown facility. The difficulties associated with such an undertaking are requirements that the facility be of sufficient size, the availability of serviced land at a low cost and the functional feasibility from a bus operators perspective.

Conclusions:

The provision of off-street parking and loading facilities for attractions within the Central Area is currently being appropriately dealt with through the approvals process on a project by project basis, with requirements for motor coach parking and loading provided as conditions of approval.

The appropriateness of a requirement for motor coach parking and loading for future hotels requires further examination and consultation with other agencies and departments.

Staff of Urban Planning and Development Services are working to secure an off-street motor coach parking facility which serves the needs of both SkyDome and other attractions within the vicinity.

Staff of both the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department and Urban Planning and Development Services are working to secure a long-term solution for the existing demand for off-street motor coach parking.

Contact Name:

Maggie Easton, Toronto City Hall Office, Telephone: 392-7218.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 1, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from the Urban Environment and Development Committee on May 19, 1998 to report directly to City Council on the feasibility of Parking Control Officers enforcing the City's idling by-law as it applies to motor coaches.

Funding Sources:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting of May 19, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee considered a staff report, entitled "The Designation of Loading Areas and On-street Parking Spaces in Downtown Toronto For Use By Motor Coaches", dated March 27, 1998. The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommended the adoption of the report, subject to the application and revision of parking charges, and requested a number of new reports be submitted directly to City Council on June 3, 1998.

This report deals with the request to discuss the feasibility of Parking Control Officers enforcing the City's idling by-law as it applies to motor coaches.

Discussion:

City By-law Enforcement Officers, who are Provincial Offences Officers, have received training regarding the idling by-law, its underlying policy rationale and the proper enforcement response. If the City receives a complaint about an idling motor coach, taxi, truck or other vehicle, one of the City officers will investigate the situation. The first step is to educate the driver and/or vehicle owner about the by-law and its purpose; and to explain the benefits of turning off the engine. Simple written materials are available to give the driver/owner.

This approach has been very successful in stopping unnecessary idling and to-date no charges have been laid. Given the limited number of complaints received since the by-law was passed, additional support from Parking Control Officers for by-law education and enforcement does not appear to be necessary at this time.

It should be noted that prior to the passage of the by-law in 1996, there was extensive outreach and consultation with the motor coach industry, who were quite responsive to our requests to curb unnecessary idling of their fleet vehicles. Therefore we would expect that any complaints could be dealt with in an efficient and co-operative fashion with little need for charges to be laid.

Conclusions:

With respect to the enforcement of the City's idling by-law as it applies to motor coaches, it does not appear the City's By-law Enforcement Officers need assistance from Parking Control Officers at this time.

Contact Name:

Lesley Watson, Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, 416-392-1525.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (June 2, 1998) from the President, Metropolitan Toronto Coach Terminal Inc.

At its meeting on May 19, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee requested that I submit a further report directly to Council to be considered together with Clause No. 3, of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee at the June 3, 1998 Council meeting. I would ask that you place this communication before Council.

Metropolitan Toronto Coach Terminal Inc. (MTCTI), is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Toronto Transit Commission, and is the owner and operator of the inter-regional bus terminal on Bay Street. The Terminal provides platform service to seven provincially licensed carriers who provide transportation services to the public traveling to and from Toronto. MTCTI is compensated by the carriers by the payment of ticket commissions and platform fees. Go Transit is also a major tenant using the facilities under different financial terms due to the nature of their services.

The Province has passed legislation the effect of which is to deregulate the intercity bus business creating additional challenges to the profitability of the tenant carriers as new operators enter the business of carrying passengers to and from Toronto. This legislation was to take effect January1, 1998, but its proclamation has been delayed. The Toronto Transit Commission is on record agreeing to operate the terminal on at least a break even basis in the short term. Should the terminal fall into a position of long-term deficit, the Commission would be seeking to either divest itself of the inter-regional terminal or to obtain outside financial support for the ongoing operations. Having local transit users subsidize the operation of an inter-regional bus terminal is not an acceptable option.

In considering the recommendations of the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation in his report of March 27, 1998, it is important to remember that the proposal is designed to alleviate existing problems caused by the stopping and parking of motor coaches providing tours and site-seeing services. Care must be taken in the drafting of the by-laws and regulations which will govern the use of any facilities provided to ensure that:

(a)they do not become convenient free loading/unloading spaces for new entries into the intercity bus business; and

(b)fees for parking are sufficient so as not to be an indirect subsidy to commercial enterprises.

Presently there are no significant issues arising out of the provision of adequate loading and unloading areas at Toronto City Hall and the four major downtown hotels identified. The concern is that should deregulation proceed, there is an expectation that carriers will bypass the Terminal and operate directly from the sidewalk stripping the Terminal of its primary revenue source. The provision of artificially low/no cost parking represents a subsidy which has not previously been provided to the private carriers operating in the City.

The exercise of caution to ensure adequate control of the usage of the facilities intended to enhance the provision of tourist services is imperative to avoid traffic congestion and negative impacts upon the financial viability of MTCTI Terminal operations.

In response to the request for comment on the cost of commercially parking a bus off-street in the City of Toronto, while MTCTI does not offer this service, I understand that the prevailing ratio for overnight motor coach storage run up to $60.00.)

4

City Powers, Policies and Procedures Regarding

the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition

on Rental Housing Before and After the

Proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

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

(a)amending Recommendation No. (2)(b) by striking out the words "the applicant be requested to" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "the City, at the expense of the applicant", so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2)(b)the Clerk give notification of the meetings referred to in Recommendation No. (2)(a) by placing an advertisement in a community newspaper, and that, in addition, the City, at the expense of the applicant, notify the tenants of the building about the meeting referred to above;";

(b)renumbering Recommendation No. (5) to Recommendation No. (6) ; and

(c)adding thereto the following new Recommendation No. (5):

"(5)after the Tenant Protection Act takes effect, staff request future condominium conversion applicants to provide details on the following matters:

-rents in the property listed by unit number and type (bachelor, one bedroom, etc.);

-estimates of selling prices for condominium units;

-whether the tenants in possession of the units have been notified of the application for a plan of condominium;

-number of rental units which sitting tenants have indicated in writing that they wish to purchase as condominium units; and

-an indication of the nature of any renovations, repairs or changes that are to be done in conjunction with the condominium conversion."; and

(2)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to give consideration to including Condominium Conversion as an issue in the new Official Plan, and that such conversion be forbidden, by by-law, unless an established vacancy rate for rental accommodation has been achieved.

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

(A)requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the City Clerk, to submit a report directly to Council for consideration with this matter on June 3, 1998, regarding the following recommended amendment to Recommendation No. (2)(b) embodied in the report dated May1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services [seeRecommendation No.(1)(a) above]; such report to include comment on how such notification can be achieved:

"(2)(b)the Clerk give notification of the meetings referred to in Recommendation No. (2)(a) by placing an advertisement in a community newspaper, and that, in addition, the City, at the expense of the applicant, notify the tenants of the building about the meeting referred to above;"; and

(B)directed that a copy of the report dated May 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and the communication dated April 21, 1998, from the City Clerk be forwarded to the Community Councils for review.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (May 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose

To advise Council of the status of the proposed Tenant Protection Act and the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act, and the implications these changes will have with respect to the municipal approval of proposals to convert and/or demolish rental housing.

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)Council direct the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to review and report back by early fall of 1998 on appropriate City-wide policies and procedures respecting condominium conversion and the demolition of rental housing;

(2)Council adopt, as an interim policy until such time as the report on Recommendation No. (1) above can be considered, that:

(a)when the Tenant Protection Act comes into effect, staff report to Community Councils on condominium applications that involve the conversion of rental housing and Community Councils hear deputations and make recommendations to City Council; and

(b)the Clerk give notification of the meetings referred to in Recommendation No. (2)(a) above by placing an advertisement in a community newspaper; and that, in addition, the applicant be requested to notify the tenants of the building about the meeting referred to above;

(3)Council amend section 3.(1) of By-law No. 61-95 (The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto) by adding a new subsection (3) which reads:

"The power delegated to the Commissioner by section 2 does not include the authority to make decisions on applications which involve the conversion of rental housing to condominium.",

to continue to provide Council with the decision-making authority on applications to convert rental housing to condominium;

(4)Council request the City Solicitor to review the former City of Toronto's special demolition control legislation and report back by June 1998 to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of amending the legislation in order to extend its provisions to the other former municipalities in the new City; and

(5)the appropriate City officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action, including preparing and introducing any necessary bills, to give effect thereto.

Background:

In 1997 the Provincial Government introduced Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act (TPA). According to Provincial staff, the TPA is expected to come into effect by the end of May, 1998. Among other things, the TPA will repeal the Rental Housing Protection Act (RHPA). The RHPA allows municipalities to regulate the demolition and conversion of rental housing to other uses such as condominium, as well as the renovation and severance of rental properties. However, the TPA does not offer similar powers to municipalities. Instead municipalities will have to rely on other means provided by legislation such as the Planning Act and the Condominium Act, or other special municipal legislation, to preserve the rental stock.

At present, rental housing serves a very important role in the new City, providing 52 percent of the total housing stock. The current rental vacancy rate for the City is quite low at only 0.8 percent, and virtually no new affordable rental housing is being constructed.

There is serious concern about the potential loss of rental housing which may result following the proclamation of the TPA. Inquiries by landlords to planning staff respecting conversions and demolitions have increased significantly over the past several months.

This concern about the upcoming change in rental legislation and the subsequent impact on the rental stock has been expressed by some Members of Council. At its meeting on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, Council dealt with two motions respecting the RHPA and TPA. With respect to public meetings for applications under the RHPA, Council adopted Councillor Brown's motion that:

"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT each Community Council is delegated the authority to give notice and hold any public meeting regarding applications under the Rental Housing Protection Act as required by Section 11 of the Act in respect of land within the part of the urban area it represents and that the Urban Environment and Development Committee is delegated the authority to hold such meetings in respect of land that is within the geographic area represented by more than one Community Council;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this delegation is an interim measure, to be reconsidered once the Special Committee chaired by Councillor Miller has reported to Council regarding Community Councils and Council's Procedural By-law."

As well, Council referred the following motion by Councillor Chow to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the work of the Urban Planning and Development Staff Team dealing with the development of a new condominium conversion policy and other measures to preserve the City's scarce supply of rental housing be fast-tracked;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT in the interim, all Community Councils strictly apply their existing condominium conversion and demolition control policies/by-laws where applicable, in order to minimize the loss of affordable rental housing units."

In response to these concerns and in anticipation of the proclamation of the TPA, staff from Urban Planning and Development Services have been undertaking the necessary research for the development of more consistent policies and procedures on the subject of condominium conversions and demolition control for the new City. The review will include an examination of the housing market, housing production and affordability as they relate to condominium conversions and demolitions of rental buildings. Consistent with Councillor Chow's motion, staff will fast-track this work and report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee of Council by the fall of this year. Until new policies are in place for the new City, the existing condominium conversion and demolition control policies of the former municipalities will remain in force.

This report provides a discussion of the powers available to the City before and after the enactment of the TPA. It also suggests several actions that should be taken to improve the City's procedures with respect to condominium conversion and demolition control immediately after the TPA is proclaimed. These changes would, at a minimum, ensure that the current municipal approval process for dealing with condominium conversions under the RHPA would essentially remain the same after the TPA is in force - at least until new City policies are in effect.

Discussion:

(1)Condominium Conversions:

(a) Current Municipal Powers and Procedures under the RHPA:

At present, under the RHPA, the conversion of rental housing to condominium involves two approvals; council approval for the conversion application and for the plan of condominium application. The RHPA delegates approval authority for both of these applications to the area municipalities. The RHPA:

(a)establishes criteria which a municipal council must consider in reviewing a conversion application;

(b)requires the applicant to notify tenants;

(c)requires the municipality to hold a public meeting; and

(d)allows any person to appeal council's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

With respect to (a), the RHPA provides that a municipality shall not approve a condominium conversion application unless the council is of the opinion that the proposal does not adversely affect the supply of affordable rental housing in the municipality. The provisions also allow the applicant the option of agreeing to replace the converted units with those of a similar quality and rent, and to providing accommodation for the existing tenants in either the replacement units or elsewhere. The municipality may approve the application with or without conditions and enter into agreements imposed as a condition of approval.

The former area municipalities have used the RHPA in combination with section 51 of the Planning Act (which deals with approvals for subdivision and condominium) and their official plan policies to regulate condominium conversions. The RHPA was specifically enacted in 1986 to provide municipalities with the means to preserve the supply of rental housing by restricting certain activities such as conversions and demolitions. Between 1986, when the RHPA came into force, and 1996, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing data indicates that only 690 rental units were approved for conversion in the new City (compared to a total of 13,433 units throughout the Province).

Until the TPA comes into force, condominium conversion applications will be processed pursuant to the RHPA which requires a public meeting and City Council making a decision. In its adoption of Councillor Brown's motion, Council has delegated to Community Councils the responsibility for holding statutory public meetings.

(b)Municipal Powers and Policies after the TPA's Proclamation:

The TPA provides sitting tenants, in a building being converted from rental to condominium, with "indefinite tenure" as their tenancy cannot be terminated if they choose not to purchase the unit. Sitting tenants may remain in the unit subject to a number of conditions, such as their ability to pay rent increases, which may be higher under the new system. It should be noted that any future tenants of converted buildings can be evicted for the owner's own use. Also, a sitting tenant has the right of first refusal to purchase the unit, except where the offer to purchase involves more than one unit. As well, there are no conditions on the purchase price of the units. While there are some limited protections for tenants under the TPA, the legislation does not require tenants to be notified of a conversion proposal, that a public meeting be held, or provide appeal rights.

The key difference between the RHPA and TPA is that the latter piece of legislation removes the explicit authority that was contained in the RHPA which required municipalities to protect rental units. Following the repeal of the RHPA, condominium conversion applications will be processed pursuant to other legislation and policies (i.e., the Condominium Act, Planning Act, and individual condominium conversion policies of each of the former municipalities).

Section 50 of the Condominium Act makes section 51 of the Planning Act applicable to condominium applications. When considering a request for a draft plan of condominium in accordance with section 51(24) of the Planning Act, regard shall be had to various matters including:

-the health, safety, convenience and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality;

-whether it is premature or in the public interest; and

-whether the plan conforms to the official plan.

In addition, the Planning Act requires municipalities to have regard to matters of provincial interest such as the adequate provision of a full range of housing when carrying out their responsibilities.

All of the former area municipalities, with the exception of Scarborough, have specific official plan policies regarding condominium conversions. In addition, four of the municipalities incorporate a vacancy rate as part of their policy to act as a benchmark for considering approval of conversions. The existing official plan policies are summarized as follows:

Former Toronto -conversion of duplexes, triplexes and all other buildings originally constructed to provide one or more rental apartments is premature until the vacancy rate is 2.5 percent in Metro (new City);

Former Etobicoke -conversions are not permitted unless the vacancy rate exceeds 2 percent in the Housing Districts (Etobicoke has three Housing Districts);

Former East York-conversions are not permitted unless the vacancy rate is 3.0 percent in East York;

Former North York-generally, conversions are not permitted unless there is a vacancy rate of 2.5 percent in North York;

Former York-refers to the RHPA and provides that the vacancy rate in York will be considered for conversion applications; and

Former Scarborough-no official plan policy.

As there is no official plan policy in the former municipality of Scarborough, applications will continue to be reviewed in the context only of the criteria set out in section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan encourages the preservation and maintenance of existing rental housing but does not have a policy specific to conversions. In anticipation of the proclamation of the TPA and repeal of the RHPA which would result in the Metro Commissioner of Planning being the approval authority for conversions, Metropolitan Council, in August 1997, adopted an interim policy that it supports the area municipal councils' Official Plans and policies restricting the conversion of rental housing to condominium. This was intended to provide guidance for the Commissioner in his consideration of conversion applications submitted pursuant to the TPA.

(c)Municipal Procedures after the TPA's Proclamation.

At present, Planning Act regulations delegate condominium approval authority to Metro Toronto. The former Metropolitan Council sub-delegated approval authority for plans of condominium and subdivision to the Commissioner of Planning through By-law No. 61-95. This by-law remains in effect.

The conversion of rental housing, however, should be treated differently than other condominium applications. Conversions are not a straightforward administrative matter, but represent unique situations which have varying impacts on both tenants and the rental stock. Under the RHPA such conversions had been the subject of public hearings and deliberated by Council. In order to continue the current procedure of allowing public debate and Council consideration, it is recommended that the delegation by-law should be amended whereby Council retains the authority to decide on condominium applications that involve the conversion of rental housing to condominium.

Another issue concerns notification of conversion applications. As the TPA does not deal with such applications, it does not require tenants to be notified of a conversion proposal, a public meeting or provide appeal rights. Therefore, it is in the City's interest to consider other means which may be used to provide public input, notification and appeal rights.

The Planning Act does not require a public meeting for a plan of condominium application. However, as condominium conversions are a matter of general public interest which affect the local housing market and affect sitting tenants, it would be appropriate to provide an opportunity for public input on plans of condominium that involve the conversion of rental housing. This report is therefore recommending that Community Councils be required to hear deputations on conversion applications at their meetings. This would facilitate public input and provide a forum for advising tenants of their rights. When the conversion involves an official plan amendment, the statutory public meeting for the amendment and the meeting on the matter of conversion should be held at the same time.

The Planning Act does not require tenants to be notified of a condominium application, including the conversion of rental housing. While several official plan policies in the former municipalities require tenants to be notified of a proposed conversion, others do not. Therefore, under existing circumstances the first time tenants in certain areas of the City may discover that their unit is intended to be converted is when they are notified of an offer to purchase the unit. To maintain consistency and ensure tenants are properly informed, there should be common notification procedures. It is also important that tenants be fully aware of the application and be able to exercise their right of appeal on any decision made respecting a conversion proposal. As such, we are suggesting that Council should adopt as an interim policy that the Clerk shall give notice of Community Councils' meetings on applications to convert rental housing to condominium.

At present the RHPA requires that certain detailed information on a conversion proposal be included on the application form submitted by the proponent. Among other things, the information pertains to the existing and new building characteristics, and any proposals concerning tenant relocation and interest in purchasing units. After the RHPA is repealed, this information will not automatically be required through other planning approvals. The present condominium application requires only limited information on conversions. It would therefore be appropriate for staff to request applicants to provide additional information to properly evaluate condominium conversion applications. At this time, it is suggested that the details on the following matters be provided by future condominium conversion applicants, after the TPA takes effect:

-rents in the property listed by unit number and type (bachelor, one bedroom, etc.);

-estimates of selling prices for condominium units;

-whether the tenants in possession of the units have been notified of the application for a plan of condominium;

-number of rental units that sitting tenants units have indicated in writing that they wish to purchase as condominium units; and

-an indication of the nature of any renovations, repairs or changes that are to be done in conjunction with the condominium conversion.

(2)Demolition Control:

Powers and Procedures under the TPA:

Following the proclamation of the TPA, municipal councils will no longer have the authority under the RHPA to require an owner to apply to a municipal council for approval to demolishrental housing. This means that City Council will have to rely on its powers under Section33 of the Planning Act (respecting demolition permits), and in the case of the former City of Toronto, other special legislation (City of Toronto Act, 1984) when dealing with demolition applications.

All of the former municipalities in the new City, with the exception of Scarborough, have made use of section 33 of the Planning Act to designate all of their respective jurisdictions, or in the case of Etobicoke specific sites, as demolition control areas. As a result of such a designation, no person can demolish a residential building in these former municipalities, unless Council issues a demolition permit. Council, however, is required to issue a demolition permit where a building permit has already been issued for the property.

In addition, the former City of Toronto has obtained special legislation from the Province to deal with demolitions involving six or more dwelling units. These powers permit the former City to refuse to issue a demolition permit for up to one year, thereby offering Council more time to consider other ways of preserving the property, or relocate the tenants. Under this special legislation, Council also has the ability to acquire and maintain the property for residential use.

This special legislation could conceivably be amended to cover the entire new City, and would offer Council an additional tool to regulate the loss of rental housing due to demolition. At this point it is suggested that the City Solicitor report on the feasibility of extending this special legislation to encompass the whole of the new City.

Conclusions:

At present, and until such time as the TPA comes into effect (end of May, 1998, according to Provincial staff), applications to convert rental housing to condominium will continue to be processed pursuant to the RHPA which involves a public meeting, and Council making the decision.

In the near future, when the TPA comes into effect, the RHPA will be repealed and the City will have to rely on existing official plan policies within each of the former municipalities and the condominium approval process (section 51 of the Planning Act) to regulate conversions. The change also eliminates the statutory requirement for a public meeting and results in the former Metropolitan Commissioner of Planning being responsible for approving conversion applications. As conversions affect the housing market and tenants, it is recommended that, as an interim policy, Council direct:

(a)Community Councils to hear deputations on conversion applications and make recommendations to City Council; and

(b)the Clerk to issue notice of Community Council meetings to consider condominium conversion applications, and that the by-law which delegates condominium approval to the Commissioner of Planning be amended to require that conversion applications be subject to Council's approval.

Likewise in the immediate future, to control the demolition of rental housing, the City will have to rely on existing official plan policies and section 33 of the Planning Act. In the case of the former City of Toronto, special legislation concerning the demolition of rental buildings may be used.

To develop a more consistent approach for the new City, staff have initiated a review of the existing policies and procedures relating to condominium conversions and the demolition of rental housing. It is expected that a report outlining the proposed policies will be submitted to Council by early fall of this year.

Contact Name:

Mr. Paul R. Hamilton, Metro Hall Office, 392-8126.

Mr. John Gladki, Toronto City Hall Office, 392-7186.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, referred the following Motion to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

Moved by:Councillor Chow

Seconded by:Councillor Miller

"WHEREAS the Tenant Protection Act is expected to be proclaimed by the Provincial Government this spring, resulting in the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act and other related legislation; and

WHEREAS a significant number of affordable rental apartments may be subject to conversion to condominium and demolition as a result of the change in Provincial legislation; and

WHEREAS the rental housing vacancy rate in the new City of Toronto was only 0.8percent as of October 1997, and that as a result of the cancellation of the social housing programs, virtually no new affordable rental housing is being built in the City; and

WHEREAS the number of underhoused or homeless persons in the City of Toronto is growing, and a substantial number of people are now at high risk of becoming homeless;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the work of the Urban Planning and Development Staff Team dealing with the development of a new condominium conversion policy and other measures to preserve the City's scare supply of rental housing be fast-tracked;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT in the interim, all Community Councils strictly apply their existing condominium conversion and demolition control policies/by-laws, where applicable, in order to minimize the loss of affordable rental housing units."

--------

Mr. Gary Griesdorf and Ms. Carol Weinbaum, Fair Rental Policy Organization/Greater Toronto Apartment Association, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (May 28, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to the request of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for suggestions of how the City, at the expense of the applicant, can provide notice to tenants of applications to convert rental housing to condominium units.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The only direct financial implication of the subject matter of this report would be the cost of notifying tenants by mail, should Council choose to direct staff to notify the tenants in this manner.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of May 19, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee considered a report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services which dealt, in part, with applications for conversion of rental housing to condominium units. The Commissioner's report recommends that, once the Tenant Protection Act has come into effect, Community Councils consider applications to convert rental housing to condominium units and hear deputations on them. The Commissioner's report also recommends that the Clerk be directed to give notice of the Community Council meeting at which each application will be considered by placing an advertisement in a community newspaper. The Commissioner's report also recommends that the applicant be requested to notify the tenants of the Community Council meeting. Recommendation No. (2)(b) of the Commissioner's report states the following:

the Clerk give notification of the meetings referred to in (a) by placing an advertisement in a community newspaper and that in addition, the applicant be requested to notify the tenants of the building about the meeting referred to above.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee has recommended that, instead of requesting the applicant to notify tenants, the City should notify the tenants at the expense of the applicant. The following is Recommendation No. (2)(b) as it would read if amended in accordance with the Committee's proposal:

(2)(b) the Clerk give notification of the meetings referred to in Recommendation No. (2)(a) by placing an advertisement in a community newspaper, and that, in addition, the City, at the expense of the applicant, notify the tenants of the building about the meeting referred to above.

The Committee has requested that I, in consultation with the City Clerk, submit a report directly to Council regarding the proposed amendment to Recommendation No. (2)(b) and the manner in which such notification could be accomplished.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Neither the Planning Act nor the Tenant Protection Act requires that tenants be notified of applications to convert their rental units to condominium units. As there is no statutory requirement to notify tenants, the applicant cannot legally be required to notify them. The City could itself adopt a policy of notifying tenants. Any notification procedure will likely miss some tenants. A direction from City Council to staff to notify tenants should, therefore, be specific as to the notification procedure that staff are required to follow. This will protect staff from complaints that certain individuals were not aware of an application before it was approved. It will provide a response to the potential argument that an application should not have been approved or refused by Council without the tenant having been aware of the application.

There are various notification procedures that could be adopted in addition to the recommended practice of placing a notice in a community newspaper. For example, planning staff could be directed to place a notice near an entrance to the building, at least two weeks before the Community Council meeting. This option has the advantage of not relying on potentially inaccurate methods of identifying tenants. It should be noted, however, that the notice could only be placed on private property with the owner's consent.

Another option would be for Council to direct the Clerk to notify the tenants by regular mail. If this option is chosen, Council should specify when the mail is to be sent (for example, two or three weeks prior to the Community Council meeting date), and how the tenants are to be identified. Assessment rolls will not identify all tenants where there has been tenant turnover. To avoid the problem of relying on assessment rolls, mail could be sent to the occupant of the unit. The difficulty with addressing mail to the "occupant", however, is that people may not read such mail. Either way, the notice will likely not reach some tenants. Another option would be to request the applicant to identify the tenants for the City. This may also result in some inaccuracies. As well, the identity of tenants is arguably not information which an applicant can be required to provide.

In addition, it is difficult to predict the number of conversion applications and, therefore, difficult to predict the cost of the mailings. The City Clerk has not budgeted for this expense. The Planning Act would not permit the City to charge the applicant for the mailings by including this amount in the application fee. The Planning Act provides that planning application fees "shall be designed to meet only the anticipated cost to the municipality ... in respect of the processing of each type of application provided for in the tariff." As there is no legal requirement to notify tenants, it is my opinion that the statute would not justify the imposition of a fee for the notice. The current fee for processing applications to convert rental housing to condominium units does not contemplate such notice. If the tariff is amended by Council to include this amount, the amending by-law could be successfully appealed. In addition, if an applicant did not wish to assist with the cost of notifying tenants, it could not legally be required to.

The City Clerk has been consulted in the preparation of this report.

Conclusions:

If Council wishes to amend Recommendation No. 2 (b) of the May 1, 1998 report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to include a direction to City staff to notify tenants, Council should specify the manner in which the tenants are to be notified. The applicant cannot legally be required to pay for such notification.

Contact Name:

Wendy Walberg, 392-8078.)

5

Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment

Application - Humber River Regional Hospital

200 Church Street, UDZ-98-05 (York Ref. No. R98-002).

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1)inserting the words "and possible future uses of redundant sites" in Recommendation (A) of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, after the words "planning decisions", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(A)the adoption of the following report (April 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, subject to adding thereto the following new Recommendation No.(3):

'(3)an advisory group be established, composed of the six Councillors representing York Humber, North York Humber and BlackCreek, along with representatives of the communities of Keele/Eglinton, Jane and Lawrence, Jane and Finch, a representative of Humber River Regional Hospital and City staff, as appropriate, in order to assess the impact of planning decisions and possible future uses of redundant sites on the respective local communities;'"; and

(2)striking out Recommendation (B)(2) of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following new Recommendation (B)(2):

"(B)(2)to designate a member of the Commission to meet with the current working group that has been formed by the Planning Department to comment on their rationale for choosing the Church Street Site for expansion, to assist this Committee in their deliberations on the rezoning application for the Church Street Site.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(A)the adoption of the following report (April 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, subject to adding thereto the following new Recommendation No.(3):

"(3)an advisory group be established, composed of the six Councillors representing York Humber, North York Humber and BlackCreek, along with representatives of the communities of Keele/Eglinton, Jane and Lawrence, Jane and Finch, a representative of Humber River Regional Hospital and City staff, as appropriate, in order to assess the impact of these planning decisions on the respective local communities;";

(B)that the Health Services Restructuring Commission be requested:

(1)to meet with the six local Councillors with regard to the Commission's recommendations for closure of Northwestern Hospital and its expansion plans for the Church Street site and the York Finch site; and

(2)to designate a member of the Commission to meet with the current working groups that have been formed to comment on the rezoning of the Church Street site;

(C)that any individuals who are members of the Working Group or of any Advisory Committees and who are currently negotiating, or have negotiated in the past, with HumberRiver Regional Hospital be requested to declare their interest and exempt themselves;

(D)that the Executive Director and Chief Planner, Urban Planning Division, be requested to facilitate public consultation meetings regarding the expansion of Humber River Regional Hospital at the York Civic Centre and at a North York location (to be determined), and that the official statutory public meeting be held by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at Metro Hall:

Purpose:

This is a preliminary evaluation of the application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit an expansion to the existing hospital and to permit a new parking structure at the southeast corner of the site. This site straddles the boundary of the former municipalities of York and North York and therefore all planning reports will be directed to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Planning Department work with the community, Councillors, and applicant to establish a community consultation process as appropriate; and

(2)staff be directed to prepare a recommendation report on the application and provide notice of the statutory public meeting at the appropriate time.

Background:

Proposal:

As a result of the provincial Health Services Restructuring Commission directives, the Humber River Regional Hospital is proposing to expand its Church Street facility. The applicant has proposed a two-level addition to the north end of the existing hospital, a three-storey addition to the south end of the existing hospital, and a new two-level parking structure at the southeast corner of the site. Listed below are the pertinent statistics:

Official Plan:

North York District:General Institutional which permits institutional uses including hospitals and uses ancillary and complementary to hospitals.

York District:Institutional which permits the hospital use.

Zoning:

North York District:R4 (One-Family Detached Dwellings Fourth Density Zone) subject to site specific By-laws Nos. 11620, 21789, 25569 and 28638 which permit the existing hospital use and built form.

York District:R1 (Residential Zone One) subject to site specific by-law section 16(249) which permits the existing hospital use and built form.

Discussion:

The Health Services Restructuring Committee directed that Humber Memorial Hospital, Northwestern Hospital and York Finch Hospital amalgamate into one corporation (Humber River Regional Hospital) and further directed that Northwestern Hospital be closed. As a result, additional facilities are proposed for the York Finch site and the Church Street site (formerly Humber Memorial) to accommodate the services needed resulting from this reorganization. A rezoning is required for the proposed expansion of Humber River Regional Hospital at its Church Street site.

The applicant held several community meetings prior to the submission of the zoning amendment application which has raised several planning issues. Upon the filing of the application, planning staff met with representatives of the Pelmo Park Ratepayers Association and the Weston Ratepayers and Residents Association to discuss an appropriate community consultation process.

As a result of that meeting, two working groups have been set up. One group will be dealing with transportation issues such as parking and traffic and the other working group will be dealing with urban design, built form, setbacks and environmental issues. These groups will meet throughout the process to help to identify issues and to propose options and solutions. General community consultation meetings are also being planned by staff and the residents as part of the process.

The preliminary issues identified to date are as follows:

(1)Urban Design:

The hospital has expanded incrementally over a number of years, each time requiring a zoning amendment. The possibility of the implementation of the North York hospital zone (HOS) on the site which identifies a long term building envelope should be examined. Planning staff have experienced success in implementing the HOS zone at the Baycrest Hospital and Sunnybrook Hospital sites. It was found to provide the simplicity of having one zone on the site while providing certainty for both the hospital and community over the long term.

The applicant has proposed a three-storey addition to the south end of the hospital which will bring the building closer to Church Street. The other addition to the north end of the hospital is proposed to be two levels which is to accommodate the expansion of the ER and imaging departments. There is concern by some residents about the setback of this addition to the adjacent single-family homes and the overview that may occur. The hospital site is situated in the middle of a residential community composed of primarily single, detached homes. Some of these homes are on the same block as the hospital which limits the ability of the hospital to expand on its site without impacting its neighbours and therefore careful attention will need to be paid to the urban design of the submission including built form and setbacks.

(2)Traffic:

The traffic impacts of the program changes in the hospital and the proposed addition will need to be assessed and solutions explored to mitigate any impacts and improve traffic movement to and from the hospital. Council recently approved traffic-calming measures which will be used on Wendell Avenue and Gary Drive for a six-month trial basis. This is a result of community input which illustrates some solutions that could be explored.

(3)Parking:

The changing nature of hospitals services from an in-bed stay to an out-patient orientation needs to be addressed by a parking study to ensure that the parking demands can be met for both patients and staff. Opportunities to reduce the parking demands through travel demand management measures such as car pooling and promoting transit use should be explored and may help to address the issues of on-street parking and the capacity of lots.

A new parking structure has been proposed to accommodate the parking demand; however, there is the issue of the built form impact of such a structure on the surrounding neighbourhood and the impact of the traffic resulting from the new structure. The increase in parking spaces to meet the hospital demand needs to be balanced with the site's ability to accommodate such an increase. Opportunities to improve the site circulation and parking on the site need to be explored.

(4)Environment:

The hospital has indicated that it is working towards permanently decommissioning the incinerator which will be replaced by a garbage compactor. The resulting increase in garbage pickup will be addressed at the site plan stage. An environmental assessment of the site has been requested to ensure that the historical presence of the incinerator is not an environmental concern and if it is a problem, that appropriate remediation measures be taken.

City-Wide Issues:

The application straddled the boundary between the former municipalities of York and North York and therefore all reporting will be through the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Conclusions:

The zoning amendment application for the hospital has proposed an expansion of the Humber River Regional Hospital's Church Street site. The process involved in evaluating this application has a substantial community consultation component as the hospital is an important community resource. A number of preliminary planning issues have been identified in this report which will be addressed in the Recommendation Report, along with any other planning issues that result from the process.

Contact Names:

Ms. Karen Whitney, Planner (North York District), 395-7109, Fax: 395-7155.

Ms. Wendy Johncox, Senior Planner (York District), 394-2869, Fax: 394-2782.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (April28, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber:

The Humber River Regional Hospital has submitted a rezoning amendment application to City planning staff.

This application is a direct result of the 'merger' between Northwestern Hospital and the HumberRiver Regional Hospital. Since this restructuring will cause a significant disruption to the community, I would ask that the attached motion be brought forward to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(Motion attached to the foregoing communication.)

Moved by:Councillor Nunziata

Seconded by:Councillor Mammoliti

WHEREAS the Ontario Government's Health Services Restructuring Commission recommended the closure of Northwestern Hospital and its 'merger' with Humber River Regional Hospital;

AND WHEREAS this will result in the expansion of the Church Street site of the Humber River Regional Hospital, which has already submitted a rezoning application to facilitate this expansion;

AND WHEREAS the Hospital is situated in the planning jurisdictions of the former cities of York and North York;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning staff of the City be directed to hold the official public meetings on the hospital expansion in both the Civic Centres of York and North York, prior to the applications being submitted to City of Toronto Council for approval;

AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT since the premature closing of the Northwestern hospital site has contributed to emergency room overcrowding; lack of acute-care beds and a reduction in the quality of health care service to the community; that Council requests Cabinets, through the Minister of Health, to overturn the recommendation of the Health Services Restructuring Commission to close the Northwestern Hospital site.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (May 14, 1998) from Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber:

After consulting with the Planning Department, I wish to submit the accompanying motion, in place of the motion that appeared on page 14, Item number 10(a) of Toronto City Council, Wednesday, May 13, 1998. The motion previously had been submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and I wish to re-submit this amended version of the motion at the next scheduled meeting of the Urban and Development Committee.

(Motion attached to the foregoing communication.)

Moved by:Councillor Mammoliti

Seconded by:Councillor Li Preti

WHEREAS the Ontario Government's Health Services Restructuring Commission has directed the amalgamation of Northwestern Hospital, Humber Memorial Hospital and York Finch Hospital into one corporation known as Humber River Regional Hospital;

AND WHEREAS the Commission has directed the closure of the Northwestern site and expansion of the York Finch and Humber Memorial sites;

AND WHEREAS the premature closing of the Northwestern hospital site has contributed to emergency room overcrowding, lack of acute-care beds and a reduction in the quality of health care service to the community;

AND WHEREAS the communities surrounding these sites are affected by these changes;

AND WHEREAS two working groups made up of local residents have been established to address the proposed additions to the Church Street property;

AND WHEREAS a Preliminary Evaluation report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services dated April 22, 1998, regarding the Humber River Regional Hospital is being considered at the May 19, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the recommendations of the Preliminary Evaluation report be amended to include the following recommendation:

"That an advisory committee be set up composed of the six Councillors representing York Humber, North York Humber and Black Creek, along with representatives of the communities of Keele/Eglinton, Jane and Lawrence, Jane and Finch, and a representative of Humber River Regional Hospital and City staff, as appropriate, in order to:

(i)review the Health Services Restructuring Commission's rationale for locating specific services and programs at the York Finch and Humber Memorial sites;

(ii)assess the impact of these program decisions on the respective local communities; and

(iii)investigate whether the basis for the Health Services Restructuring Commission's directives regarding these program decisions can be re-visited in light of this review, including the decision to close Northwestern Hospital."

--------

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

(i)a Committee Transmittal (May 7, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the North York Community Council at its meeting on May 6, 1998, referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee a motion by Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber, regarding the proposed expansion of the Humber River Regional Hospital's Church Street site; and

(ii)two documents filed by Councillor Judy Sgro, NorthYork Humber, viz:

(a)(May 19, 1998) showing the status of the Working Group; and

(b)(April 29, 1998) addressed to Mayor Mel Lastman, City of Toronto, from Ms.Darlene L. Barnes, President and Chief Executive Officer, Humber River Regional Hospital, expressing concerns with the proposed motion by Councillor Mammoliti regarding the Hospital's rezoning application.

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

-Mr. Scott Dudgeon, Vice-President, Planning and Support Services, HumberRiver Regional Hospital;

-Mr. Jim Darvill, Past President and Member of Working Committees, PelmoRatepayers' Association;

-Councillor George Mammoliti, North York Humber; and

-Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber.

(A copy of Schedules A, B, C, D1 and D2, referred to in the foregoing report dated April 22, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the May 19, 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 June 3, 4 and 5, 1998 had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (June 2, 1998) from the President and Chief Executive Officer, Humber River Regional Hospital, submitting comments on the proposal to establish an advisory committee to deal with planning issues related to the Humber River Regional Hospital rezoning application; expressing concerns that, if approved, this could delay the necessary improvement of facilities and make rezoning conditional on the hospital working with a new advisory committee; and advising that the Hospital remains committed to the principle of open community consultation as a necessary part of the land use planning process.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (undated) from Mr. Jim Darvill, Weston, Ontario, submitted by Councillor Judy Sgro, North York Humber, expressing concerns regarding the proposed expansion of the former Humber Memorial Hospital; and supporting the ongoing planning process with the community residents.)

6

School Board Contributions and

the Development Industry.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report has been prepared in response to a request for information regarding the potential impact of the recent changes in educational funding on the land use approval process and how the City intends to ensure that school needs are addressed in relation to development applications in a consistent manner.

Recommendations:

(1)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to convene a meeting with appropriate Toronto District School Board and Toronto Catholic School Board officials to:

(a)develop a protocol for addressing new residential development applications;

(b)review the impacts of the new education funding approach on the existing school infrastructure;

(c)review any proposed plan to close and/or dispose of school sites by the respective Boards; and

(d)consider facility requirements with respect to services that may be displaced as a result of the changes in education funding;

and that reports on the above matters be forwarded, as required, to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(2)that this report be forwarded to the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board for their consideration.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The ability of school facilities to accommodate the additional demand generated by residential development has been a long-standing issue for the development industry, municipalities and School Boards. The former municipalities and School Boards have developed different approaches for addressing the issue of school capacity as it relates to residential development.

At its meeting on April 1, 1998, the Etobicoke Community Council had before it a development application for two condominium apartment buildings with a total of 219 units. The Etobicoke Community Council instructed Urban Planning and Development Services staff to inform School Board officials that until the School Boards have enacted an education development charges by-law, the Council will no longer be including the Boards' requests for capital cost contributions as a condition of approval of residential development. The Council also adopted the following motion:

"The Etobicoke Community Council on April 1, 1998, referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee the whole issue of School Board contributions, for discussion, review and recommendation with a view to achieving equity and fairness across the City of Toronto for the School Boards and the development industry."

In addition Councillor Adams moved the following motion at the April 20 and 21, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

"That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested 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."

In the preparation of this report City staff have had some preliminary discussions with staff from both the Public and Catholic School Boards. They have indicated their interest in having further discussions to address the issue of the implications of the new funding arrangement on schools in the City, a protocol for dealing with new residential development applications, as well as the potential "disposition" of existing school sites.

This report provides an overview of the issues facing both the School Boards and the new City. It recommends that a joint committee of appropriate staff from the two School Boards meet with City planning staff to address the above recommendations.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Impacts of the Changes in Education Funding:

The relationship between the former municipal planning departments and their respective School Boards varied considerably. With the advent of the new City we have a critical opportunity to forge a strong and mutually supportive working relationship with both district School Boards. This is a critical time for both the School Boards and the City, as the Province launches a new funding relationship with each. Co-ordinating our planning efforts will assist us in recognizing and, where appropriate, preserving the valued resource that our schools play in our communities.

In response to the motion recently approved by the Urban Environment and Development Committee respecting school sites, planning staff have had preliminary discussions with staff from both School Boards. We have proposed that we begin meeting immediately to clarify the overall issues affecting the School Boards and how this will impact on the current school infrastructure. Schools are a critical element of neighbourhoods. At a very basic level they serve to: enhance community lifestyle and identification with a neighbourhood structure; provide a community resource for activities outside of the school day - internal and external play/open space; enhance a municipality's ability to attract and support growth; and enhance marketability of housing development.

At this point the work program is aimed at answering some critical questions. We will need to define what the impact of the Province's Student Focussed Funding Model will have on the community school environment over the long term. How can the School Boards ensure that they will be in a position to provide additional accommodation where and when it is needed over the long term? What will the Boards' strategy be around addressing excess "unfunded" school facilities? Which communities will be affected by the potential closure of schools? How will the open space/parks need of communities be impacted by a potential ownership change for a school site? How will supportive services such as daycares and parent resource centres be accommodated in the community, if displaced from the school facilities?

The disposition of school sites by School Boards was governed by Section 194 of the Education Act. That section was amended substantially by Bill 160 with the result that the Minister's control over the sale or disposition of school property has been expanded. The provisions in Bill 160 and the supporting legislation make the policy direction of the Province quite clear. Its intention is to require that School Boards dispose of space where there is excess pupil capacity. Any excess of pupil capacity over needs will receive neither operating grants for maintenance purposes, nor renewal grants for capital purposes. In addition, there will be no general capital funding available for new pupil places for a Board retaining excess pupil spaces, which will also result in a Board not being eligible to pass an education development charges by-law.

The Province has taken over the funding for education. Funding is now provided as an annual per pupil grant allocation, determined by the Province and provided to each School Board. The grant will fund the costs of operating, maintaining, constructing (excluding land costs which are to be covered by the Educational Development Charge) school facilities and debt service costs for prior capital projects. The funding corresponds to the number of students not the existing infrastructure. The funding model recognizes 100squarefeet/child of gross space (includes corridors, offices, etc.). For the Toronto District School Board the preliminary figures associated with this funding model result in the new funding formula recognizing and supporting (heat, light electricity and maintenance) 33million square feet of school space. The current portfolio of the public board is 44 million square feet of school infrastructure, thereby resulting in an 11 million square foot discrepancy. These are preliminary figures and, given the complexity of the funding arrangements as well as the fact that this is unchartered territory, School Board staff are carefully reviewing their options. However, once the School Boards have determined what the funding will support, in terms of both the program as well as the physical infrastructure, it will be critical for the City to work with the Boards to assess appropriate responses. Based on the Provincial time-lines, School Boards must determine their "surplus" by September 1998.

Toronto District School Board staff have indicated that they are in the process of completing the review of all school facilities within the newly amalgamated School Board. Specifically, the review will detail the age and state of repair of facilities, their proximity to neighbouring schools and each site's development potential.

The Toronto District Catholic School Board is also subject to the same funding restrictions, and staff have indicated that a review of school facilities within this Board may be conducted at some future point in time.

There is a recognition of the City's interest in these matters and the need for consultation. A number of elementary schools house licensed daycare and nursery school programs, parent resource centres, and recreational facilities and programs. The potential impact on the delivery of municipal programs is difficult to ascertain at this point in time, without more detailed information about the communities which will be affected. However, it is critical that this open dialogue be strengthened and continued throughout the decision-making process. I am therefore recommending that discussions be initiated between City planning staff and staff from both the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto District Catholic School Board with a view to ensuring that any consolidation of capital assets is carried out in a co-ordinated manner.

Education Development Charges:

The new Educational Development Charge (EDC) legislation is contained in the provisions of the Education Quality Improvement Act, S.O. 1997 c. 31. The EDCs will fund only the acquisition of new school sites required as the result of residential growth. The Provincial Government will fund the construction costs of the school facilities through its pupil accommodation grants (which fund three components: school operation, school renewal and new pupil places). Only Boards in growth areas where enrolment exceeds the capacity of all of their school facilities will be permitted to impose an EDC by-law. From a legislative standpoint, a Board is eligible to impose EDCs if the average total enrolment over the term of the by-law exceeds capacity for either the elementary or the secondary schools. The enrolment figures for the entire school district area must be used, which for Toronto would be the entire City. Therefore, if one community within the City suffers from over-enrolment, this may be offset by the number of "vacant" pupil places available in other areas of the City. The Ministry will also be determining the capacity of schools and will not rely on the current individual School Board figures. This has raised concerns around the possibility that the Ministry would not recognize programs such as daycare centres located in schools and would view this as surplus space and thereby "excess" capacity. The grant structure essentially encourages the Boards to dispose of surplus space or face a reduction in their grant. The clear intent of Bill 160 is to limit the ability of School Boards to charge EDCs.

The education development charge does not address the needs of a built-up urban environment such as the City of Toronto. The clear focus of the new legislation is on areas facing a substantial amount of new growth (as found in the '905' districts). It does not recognize the complexity of dealing with incremental growth in a mature urban structure which creates problems when the City needs to consider addressing the service requirements of large new "in-fill" residential projects in areas which were historically commercial/industrial. While some areas of the City do have the "capacity" to address additional growth, other areas do not. In addition, the condition of the aging stock of many of the existing schools in the City is not factored into the EDC approach.

The EDC is a tool that School Boards can consider using (if they meet the fairly stringent criteria). However, School Boards continue to have the legislated mandate to address school accommodation concerns. The following section outlines the current planning provisions that enable School Boards to come forward with their concerns around accommodating pupils generated from new development. However, the challenge facing the School Boards, the City and the development industry is defining how the City's School Boards intend to address the impacts of incremental growth in the absence of an EDC.

Planning Act:

Another issue that has come forward in response to the Province taking over the funding of education is what role the School Boards have in the approval of new development. Mayor McCallion of Mississauga forwarded a letter to the Honourable Al Leach asking for clarification on this matter. The Ministry response focused on three areas: the Education Development Charge provisions granted under the Education Quality Improvement Act; the new funding model for Education; and the provisions contained in the Planning Act. The letter identified that School Boards do have the right to review development applications (particularly plans of subdivision). The letter also re-stated that the boards, along with municipal councils and the OMB, in carrying out their responsibilities under the Planning Act, shall have regard to the adequate provision and distribution of educational facilities. The Ministry also made reference to section 1.1.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement which provides that a municipality in considering development proposals, shall have regard to supporting long-term economic prosperity by making provisions such that public service facilities will be available to accommodate the projected growth.

As noted previously, it is timely for the new City to forge a strong working relationship with both boards of education. While the references in the provincial letter pertaining to the Planning Act and policy provisions do not in themselves require new consideration on the part of the municipality, they support the need to share information and to develop an enhanced awareness of what the situation will be for schools in the new City. The connections between the new funding formula, the provisions contained in the new Education Act, as well as the current provisions of the Planning Act, necessitate that we view them together as a combined legislative/policy package. This package will impact on both the existing infrastructure as well as how School Boards will respond to and manage growth within the various neighbourhoods of the new City.

Ultimately, we will need to develop a protocol around how to address new residential planning applications. Clearly, it is in our interests to develop this in co-operation with the School Boards, to preempt the potential for appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. This is not new ground for some of the former municipalities which did work co-operatively with their School Boards. In Etobicoke the planning department included the Board's request for capital cost contributions as a condition to approval for certain developments.

Within the former City of Toronto there was a fairly strong and co-operative relationship between the planning functions of the Board and the municipality. This relationship was forged in response to the Board's earlier appeal of a number of planning applications to the OMB. It was not in either the City's, the Board's or the developer's interest to have this adversarial environment continue. Theoutcome was a two-prong policy response. For minor/small site applications the Public Board passed a policy direction that would not result in the Board appealing a development if it resulted in ten or less additional pupils. For large site redevelopments the City agreed to support the Board's interests in addressing the need for school space. This resulted in the City bringing the School Board to the table in our negotiations with the respective developers. From this approach a number of agreements were entered into which ensured that the capital requirements for schools (construction costs and, in one case, a site) were addressed prior to City Council approving the redevelopment (Railway Lands and Bathurst-Strachan). Using the "best practices" from our combined previous experience we will develop a new protocol to address new residential development applications. We hope to undertake this effort in full co-operation with both School Boards.

Interim Development Application Review Process:

Toronto District School Board staff have indicated that the interim procedure for dealing with development applications requires all former area boards of education to forward a list of applications received to the Superintendent of Capital and Planning on a monthly basis. The information will then be compiled and submitted to the Toronto District School Board for its consideration.

If a particular neighbourhood school is over-capacity, the City will be advised that any pupils generated by the new development may not be accommodated within their communities, and may be bussed to schools which have capacity. If the neighbourhood school has capacity, the City will be advised that at the present time the pupils may be accommodated within the local school, but should enrolment change, they may be bussed to another school.

A report which establishes a formal review procedure is being prepared by Toronto District School Board staff and will be before the Board within the next few months. Prior to finalizing this report, staff are interested in obtaining our input to ensure that the "protocol" works in both the Board and City's interests.

The Toronto District Catholic School Board's practices remain unchanged. Development applications are reviewed centrally, and the Board's comments and recommendations are forwarded to the relevant Urban Planning and Development Services staff.

Conclusions:

School Boards have often felt in the past that their issues are over-looked in the municipal planning and zoning process. Each of the former municipalities had developed different working relationships with their respective former School Boards, which now should be standardized. The need to do this is complicated by the amalgamation of the seven former public Boards of Education into a single entity, the changes which the City is currently undergoing as well as changes in the Provincial funding formulas. However, in discussions staff have indicated a willingness to forge a stronger relationship between the planning functions of the Toronto District School Board and the City. In addition, staff of the Toronto Catholic District School Board are also very interested in establishing a strong relationship with the new City. This is a critical step in ensuring that we develop a co-operative and supportive relationship between the City and both School Boards.

With respect to the proposed closure of school facilities, it is important to recognize that as public bodies with service delivery obligations, the issues facing School Boards and municipalities are naturally intertwined. In the present climate of administrative and budgetary change, it is crucial that information is collected and shared in an open and collaborative fashion. Elected officials at all levels of local government will be making decisions that will affect the well-being of the City's residents in the months to come, and the establishment of mechanisms for co-ordinated action and dialogue will greatly assist in the protection of public services and amenities.

Contact Name:

Mr. John Gladki, Director of Programs Division, City Hall Office, 392-7186.

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

Recommendation:

The Etobicoke Community Council on April 1, 1998, referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee the whole issue of School Board contributions, for discussion, review and recommendation with a view to achieving equity and fairness across the City of Toronto for the School Boards and the development industry.

Background:

The Etobicoke Community Council had before it a report dated April 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, with respect to an application for amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit the development of two condominium apartment buildings, ten and 15 storeys in height, containing a total of 219 units, to be developed in conjunction with an existing 12-storey rental apartment building located at the south-east corner of Royal York Road and LaRose Avenue.

In referring this application to a public meeting on May 6, 1998, the Etobicoke Community Council also requested staff of the Urban Development Department to advise the School Boards that until such time as a development charges by-law is passed by the Boards, the Etobicoke Community Council will no longer be including the Boards' request for capital cost contributions as a condition to approval for residential development.

The Etobicoke Community Council referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee the whole issue of School Board contributions, for discussion, review and recommendation with a view to achieving equity and fairness across the City of Toronto for the School Boards and the development industry.

(Councillor Cho, at the meeting of City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he is a teacher on leave of absence from the Toronto District School Board.)

7

Proposal to Commence Negotiations for a New Agreement

With the Region of York Regarding Steeles Avenue.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(A)recommends that Council:

(1)advise the Region of York that the City of Toronto is now prepared to commence negotiating a new agreement with the Region regarding SteelesAvenue;

(2)request the Chair and interested Members of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, together with a representative of the Mayor's office, to meet with representatives of the Region of York to commence discussions on this issue; and

(3)request the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to prepare a summary of previous staff reports respecting Steeles Avenue; and

(B)reports having deferred consideration of the following report (April 30, 1998), entitled "Road Improvements Required for the Regional Municipality of York: BayviewAvenue, North of Steeles Avenue East", from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority for the Regional Municipality of York to widen the west side of Bayview Avenue, north of Steeles Avenue East and to advertise the required construction By-law.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for these improvements is the responsibility of the Regional Municipality of York.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City Council authorize the widening of the west side of Bayview Avenue, north of SteelesAvenue East, by the Regional Municipality of York; and

(2)the introduction of any necessary Bills be authorized.

Background:

Staff of the Transportation and Works Department of the Regional Municipality of York have advised that on July 6, 1995, the Region of York Council adopted Clause No. 1, Report No. 15 of The Transportation and Environmental Services Committee which recommended the widening and reconstruction of Bayview Avenue from Steeles Avenue East to Sycamore Drive (approximately 3.4kilometres north of Steeles Avenue). After delaying the project for a number of years, Region of York staff advise that they wish to proceed in 1998.

The Region of York has proposed to widen Bayview Avenue, north of Steeles Avenue, to provide an exclusive southbound right-turn lane. After construction, the Bayview Avenue pavement will be 23.5metres wide at the intersection with Steeles Avenue East. Since the section of Bayview Avenue affected by this work is within the City of Toronto right-of-way, this construction requires the approval of City Council. The Regional Municipality of York has agreed to assume all costs of constructing the intersection of Bayview Avenue and Steeles Avenue East. A sketch of the proposal is attached to this report.

Discussion:

To construct the above modification some of the following work would have to be undertaken:

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

(b)construction of asphalt and concrete pavement;

(c)relocations of catch basin and connections;

(d)relocations of traffic signal plants; and

(e)relocations of utilities.

Conclusions:

The Regional Municipality of York is widening Bayview Avenue and will affect the intersection at Steeles Avenue East. The work on the City of Toronto road allowance is minor and is to be provided at no cost to the City of Toronto. This improvement has no impact on bicycles or pedestrians on Steeles Avenue East.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ms. Kathleen Llewellyn-Thomas, P. Eng., Manager, Project Planning and Design, 392-8590.

(A copy of the sketch, referred to in the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the May 19, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

8

Contract No. T-34-98:

Don Valley Parkway at Lawrence Avenue East

- Don River Channel Restoration.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the recommendations of the Task Force to Bring Back the Don embodied in the communication dated May 28, 1998, from the Chair, Habitat Restoration Committee, Task Force to Bring Back the Don, be adopted, viz.:

'(a)that the contract specify that all plant material be inspected by a certified ecologist prior to planting, and include a right to refuse non-native species or other inappropriate substitutions;

(b)that since the upland willow and sanddune willow species currently included in the plant list are difficult to source, the Department consider replacing these species with heartleafed willow and shining willow. Also, balsam poplar would be an ideal addition to the existing plant list; and

(c)that the Department consider sourcing plant material through the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's nursery.' ")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (April 27, 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 dated April 27, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be forwarded to the Task Force to Bring Back the Don, with a request that the TaskForce submit any comments thereon directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on June 3, 1998.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 27, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To award a contract for the Don River channel restoration located at the Don Valley Parkway and Lawrence Avenue East.

Funding Source:

The total project cost is estimated to be $1,227,220.24 and is summarized as follows:

(1)Bid Price Amount $1,067,186.24

(2)Construction supervision, 18 weeks at $6,113.00 per week (estimate)110,034.00

(3)Other costs (estimate):50,000.00

(a)quality control testing

____________

Total project cost $1,227,220.24

Funding for this project has been provided in the 1998 Capital Works Program estimates and is available in Capital Account No. C-TR029, Don Valley Parkway Rehabilitation. 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 the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Budget it is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. T-34-98 for the Don River channel restoration at the Don Valley Parkway and Lawrence Avenue East be awarded to Dagmar Construction Inc. which submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $1,067,186.24;

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

Comments:

On April 16, 1998, the City Clerk's Department opened tenders for:

Contract No.T-34-98Don Valley Parkway at Lawrence Avenue East

Don River Channel Restoration

NumberName $ Amount

3Dagmar Construction Inc.1,067,186.24

5Bridgecon Construction Ltd. and Bridgecon Holdings Ltd.1,076,208.28

4TACC Construction Ltd.1,125,922.47

6Grascan Construction Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd.1,144,900.00

2Anscon Contracting Inc. and Janscon Holdings Inc.1,145,165.73

1Evans Contracting Limited1,172,808.28

Tender No. 4 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 rehabilitation of the east bank of the Don River at the northeast quadrant of the Don Valley Parkway and Lawrence Avenue East. The work includes slope repairs, construction of an armour stone toe wall, concrete slab slope paving, construction of storm sewers, and landscaping.

The existing concrete slab slope paving has been undermined by the river, and must be replaced with suitable material. The armour stone wall will ensure the integrity of the slope and the Don Valley Parkway ramp.

Conclusion:

Contract No. T-34-98 should be awarded to Dagmar Construction Inc. which submitted the lowest price bid for this Contract.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

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

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998 had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May 28, 1998) from the Chair, Habitat Restoration Committee, Task Force to Bring Back the Don, regarding the proposed Don River channel restoration work at the Don Valley Parkway and Lawrence Avenue East and submitting recommendations in this regard.)

9

Reconstruction of Pavements, Sidewalks and Curbs

on Bay Street, Orde Street and Murray Street

- Contract No. 59696, Tender No. 20-1998.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (May 1, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise the results of the tender issued for the reconstruction of pavements, sidewalks and curbs on Bay Street, Orde Street and Murray Street in accordance with specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department, and to request the authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder.

Funding Sources:

The total cost of this work, in the amount of $ 1,217,308.50 including all taxes and charges, has been accommodated within the 1998 Capital Budget - Sidewalk Reconstruction - Bay Street, OrdeStreetand Murray Street, Account No. 291810-39220-76911-291812, Pavements and Curbs Reconstruction- Bay Street, Orde Street and Murray Street, AccountNo.292810-39220-76911-292812, and Accounts Receivable Account No.1000-39111-107799.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Contract No. 59696, Tender No. 20-1998, for the reconstruction of pavements, sidewalks and curbs on Bay Street, Orde Street and Murray Street be awarded to TitoConstruction Limited in the total amount of $1,217,308.50 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest tender received.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on April 22, 1998, opened the following tenders for Contract No. 59696, Tender No. 20-1998, for the reconstruction of pavements, sidewalks and curbs on BayStreet, Orde Street and Murray Street:

Tenderer Price Complete

Including All Charges and Taxes

Tito Construction Limited$ 1,217,308.50

Ferma Road Construction Limited $ 1,249,443.00

GM Sansalone Engineering Inc. $ 1,297.320.00

Gazzola Paving Limited $ 1,395,896.86

Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. $ 1,653,704.00

Il Duca Construction Inc. $ 1,688,112.85

The tender prices have been checked and no mathematical errors were found.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The tender documentation submitted by the recommended bidder has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and was found to be in conformance with the tender requirements. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services concurs with the recommendation made.

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

Conclusions:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for the reconstruction of pavements, sidewalks and curbs on Bay Street, Orde Street and Murray Street in the Toronto Downtown Ward, in accordance with specifications, to Tito Construction Limited at the tender price quoted, being the lowest tender received.

Contact Name:

Mr. Lou Pagano, Director, Purchasing and Materials Management Division, 392-7312.

10

Contract No. T-38-98:

Road and Track Allowance

Reconstruction at Four Locations.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 14, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To award a contract for the road and track allowance reconstruction at four locations.

Funding Source:

The total project cost is estimated to be $1,473,813.41 and all costs are recoverable from the Toronto Transit Commission. The cost is summarized as follows:

(1)Bid Price Amount $1,313,813.41

(2)Other costs (estimate):160,000.00

(a) quality control testing

(b) traffic signage

(c) temporary traffic control signal

____________

Total project cost $1,473,813.41

Funding for this project has been approved by Council and is available in the Toronto Transit Commission's Track 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:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. T-38-98, for the road and track allowance construction at four locations, be awarded to Crownwood Construction Ltd. which submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $1,313,813.41; and

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

Comments:

On May 13, 1998, the Bid Committee opened tenders for:

Contract No.T-38-98Road and Track Allowance Reconstruction at Four Locations

NumberName $ Amount

5Crownwood Construction Ltd.1,313,813.41

4Dufferin Construction Company,

a division of St. Lawrence Cement Inc.1,396,307.20

1Pave-Al Limited and Orlando Corporation1,404,035.92

2Grascan Construction Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd.1,483,555.00

6Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd.1,577,977.15

3Gazzola Paving Limited1,627,640.18

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 Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer regarding the surety company who issued the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond.

Scope of Work:

The work in this contract includes the reconstruction of the streetcar track allowance at the following locations:

(1)Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Symons Street and Royal York Road;

(2)Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Kipling Avenue and 23rd Street;

(3)Dundas Street East at Parliament Street; and

(4)Dundas Street East at Sherbourne Street.

Conclusion:

Contract No. T-38-98 should be awarded to Crownwood Construction Ltd. which submitted the lowest price bid for this Contract.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

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

11

Appointment of Consultant for Design and

Supervision of Construction Services for the

Humber Bridges Project - Bridges Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 28, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for Delcan Corporation, Consulting Engineers to provide design and construction supervision services for the Humber Bridges Project, Bridges Nos. 4, 5 and 6.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for this project has been approved by Council and is available in the Capital Account 271-028, Replacement of Gardiner Humber Bridges. The estimated cost of design is $526,289.00 and for construction supervision, based on an assumed contractor work schedule of 16 hours per day, six days per week, the estimated cost is $15,713.00 per week. The estimated construction period is 100 weeks.

The Treasurer has previously certified that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation limit and that it falls within corporate debt guidelines.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Delcan Corporation, Consulting Engineers, be retained to provide design and construction supervision services for the Humber Bridges Project, Bridges Nos. 4, 5 and 6, the final three bridges of the project, as outlined in this report; and

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

Background:

By the adoption of Clause No. 4 of Report No. 12 of The Transportation Committee on October 6, 1987, Metropolitan Council approved the appointment of Delcan (DeLeuw Cather Canada Limited) to carry out the design and construction supervision of the new bridges carrying the F. G. Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard across the Humber River and South Kingsway. The overall scope of this assignment covered six new vehicular bridges included in the approved scheme for the Humber Bridges Project and, more recently, the Humber pedestrian/bicycle bridge. To date, Delcan has completed the design and construction supervision for the realigned South Kingsway Ramp connection to the Gardiner Expressway eastbound, the Humber pedestrian/bicycle bridge, and the Lake Shore Boulevard eastbound bridge (Bridge No. 1). Delcan has also completed the design of Bridges Nos. 2 and 3, the Gardiner Eastbound and Westbound bridges over the Humber and SouthKingsway, and is presently providing construction supervision for these two bridges. The next phase of this project involves the design and construction supervision of the final three bridges of the Humber Bridges Project. These are:

Bridge No. 4Lake Shore Boulevard westbound ramp to Gardiner westbound;

Bridge No. 5Lake Shore Boulevard westbound ramp to Lake Shore Boulevard; and

Bridge No. 6Gardiner Expressway westbound ramp to Lake Shore Boulevard.

In response to our request for quotations for the next phase of work, Delcan has provided a work plan and estimate for engineering consulting services that includes design and construction supervision for Bridges Nos. 4, 5 and 6. To be able to commence construction work on these two bridges by early 1999, following completion of Bridges Nos. 2 and 3, it is necessary that the engineering design be started at this time to allow tendering to take place in the fall of 1998. The contract involving construction of these three new bridges will also include the staged demolition of the remainder of the old bridges. Assuming that the same tendering and scheduling strategy is used for Bridges Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as was used for Bridges Nos. 2 and 3, the next contract is anticipated to take about two years to complete.

Discussion:

The normal range of consulting fees for design of construction projects of this type is in the order of five percent of the estimated cost of construction of the project. The Delcan estimate for engineering design services for this next phase of the Humber Bridges Project is based on an upset limit of $526,289.00 which is approximately 2.2 percent of the estimated cost of construction. This is due, in large part, to economies resulting from previous work carried out by Delcan on the project which has established design standards, project specific specifications, and the fact that three similar bridges will be designed and detailed simultaneously for this phase. Due to the magnitude and extreme complexity of the Humber Bridges Project, the continuing property negotiations with the CN Railway and the consultative/approval process with the numerous stakeholders and agencies, it would be counter-productive to change consultants at this stage of the project.

The inclusion of three bridges in one contract will also result in a simplification of construction staging for this work, thereby minimizing disruption for the travelling public. It will also achieve certain economies of scale during the construction phase such as in the fabrication of structural steel for the bridges.

The following details the work items and the estimated costs for the consultant assignment:

The consultant appointment will be subject to the completion of an agreement containing clauses satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.

Following completion of Bridges Nos. 4, 5 and 6, we expect that there will be one further contract necessary for restoration, landscaping and construction of pathways within the Humber Bridges site and the construction staging areas.

Conclusion:

Delcan Corporation, Consulting Engineers, should be retained to provide design and construction supervision services for Bridges Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the Humber Bridges Project as outlined in this report.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. B. Craig, Manager of Roads, Construction Branch, 392-8312.

12

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Wilson Avenue at 1201 Wilson Avenue Access.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To propose the installation of traffic control signals at the access to 1201 Wilson Avenue.

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 at the access to 1201 Wilson Avenue is $60,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)traffic control signals be installed on Wilson Avenue at the access to 1201 Wilson Avenue;

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

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

Background:

At the request of an employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General, located at 1201WilsonAvenue, our Department investigated the feasibility of installing pedestrian crossing protection on Wilson Avenue at the access to 1201 Wilson Avenue. The complainant expressed concern that area residents as well as employees at 1201 Wilson Avenue have difficulties crossing Wilson Avenue in this vicinity.

Discussion:

Wilson Avenue in the vicinity of 1201 Wilson Avenue is a five-lane roadway and the posted speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour. There is an exclusive westbound left-turn lane at the access to 1201Wilson Avenue. Eastbound and westbound Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus stops are located in bus bays, east of the access to 1201 Wilson Avenue. The north side of WilsonAvenue is mainly high-density residential properties and the Downsview Government Plaza (formerly the Ministry of Transportation) is located on the south side. Adjacent traffic control signals are located at Julian Road approximately 303 metres to the west and at Keele Street approximately 465metres to the east.

To determine the level of activity at the access to 1201 Wilson Avenue, our Department conducted a traffic signal warrant study. The results of our study revealed that during an eight-hour count on a typical weekday, a total of 176 pedestrians were recorded crossing Wilson Avenue in close proximity to 1201 Wilson Avenue. The majority of pedestrians recorded crossed in the 50 metres area east of the access to 1201 Wilson Avenue, near the TTC bus stops. The results of a traffic signal warrants study at the access to 1201 Wilson Avenue are tabled below:

Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant 43 percent;

Delay to Cross Traffic Warrant100 percent; and

Collision Hazard Warrant 13 percent.

Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 should be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants should be 80 percent satisfied to meet the minimum technical requirements for the installation of traffic control signals. Based on the above-noted results, the minimum technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are satisfied.

Transportation Division staff reviewed the collision records provided by the Toronto Police Service for the five-year period ending December 31, 1996. During this period two collisions have occurred which are of the type considered susceptible to correction by the installation of traffic control signals. Neither of these collisions involved a pedestrian. Although the Toronto Police Service collision records are incomplete for 1997, we are aware of a pedestrian collision at this location which resulted in the death of a 28-year-old man.

Conclusion:

Based on the study results, traffic control signals are warranted at 1201 Wilson Avenue and this installation will improve pedestrian and vehicular safety in this area.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

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

13

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control

Signals Near 1775 Weston Road.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 22, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To install mid-block pedestrian-actuated traffic control signals on Weston Road, near 1775WestonRoad.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Transportation Division's Capital Budget Estimates under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost for the installation of traffic control signals on Weston Road, near 1775 Weston Road, is $41,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)mid-block pedestrian-actuated traffic control signals be installed on Weston Road, near 1775Weston Road, approximately 202 metres north of Wright Avenue/Wilby Crescent; and

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

Background:

At its meeting held on October 8 and 9, 1997, the former Metropolitan Council adopted a motion which requested a report on traffic conditions on Weston Road, from King Street to the Price Chopper grocery store just south of Wright Avenue/Wilby Crescent, and that such a report look into:

(1)the distance between traffic signals on Weston Road from King Street to Denison Avenue;

(2)locating the new traffic signal between the two apartment buildings at 1775 and 1765WestonRoad;

(3)moving the traffic signals from Weston Road and Wright Avenue/Wilby Crescent south to a driveway at the Price Chopper grocery store;

(4)synchronizing the traffic control signals in this area so that if they are relocated from WrightAvenue/Wilby Crescent to the Price Chopper driveway, motorists will still be able to exit from these side streets; and

(5)installing the new signals as early in 1998 as possible.

In the spring of 1997, in response to requests from former Chairman Alan Tonks and former Mayor of York Frances Nunziata, our Department conducted studies on Weston Road, between LawrenceAvenue West and Wright Avenue/Wilby Crescent, to determine the feasibility of installing pedestrian crossing protection. As a result of these studies, we advised that the installation of traffic control signals was justified at the mutual driveway to the Weston United Pentecostal Church (1831Weston Road) and the John Anderson Restaurant (1825 Weston Road).

Because the installation of traffic control signals at this location would displace on-street parking spaces, and would not serve all of the pedestrian crossing demand, consultations were held with the local business association and affected residents.

The majority of those businesses consulted did not support traffic signals in the vicinity of 1831 and 1825 Weston Road because of the impact to on-street parking. In addition, the residents did not feel that signals at this location would adequately serve pedestrian needs. As a result, we were asked to review the feasibility of installing traffic control signals between the two high-rise apartment buildings at 1775 and 1765 Weston Road. Also, to provide better spacing between traffic control signals, we were asked to review the feasibility of relocating existing traffic control signals from the intersection of Weston Road and Wright Avenue/Wilby Crescent to the Price Chopper driveway located approximately 100 metres to the south.

Discussion:

On Weston Road, between King Street and Denison Avenue, traffic control signals are provided at the intersections with King Street, Little Avenue/Elsmere Avenue, John Street, Lawrence Avenue West, Wright Avenue/Wilby Crescent, and Denison Avenue. The diagram in Appendix 1 shows the spacing between each of these signalized intersections. Also shown on this diagram are the driveways to 1775 and 1765 Weston Road, and the Price Chopper driveway.

We reviewed the suggestion to relocate the traffic control signals from Wright Avenue/Wilby Crescent southerly to the Price Chopper driveway. This proposal is intended to provide increased spacing between signals on Weston Road in the event that traffic control signals are installed between the driveways to 1775 and 1765 Weston Road. However, the minimum technical warrants for traffic control signals are not satisfied at the Price Chopper driveway. Furthermore, there is a greater need for these controls at their existing location. If these traffic control signals were to be relocated to the Price Chopper driveway, they would accommodate fewer pedestrians and less vehicles than at their current location at Wright Avenue/Wilby Crescent.

We have further reviewed the request to install traffic control signals in the immediate vicinity of the driveways to 1775 and 1765 Weston Road. We have determined that it is feasible to install mid-block pedestrian-actuated signals immediately south of the driveway to 1775 Weston Road. This location is approximately 202 metres north of Wright Avenue/Wilby Crescent, and approximately 255 metres south of Lawrence Avenue West. These signals would serve the area crossing demand at 1831 and 1825 Weston Road and at 1775 and 1765 Weston Road. The installation of traffic control signals at this location would result in the loss of approximately 12 metered parking spaces. This proposed location for the traffic control signals is superior to the earlier proposed location because it is better suited for serving the residential pedestrian crossing demand and has less impact on business-related parking. The spacing resulting from this proposed traffic control signal installation is appropriate with respect to the roadway geometry and traffic conditions on Weston Road in this vicinity.

Following approval of a group of traffic control signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified 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 28, 1998.

Conclusions:

Traffic control signals should be installed on Weston Road, near 1775 Weston Road, approximately 202 metres north of Wright Avenue/Wilby Crescent, to provide pedestrian crossing protection. If approved, this location will be subject to competing priorities and available funding.

Contact Name:

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

14

Proposed Installation of Parking Meters

on the South Side of Richmond Street West,

Between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To install parking meters on the south side of Richmond Street West, between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street.

Funding Sources:

The funds for this work are contained in the City of Toronto 1998 Current Budget Estimates. The estimated cost of installing the parking meters is $46,500.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

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

Background:

At its meeting on October 6 and 7, 1997, the former City of Toronto adopted Clause No. 14 of Report No. 24 of The Executive Committee, entitled "Ward 5 - Installation of Parking Meters and Extension of Operational Hours", and, in doing so, requested the former Metropolitan Council to authorize the installation of parking meters on the south side of Richmond Street West, between SpadinaAvenue and Bathurst Street.

Discussion:

Richmond Street West, between Spadina Avenue and Portland Street, is a three-lane roadway which operates one-way westbound. Currently, parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway at all times, and stopping is prohibited on the north side during the weekday afternoon peak period and on the south side during both weekday peak periods.

If parking is provided in the southerly lane, it is possible to accommodate the existing traffic flows in the remaining two lanes at all times except the afternoon peak period. Therefore, we have no objection to the rescission of the parking prohibition and the weekday morning peak period stopping prohibition on the south side of Richmond Street West between Spadina Avenue and Portland Street. Parking meters would be installed on this side to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, for a maximum period of one hour, at a rate of $1.00per hour.

Richmond Street West, between Portland Street and Bathurst Street, is a two-lane roadway which operates one-way westbound. Parking is permitted within a parking bay on the south side for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and for a maximum period of three hours at other times. On the north side, parking is prohibited at all times, while stopping is prohibited during weekday afternoon peak periods.

Installation of parking meters on this section would not have any impact to traffic flow, but would encourage parking turnover and assist in enforcement of the one-hour time limit. Therefore, we haveno objection to the installation of parking meters on the south side to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, for a maximum period of one hour, at a rate of $1.00 per hour.

Approximately 45 parking meters can be installed on the south side of Richmond Street West, between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street.

Conclusions:

The installation of parking meters on the south side of Richmond Street, between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street, will provide additional parking opportunities and turnover without a significant negative impact on the safety or level of service on Richmond Street West.

Contact Name:

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

--------

Appendix 1

Regulations to be Rescinded

No Parking

No Stopping

Parking for Restricted Periods

Appendix 2

Regulations to be Enacted

No Parking

No Stopping

Parking for Restricted Periods

Parking Meters

(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 May 19, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

15

Parking Meter Installation on Richmond Street East,

Between George Street and Sherbourne Street.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To authorize the installation of parking meters on the north side of Richmond Street East, between George Street and Sherbourne Street.

Funding Sources:

All costs associated with the proposed parking meter installation are contained in the City of Toronto 1998 Current Budget Estimates. The estimated cost of installing the parking meters is $14,600.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking meters be installed on the north side of Richmond Street East, from a point 22.0metres east of George Street to a point 41 metres west of Sherbourne Street, to operate from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, for a maximum period of one hour, at the rate of $1.00 per hour; and

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

Background:

At its meeting of August 21,1997, Toronto City Council adopted Clause No. 34 of Report No.10 of The City Services Committee, entitled "Parking Meters and Parking Regulations (Various Locations)", which recommended that the Metropolitan Corporation be requested to authorize the installation of parking meters on the north side of Richmond Street East, from Jarvis Street to Sherbourne Street, to operate from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, for a maximum period of one hour at the rate of $1.00 per hour.

Discussion:

The current by-law regulations on Richmond Street East prohibit stopping on both sides of this street between 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday. Parking is not allowed at any time on the south side of Richmond Street East. Parking is not permitted on the north side of Richmond Street East between Jarvis Street and George Street. However, one hour parking between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00p.m., daily, is currently permitted on the north side of Richmond Street East, between GeorgeStreet and Parliament Street. Three hour parking is permitted during other periods.

Parking is prohibited at all times on the north side, between Jarvis Street and George Street, because of the curvature of the roadway and the safety concerns which would result from parked cars in the curb lane and from vehicles manoeuvring into and out of parking spaces. It is not recommended that this regulation be changed.

An assessment of on-street parking operations on the section of Richmond Street East, between George Street and Sherbourne Street, reveals extensive use during the day because of the commercial nature of the street. The installation of metered parking stalls will clearly define the parking spaces, encourage parking turnover and assist in enforcement of the time limit, without jeopardizing the operational efficiency and safety of the street. It is possible to install 14 metered parking stalls on this section of Richmond Street East.

Conclusions:

The proposed installation of 14 metered parking spaces on Richmond Street East, between GeorgeStreet and Sherbourne Street, will not have any significant negative impact to traffic operations on Richmond Street East.

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 May 19, 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

Road Modifications Required for Private

Sector Developments: Various Locations.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 24, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, with the exception of Recommendation No. (2).

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred Recommendation No. (2) back to the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, in order to permit Councillor Moscoe to consult with the community with respect thereto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 24, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is:

(1)to obtain Council authority to construct various development related road modifications on City of Toronto arterial roads and to advertise the required construction By-law; and

(2)to obtain approval to amend the appropriate By-laws.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for these road modifications is the responsibility of the developers.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)approval be given to proceed with the extension of the southbound traffic island on IslingtonAvenue, north of Albion Road;

(a)northbound and eastbound left turns at the Islington Avenue access to 1104and1130Albion Road be prohibited at all times;

(b)southbound and eastbound left turns at the westerly Albion Road access to 1104and1130 Albion Road, located 140 metres west of Islington Avenue, be prohibited at all times;

(c)westbound right turns at the westerly Albion Road access to 1104 and 1130AlbionRoad, located 140 metres west of Islington Avenue, be prohibited at all times;

(2)approval be given to proceed with modifications to the concrete centre median on SteelesAvenue West, west of Alness Street, to provide for an eastbound left-turn lane;

(3)subject to the receipt of funds from the developer, approval be given to proceed with the construction of development entrances at 800 Warden Avenue, south of Civic Road; the construction of concrete centre medians; the construction of a southbound right-turn lane on Warden Avenue, approximately 215 metres south of Civic Road; and upon completion of all road works associated with the Wal-Mart Store development at 800 Warden Avenue:

(a)traffic control signals be approved on Warden Avenue at the central driveway to 800Warden Avenue (Wal-Mart Store) on the west side and the shared driveway between 781 Warden Avenue (Embers Restaurant) and 787 Warden Avenue on the east side;

(b)northbound left turns be prohibited at all times at the northerly access to 800WardenAvenue, 190 metres south of Eglinton Avenue East;

(c)eastbound left turns be prohibited at all times at the northerly access to 800WardenAvenue, 190 metres south of Eglinton Avenue East;

(4)approval be given to proceed with the extension of the southbound traffic island on Morningside Avenue, north of Ellesmere Road;

(5)subject to the receipt of funds from the developer, approval be given to proceed with the construction of a development entrance at 740 Ellesmere Road; the construction of an eastbound right-turn lane on Ellesmere Road at Kennedy Road; the construction of a southbound right-turn lane on Warden Avenue at Ellesmere Road; and upon completion of all road works associated with the residential/retail development at 740Ellesmere Road:

(a)southbound left turns be prohibited at all times at the access to 740 Ellesmere Road, 198 metres east of Birchmount Road;

(b)eastbound left turns be prohibited at all times at the access to 740 Ellesmere Road, 198 metres east of Birchmount Road;

(6)subject to the receipt of funds from the developer, approval be given to proceed with:

(a)the reconstruction of the concrete centre median on The Queensway, west of TheWest Mall, to provide a westbound left-turn lane into the Queens Walk Developments;

(b)the widening of the south side of The Queensway, west of The West Mall, to provide an eastbound right-turn lane into the Queens Walk Development;

(c)installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of The Queensway and the entrance to the Queens Walk Development, west of The West Mall; and

(d)the modification of the centre median on The West Mall, south of The Queensway, for the extension of the northbound left-turn lane;

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

(8)the introduction of any necessary Bills be authorized.

Background and Discussion:

As a condition of approving developments abutting City of Toronto arterial roads and allowing access to them, developers are required to fund road modifications to accommodate the traffic generated by their new developments. Funds for the design, construction, supervision and administration of this work have been received or are about to be received from the proponents in the form of a Letter of Credit or certified cheque. Details of the road modifications required at each location are provided in Table No. 1 and are briefly discussed below.

1104 and 1130 Albion Road (at Islington Avenue):

As a condition of approving a bank and donut shop with a drive-through development, the developer (Kaylan Properties Ltd.) is required to fund the extension of the southbound traffic island on IslingtonAvenue by 15 metres to the north. This modification is necessary to limit the proposed development access to in-right/out-right movements.

1900 Steeles Avenue West (west of Alness Street):

To accommodate the property owner's request to construct modifications to the concrete centre median on Steeles Avenue West to provide for an eastbound left-turn lane into his property, the owner has agreed to fund all costs associated with this median modification.

800 Warden Avenue (south of Eglinton Avenue):

To accommodate the Vernice Developments Limited development at 800 Warden Avenue (formerly Sears Canada Inc. Site) a widening of Warden Avenue is required. The widening allows for a southbound right-turn lane and centre traffic islands. The centre traffic islands are required to facilitate the installation of new traffic control signals.

In order to provide appropriate right-of-way control on Warden Avenue and safe access to the Wal-Mart store proposed at 800 Warden Avenue, traffic control signals are required at the central driveway to 800 Warden Avenue on the west side and the shared driveway between 781WardenAvenue (Embers Restaurant) and 787 Warden Avenue on the east side. In addition, the northerly access must be restricted to right-in/right-out movements by design, by-law and signage.

Warden Avenue in the vicinity of 800 Warden Avenue is a five-lane urban arterial roadway. An eight-hour traffic control signal warrant study was conducted based on projected traffic volumes generated by the development. The study results are listed below:

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

3100 Ellesmere Road (at Morningside Avenue):

The existing Petro Canada gas station located on the northwest corner of Ellesmere Road and Morningside Avenue is redeveloping to permit the addition of a car wash, convenience store and drive-through restaurant to the existing gas station. To accommodate a new access and new site circulation patterns, a ten-metre extension of the southbound traffic on Morningside Avenue is necessary to physically restrict the access to in-right/out-right movements.

740 Ellesmere Road (east of Birchmount Road):

As a condition of approval of Phases 1 and 2a of the Mondeo Development Inc. development at 740Ellesmere Road, the developer (Mondeo Development Inc.) is required to fund the following road modifications: the widening of Ellesmere Road at Kennedy Road to provide an eastbound right-turn lane; the widening of Warden Avenue at Ellesmere Road to provide a southbound right-turn lane; and the construction of a new development access on the north side of EllesmereRoad, east of Birchmount Road.

Ellesmere Road in the vicinity of 740 Ellesmere Road is a five-lane urban arterial roadway. Due to the traffic volumes on Ellesmere Road and the use of the centre left-turn lane by motorists turning left at Birchmount Road, Mondeo Drive and the various properties on the south side of EllesmereRoad, the driveway to 740Ellesmere Road must be restricted to right-in/right-out movements by design, by-law and signage.

Queens Walk Development on The Queensway (west of The West Mall):

As a condition of site plan approval for this development, the developer is required and has agreed to fund the reconstruction of the centre median to provide a 130-metre long westbound left-turn lane on The Queensway at the entrance to the property; widening of the south side of The Queensway to provide a 40-metre long eastbound right-turn lane at the entrance to the property; installation of traffic control signals on The Queensway at the entrance to the property; and the extension of the northbound left-turn lane on The West Mall south of The Queensway.

Pedestrian and Cycling Issues:

In requiring that road modifications are made in order to accommodate traffic generated by new developments, pedestrian and cycling issues are always taken into consideration. In cases where road widenings are required, efforts are made to ensure that sufficient pedestrian walking times are provided at all signalized intersections. In addition to requiring road modifications, developers are also required to improve adjacent boulevards through streetscape improvements such as tree and sod planting and the provision of transit shelters. In the case of the road modifications described in this report, all proposals conform with the Department's guidelines for the accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists.

Scope of Construction:

To construct the above modifications the following work will be undertaken:

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

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

(c)construction of concrete medians;

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

(e)installation of underground traffic signals, ducts, handwells and pole bases;

(f)alteration of traffic control devices;

(g)planting of trees; and

(h)utility relocations.

These modifications have been developed using current department standards for cyclists and pedestrians and no compromises have been made with respect to the space allocated to these users.

Conclusions:

As a condition of approval of development abutting City of Toronto arterial roads, various modifications are required to the road system. All costs will be borne by the developers.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

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

--------

Table 1

(A copy of the ten location plans, which were appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the May 19, 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 Northbound U-Turn Prohibition on Yonge Street

Between The Esplanade and Front Street.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 24, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To prohibit northbound U-turns on Yonge Street, between The Esplanade and Front Street.

Funding Sources:

The funds for this work are contained in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current Budget Estimates. The estimated cost to install the signs is $600.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)northbound U-turns be prohibited on Yonge Street, between The Esplanade and Front Street; and

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

Background:

At the request of staff of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), our Department reviewed the feasibility of prohibiting northbound U-turns on Yonge Street, between The Esplanade and FrontStreet. The TTC is concerned about the high level of U-turn activity on Yonge Street by motorists who are bypassing the various turn prohibitions at the intersection of Yonge Street and TheEsplanade.

Discussion:

Yonge Street near The Esplanade is a five-lane roadway (two through lanes in each direction and a southbound left-turn lane) with a daily, two-way traffic volume of approximately 30,000 vehicles and a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. The Esplanade is controlled by a "Stop" sign at Yonge Street and forms the east leg of the intersection, while a private driveway forms the west leg of the intersection.

In 1993, east-west left-turn and through movements were prohibited at this intersection from 7:30a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday to address safety concerns. In 1997 a median island was installed at this intersection to physically prohibit east-west left-turn and through movements and northbound left-turn movements.

We have observed westbound motorists on The Esplanade, destined for southbound Yonge Street, and northbound motorists, destined for the private driveway on the west side of Yonge Street, bypassing these turn prohibitions and the median island by completing U-turns on Yonge Street between The Esplanade and Front Street West, north of the median island.

During the busiest eight-hour period of a typical weekday, 171 northbound-to-southbound U-turns were made on Yonge Street, between The Esplanade and Front Street. Of the 171 U-turns, 99 turns were made by westbound motorists who first made a right turn from The Esplanade and then a U-turn just north of The Esplanade. The remaining 72 turns were made by northbound motorists. The vast majority of U-turns were made just north of the median island.

Unfortunately collision records since the median island has been installed are not available at this time. However, our field observations revealed a number of vehicular conflicts in this area. While waiting on Yonge Street for an acceptable gap in traffic to make their U-turn, northbound vehicles usually occupy a through lane. Yonge Street is reduced to one lane in the northbound direction, resulting in congestion and an increase in the potential for rear-end and sideswipe type collisions.

The prohibition of northbound U-turns at this location would be a preventive safety measure which can be implemented with minimal impacts on traffic patterns in this area.

Conclusions:

The prohibition of northbound U-turns on Yonge Street, between The Esplanade and Front Street, will reduce the potential for collisions and alleviate congestion created by U-turning vehicles, without significant impacts on the traffic patterns in this area.

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 May 19, 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 Westbound Right-Turn-On-Red Prohibition

at Eglinton Avenue West and Chaplin Crescent.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 16, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To improve the pedestrian crossing environment at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Chaplin Crescent.

Funding Sources:

The funds for this work are contained in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current Budget Estimates. The estimated cost to install the signs is $500.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)westbound right-turns-on-red be prohibited at all times at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Chaplin Crescent; and

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

Background:

In response to a public request forwarded by Councillor Michael Walker, our Department reviewedthe feasibility of improving the environment for pedestrians crossing Eglinton Avenue West at Chaplin Crescent.

Discussion:

The intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Chaplin Crescent is controlled by traffic signals. Chaplin Crescent intersects Eglinton Avenue West at an acute angle. Because of these intersection geometrics, the westbound stop bar is located approximately 18 metres east of the north leg of Chaplin Crescent. During the busiest eight-hour period of a typical weekday approximately 250pedestrians cross the east leg of the intersection, while approximately 400 westbound right turns are made at this intersection during the same time period.

During our field observations at this intersection it was noted that, when motorists make a westbound right turn while facing a red signal indication, they proceed past the stop bar and encroach into the pedestrian crosswalk on the east leg of the intersection. Because of the poor sightlines resulting from the skewed angle of the intersection, westbound motorists have to cross this crosswalk in order to gain a reasonable view of approaching northbound motorists on Chaplin Crescent. The encroachment of vehicles into the crosswalk creates a hazard for pedestrians crossing the east leg of the intersection.

A similar problem does not exist for the eastbound approach, as the stop bar is in close proximity to the south leg of the intersection.

A review of Toronto Police Service collision records over a five-year period ending December31, 1996, did not reveal any collisions involving westbound right-turns-on-red.

In order to reduce the potential for conflicts between westbound right-turning motorists and pedestrians crossing on the east leg of the intersection, it is recommended that westbound right-turns-on-red be prohibited at all times. There is sufficient intersection capacity to accommodate this modification.

Conclusions:

The prohibition of westbound right-turns-on-red will improve the pedestrian crossing environment at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Chaplin Crescent.

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 May 19, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

19

Proposed Southbound Right-Turn-on-Red Prohibition

at Bloor Street West and Symington Avenue.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (April 24, 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 status report on this matter to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in three months' time.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 24, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To improve the pedestrian crossing environment at the intersection of Bloor Street West and Symington Avenue.

Funding Sources:

The funds for this work are contained in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current Budget Estimates. The estimated cost to install the signs is $500.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)southbound right-turns-on-red be prohibited at all times at the intersection of Bloor Street West and Symington Avenue; and

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

Background:

Our Department reviewed the feasibility of improving the pedestrian crossing environment for pedestrians crossing Symington Avenue at Bloor Street West.

Discussion:

The intersection of Bloor Street West and Symington Avenue/Sterling Road is controlled by traffic signals. Symington Avenue forms the north leg of a "near-right" offset intersection. During the busiest eight-hour period of a typical weekday approximately 500 pedestrians cross the north leg of the intersection, while approximately 1,200 southbound right turns are made at this intersection during the same time period.

Our field observations at this intersection revealed that southbound motorists routinely encroach into the pedestrian crosswalk on the north leg of this intersection while making a right turn on a red signal indication. Sightlines between approaching pedestrians and southbound right-turning motorists are reduced by a building located close to the north-west corner of this intersection. This tends to encourage the encroachment of vehicles into the crosswalk which creates a hazard for pedestrians crossing the north leg of the intersection.

A review of Toronto Police Service collision records over a five-year period ending December31, 1996, revealed that four collisions, involving pedestrians and southbound right-turning motorists on a red signal indication, had occurred at this intersection. All collisions involved pedestrians crossing from the west side to the east side of the north leg of the intersection. Further analysis did not reveal a pattern with respect to the times of the collisions.

In order to reduce conflicts between southbound right-turning motorists and pedestrians crossing on the north leg of the intersection, it is recommended that southbound right-turns-on-red be prohibited at all times. There is sufficient intersection capacity to accommodate this modification.

Conclusion:

The prohibition of southbound right-turns-on-red will improve the pedestrian crossing environment at the intersection of Bloor Street West and Symington Avenue.

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 May 19, 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 Rescission of the Westbound

Reserved Bus Lane on Eglinton Avenue West,

Between Old Park Road and Rostrevor Road.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 16, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To rescind the westbound reserved bus lane on Eglinton Avenue West, between Old Park Road and Rostrevor Road.

Funding Sources:

The funds for this work are contained in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current Budget Estimates. The estimated cost to adjust the signs and pavement markings is $600.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the westbound lane reserved for public transit vehicles and taxicabs on Eglinton Avenue West, between the east curb line of Old Park Road and the west curb line of Rostrevor Road, in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, except Public Holidays, be rescinded; and

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

Background:

As a result of a request from staff of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) our Department reviewed the feasibility of rescinding the westbound reserved bus lane on Eglinton Avenue West, between Old Park Road and Rostrevor Road.

Discussion:

The westbound reserved bus lane on Eglinton Avenue West, between Old Park Road and RostrevorRoad, is approximately 175 metres long and is in effect during the weekday peak periods. Based on a number of changes made to the TTC routes in this area, the staff of the TTC have indicated that this reserved bus lane is no longer necessary for their exclusive use. Westbound traffic flow will be better served if this lane is returned to general traffic use during the peak periods.

We concur with their proposal and recommend that the westbound reserved bus lane on EglintonAvenue West, between Old Park Road and Rostrevor Road, in effect during weekday peak periods, be rescinded.

Conclusions:

The westbound reserved bus lane on Eglinton Avenue West, between Old Park Road and RostrevorRoad, is no longer necessary for the TTC and it should be available for use by the general traffic.

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 May 19, 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

Designation of Left-Turn Lanes:

St. Clair Avenue West and Caledonia Road.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To designate eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes on St. Clair Avenue West at Caledonia Road in order to improve the operational safety of this intersection.

Funding Sources:

The funds for this work are contained in the Transportation Division's 1998 Current Budget Estimates. The estimated cost of installing the signs and pavement markings is $2,400.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the northerly eastbound lane on St. Clair Avenue West be designated for left-turning movements only (TTC Vehicles Excepted) between a point 35 metres west of the west curb line of Caledonia Road and the west curb line of Caledonia Road;

(2)the southerly westbound lane on St. Clair Avenue West be designated for left-turning movements only (TTC Vehicles Excepted) between the east curb line of Caledonia Road and a point 35 metres east thereof; and

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

Background:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, this Department conducted a review of the St.ClairAvenue West and Caledonia Road intersection with a view to improving its operational safety.

Discussion:

The intersection of St. Clair Avenue West and Caledonia Road is controlled by traffic control signals. St. Clair Avenue West is a six-lane roadway with a shared through and left-turn median lane (also the streetcar right-of-way), an exclusive through lane and a shared through and right-turn lane for each of the eastbound and westbound approaches. At present an eastbound flashing advanced green feature is provided at all times.

Caledonia Road is a two-lane roadway at its intersection with St. Clair Avenue West. Left-turn lanes are provided for both the northbound and southbound approaches.

A review of the Toronto Police Service collision records for the three-year period ending December31, 1996, disclosed a total of 69 collisions reported at the intersection of St.ClairAvenue West and Caledonia Road. Of these, there were three collisions involving pedestrians. No discernable pedestrian collision pattern (direction, time of day, etc.) is evident. However, a pattern of incidents involving eastbound and westbound motorists is evident. Of the above-noted 69 collisions, 15 involved a motorist performing a left turn from the wrong traffic lane (a through lane) and 10 collisions involved eastbound or westbound left turns colliding with the opposing through movement.

To resolve the issue of inappropriate turning movements from the eastbound and westbound through lanes, we recommend the designation of the median (streetcar track) lane on St. Clair Avenue West at Caledonia Road for left turns and streetcars only. Pavement markings for each approach lane would clarify the appropriate use of that lane. Signing mounted on the streetcar loading platforms would clearly communicate that the median lanes are designated for left turns only (streetcars excepted). The resultant lane designation would be as follows: an exclusive left-turn lane (streetcars excepted), a through lane, and a shared through and right-turn lane for both the eastbound and westbound approaches on St. Clair Avenue West. There is sufficient intersection capacity to accommodate these proposed eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes.

Conclusions:

The designation of eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes on St. Clair Avenue West at CaledoniaRoad would result in an overall improvement to the operational safety of this intersection.

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 May 19, 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

Proposed Two-Way Left-Turn Lane Designation:

Bayview Avenue Between York Road/Wilket Road

and 180 Metres South of Post Road.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To propose the installation and designation of a two-way, left-turn lane on Bayview Avenue between York Road/Wilket Road and a point 180 metres south of the southerly curb of Post Road.

Funding Sources:

The funds for this work are contained in the Transportation Department's 1998 Current Budget Estimates. The estimated cost of the installation of a two-way, left-turn lane on this section of Bayview Avenue is $21,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)once the pavement markings on Bayview Avenue, between York Road/Wilket Road and a point 180 metres south of the southerly curb of Post Road, have been modified to provide for two northbound traffic lanes, two southbound traffic lanes, and a centre lane, the centre lane be designated for northbound and southbound left turns only; and

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

Background:

This location was investigated at the request of Councillors Berger and Flint, and members of the local community, with respect to the difficulties experienced by motorists wishing to access BayviewAvenue between York Road/Wilket Road and Post Road, particularly during the peak periods.

Discussion:

Bayview Avenue in this vicinity is a four-lane arterial roadway with left-turn lanes at selected intersections and a two-way traffic volume of approximately 50,000 vehicles per day. The posted speed limit is 60 kilometres per hour. The adjacent land-use is primarily single family homes with individual driveways fronting onto Bayview Avenue.

This section of Bayview Avenue experiences significant congestion in the southbound direction during the morning peak period, and in the northbound direction during the afternoon peak period; however, the opposite directions of traffic flow freely during these periods. As a result, it is difficult for a motorist to comfortably choose an appropriate gap in both directions of flow in order to make a left turn onto Bayview Avenue. In addition, vehicles turning from Bayview Avenue into a driveway or local street must turn left from the median through lane.

The installation of a centre two-way left-turn lane will assist outbound left-turn manoeuvres by allowing motorists to complete their turn in two stages. Also, inbound left-turning vehicles will be able to wait in the centre lane without blocking through traffic.

It is possible to re-arrange the pavement markings on Bayview Avenue to provide for two northbound traffic lanes, two southbound traffic lanes, and a centre two-way left-turn lane by a marginal reduction in the width of the through lanes.

In order to install the standard regulatory lane designation signs which will clearly show the correct use of the centre two-way left-turn lane, and provide for police enforcement if necessary, a by-law amendment is required.

The estimated cost of the pavement marking alterations and sign installation is $21,000.00. The signs will be side-mounted on poles situated in the boulevard.

Conclusions:

The designation of a two-way, left-turn lane on Bayview Avenue, between YorkRoad/Wilket Road and a point 180 metres south of the southerly curb of PostRoad, would permit outbound left-turn movements onto Bayview Avenue to select gaps in one direction of Bayview Avenue traffic at a time, and it would reduce the conflicts between left-turning vehicles and through traffic in the median lanes.

Contact Name:

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 May 19, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

23

Proposed Two-Way Left-Turn Lane Designation:

Scarlett Road Between Lawrence Avenue West

and Yorkleigh Avenue/Vista Humber Drive.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To provide a centre lane on Scarlett Road for northbound and southbound left turns only between Lawrence Avenue West and Yorkleigh Avenue/Vista Humber Drive.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate signage and pavement markings are contained in the Department's 1998 Current Budget Estimates. The estimated cost to install the signs and adjust the pavement markings is $7,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the centre lane be provided on Scarlett Road between Lawrence Avenue West and YorkleighAvenue/Vista Humber Drive and this lane be designated for northbound and southbound left turns only; and

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

Background:

At the request of the resident of 753 Scarlett Road, our Department investigated the feasibility of providing a southbound left-turn lane into this driveway.

Discussion:

Scarlett Road is a five-lane arterial roadway between Lawrence Avenue West and YorkleighAvenue/Vista Humber Drive. The adjacent land use consists of single family residential homes fronting onto Scarlett Road. There is an existing northbound left-turn lane on Scarlett Road at Lawrence Avenue West, which is 85 metres long. At the intersection of Lawrence Avenue West and Scarlett Road, the northbound left-turning volumes are 21 vehicles and 41 vehicles during the heaviest morning peak hour and afternoon peak hour, respectively.

The driveway to 753 Scarlett Road is located on the east side approximately 30 metres south of Lawrence Avenue West. The occupants of 753 Scarlett Road turn left into their driveway from the median southbound lane of Scarlett Road. Our observations confirmed that this causes potential conflict with through traffic in the southbound median lane and that on occasion southbound through traffic queues into the intersection of Scarlett Road and Lawrence Avenue West. We also noted that there are several other homes, on Scarlett Road between Lawrence Avenue West and YorkleighAvenue/Vista Humber Drive, where similar turning conflicts occur.

A review of the Toronto Police Service collision records indicate that in a five-year period ending December 31, 1996, there have been no reported collisions involving left-turning vehicles entering or exiting driveways on this section of Scarlett Road.

The proposed two-way centre left-turn lane can be installed by adjusting the pavement markings on Scarlett Road, and standard regulatory signs would be installed to show the correct use of the two-way centre left-turn lane, all at an estimated cost of $7,000.00.

Conclusion:

The provision of a two-way centre left-turn lane on Scarlett Road, between Lawrence Avenue West and Yorkleigh Avenue/Vista Humber Drive, will accommodate northbound and southbound left-turning vehicles entering driveways on both sides of Scarlett Road. It would remove all southbound left-turning vehicles from the median southbound through traffic lane, thereby reducing the vehicle conflicts at this location and the queuing of southbound through traffic into the signalized intersection of Scarlett Road and Lawrence Avenue West.

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 May 19, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

24

Other Items Considered by the Committee.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Report on the Fixed Link (Bridge) to the

City Centre Airport Environmental Assessment.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following reports and communications regarding the Fixed Link (Bridge) to the City Centre Airport, and the motions set out in (3)below, to either the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998, or to a special meeting of the Committee, if required;

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to arrange a full briefing on this issue, including maps and architectural drawings of possible design options, for all Members of Council prior to either the June15, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee or a special meeting of the Committee, if required;

(3)directed that any of the following deferred motions which contain requests for reports from City officials be forwarded to such officials, with a request that they submit as much of the required information as is available to either the aforementioned June 15, 1998 meeting, or to a special meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

"Moved by Councillor McConnell, on behalf of Councillor Bussin:

(a)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to review:

(i)the potential impact on the Marine Police unit to meet its objectives and any additional costs resulting from the Fixed Link; and

(ii)the potential safety hazard to boating in the Western Gap created by the Fixed Link, as indicated in private and Federal Department of Oceans and Fisheries' reports; and

(b)that the City Clerk be requested to obtain a report prepared by the Federal Department of Oceans and Fisheries on the implications of the Fixed Link to boat navigation and safety in the Western Gap, for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee.";

"Moved by Councillor McConnell:

(a)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to review the feasibility of:

(i)establishing a Community Advisory Committee, composed of local residents, concerned citizens and Airport users, to monitor the design stage of the Fixed Link; and

(ii)providing the proposed Community Advisory Committee with resources to employ independent design consultants to assist in the monitoring of the design phase."; and

(b)that no amendments to the Tripartite Agreement be considered until the design phase is completed, all the environmental concerns are addressed, and the cost implications are known.";

"Moved by Councillor Moscoe, on behalf of Councillor Chow:

(a)That Recommendation No. (1)(i) be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

'(1)(i)the final design of the bridge be submitted to City Council for review and approval for consistency with established urban design objectives along the waterfront; and, further, in accordance with the former Metro policy, an artist be included in the design team at the beginning stage;'

(b)that Recommendation No. (2) (c)(i) be amended by striking out the word 'and' and inserting in lieu thereof the word 'or'; so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

'(2)(c)(i)once a sustained annual passenger volume of 600,000 passengers per annum, or less if the City determines it is necessary before this level of passenger traffic, is reached; or';

(c)that Recommendation No. (2)(d) be amended by adding the words 'and report annually to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on' after the words 'to monitor'; so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

'(2)(d)that the Toronto Harbour Commissioners be required to monitor, and report annually to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on, the effects of the bridge operation, as requested by the City on ....';

(d)that Recommendation No. (3) be amended to provide that prior to the authorization of the alteration of Bathurst Street, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report on the cost of such alteration and the source of the funding;

(e)that Recommendation No. (5) be amended by adding the words "prior to the amendments to the Tripartite Agreement," after the word "that"; so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

'(5)that, prior to the amendments to the Tripartite Agreement, all rights to land held by the Federal Government, and currently used for public parking at the end of Bathurst Street and the ferry slip and access road leading to it, be conveyed to the City at nominal cost for public park and public highway purposes;';

(f)that no amendment to the Tripartite Agreement be made until:

(i)the role of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) regarding the management and operation of the Toronto City Centre Airport (TCCA) is clarified. In the event that the Canada Marine Act, Bill C-9, becomes law, no amendments to the Tripartite Agreement should occur before the new Port Authority issues its letters patent; and

(ii)a private sector proponent provides a comprehensive business plan to operate the Fixed Link without public subsidy;

(g)that City Council request the Federal Minister of the Environment to require that a full panel Environmental Review of the Fixed Link (especially as relates to safety of boaters) be undertaken prior to the proposed amendments to the Tripartite Agreements;

(h)that, as part of the new Official Plan, City Council form a Work Group to develop a comprehensive Waterfront Policy; such Work Group to be composed of representatives of all the stakeholders on the Waterfront including area residents, the Federal and Provincial Governments, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority; and, further, that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the terms of reference and composition of such Work Group;

(i)that any agreement by the new Port Authority, the Federal Government or the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) be structured in such a way that the City of Toronto would be refunded for subsidies (if any) provided, directly or indirectly, by the City to the Port Authority for the functioning and the programming (both operating and capital cost) associated with the Toronto City Centre Airport;

(j)that the City Solicitor be requested to ensure that all conditions placed on TheToronto Harbour Commissioners regarding the Fixed Link and the Tripartite Agreement are applied to the new Port Authority, the Federal Government or the Greater Toronto Airports Authority;

(k)that the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to examine:

(i)the economic impact which the Fixed Link will have on the existing marinas and yacht clubs and on their ability to continue to expand; and

(ii)the impact which the Fixed Link will have on tourism, specifically with respect to its effect on tour boat operators and tourist ships stopping at Toronto;

(l)that the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to examine the impact of the Fixed Link on:

(i)traffic patterns along the Waterfront, including various concrete traffic-calming options; and

(ii)the new residences presently being constructed;

and hold a public meeting to seek community input thereon;

(m)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report on the impact which the Fixed Link will have on recreational and commercial Marine Safety;

(n)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor be requested to report on the City's obligations/responsibilities with respect to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, especially in the event of a breakdown of the Fixed Link."

"Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

That the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommend that Council not support the construction of a bridge to the Toronto Islands and, further, agree that the existing ferry service adequately serves the present and future needs of the Toronto Island Airport."

"Moved by Councillor McConnell, on behalf of Councillor Chow:

That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report on the proposed rail link from downtown to Pearson International Airport, including a determination of the impact that it will have on the financial feasibility of the Fixed Link."

"Moved by Councillor Kinahan:

That the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, be requested to review the Business Plan that has been prepared by The Toronto Harbour Commissioners and submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the validity of such Business Plan."

"Moved by Councillor Faubert:

(1)That the City Solicitor be requested to report on any potential liability to the City with respect to the proposed Fixed Link to the City Centre Airport; and

(2)that the Chief of Police be requested to report on the marine unit operations in this area and any anticipated impact on public safety and rescue operations as a result of the proposed Fixed Link to the City Centre Airport.":

(i)(May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services explaining the findings of the Federal Environmental Assessment concerning the fixed link (bridge) to the City Centre Airport; and recommending, provided the Environmental Assessment is approved by federal authorities, design and operational requirements for both the bridge and Bathurst Street, and new terms and conditions which should be added to the Tripartite Agreement as a condition of City Council agreeing to the construction of the bridge and to an exchange of land between the City and the Federal Government which will result in additional park space.

(ii)(May 8, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council, at its Special Meeting held on April 29 and 30, 1998, in adopting the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets, directed, inter alia, that the 1998Capital Program pertaining to the Toronto Harbour Commission (No. 60) be amended; and setting out the amendments made thereto.

(iii)(May 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, responding to a request made by City Council on April 29 and 30, 1998, for a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on whether plans are being considered by The Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) to substantially lengthen the City Centre Airport runway and grant landing rights to DC-9s; advising that the THC has been contacted and advises that there are no plans either to lengthen the runways or to grant landing rights to DC-9s; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(iv)(May 18, 1998) from Mr. Gary F. Reid, General Manager, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) providing an overview and history of the proposed bridge to the Toronto City Centre Airport, together with a report dated April 22, 1998, entitled "Toronto City Centre Airport: A Discussion Paper", prepared by Arie Ashkenazy, M.A., Management Consultant; and respectfully requesting that the Council of the City of Toronto do everything in its power to assist the THC in completing this project in a timely fashion.

(v)(May 7, 1998) from the City Solicitor responding to a request from the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) as to whether the report (May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, entitled "Fixed Link to the City Centre Airport Environmental Assessment", should be on the UEDC agenda; providing the opinion that the aforementioned report should be considered by UEDC; and setting out the reasons for such opinion.

(vi)(May 12, 1998) from Mr. Kevin Psutka, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, expressing strong support for proceeding as soon as possible with the long-needed safety and economic link to the City Centre Airport; and urging the Urban Environment and Development Committee to give due consideration to the provision of parking spaces and the queuing lane.

(vii)(May 13, 1998) from Mr. Roger D. Wilson, Toronto, submitting a copy of a letter dated April 30, 1998, addressed to the Director, PortDivestiture and Operations, Transport Canada, in which he sets out certain material which was omitted from the Dillon Consulting Report and Appendices dated April 1998 regarding Project No.6209 - Fixed Link to Toronto City Island Airport; stating that a bascule bridge is the wrong solution for a fixed link to the Island Airport; and suggesting that a tunnel to the airport would be a better solution for Toronto tour boat operators, recreational boaters, the Island Airport, and other Torontonians.

(viii)(May 14, 1998) from Mr. Donald J. MacLean, Regional Director, Programs, Ontario Region Transport Canada, setting out Transport Canada's response to the recommendations embodied in the report dated May 6, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services regarding the Fixed Link to the City Centre Airport Environmental Assessment.

(ix)(May 15, 1998) from Mr. C. Douglas Creelman, suggesting that while the documents regarding the Fixed Link to the City Centre Airport have considered road width, traffic, and parking at great length, the requirements of boaters have been given much less investigation; and stating that a full environmental evaluation is imperative.

(x)(May 19, 1998) from Ms. Freya Godard, Toronto Island, expressing concern that the proposed bridge to the City Centre Airport will result in an enormous increase in the number of motor vehicles on the Island.

(xi)(May 19, 1998) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Environmentalists Plan Transportation, urging the Urban Environment and Development Committee to request staff reports regarding the smog effects on the City of Toronto and the effects on pedestrian and recreational uses of the Waterfront of the recommended changes to the City Centre Airport; and suggesting that the Toronto Pedestrian Committee be requested to comment on the report dated May 6, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services regarding the Fixed Link to the City Centre Airport.

--------

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

-Mr. Gary Reid, General Manager, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners;

-Mr. John Morand, Director of Strategic Planning, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners;

-Ms. Sylvia Pellman, Bathurst-Quay Neighbourhood Association;

-Mr. Bill Freeman, Toronto;

-Ms. Mary Hay, Vice-Chair, Toronto Waterfront Coalition, and filed a written brief with respect thereto;

-Mr. Roger Wilson, Toronto;

-Mr. Eli Ophek, Toronto; and filed a written brief with respect thereto;

-Ms. Victoria Piersiq, Arcadia Housing Co-op;

-Mr. Wilfrid Walker, Transport 2000 Ontario; and filed a written brief with respect thereto;

-Ms. Lita Ingler, Toronto;

-Mr. Peter Hubbard, Toronto;

-Mr. Jack Jones, President, Shoreline Engineering Ltd.; and filed a written brief with respect thereto;

-Mr. Mark Millen, Toronto;

-Ms. Kate Mossman, Toronto;

-Ms. Shirley Bush, Toronto;

-Mr. Carl Skelton, Niagara Neighbourhood Association;

-Ms. Aileen Anderson, Toronto;

-Ms. Laurie M. Bruce, Associate, Environmental Planner, Dillon Consulting Limited;

-Mr. Don S. McKinnon, Partner, Transportation Engineering, Dillon Consulting Limited; and

-Councillor Olivia Chow, Downtown.

(b)Proposed Merger of the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal - Impact on Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)referred the following communications and reports to the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Committee for consideration at its first meeting, with a request that the Toronto Dominion Bank and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which have also expressed an interest in merging, be included; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to canvass Members of Council for information on closures of bank branches which are currently in progress, and submit a report thereon to the first meeting of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Committee:

(i)(April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council, at its meeting held on April16, 1998, had before it Clause No. 19 of Report No.4 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Other Items Considered by the Committee"; and stating that Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be received as information, subject to striking out and referring Item(i), entitled "Proposed Merger of the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal - Impact on Toronto", embodied therein, back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration.

(ii)(March 9, 1998) Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer reporting on the implications of the City of Toronto transferring its banking business from the proposed merged Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal to other chartered Canadian banks; advising that such a decision by City Council will have negative financial implications on the City in the form of increased costs in debt issuance, custody and general banking services, and reduced investment income earning potential; stating that, in dealing with the proposed merger, Council should consider the precedent-setting implications of its decision on future mergers in the financial services and other sectors of the economy; and recommending that Council receive this report for information.

(iii)(March 6, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development recommending that:

(1)the Urban Environment and Development Committee (Committee) receive this report for information only;

(2)the Committee view this report as an initial report and request further reports as information becomes available; and

(3)the Committee consider accepting the offer of the Bank of Montreal for a briefing session to answer any further questions or address any remaining concerns;

advising that the proposed merger of the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal would initially appear to result in a loss of employment for the City of Toronto of approximately 2,500 full and part-time positions currently filled between the two banks; however, the banks claim that this loss would be temporary and could actually result in an increase in employment in Toronto due to the merger; that tax revenue lost by the closing of bank branches should be limited and, again, temporary; pointing out that most of the long-term losses in both revenue and employment will be seen in outlying, rural areas where the banks have reduced branch presence; stating that lower levels of competition may indeed cause higher lending rates and lowered service levels, the degree of which is unknown at present; that increases in foreign institutions operating in Canada may assist competition, although not yet at the personal level; and that this is likely to be the primary concern for Toronto and may deserve further attention as more information becomes available.

(iv)(February 13, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council, at its meeting held on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee a Motion moved by Councillor Moscoe, seconded by Councillor Miller, regarding the proposed merger of the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal, the operative paragraphs of which are as follows:

"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Economic Development Department, the Planning Department and the City Treasurer report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the full implications for Toronto of such a merger;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT in the interim, the City of Toronto advise the Federal Government that the proposed merger of the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal is not in the interests of the people of Toronto;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Treasurer report on the implications of the City transferring its banking business from the merged bank to other chartered Canadian banks."

(v)(May 15, 1998) from Mr. George Bothwell, Senior Vice-President, Public Affairs Bank of Montreal, advising that the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank of Canada are not in a position, at such short notice, to make a presentation to the May 19, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) regarding the proposed merger of the two banks; and that they will undertake to stay in contact with the CityClerk to determine an appropriate time to make their presentation, either to UEDC or to the Economic Development Committee.

(c)Improvement to Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails in the Vicinity of the Humber Bridges Project.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)received the following report; and

(2)directed that a copy thereof be forwarded, for information, to the Task Force on the Lakeshore Gardiner Corridor:

(April 30, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, reporting on options for improving bicycle and pedestrian trails in the vicinity of the Humber Bridges Project; explaining that during the February 25, 1998 meeting of the Task Force on the Lakeshore Gardiner Corridor, questions arose about the trail networks around the project and in particular focused on the perceived need for an underpass of the railway embankment; advising that Transportation staff will undertake a feasibility study, in consultation with CNRailway, to investigate the options for a structure to carry a future trail link under the railway embankment on the west side of the Humber River, and will report back on the findings of the study, the preferred scheme(s) and the costs to build the underpass structure; stating that the estimated cost of $30,000.00, associated with the proposed feasibility study, can be provided under the Transportation Department's Approved Capital Program for 1998; however, funds for the construction of the proposed improvement are not currently provided for under the Humber Bridges Project; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(d)Construction Activity Report.

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

(May 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing consolidated information regarding the Building Permit activity in the City of Toronto for the first three months of 1998; and recommending that this report be received as information.

(e)The New Official Plan - Community Safety.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1) concurred with the recommendation embodied in the following report from the Task Force on Community Safety; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to develop a draft Official Plan policy and design guidelines to address the issue of public safety and its perception in new development applications:

(April 24, 1998) from Councillors Rob Davis and Brad Duguid, Co-Chairs, Task Force on Community Safety, recommending that the Official Plan team, when considering Community Safety, be requested to co-ordinate its public consultation process with that of the Task Force on Community Safety, to achieve maximum efficiency in providing input on Community Safety to the City's Official Plan.

(f)Proposed Pedestrian Crossover:

Victoria Park Avenue and Swanwick Avenue.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)again deferred consideration of this matter until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998; and

(2)directed that Councillor Jakobek be so advised:

(i)(March 11, 1998) from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, submitting acommunication dated February 16, 1998, from the Toronto Police Service indicating that a crossing guard is not warranted at Victoria Park Avenue and SwanwickAvenue 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.

(g)Request to Remove Traffic Signal Co-ordination:

Danforth Avenue, from East Lynn Avenue to Woodbine Avenue.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)again deferred consideration of this matter until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998; and

(2)directed that Councillor Jakobek be so advised:

(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.

(h)Parking Prohibition on West Side of Scarlett Road.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following communication to its next meeting, scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998; and

(2)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to submit a report thereon, together with a location plan of the subject area, to the June 15, 1998, meeting:

(April 28, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber, submitting a copy of Clause No. 5 of Report No. 21 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, headed "Proposed Parking Prohibition on the West Side of Scarlett Road, at the Lambton Golf and Country Club Driveway", which was adopted, without amendment, by the Metropolitan Council on December 10 and 18, 1997; pointing out that, although a partial "No Parking Any Time" zone was implemented in the area last year, the parking and access problems still persist; and requesting that the "No Parking" zone be increased by a few more metres in the southerly direction on the west side of Scarlett Road, at the Lambton Golf and Country Club.

--------

Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(i)Request to Relocate the Existing Pedestrian Crossover on

Scarlett Road, from Bernice Crescent to Eileen Avenue.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following communication to the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998; and

(2)requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to submit a location plan of the subject area to the June 15, 1998, meeting:

(April 21, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber, submitting a report from the Transportation Department wherein it states that the existing pedestrian crossover (PXO) at Scarlett Road and Bernice Crescent is serving the pedestrian crossing demand at a satisfactory level, and the relocation of this PXO to EileenAvenue is not advisable; stating that she cannot support the findings of the Central Traffic region in this matter; and requesting that this item be added to the agenda of the next Urban Environment and Development Committee.

--------

Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(j)Photo-Voltaic Solar Panels.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, with a request that she submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; such report to include an indication of the amount of staff time involved:

(April 20, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, requesting that the Urban Environment and Development Committee direct staff of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department to report back to the Committee with Terms of Reference for city-wide changes to Zoning By-laws and Ontario Building Code (OBC) procedures required to permit roof-mounted photo-voltaic solar panels.

--------

Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(k)Disposal of Surplus Ontario Hydro Lands in the New City of Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having directed that:

WHEREAS the Hydro Corridor lands from McNicoll Avenue to Lawrence Avenue have been the subject of a planning study which recommends that the Corridor be disposed of for a number of land uses; and

WHEREAS the former City of Scarborough Council unanimously recommended that the Corridor be maintained as open space; and

WHEREAS there are numerous other Hydro Corridors in existence in the new City of Toronto that may be declared surplus;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

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

(a)to report to the June 15, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, on the status of Hydro Corridors in the new City and the City-wide significance of such Corridors; and

(b)to submit all relevant documentation to the June 15, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be requested to report to the June 15, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on:

(a)the long-term potential for recreational uses in the new City's Hydro Corridors; and

(b)economic strategies to achieve these objectives; and

(3)the Scarborough Community Council:

(a)be advised that the redesignation of lands in the Hydro Corridor, from McNicollAvenue to Lawrence Avenue, from Open Space to Residential may have City-wide implications with respect to planning and development and recreational use; and

(b)be requested to submit any comments regarding urban planning and development and recreational use issues related to the aforementioned lands to the June15, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(April 28, 1998) from Ms. Paula Leggieri, Corporate Secretariat, The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, advising that at Meeting No. 3/98 of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, held on April 24, 1998, during consideration of a report on the City of Toronto (Scarborough District) Official Plan Amendment No. 1001, inter alia, adopted Resolution No. A64/98, moved by Councillor Mike Tzekas, seconded by Councillor PamMcConnell, viz: "That Authority staff be directed to forward a copy of the staff report and relevant recommendations to be placed on the agenda at the next meeting of the City of Toronto's Urban Environment and Development Committee.".

(l)Bill C-9, The Canada Marine Act.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following Committee Transmittal and report, having regard that City Council at its meeting held on May 13 and 14, 1998, dealt with the recommendations of the Toronto Community Council embodied in the following Committee Transmittal:

(i)(May 12, 1998) from the City Clerk setting out the recommendations made by the Toronto Community Council on May 6, 1998, regarding Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act.

(ii)(May 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, responding to a request made by the Toronto Community Council for a report summarizing the relevant information presented before the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and Communications respecting Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(m)City-Wide Implications for Redesignating Morningside Heights

in Scarborough from Employment Uses to Residential.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)directed that the Scarborough Community Council be advised that the redesignation of lands in Morningside Heights from Employment to Residential may have City-wide economic development implications;

(2)requested the Scarborough Community Council to submit any comments on economic development issues related to the redesignation of lands in Morningside Heights to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998;

(3)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit all documentation pertaining to the redesignation of lands in Morningside Heights to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998;

(4)directed that, in the meantime, the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services consult with all interested parties and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(5)received the following communication from Mr. Michael Melling, Davies Howe Partners:

(i)(May 14, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council, at its meeting held on May13 and 14, 1998, adopted, without amendment, a Motion moved by CouncillorMahood, seconded by Councillor Saundercook, regarding the redesignation of undeveloped industrial lands in the Morningside Heights area of Scarborough; the operative paragraphs of such Motion being as follows:

"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development, be requested to report on this application and its impact from an economic development perspective to the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee scheduled to be held May19, 1998;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Urban Environment and Development Committee be requested to advise the Scarborough Community Council of any interest, from an economic development perspective, regarding this application at its meeting scheduled to be held on May27, 1998.".

(ii)(May 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing a status update on City-wide economic implications of the proposed redesignation of the largest concentration of greenfield employment and open space land (approximately 733 acres) located in the north-east of Scarborough to low and medium density residential; advising that real estate market conditions, property tax legislation, municipal finance considerations and redevelopment pressures on the City's older employment districts are factors which have an impact on the future land use in Morningside Heights; that these factors have also seen significant changes since the former City of Scarborough reviewed the Morningside Heights application in the fall of 1997; stating that Economic Development staff expect to be able to provide a report to Scarborough Community Council which will shed new light on the value of Morningside Heights as a location for future employment uses; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(iii)(May 15, 1998) from Mr. Michael Melling, Davies Howe Partners, advising that his firm is counsel to 554056 Ontario Limited, the Neilson Development Corporation, M& R Holdings, the Staines Development Corporation and Silvercore Properties Inc., which are the owners of the bulk of the lands known as "Morningside Heights"; and setting out two requests for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE,

Chair

Toronto, May 19, 1998

(Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998.)