TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998

URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 9

1 A Rapid Transit Connection Between Pearson International Airport and Union Station.

2 Guidelines for Determining City-Wide Interests in Planning Matters.

3 Vital Services in Rental Residential Properties in the City of Toronto.

4 Demolition of Exhibition Stadium

5 Approval to Construct Streetcar Track on Charlotte Street.

6 Interim Third Party Advertising Sign Minor Variance Processfor Areas Abutting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (Formerly the Queen Elizabeth Way), Eglinton Avenue West,Highway 2, Highway 2A and Highway 27.

7 Issues Regarding Private Roads and Freehold Development Within the City of Toronto.

8 Status, and Recreational Use, of Ontario Hydro Corridors in the City of Toronto.

9 Exemption of Official Plan Amendments from Provincial Approval.

10 Repeal of By-law Permitting Delegation to the Metropolitan Commissioner of Planning forApproval of Road Rights-of-Way Less than 20 Metres.

11 Request for Allocation of a Portion of theExisting Provincial Fuel Tax to Municipalitiesto Fund the GTA Transit Systems.

12 Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Community Safety Zones), 1998 -Designation of Community Safety Zones.

13 Widening of a Portion of Queen's Quay West to Accommodate the Waterfront West LRT Extension.

14 Construction of a Pedestrian Tunnel Connection Between 70 University Avenue and the City of Toronto Parking Authority's University Avenue Underground Parking Garage.

15 Contract No. T-24-98: Resurfacing of City of Toronto Roads at Three Locations.

16 Contract No. EB9808RD: Reconstruction of Roads, Sanitary Sewers and Storm Sewers in the Evans Avenue Area between Royal York Road and Ourland Avenue.

17 Contract No. EB9807RD: Reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive North from Bloor Street West to Dundas Street West Including Storm Sewer Construction.

18 Contract No. Y9808-369-2: Pavement Reconstruction at Various Locations - York District.

19 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals: Adelaide Street West and Brant Street.

20 Proposed Lane Designation at VariousTraffic Control Signals along the St. George Street/Beverley Street Bicycle Lanes.

21 Amendments to Parking Regulations on the West Side of Bathurst Street, between Dupont Street and the Access to theToronto Transit Commission Hillcrest Complex.

22 Proposed Northbound Right-Turn Prohibition: Woodbine Avenue at the Driveway to 61-65 Woodbine Avenue.

23 Landscape Improvements and Parking Stall Installation on Keele Street North of Eglinton Avenue West.

24 Other Items Considered by the Committee.

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 9

OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on July 13, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998

1

A Rapid Transit Connection Between

Pearson International Airport and Union Station.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council scheduled to be held on October 1, 1998.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following report (June 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, subject to Council's support being conditional upon the project including a portion of the financial cost of the required upgrades to the subway platform at UnionStation; and

(2)that Council support the addition of a $1.00 airport fee to be used for the proposed rapid transit connection between Pearson International Airport and Union Station:

Purpose:

To update Council on issues related to planning for a rapid transit connection between Pearson International Airport and Union Station and to recommend next steps.

Financial Implications:

The recommendations of this report do not require any additional funding.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(1)endorse the concept of a rapid transit connection between Pearson International Airport and Union Station;

(2)endorse the conclusions of Provincial and Federal studies that the corridor adjacent to Highways 409 and 427, as shown in Figure 1, should be protected for a rapid transit connection between Pearson Airport and the CN Weston rail corridor, and request the Province of Ontario, Transport Canada, the City of Mississauga, the Region of Peel, and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority to pursue measures to protect the corridor;

(3)support upgrading of the Weston rail corridor to accommodate a new station in the vicinity of the Woodbine Racetrack and all-day GO service from Union Station to the new station, and request GO Transit to advise on costs;

(4)support the extension of the internal airport transit system from the airport to upgraded GOrail service in the CN Weston rail corridor as the preferred rapid transit option in the five to ten-year time frame, and request Transport Canada (in conjunction with the City of Toronto, the Ministry of Transportation, GO Transit, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the Region of Peel, and the City of Mississauga) to conduct a physical, operational, and financial feasibility study for this extension;

(5)request the Greater Toronto Airports Authority to consider technologies for the internal airport transit system which would be capable of being extended into the CN Weston rail corridor for a transfer-free connection to Union Station;

(6)request the Province and GO Transit to ensure that the upgrading of the CN Weston rail corridor for all-day GO service to the airport is a high priority for GO Rail expansion;

(7)request the Greater Toronto Airports Authority to continue to plan for an internal airport transit system in a manner which serves passenger convenience, and to be prepared to build the transit system in conjunction with the upgraded GO rail service, or prior to, if demand warrants;

(8)request the Mayor and the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee to meet with the Federal Minister of Transport to discuss Federal support for the feasibility study and for the early implementation of the rapid transit connection; and

(9)direct the City Clerk to distribute copies of this report to Transport Canada, the Ministry of Transportation, GO Transit, the Region of Peel, the City of Mississauga, the City of Brampton, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the Toronto Olympic Bid Corporation, the Toronto Board of Trade, and Tourism Toronto.

Background:

On July 30, 1997, the former Metropolitan Council requested the Acting Commissioner of Planning, in consultation with the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission, to submit a report to the Task Force on Downtown Rapid Transit Access to Pearson Airport on:

(a)the Official Plan Amendment required to protect public transit access to Lester B. Pearson International Airport;

(b)the design of the new terminal in relation to its availability to accommodate public transit including rail:

(c)implementation options for rail and subway;

(d)interim rapid transit arrangements for access to Lester B. Pearson International Airport, e.g.,enhanced bus service; and

(e)negotiating arrangements with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority for cost-sharing of rapid and public transit access to Lester B. Pearson International Airport, similar to the arrangements being made with the Provincial Government for improvements to road access to the Airport.

The Task Force on Downtown Rapid Transit to Pearson Airport was not reconstituted by the new City Council. Over the past year both the Provincial and Federal Governments have completed studies which specifically address a rapid transit connection to Pearson Airport. City staff have also been directed by Council to negotiate with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) on an accord on matters of mutual interest regarding Pearson Airport; the rapid transit connection is one of the issues to be addressed in the accord.

This report summarizes the findings of the recent studies, responds to the issues raised by the former Metro Council, and provides staff recommendations to pursue this initiative through the accord negotiations and through more detailed feasibility analysis.

Discussion:

Over the past several years Planning staff have been involved in transportation studies of the airport area and have responded to the directions and requests of the former Metro Council regarding support for a rapid transit connection between Pearson Airport and Union Station. The Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan shows a connection between the CN Weston rail corridor and the airport. Planning for the connection has become more prominent with the GTAA beginning its plans for the redevelopment of Pearson Airport.

The GTAA's plans for the redevelopment of Pearson Airport include both airside and groundside improvements to be made over the next ten years which will increase passenger capacity to meet projected demands from the existing 28 million to 50 million. Improved access to the airport is essential to accommodate these new demands. The principal component of the plans is the development of a new terminal to replace Terminals 1 and 2. Highway access to the new terminal will be via Highway 409 and will require extensive improvements to Highway 427 and Highway 409 including widenings and modifications to the Highways 409 and 427 interchange. A new cargo facility on the west side of the airport will be provided with a new interchange with Highway 401 for cargo traffic only as well as new access routes to the surrounding road system. The airport redevelopment plan includes an internal airport transit system to provide access between parking areas and various points within the new terminal, but the GTAA is not committed to build the airport transit system until it is warranted by demand.

The Georgetown GO commuter rail service (peak periods only) and VIA Rail service (to Sarnia) are currently provided in the CN Weston rail corridor which runs north-westerly from Union Station and passes within 1.5 kilometres of the airport property. The upgrading of the Weston rail corridor has been proposed by GO Transit to accommodate all-day commuter rail service to the high growth areas of Brampton and Georgetown. The cost of upgrading the entire corridor to Georgetown was estimated at $238 million (in 1994). The cost to provide all-day frequent service, every 15 minutes, as far as Pearson Airport, has not yet been determined. The Weston rail corridor was also identified as a possible routing for high-speed rail between Toronto, London and Windsor.

Union Station may be redeveloped to include remote terminal facilities for Pearson Airport and the Toronto City Centre Airport. The addition of the airport facilities would further enhance UnionStation as an intermodal transportation terminal.

The redevelopment of Pearson Airport, the proximity of the Weston rail corridor, the proposed upgrading of the Georgetown GO rail service and the possible redevelopment of Union Station present a unique opportunity to connect Pearson Airport to the regional rapid transit network and particularly to Union Station. Such a connection would be a valuable asset for the City's tourism and convention business and for hosting the 2008 Olympics.

Recent Studies:

In response to a request from the former Metropolitan Council, the Ministry of Transportation identified a corridor from the Weston subdivision to Pearson Airport to accommodate a rapid transit connection between the airport and downtown Toronto. The draft report recommends a new Woodbine GO Station between Highway 427 and Highway 27 adjacent to Woodbine Racetrack and a corridor for rapid transit from the new station, along the west side of Highway 427 and the north side of Highway 409 to connect with the airport property east of Airport Road (see Figure 1). The preferred corridor is entirely within the City of Mississauga. Given the regional significance of the corridor, the Province, Transport Canada, the City of Mississauga, the Region of Peel, and the GTAA should use their powers to protect the corridor.

A 1997 Transport Canada study supported the Provincial study and also recommended that Transport Canada and the GTAA should protect lands for a station to accommodate a potential rail/airport transit system interface as well as a corridor from the airport south to possible future transit facilities on Eglinton Avenue.

Design of the New Terminal:

The GTAA redevelopment plan for Pearson International Airport protects a transit right-of-way within the access corridor that runs between the parking garage and the terminal building (Figures2 and 3). The internal airport transit right-of-way extends to a station north of the terminal complex which the GTAA intends to be the transfer station with the regional transit system as shown on Figure 1. The internal airport transit will be constructed when the need for the service is established. In the interim, bus service will be provided.

A terminal design which incorporates the internal transit system directly into the terminal building and as close to the terminal passenger facilities as possible would provide a more convenient connection for air passengers by reducing walking distances. An internal airport transit system, built with and integrated into the terminal, would provide the optimum arrangement for passenger convenience.

Options for Rapid Transit Connections:

The following broad categories summarize the various options for providing a rapid transit connection between Pearson Airport and Union Station: (Figure 4)

(1)Bring Regional Transit Service into the Airport:

(a) diversion of the Weston rail corridor through the airport to provide direct VIA and GO station in the airport; and

(b)spur line from the Weston rail corridor to the airport.

(2)Extend Airport Transit System to Connect to the Regional Transit Service:

(a)to upgraded GO and VIA services in the Weston rail corridor; and

(b)to the possible future Eglinton rapid transit line and Mississauga busway.

(3)Provide a New Regional Transit Service from Pearson Airport to Union Station:

(a)extend the airport transit service to Union Station through or adjacent to the Weston rail corridor;

(b)provide a subway in a separate right-of-way in or adjacent to the Weston rail corridor; and

(c)provide a busway in a separate right-of-way in or adjacent to the Weston rail corridor.

The preliminary estimate for the diversion through the airport (1a) is $1 billion (1994); for the spur (1b), $300 million (1994). Option 2a, extending the internal airport transit system to the Weston rail corridor, is estimated at $40 million (1997). All three of these options (1a, 1b, 2a) also require the upgrading of the rail corridor at least to the new station near the airport. The cost of the connection to the Eglinton line, Option 2b, has not been estimated; the cost of the Eglinton rapid transit line itself is likely over $1 billion. No estimates are available for a new transit service, (3a, b, and c), but these options could be $1 billion or more. Appendix 1 includes more information on the preliminary assessment of options.

Currently, passengers from downtown Toronto account for less than 15 percent of the total Pearson Airport passengers. It is unlikely that even the most optimistic ten-year forecasts of transit travel to Pearson Airport would justify the high capital and operating costs of a new rapid transit infrastructure, such as Options 3a, b, or c. These options would require a widening of the Weston corridor as well as new tracks or a road, in addition and parallel to upgraded GO service in the Weston corridor. To ensure that transit service to the airport is cost-effective, it should be integrated with the regional rapid transit services serving the growing commuter demands to downtown Toronto and providing access to Pearson Airport from all parts of the GTA. An airport transit service should be frequent all day while a commuter line generally focuses on peak period demand. Running both kinds of service on the same track requires flexibility in the type of vehicle and service provided, i.e.,shorter, more frequent trains to the airport outside the peak period. Further analysis is required to determine the operational requirements and costs of such a service. Assuming that GO service in the Weston rail corridor is upgraded to be compatible with the needs of the airport passengers, extending the airport transit system to the Weston rail corridor is the most promising option (2a) which could be operable within the next five to ten years.

The extension of the internal airport transit system to the Weston rail corridor (Option 2a) could be the first phase of a longer-term extension to Union Station via the Weston rail corridor (Option 3a) to ultimately provide transfer-free service. If the airport system could run on the same tracks as the GO rail service, the cost of new infrastructure would be significantly reduced. This type of mixed service on one set of tracks should be considered as changes to rail operating requirements are made. In order to protect for a transfer-free connection to Union Station, the GTAA should focus on technologies for the internal airport transit system which also have the capability of providing frequent service in the Weston rail corridor.

A detailed feasibility study is required to determine the operational, physical, and financial requirements for the extension of the internal airport transit system to the Weston rail corridor and all-day GO service in the corridor. This study should include preparation of more detailed ridership projections.

Costs and Cost-Sharing:

The costs to upgrade the corridor to provide all-day frequent service to Pearson Airport, or to extend the internal airport transit system to Union Station, have not been estimated.

Currently, there is no obvious funding source for either the operating or construction costs of the connection of the internal airport transit system to the Weston rail corridor. The GTAA would fund the construction of the internal airport transit system within the airport. Funding of the Weston rail corridor upgrading for the GO rail service would be the responsibility of GO Transit, but financial constraints have put the project on hold indefinitely. A funding source for the link between the airport and the Weston rail corridor has not been identified. The City is requesting that the Province give the City and other GTA municipalities authority to establish new sources of funding, such as gas taxes and surcharges on parking revenues and vehicle licenses. Such revenue could fund or partially fund the connection between Union Station and Pearson Airport. Private sector parties may be interested in providing contributions toward the connection particularly owners of lands in the vicinity of the connection, such as Woodbine Racetrack, who could benefit through increased development potential. Another possibility is a public-private partnership for a design/build/operate arrangement. To date these funding options have not been investigated. A study to determine the business case and financial feasibility of the connection should be conducted. The potential for cost-sharing with the GTAA is an issue which is being addressed in the negotiations on an accord between the City and the GTAA on matters of mutual interest regarding Pearson Airport.

Conclusions:

A rapid transit connection between Pearson International Airport and Union Station will be a valuable asset to the City, its tourism and convention business, and its bid for the 2008 Olympics. The extension of the internal airport transit system to connect with the Weston rail corridor and all-day frequent GO rail service is the most cost-effective option for providing the connection within the next five to ten years. The further extension of the internal airport transit system through the Weston rail corridor would provide a direct transfer-free connection to Union Station in the longer-term.

The Pearson Airport redevelopment plan is a unique opportunity to ensure that the rapid transit connection is integrated into the airport in a manner which is convenient and attractive to passengers and which will influence travel to the airport to be more reliant on transit. The new terminal at Pearson International Airport is now being designed and site preparation work for the redevelopment plan is underway. Transport Canada should take the lead in conducting a feasibility study, consistent with environmental approval requirements, to determine the type of technology, operating requirements, capital and operating costs and funding sources for the connection between the Airport and the Weston rail corridor and the future extension through the Weston rail corridor to UnionStation. The GTAA should only consider technologies for the internal airport transit system which can be extended through the Weston rail corridor to Union Station in the future. GO Transit should conduct a review of the requirements and costs for upgrading the Weston rail corridor for all-day GO service to the airport.

Contact Name:

Ms. Anna Pace, Metro Hall, 392-8117, Fax: 392-3821.

--------

Appendix 1

Options for a Rapid Transit Connection between Pearson Airport and Union Station:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (June 19, 1998) from the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee submitting a copy of the following motion which was adopted by the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee on June 19, 1998:

"Moved by:Mayor Peter Robertson - Brampton

Seconded by:Councillor Doug Holyday - Toronto

THAT the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs meet with the Federal Minister of Transport to discuss the Federal Government's participation in funding with public transit, particularly with GO Transit and the link to the Airport and including UnionStation."

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 21, 1998) from the President and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), clarifying that the GTAA does not levy a passenger fee at Lester B. Pearson International Airport; advising that the GTAA has been working to develop revenue generation with cost-savings to delay any imposition of a passenger facility charge; and stating that in the event that the GTAA does have to impose a passenger fee, it is committed in its agreements with government and airlines to ensure that all funds raised through this fee would exclusively fund airport capital projects.)

2

Guidelines for Determining City-Wide

Interests in Planning Matters.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1)amending Recommendation No. (1) of the Urban Environment and Development Committee by inserting the following words "on a two-year trial basis" after the words "for planning matters", so that such Recommendation now reads as follows:

"(1)City Council endorse the attached Protocol for dealing with planning matters of City-wide interest and authorize its use by the Chief Planner in determining the appropriate Committee routing process for planning matters on a two-year trial basis;"; and

(2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(a)in one year and two years on the experience with using the protocol, including comments from Members of Council; and

(b)on a protocol for dealing with site plan applications and/or undertakings as an equivalent.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1), (2) and (4), embodied in the joint report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) by striking out the words "the Urban Environment and Development Committee" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "CityCouncil"; so that Recommendation No. (1) shall read as follows:

"(1)City Council endorse the attached Protocol for dealing with planning matters of City-wide interest and authorize its use by the Chief Planner in determining the appropriate Committee routing process for planning matters;"; and

(2)that with respect to matters abutting Community Council boundaries, a determination as to whether a City-wide or local interest exists, be made only after consultation with all of the affected Councillors.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having approved Recommendation No. (3), embodied in the joint report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk, viz:

"(3)this report, and the comments from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, be placed on the:

(a)agenda of the July 17, 1998 meeting of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team; and

(b)agendas of the July 22, 1998 meetings of all Community Councils;

with a request that any comments from the Special Committee and the Community Councils be forwarded directly to the July29, 1998 City Council meeting.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following joint report (June29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To establish guidelines for determining City-wide interests in planning matters and a Protocol for routing City-wide planning matters through the political decision-making structure.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Urban Environment and Development Committee endorse the attached Protocol for dealing with planning matters of City-wide interest and authorize its use by the Chief Planner in determining the appropriate Committee routing process for planning matters;

(2)appropriate amendments be made to the Procedural By-law to give effect to Recommendation No. (1);

(3)this report, and the comments from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, be placed on the:

(a)agenda of the July 17, 1998 meeting of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team meeting; and

(b)agendas of the July 22, 1998 meetings of all Community Councils;

with a request that any comments from the Special Committee and the Community Councils be forwarded directly to the July 29, 1998 City Council meeting; and

(4)authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council.

Council Reference:

The Toronto Transition Team report recommended that a set of guidelines be developed to help determine what issues may have City-wide implications and should therefore be dealt with by the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

City Council, at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5,1998, adopted a motion requesting that the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services develop a Protocol for processing planning matters and submit a joint report thereon to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team.

On June 26, 1998, the Special Committee considered a report from the Chief Administrative Officer on Community Council roles and responsibilities and adopted a number of motions supporting Community Council authority for decision-making, and in part stating that:

(a)the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report on the Protocol to the July 13, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for information and comment directly to the Special Committee meeting scheduled for July17, 1998;

(b)the Special Committee forward the report and its comments to the July 22, 1998 meetings of the Community Councils for information and comments directly to the July 29, 1998 meeting of Council; and

(c)in developing the Protocol, the following principles be considered:

(i)guidelines should provide clarity in interpretation, yet allow for flexibility in application;

(ii)matters shall be considered to be of local interest and shall be processed through the Community Council unless identified by Council as having a City-wide interest;

(iii)decisions regarding how planning matters are routed through Committees of Council should be made as early as possible;

(iv)Community Councils should continue to have input in planning matters identified to be of City-wide interest; and

(v)only one Committee of Council should make recommendations to Council on any given planning matter.

This report presents a Protocol for Council's consideration in response to the Council and Special Committee motions, and is based on the above-noted principles.

Comments:

The land use planning matters facing the City range from strictly local issues to wholly City-wide issues. Somewhere in the middle of this range are planning issues of interest to both the local community and the entire City.

Strictly local issues include:

-all site-specific issues with wholly localized implications; and

-all other planning matters not mentioned below.

Issues with both a local and City-wide context can include:

-cross-community issues (e.g., matters straddling Community Council boundaries);

-key structural elements of the City impacting more than one community (e.g., waterfront trail, major infrastructure elements such as a new transit line);

-features, areas and issues of city-wide significance (e.g., Exhibition Place, Pearson Airport, Union Station, Rouge Park); and

-pioneering and precedent-setting issues and areas (e.g., contaminated sites Protocol).

Strictly City-wide issues can include:

-major policy and research of interest to the entire City (e.g., developing a new Official Plan, establishing a comprehensive zoning by-law);

-thematic issues affecting the entire City (e.g., household and housing stock issues, City-wide issues arising from planning research and monitoring); and

-inter-governmental issues (e.g., legislative changes, Greater Toronto Services Board); and

-administrative matters (e.g., new fee schedule).

For most planning matters it is abundantly clear how they should be routed through the Committee structure to City Council for a decision. An overwhelming majority of planning applications involve site-specific and strictly local community issues and are routed through Community Councils to City Council. To date, this practice has worked well. Council's actions have been consistent with the Community Council recommendations 97 percent of the time.

For certain other planning matters, such as the new Official Plan, it is clear a City-interest is involved and the matter should be routed through the Urban Environment and Development Committee (with Community Council input) to Council.

In other cases, however, specifically those involving both City-wide and local contexts there is potential for confusion and uncertainty over which Committee has jurisdiction over a planning matter. To provide clarity in determining a City-wide interest in planning matters, a Protocol is proposed and attached to this report as Attachment No. 1.

The Protocol identifies the type of planning issues that are of City-wide interest and a process for routing such matters through the Community Councils or the Urban Environment and Development Committee to City Council. These guidelines are only a tool for determining the political process for making planning decisions. The applicability of the Protocol to specific planning matters would be at the discretion of the Chief Planner (or designate), who would also be responsible for Protocol interpretation.

Guidelines for Determining a City-Wide Interest:

Within the Protocol are the guidelines for determining whether there is a City-wide interest in a planning matter. The guidelines are flexible statements allowing discretion in their interpretation to accommodate extraordinary circumstances. Planning matters will stay local unless an overwhelming City-wide interest can be established.

The guidelines embody two different considerations for determining a City-wide interest: functional and geographic. Functional considerations cover policy and administrative matters which impact all communities within the City and include major policy and research issues, major inter-governmental issues, and administrative matters. Geographic considerations include matters straddling Community Council boundaries and changes to key infrastructure, transportation, and open space systems and publicly-owned property which would affect the City as a whole.

Routing Process:

The Chief Planner's recommendation on a determination of City-wide interest should be made early to establish certainty for the review process. A Preliminary Evaluation Report for official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications would identify any City-wide interest and identify the Committee of Record (Community Council or Urban Environment and Development Committee) through which the application will be routed to City Council. All Preliminary Evaluation Reports, regardless of the recommended Committee of Record, will continue to be presented to Community Councils for their information. A Preliminary Evaluation Report will only be presented to the Urban Environment and Development Committee where a City-wide interest has been determined and the Urban Environment and Development Committee is the recommended Committee of Record.

If a particular application includes both City-wide and local interests, as determined by the Chief Planner, the application will be considered to be of City-wide interest. However, the Protocol recognizes that all City-wide issues have a local dimension requiring local involvement. Every planning application identified to be of City-wide interest will be processed through Community Council(s) to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and finally to City Council. The Protocol ensures that affected Community Councils will have the opportunity to deal with applications of City-wide interest through reviewing the final recommendations staff report, holding community meetings, and making recommendations to the Urban Environment and Development Committee before the Urban Environment and Development Committee holds the statutory public meeting and finalizes its recommendation to City Council.

Attachment No. 2 illustrates the Protocol's process for dealing with applications to amend the official plan(s) and/or zoning by-law(s). The keys steps are outlined below.

Local Interest:

If an application is determined to be of local interest, the affected Community Council is designated the Committee responsible for convening the statutory public meeting and making a recommendation to City Council. In this case, the Preliminary Evaluation Report is only presented to the Community Council and not the Urban Environment and Development Committee. The Urban Environment and Development Committee has no role in the processing of a local planning application. The Community Council may convene community meetings to inform the public and receive deputations on the issues prior to staff preparing the final report on the application. The final report is placed on the Community Council agenda for the statutory public meeting. The Community Council conducts the statutory public meeting with deputations and forwards its recommendation directly to City Council for a decision.

City-Wide Interest:

If an application is determined to be of City-wide interest (including situations where both a local and City-wide interest is determined), the Urban Environment and Development Committee is designated as the Committee responsible for convening the statutory public meeting and making a recommendation to City Council since its mandate is to address issues from a City-wide perspective. When the final recommendations staff report is prepared, it is sent first to the affected Community Council(s) who may convene community meetings to inform the public, receive deputations on the issues, consider the final report, and forward its recommendations to Urban Environment and Development Committee. The staff final report and Community Council(s) recommendation is then placed on the Urban Environment and Development Committee agenda for the statutory public meeting. Depending on the nature of the City-wide issue, the Urban Environment and Development Committee may hold the statutory public meeting in one of the affected communities. The Urban Environment and Development Committee conducts the statutory public meeting with deputations, considers the Community Council(s) recommendations, and forwards its recommendation to City Council for a decision.

The Committee process selected for a particular application (e.g., official plan amendment), City-wide or local, would not prejudice the Committee process for subsequent related applications (e.g.,subdivision application for the same lands). Each application should be assessed in view of the Protocol on its individual merits.

The Protocol can also be used by the Chief Planner to determine the appropriate Committee process for any City Planning Division policy and research matter to be considered by City Council and Committee or Council-initiated amendments to the official plan(s) and zoning by-laws(s). Administrative matters of the City Planning Division would be routed to City Council through the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The proposed Protocol is a starting point representing current thinking that will be refined over time as the body of experience grows. Although it is intended to capture the range of issues considered to be of City-wide interest, it may be necessary to amend the Protocol in the future as circumstances change. Any amendment to the Protocol must be approved by City Council.

City Council's Procedural By-law will need to be amended to give effect to this report. It is recommended that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills to Council.

Conclusions:

A Protocol for determining City-wide interests in planning matters will help to clarify the respective roles of the Community Councils and the Urban Environment and Development Committee. The proposed Protocol, based on the principles endorsed by the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, provides some certainty to application stakeholders about the political process to be followed. The Protocol does not change the Committee routing process for the majority of planning applications. Most will continue to remain a Community Council responsibility.

The Legal Department has been consulted on this report and the proposed Protocol and concurs with the recommendations.

Contact Name:

Mr. Peter Fay, Metro Hall Office, 397-5260, Fax: 392-8101,

E-Mail: peter_j._fay@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

--------

Attachment 1

Protocol for Identifying and Processing Planning Matters

of City-wide Interest and Cross-Boundary Issues

July 1998

Purpose:

The purpose of this Protocol is to describe the type of planning matters of City-wide interest and set out a process to route such planning matters through the Committee structure to City Council. The Protocol is rooted in the principle that a planning matter shall be considered to be of local interest and shall be processed through the Community Council unless identified by the Chief Planner (through this Protocol) as having a City-wide interest.

In general, the majority of development applications will be of local interest and will be processed exclusively through Community Councils to City Council for a decision. Even in cases where a City-wide interest is identified for a development application, Community Councils will be involved in processing the application by reviewing the final staff recommendations report, convening community meetings, and making recommendations to the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) prior to any final UEDC recommendation to City Council.

Application:

The application and interpretation of this Protocol shall be at the discretion of the Chief Planner or designate.

This Protocol applies to planning applications which involve:

-an amendment to an approved Official Plan; and/or

-an amendment to an approved zoning by-law and related applications (e.g., subdivisions) as identified by the Chief Planner.

This Protocol also applies to all planning policy and research work (including transportation and infrastructure projects) and administrative matters of the City Planning Division.

Guidelines for Determining City-Wide Interests:

Planning matters of City-wide interest should meet at least one of the following considerations (examples are provided for illustration purposes only):

(1)Functional Considerations:

(a)Major planning policy and research of interest to the entire City.

(e.g., developing a new Official Plan, establishing a comprehensive zoning by-law, household and housing stock issues such as a City-wide condominium conversion policy, re-use of contaminated sites Protocol, City-wide issues arising from planning research and monitoring);

(b)an external government and agency initiative and/or jurisdictional issue affecting the entire City.

(e.g., provincial and federal legislation, Greater Toronto Services Board, Regional Official Plans, GTA Transportation Plan); and

(c)a City Planning Division administrative matter.

(e.g., applications and fees, harmonized practices, budgets/work program).

(2)Geographic Considerations:

(a)A site specific planning matter straddling more than one Community Council boundary.

(e.g., Shoppers World, Heath Park); and

(b)changes to key infrastructure, transportation, and open space systems and publicly-owned property which would affect the City as a whole.

(e.g., waterfront trail, Pearson Airport transit link, fixed link to Island Airport, UnionStation, Rouge Park).

Process:

(A)Process for dealing with planning applications to amend the official plan(s) and/or zoning by-law(s):

(1)Upon receipt of a complete application:

(a)the application is circulated as per the accepted review process;

(b)the Chief Planner or designate shall consider the application against the Guidelines identified in this Protocol to determine if a City-wide interest exists. In balancing all the issues associated with the application, if both City-wide and local interests are identified the application is considered to be of City-wide interest; and

(c)the Preliminary Evaluation Report on the application shall indicate whether a City-wide interest exists and the recommended routing through the Committee structure to City Council.

(2)If only a local interest is identified in respect to the application:

(a)the affected Community Council becomes the Committee of Record responsible for convening the Statutory Public Meeting and making recommendations to City Council on the application;

(b)the Preliminary Evaluation Report from staff is placed on the Community Council agenda for information;

(c)the Community Council may convene community meetings to inform the public on the application;

(d)the Final Report from staff is placed on the Community Council agenda for consideration and the Statutory Public Meeting; and

(e)the Community Council conducts the Statutory Public Meeting with deputations and forwards its recommendations to City Council for a decision.

(3)If a City-wide interest is identified in respect to the application:

(a)the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) becomes the Committee of Record responsible for convening the Statutory Public Meeting and making recommendations to City Council on the application;

(b)the Preliminary Evaluation Report from staff is placed on the agendas of the affected Community Council(s) and the UEDC for their information;

(c)the Final Report from staff is prepared and the Community Council(s) convenes community meetings to inform the public on the application and receive deputations on the issues and forward its recommendations to UEDC;

(d)the Final Report from staff and the Community Council(s) recommendations are placed on the UEDC agenda for the Statutory Public Meeting. The UEDC may consider holding the Statutory Public Meeting in one of the affected communities; and

(e)the UEDC conducts the Statutory Public Meeting with deputations and forwards its recommendations and a record of Community Council(s) input to City Council for a decision.

(4)A particular Committee process selected for an application (e.g., official plan amendment) shall not prejudice the Committee process for subsequent related applications affecting the same lands (e.g., subdivision application).

(B)Process for dealing with planning policy and research work of the City Planning Division.

(1)For any City Planning Division policy and research work to be considered by City Council and Committee and Council-initiated amendments to the Official Plan(s) and Zoning By-law(s), the Chief Planner may consider the work and related outcomes against the Guidelines identified in this Protocol to determine if a City-wide interest exists.

(2)For planning matters identified to be of local interest:

(a)the affected Community Council(s) shall be the Committee of Record responsible for convening any public meetings and making recommendations to City Council; and

(b)any reports to City Council shall be processed through the Community Council(s).

(3)For planning matters identified to be of City-wide interest:

(a)the Urban Enviroment and Development Committee shall be the Committee of Record responsible for convening any public meetings and making recommendations to City Council; and

(b)any reports to City Council shall be routed through the Urban Environment and Development Committee, with appropriate consultation with and input from Community Council(s) as determined by the Chief Planner.

(C)Process for dealing with City Planning Division administrative matters.

(1)For City Planning Division administrative matters to be considered by City Council, the Urban Environment and Development Committee shall be the Committee of Record responsible for making recommendations to City Council. Any reports to City Council shall be routed through the Urban Environment and Development Committee, with appropriate consultation with and input from Community Council(s) as determined by the Chief Planner.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following transmittal letter (July 17, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team concurred with Recommendation (B) of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, contained in the communication (July 14, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Background:

The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on July 17, 1998, had before it a communication (July 14, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Urban Environment and Development Committee, advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on July13, 1998, during its consideration of a joint report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk, took the following action:

(A)approved Recommendation No. (3), embodied in the joint report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk, viz:

"(3)this report, and the comments from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, be placed on the:

(a)agenda of the July 17, 1998 meeting of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team; and

(b)agendas of the July 22, 1998 meetings of all Community Councils;

with a request that any comments from the Special Committee and the Community Councils be forwarded directly to the July29, 1998 City Council meeting;"; and

(B)recommended to Council:

(1)the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1), (2) and (4), embodied in the attached joint report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk, subject to amending Recommendation No.(1) by striking out the words "the Urban Environment and Development Committee" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "CityCouncil; so that Recommendation No. (1) shall read as follows:

"(1)City Council endorse the attached protocol for dealing with planning matters of City-wide interest and authorize its use by the Chief Planner in determining the appropriate Committee routing process for planning matters;"; and

(2)that with respect to matters abutting Community Council boundaries, a determination as to whether a City-wide or local interest exists, be made only after consultation with all of the affected Councillors.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following transmittal letter (July 23, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that City Council amend the Protocol for Identifying and Processing Planning Matters of City-wide Interest and Cross-boundary Issues, as follows:

(1)under "Process" on Page 2, strike out the words "for information" in (A) (2) (b) and insert in lieu thereof the words "for appropriate action", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"Process:

(A)Processing planning applications to amend the official plan(s)

and/or zoning by-law(s):

(2)If only a local interest is identified in respect to the application:

(b)the Preliminary Evaluation Report from staff is placed on the Community Council agenda for appropriate action;"; and

(2)include in the Protocol the ability to acknowledge any concerns of the local Councillor and allow the Councillor the opportunity to request that such concerns be recognized as a City-wide issue.

Background:

The Scarborough Community Council at its meeting held on July 22, 1998, had before it a communication (July 14, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting held on July 13,1998, endorsed the recommendations embodied in the joint report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk respecting the Protocol for Identifying and Processing Planning Matters of City-wide Interest and Cross-boundary Issues, subject to minor amendment, and referred the Protocol to the Community Councils for recommendation or comment to City Council at its meeting to be held on July 29, 1998.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following transmittal letter (July 23, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The East York Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having received the communication (July 14, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising of the policy guidelines for determining City-wide interests in planning matters and a protocol for routing City-wide planning matters through the political decision-making structure.

Background:

The East York Community Council at its meeting on July 22, 1998, had before it a communication (July 14, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising of the policy guidelines for determining City-wide interests in planning matters and a protocol for routing City-wide planning matters through the political decision-making structure which was considered by the Urban Environment and Development Committee and submitted to the East York Community Council for its comments; and recommending that the report be received for information.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 23, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The York Community Council on July 22, 1998, had before it, a transmittal letter (July 14, 1998) from the City Clerk advising of the action taken by the Urban Environment and Development Committee on July 13, 1998, with respect to the joint report from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk.

The Community Council expressed its unanimous support for the proposed guidelines and protocol as set out in the aforementioned report.)

3

Vital Services in Rental Residential Properties

in the City of Toronto.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having requested the CitySolicitor to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on July 29, 1998, on the legislative amendments that would be required should Council decide to request the Province of Ontario to enact legislation which would permit the new City of Toronto to adopt a Vital Services Program similar to that conducted by the former City of Toronto under its special legislation.

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

(1)deferred consideration of the following reports and communication to its next meeting, scheduled to be held on September8, 1998, for the hearing of deputations;

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Executive Director and Chief Building Official, to submit a report to the September8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding:

(a)the anticipated actual financial loss resulting from the provision of vital services when necessary under the current legislation; and

(b)the ability of Toronto Hydro and other essential services to provide the continuation of services under the same conditions as were previously applied to the "UrgentHazard Program" by the former City of Toronto (under the former City of Toronto Act);

(3)requested the Medical Officer of Health to consult with agencies which serve tenants and persons living in poverty, and submit a report to the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the probable health impacts of refusing to intervene in the cut-off of vital services;

(4)directed that a copy of the following reports and communication be referred to the CouncilStrategy Committee for People Without Homes, with a request that the Committee submit its comments thereon to the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (June10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

Report submitted for information, to address issues of enforcement regarding vital services where a landlord who is responsible for the payment of utility bills in a rental residential property defaults on that obligation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

In the event that Council chooses not to adopt the recommendation below, and instead chooses to enact a vital services by-law, then that action would require the reversal of Council's previous budgetary decision in order now to commit funds to the staffing and administration of a vital services program in the amount of $60,000.00 for 1998 and $120,000.00 annualized thereafter.

In addition, historically the former City of Toronto has committed funds ranging from $500,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 annualized to the restoration of utilities in rental residential properties. These funds were recoverable as being collectible through the municipal realty tax process, as provided for by the City of Toronto Act. Any future funds to be expended by the City to restore such utilities under a Vital Services By-law would be at great risk of being unrecoverable, given that the enabling legislation does not provide for such funds to be placed on the tax rolls. The current legislation provides for a lien to be placed against the property and/or the City to have tenants pay rents directly to the City.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City of Toronto not enact a vital services by-law under authority of the Tenant Protection Act, given the expected high cost of its administration and the potential for financial risk to the City.

Background/History:

Existing municipal standards regulations throughout the new City provide for a range of options in addressing the issue of a landlord's obligation to maintain vital services in rental residential properties.

Current regulations which exist under authority of the Planning Act set out an owner's responsibility to ensure that vital services such as utilities are maintained for residential tenants. A breach of that obligation is an enforceable offence. All City of Toronto districts, with the exception of the former City of Toronto, have municipal standards regulations enforced under the authority of the PlanningAct.

Current regulations within the former City of Toronto, under authority of the City of Toronto Act, set out owner obligations similar to the above but also provide authority for the City to restore utility services where an "urgent hazard" is considered to exist and to re-coup such monies by placing expended amounts directly on the tax roll to be collected in a like manner as municipal taxes. This program has been administratively costly to run and has been targeted to be discontinued as part of the budget process.

At the present time a staff group is working toward drafting harmonized municipal maintenance standards that will be applicable to the entire new City. The enabling legislation for such new regulations will come under the authority of the Building Code Act. On November 28, 1997, Royal Assent was given to the Tenant Protection Act which serves to consolidate, replace and supersede numerous existing acts which deal with tenant issues, including the enactment of municipal maintenance standards and by-laws regarding vital services. The Tenant Protection Act is proclaimed as effective and in force June 17, 1998.

Comments:

The Tenant Protection Act amends the Building Code Act which becomes the new enabling legislation for municipal maintenance standards. The Tenant Protection Act also incorporates the former provisions of the Municipal Amendment Act (Vital Services) that allows a municipality to choose to enact a by-law to authorize the restoration of utilities where a landlord defaults on payment of utility bills to rental residential properties. This authority requires that a lien be placed on the title of the property, and allows the municipality to have tenants direct rents to the City until the debt is repaid. This process effectively would appear to make the municipality a quasi-landlord in ensuring that outstanding rents are paid. In addition, there is no reasonable guarantee that monies expended by the municipality to restore utilities would, in fact, ever be recouped. This process would likely serve to be very labour intensive and costly to run, which may be the reason that to date only three Ontario municipalities have previously chosen to enact a municipal vital services by-law.

Information obtained from the City of Ottawa, which currently administers a vital services by-law, indicates that such a program is very time-consuming, administrative and costly in terms of staff time and resources. It is uncertain whether, once the amalgamation of Ottawa-area municipalities occurs, a vital services program will be maintained given that the municipalities around the existing City of Ottawa do not administer such a program. As is the case in most Ontario cities, the municipalities surrounding Ottawa have not chosen to pursue a local vital services by-law.

The Tenant Protection Act sets up a Provincial Tribunal process to address tenant concerns where a municipality has no maintenance standards by-law, and also to enforce vital services provisions that are directly contained in the Act requiring a landlord to ensure that vital services such as utilities are provided. Ministry staff have confirmed that, while a fee is chargeable under the Tenant Protection Act to municipalities where the Provincial Tribunal enforces maintenance standards, no fee is chargeable to a municipality where the Provincial Tribunal enforces vital services. The Act includes Provincial responsibility to directly receive tenant complaints regarding vital services matters and enforce resulting Provincial orders through the courts. This new Act places the onus of evidence collection and complaint reporting directly into the hands of affected tenants, who would then bring their vital services issues forward to the Provincial Tribunal for prosecution/enforcement.

Conclusions:

Given that the current City of Toronto budget process is seeking to discontinue the former City of Toronto's "urgent hazard" program due to the cost of administering it, City Council may similarly want to consider not undertaking an even more bureaucratic and financially risky process in the restoration of utility services under a vital services by-law. It is suggested that City Council seek to rely instead on general enforcement of municipal standards regulations through prosecution by the City as necessary, as well as procedures which are currently being put into place under the TenantProtection Act for tenants to seek prosecution activity through the Provincial Tribunal specifically regarding vital services.

Contact Name:

Ms. Judi McBurney, Technical Advisor, Buildings Division, Toronto City Hall, 392-7963, Fax:392-0677.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (June9, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to review the potential implications of the motion set out below, to provide information with respect to the authority of City Council to enact a vital services by-law, and to explain the limitations on that authority.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There will be costs associated with the implementation of programs pursuant to a "vital services by-law", should Council choose to enact such a by-law. In the former City of Toronto, a similar program was in place pursuant to the former City's special legislation. The Budget Committee has recommended discontinuing that program.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998, City Council referred the following motion to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its consideration:

WHEREAS the Budget Committee accepted the proposal of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to discontinue the program previously delivered only in the former City of Toronto, which paid on behalf of property owners and collected utility payments in like manner as realty property taxes when such utilities had been discontinued to tenanted properties, under the authority of Section6 of the City of Toronto Act, 1936 (which applied only in the former City of Toronto); and

WHEREAS it is anticipated that the legislative authority for this program will be repealed or superseded by the Provincial Government in the spring of 1998; and

WHEREAS it is desirable to ensure regulations are in place that are applicable to the whole of the new City of Toronto; and

WHEREAS Bill 104, The Vital Services Act, authorizes Municipalities to pass By-laws requiring Vital Services Utilities to adopt a similar program;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Solicitor be requested to draft a By-law in accordance with Bill 104 to be presented to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT City Council communicate with the City's vital services utility providers requesting their co-operation in continuing this service under the authority of and as would be required by the By-law proposed in resolution No.(1);

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the appropriate staff initiate discussions with the City's vital services utility providers to share information regarding the operational aspects of the former City of Toronto's utility restoration program.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The motion set out above, proposes that the City enact a by-law requiring providers of vital services to adopt a program whereby the service providers would continue to provide services to tenanted properties despite the landlord's failure to make utility payments. City Council, however, lacks the authority to enact such a by-law. Council may require utility companies to give 30 days notice of the intention to discontinue service for non-payment; however, after the 30-day period has elapsed, Council cannot require continuation of the service without payment to the utility company.

The motion refers to "Bill 104, The Vital Services Act", which appears to be a reference to the City's power, under s. 210.2 of the Municipal Act, to enact a vital services by-law. There is not actually a statute entitled "The Vital Services Act". Section 210.2 of the Municipal Act was added to the Municipal Act in 1994 when the Legislature passed the Municipal Amendment Act (Vital Services), 1994, which was Bill 104 when it was introduced. Section 210.2 will be replaced on June 17, 1998, when the Tenant Protection Act (the "TPA"), comes into force. Sections 145 to 153 of the Tenant Protection Act provide authority that is essentially the same as that currently provided in s. 210.2 of the Municipal Act. City Council's authority to enact a vital services by-law will not be changed by the TPA.

The TPA defines "vital service" as "fuel, hydro, gas or hot or cold water", and provides that a "vital services by-law" is a by-law passed pursuant to s.146 of the TPA. Section 146 of the TPA provides that a vital services by-law may require landlords to provide adequate and suitable vital services to the rental units. A vital services by-law may require the supplier of a vital service to notify the municipality if the vital service is to be discontinued for the reason that the landlord has breached a contract with the supplier (i.e., failure to make utility payments). At least 30 days notice is required.

The municipality may then arrange for the service to be provided. The municipality would do this by paying for the service and then attempting to recover the amount paid plus administrative costs. Accordingly, the municipality is authorized to register a lien against the property for the amount, and to direct the tenant to pay any or all of the rent for the unit to the municipality. The payment by the tenant is not to be treated as a default of the obligation to pay rent to the landlord. Naturally, such provisions do not apply where the tenant has agreed to maintain the vital services.

There will be administrative costs to the City of administering a program pursuant to a vital services by-law, and there may also be some difficulty in recovering all of the money paid by the City to the utility companies. It is my understanding that funds have not been budgeted for the administration of a vital services program by the City.

Pursuant to special legislation, the former City of Toronto had a program somewhat similar to that which would be permitted pursuant to a vital services by-law. The Budget Committee has recommended discontinuation of the program. The other former municipalities within the urban area that is currently the City of Toronto had the ability to enact such a by-law, but none of them enacted one.

Should Council choose not to enact a vital services by-law, tenants will still have some recourse against landlords who fail to provide an adequate supply of a vital service. The TPA will prohibit landlords from withholding a "reasonable supply of any vital service ... that it is the landlord's obligation to supply under the tenancy agreement". Tenants may apply to the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal should the landlord breach this provision. The Tribunal can provide a range of relief including an abatement of rent. In addition, I am informed by staff of the Municipal Standards Division that existing municipal standards by-laws address the provision of vital services.

Conclusions:

While City Council can enact a vital services by-law, it cannot require suppliers of a vital service to provide the service beyond the 30-day notice period or to adopt a program similar to that which was in place in the former City of Toronto.

Contact Name:

Ms. Wendy Walberg , 392-8078.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (July13, 1998) from Councillor Anne Johnston, North Toronto:

Recommendations:

(1)That your Committee defer this item until your September 8, 1998 meeting for deputations. My reading of the reports before you today will leave tenants at great risk should we eliminate the Urgent Hazards Program. It therefore seems only fair to give tenants across the new City of Toronto time to review the Urgent Hazard Program and the replacement proposed by Councillor Jakobek's motion before you today;

(2)that your Committee ask the City Solicitor to report to the next meeting of your Committee on what legislation would be required to reinstate the former City of Toronto's Urgent Hazard Program to serve the new City of Toronto; and

(3)that the relevant officials report on the ability of Toronto Hydro and other essential services to provide the continuation of services under the same conditions as formerly applied to the Urgent Hazard Program by the old City of Toronto (under the former City of Toronto Act).

Background:

On July 2, 1998, I received the attached communication from the Urban Planning and Development Services Department informing me that the Urgent Hazard Program, formerly operating in the old City of Toronto, has been discontinued due to "budgetary changes".

On checking the Urban Planning and Development budget line (attached) applicable to the cancellation of the Urgent Hazard Program, I was surprised to see the notation that the then-proposed "Vital Services Act" would allow the utilities to continue with the former Urgent Hazard Program. This statement was misleading, to say the least, as far as tenants and their essential services are concerned.

(Communication dated June 26, 1998, from the

Urban Planning and Development Services Department,

referred to in the foregoing report.)

Urgent Hazard Program Change - Former City of Toronto:

Attached is a communique being circulated in order to provide advice of an upcoming program change which is effective July 1, 1998, regarding utility service cuts to rental residential properties within the former City of Toronto. Budgetary changes have resulted in the subject program adjustment.

Please review the attachment and advise relevant parties affiliated with your office or organization.

Thank you.

(Communique dated June 26, 1998, from the

Urban Planning and Development Services Department,

referred to in the foregoing communication.)

Changes in the City of Toronto's Urban Planning and Development Services' budget, as approved by City Council, will result in adjustments to certain of the Department's programs, effective July1, 1998.

The Urgent Hazard Program, which provided only for the former City of Toronto to directly authorize payments to utility companies in cases where hydro or gas services were cut to residential rental properties due to a landlord's defaulting on payments, will be discontinued. The City will continue to handle complaints, and any necessary enforcement action will be undertaken.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (May 25, 1998) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on May 13 and 14, 1998, referred the following Motion to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration:

Moved by:Councillor Jakobek

Seconded by:Councillor Ootes

"WHEREAS the Budget Committee accepted the proposal of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to discontinue the program previously delivered, only in the former City of Toronto, which paid on behalf of property owners and collected utility payments in like manner as realty property taxes when such utilities had been discontinued to tenanted properties, under the authority of Section 6 of the City of Toronto Act, 1936 (which applied only in the former City of Toronto); and

WHEREAS it is anticipated that the legislative authority for this program will be repealed or superseded by the Provincial Government in the spring of 1998; and

WHEREAS it is desirable to ensure regulations are in place that are applicable to the whole of the new City of Toronto; and

WHEREAS Bill 104, The Vital Services Act, authorizes Municipalities to pass By-laws requiring Vital Services Utilities to adopt a similar program;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Solicitor be requested to draft a By-law in accordance with Bill 104 to be presented to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT City Council communicate with the City's vital services utility providers requesting their co-operation in continuing this service under the authority of and as would be required by the By-law proposed in resolution No. (1);

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the appropriate staff initiate discussions with the City's vital services utility providers to share information regarding the operational aspects of the former City of Toronto's utility restoration program."

(A copy of the relevant pages of the Urban Planning and Development budget, referred to in the foregoing report dated July 13, 1998, from Councillor Anne Johnston, North Toronto, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 15, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee has requested that I report directly to Council on the legislative amendments that would be required to permit the City to adopt a vital services program similar to that conducted in the former City of Toronto under its special legislation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Should the City request special legislation, there will likely be a cost of more than $6,000.00 to make the request. Should the City's request be granted, there will be a cost of operating a vital services program. The Committee deferred consideration of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development's report of June 10, 1998 which outlined some of those costs. The Commissioner has been requested to prepare an additional report for the Committee's September 8, 1998, meeting.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On July 13, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee considered two reports on the subject of vital services by-laws.

A report from me explained that the City lacked the authority to require providers of vital services to adopt a program whereby the suppliers would continue to provide services to rental properties despite the landlord's failure to make utility payments.

The report also explained that the Tenant Protection Act gives Council the power to enact a vital services by-law. Under a vital services by-law the City can pay the cost of providing a vital service when the landlord has failed to do so and the service provider intends to discontinue the service. The City would have some power to collect the money spent. It could place a lien on the premises and require the tenant to pay any or all rent directly to the City.

The former City of Toronto had a similar program under its special legislation. The special legislation applies only to the urban area that was formerly the City of Toronto. The main difference between the former City's program and one which the new City could adopt is that special legislation permitted the former City to collect the money paid out as realty taxes. Realty taxes have the first priority above all other claims. For this reason, the money was much easier to collect under that program. Even so, the program was considered costly to administer and has been discontinued.

The Commissioner's report recommends that "the City of Toronto NOT enact a vital services by-law under authority of the Tenant Protection Act, given the expected high cost of its administration and potential for financial risk to the City."

The Urban Environment and Development Committee requested that I report directly to Council on the legislative amendments that would be required to permit the City to adopt a program similar to the one that was in place in the former City.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The program that was in place in the former City of Toronto was authorized by the City of Toronto Act, 1936. That special legislation provides authority for property standards by-laws and enforcement of the by-laws. Under the legislation the former City could enact a by-law like a vital services by-law and adopt a program similar to that which can currently be established by the City under the Tenant Protection Act. Like the Tenant Protection Act, the special legislation provided that the City had a lien for the amount expended; however, the special legislation also provided that the amount was deemed to be municipal real property taxes and could be collected in the same manner as real property taxes.

The Tenant Protection Act does not authorize the municipality to collect the amount owed to it as real property taxes. I have been asked to report on the legislative amendments that would be required to give the City this authority. There are three possible approaches.

First, the City could request that the City of Toronto Act, 1936 be amended to provide that the relevant provisions apply the new City of Toronto. I do not recommend this course of action. Only a small part of a very lengthy section of that legislation is relevant, and there is a standing order that special legislation will not be amended unless the entire section is put forward for amendment.

Second, the City could request new special legislation which would include provisions similar to the relevant portions of the City of Toronto Act, 1936 and any portions of the relevant Tenant Protection Act provisions that might assist.

In order to expedite the processing of an application for special legislation and as encouraged by guidelines of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills, the usual practice is to consult ahead of time with the Legislative Counsel on the form of the Private Bill and with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs' staff on both the form and content of the Private Bill before giving notice and filing an application for a Private Bill with the Clerk of the House.

Third, the City could request an amendment to the Tenant Protection Act. The amendment could add to the current provision that permits a municipality to put a lien on the property. It could provide that the amount of the lien is deemed to be real property taxes.

I am informed by staff of the Municipal Standards Division that they have met with Consumers Gas and Toronto Hydro about the discontinuation of the vital services program in the former City of Toronto. They have been informed that the utilities will institute their normal collection process which includes a policy of not cutting in winter if vulnerable people are at risk.

Conclusions:

Should City Council wish to request legislation that would enable the City to adopt a program similar to the vital services program that was in place in the former City of Toronto, Council could instruct staff to make that request. Should City Council wish to request private legislation, Council could instruct the City Solicitor to consult with the Legislative Counsel and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and report back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Contact Name:

Wendy E. Walberg, Solicitor, 392-8078.)

4

Demolition of Exhibition Stadium.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out the Recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that:

(a)the report dated July 10, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that a draw from the Exhibition Stadium Capital Improvement Reserve fund be approved as follows:

(1)$1,819,324.00 for the demolition of the North and South Grandstands, as per Contract No.98-4008-80820;

(2)$645,000.00 for additional landscaping and other related work, subject to the further approval by the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place of any award of a contract associated with such work; and

(3)$30,000.00 for consultant services relating to the storage space requirements at Exhibition Place.'; and

(b)a Committee of Council be established to review the soccer and amateur sports needs of the City, including facilities, and report thereon to the Economic Development Committee.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1)submits, without recommendation, the following report (July 10, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; and

(2)recommends that the Interim General Manager, Exhibition Place, be requested to review the amount of $30,000.00 recommended for consultant services relating to the storage space requirements at Exhibition Place, and submit a report thereon to Council, through the Economic Development Committee, at the appropriate time:

Purpose:

To approve the draw from the Exhibition Stadium Capital Improvement Reserve fund for the demolition of the stadium, as outlined in the attached report and approved unanimously by the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place at its meeting on Friday, June 19, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for this project was approved as part of the 1998 Capital Budget approval. An amount of $3,895,000.00 was included for this project in the Capital Budget to be funded from the Exhibition Stadium Capital Improvement Reserve fund.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that a draw from the Exhibition Stadium Capital Improvement Reserve fund be approved as follows:

(1)$1,819,324.00 for the demolition of the North and South Grandstands, as per Contract No.98-4008-80820;

(2)$645,000.00 for additional landscaping and other related work, subject to the further approval by the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place of any award of a contract associated with such work; and

(3)$30,000.00 for consultant services relating to the storage space requirements at Exhibition Place.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The attached report from the Interim General Manager of Exhibition Place details the costs of the demolition of the Exhibition Stadium.

Conclusions:

This report requests authority to draw from the Stadium Capital Improvement Reserve funds, the amounts needed as identified in the recommendations for the demolition of the Exhibition Stadium.

Contact Name:

Mr. Shekhar Prasad, Director, Budget Services, 392 - 8095.

(Report dated June25, 1998, addressed to the

Urban Environment and Development Committee

from the Interim General Manager, Exhibition Place.)

Purpose:

The following recommendations with respect to the Demolition of Exhibition Stadium, which were unanimously approved by the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place at its meeting on Friday, June19, 1998, are being submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the City of Toronto Council for its concurrence.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the tender for Contract No. 98-4008-80820 be awarded to Greenspoon Brothers Ltd. for demolition of both the North and South Grandstands and associated work at a cost of $1,819,324.00;

(2)a budget in the amount of $645,000.00 be approved for the other required work associated with the demolition of the Stadium subject to the further approval by the Board of any award of a contract associated with such work;

(3)a budget in the amount of $30,000.00 be approved for consultant services to study the storage space requirements at Exhibition Place;

(4)staff, in consultation with the City of Toronto Department of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, develop a restoration/landscaping plan for the Stadium site and report back to the Board on this plan;

(5)this report be submitted to the City of Toronto Council requesting concurrence; and

(6)staff take the necessary action to give effect hereto.

Background:

At its meeting of February 27, 1998, the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place had before it a report, entitled "Demolition of Exhibition Stadium", approving a recommendation to proceed with the tendering process for the demolition of the Exhibition Place Stadium and requesting that staff report to the Board on the funds available in the Stadium Reserve fund for demolition; plans to minimize the impact of demolition on existing events and trade shows; current parking utilization and number of temporary parking spaces that could be accommodated on the Stadium site as well as estimated revenues; and the cost of landscaping to enhance the site until future development occurs.

Discussion:

(A)Tendering Process:

As approved by the Board, staff proceeded with the tendering process. Prequalification of the contractors was completed at the end of March 1998 and a tender advertisement for the demolition of the Stadium was placed on April 29, 1998, with a mandatory site tour on May5, 1998, and tender closing on May 20, 1998. The tender document outlined several options and separate pricing packages in order to allow the Board flexibility as it considers and determines the extent of the project. Ms. Fatima Scagnol, Interim Corporate Secretary, supervised the tender opening of this Capital Project. Four contractors were prequalified and four tenders were received. Bid values submitted on individual tender documents provided pricing on three separate options and specific work related to those options. Basically, Option I is the demolition of both grandstands; Option II is the demolition of only the North Grandstand; and Option III is the demolition of the South Grandstand only. The necessary work to be done by the contractor and which was added to the basic tender price was dependent on the option that was considered. For example, if the North Grandstand was being demolished and the South Grandstand was to remain in place, then the cost of removal of the 11 lighting towers around the South Grandstand would not be added to the contract price.

The total price by option as submitted by the four contractors is as follows:

In every option Greenspoon Brothers Ltd. was the lowest tenderer and accordingly, staff are recommending that the contract be awarded to Greenspoon Brothers Ltd. at a contract price of $1,819,324.00 which would include the demolition of both grandstands; the removal and setting aside of 10,000 North Grandstand seats; the removal and setting aside of the 11lighting towers; and asphalt restoration as required.

This recommendation is contingent upon approval of the Toronto Commissioner of Finance and Treasurer for the Surety Company which will supply the bonding requirements and the Fair Wage Office to confirm that the recommended contractor and his sub-contractors maintain wage rates and working conditions in accordance with Toronto Workers' Rights requirements. It is also contingent on approval by the City of Toronto Council of these recommendations.

(B)Additional Costs:

Additional costs will be incurred because of the demolition. Preliminary meetings have been held with staff of the City of Toronto Department of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism about the restoration and landscaping of the footprint of the Stadium which is approximately 12.5 acres and will become open space with the demolition of the Stadium. City staff have indicated that they would be very interested in working with Exhibition Place to develop a plan to restore/landscape this area in keeping with the Program and Development Concept Plan recently adopted by the Board, and with an aim at not only greening the area but making it a safe location for pedestrians who transverse the area from the NTC/TTC/GO Station to parking areas and Ontario Place. Other principles that would guide any plan would be to avoid permanent restoration/landscaping in areas that are to be developed and not to substantially reduce the present parking available on the site. Given the very large track of land that needs to be restored, City staff estimate that a minimum budget of $500,000.00 would be required. Following adoption of this report, Exhibition Place will work with City staff and present to the Board some options for restoration/landscaping of the Stadium area which will include a parking lot design.

Other costs associated with the demolition include the disconnection and reconnection of utilities located in the Stadium and the removal and safe storage of the PCB transformers and hazardous materials located in the Stadium. These costs total $145,000.00.

Other Work Required

(C)Study of Storage Area Needs:

The South Grandstand is presently used as a major storage area for equipment used mostly during the CNE. Approximately 45,000 square feet of this grandstand is used as a secure, weather-protected storage area. With the demolition of Exhibition Place Stadium, new storage areas around the grounds must be identified to accommodate material stored in this facility. Presently three areas at Exhibition Place are utilized as storage facilities. These are the Food Building (predominantly CNE storage), Better Living Centre Basement (CNElong-term, climate-controlled storage) and the Press Lot Storage Building (year-round storage and equipment facility for Exhibition Place). At this time all three of these areas have been fully maximized as storage facilities. Some of these facilities, i.e., the Food Building, could not accommodate the storage of more equipment because of the early move-in of the CNE to this building and subsequent double-handling of materials and costs associated with this. While other buildings could be used for storage on a temporary basis pending development of other permanent uses for these buildings, staff recommend that it would be advisable to review the whole issue of long-term storage needs at Exhibition Place in light of the intent to find permanent uses for the buildings and the inventory and equipment held by Exhibition Place for the purposes of trade shows, the CNE and other events. Therefore, staff are recommending that a budget of $30,000.00 be approved to have a consultant review this issue with a further report back to the Board during the 1999 budget cycle.

(D)Staging of Demolition/Parking Arrangements:

As with the construction of the National Trade Centre (NTC), staging of the demolition is very important in order to decrease as much as possible any impact on the trade shows. Following approval of this report, Exhibition Place staff along with the NTC General Manager will consult with trade show producers on the staging of the demolition. In addition, the tender document has set out some staging requirements. First, the grandstands will be demolished at two different periods. The South Grandstand is to be demolished first to minimize the impact on parking during the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. Hoarding will be erected only around each grandstand as it is being demolished and the centre field area will remain clear and available for parking throughout the work. All demolition crews must enter and exit through the west side via Ontario Drive and onto Lake Shore Boulevard and access in and out of the Princes' Gates and Dufferin Gates is not permitted. During the demolition, contractors are required to set up hoarding no more than 50 feet from each structure, except the north side of the North Grandstand where a minimum of ten feet of sidewalk has to be maintained. Contractors are to take all precautions and steps to maintain the surrounding area safe and clean in accordance with Ministry of Environment guidelines.

At the present time, during major events the centre field area includes up to 660 parking spaces for passenger cars/vans. However, during the demolition period, that maximum number will be reduced to 420. A review of Exhibition Place parking reports for 1997 and 1998 indicate that staff will be able to provide alternative parking to offset the 240 parking spaces lost during the demolition period. The Parking Department is looking at utilizing parking lots "H" (east of Ontario Government Building), "J" (west of Medieval Times) and "L" (north of Press Building) to relocate these 240 lost parking spaces. A shuttle bus program could be put in place at that time to transport people to and from these outer lots to the NTC.

Conclusion:

The Stadium Reserve Fund was $4,176,000.00 as of December 31, 1997, and the total budget for the Stadium Demolition approved by Council for the 1998 Capital Works Budget for Exhibition Place is $3,710,000.00 which includes construction costs, fees, in-house work and administrative charges. The total budget for the demolition and other costs as outlined in this report is $2,498,324.00 which is within the estimated Capital Budget allocation. Therefore, this report recommends the award of the tender contract and the expenditures outlined in this report and other necessary costs. The remaining balance in the Stadium Reserve fund after this draw may be still required in the future for other works associated with this demolition, subject to approval of such works by the Board.

--------

Councillor David Miller, High Park, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 27, 1998) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair, The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place:

The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, at its meeting of June 19, 1998, unanimously approved the demolition of Exhibition Stadium.

The Board, which is presently composed of seven City of Toronto Council members and six citizens (including the CNE President) did not arrive at this decision lightly. Ever since the Skydome was built, organized sports teams (the Blue Jays and the Argonauts) have left and the Board has been trying to attract private sector interest in using the Stadium, in all or in part. These efforts have all been unsuccessful.

The Stadium has to be demolished for the following reasons:

(1)It has no future. There is no financially viable sports and/or concert interest. Previous proposals (an amphiarena, Sportcom, and Maple Leaf Gardens) all called for its complete demolition. It is an obsolete design and in a seriously deteriorated condition.

(2)It costs the taxpayer $103,000.00 yearly in its unusable state. To make it fully "rentable" it would cost in repairs $3,600,000.00 ($1,850,000.00 for the North Grandstand, plus $1,750,000.00 for the South Grandstand).

(3)We lose about $115,000.00 yearly in foregone revenue by obstructing the site ($40,000.00 from open space rental and $75,000.00 from parking.)

(4)The Stadium, unlike most other buildings at Exhibition Place, is neither listed nor designated by the Toronto Historical Board. It has, therefore, little official heritage value (but plenty of memories for people, I guess).

In conclusion, Exhibition Place believes that the proper financial and planning decision for City of Toronto Council, is to concur with the awarding of the lowest tender to demolish Exhibition Stadium.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July29, 1998) from Mr. John Martins-Manteiga, Urbanism, requesting that City Council reverse the decision of The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place to demolish Exhibition Stadium.)

5

Approval to Construct Streetcar Track

on Charlotte Street.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that Council:

(1)approve the construction of a single streetcar track on Charlotte Street, between AdelaideStreet and KingStreet; and

(2)request the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, to review the ClarenceSquare option as part of the Environmental Assessment process.

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

This is to confirm that the Toronto Transit Commission has conveyed the Commission Report, entitled "Approval to Construct Streetcar Track on Charlotte Street" to the Committee Secretary on July 9, 1998, for the Committee's deliberation on July 13, 1998.

(Toronto Transit Commission Report dated July 15, 1998, entitled

"Approval to Construct Streetcar Track on Charlotte Street")

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)approve, and request the City of Toronto Council to approve, construction of a single streetcar track on Charlotte Street, between Adelaide Street and King Street, as described in the attached staff report, entitled "Construction of Streetcar Track on Charlotte Street", which was considered by the Commission at its meeting on June17,1998;

(2)note that the noise and vibration study conducted by the firm of S.S. Wilson Associates, Consulting Engineers, concludes that the sound levels which would result from streetcar operations on Charlotte Street are within applicable daytime and nighttime criteria even without special noise and vibration attenuation measures; however, to mitigate any potential streetcar-generated noise and vibration in this location, TTC staff still intend to include attenuation measures such as water lubrication on curves and a special rubber-insulated rail design; and

(3)forward this report to the Ministry of Environment, Councillors Olivia Chow and KyleRae, and the Toronto Transportation Department.

Noting that a copy of this report has been forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration at its meeting of July 13, 1998.

Funding:

Funds for this project are included in the Spadina LRT project budget, Project No. CWP 25, as set out on pages 685-686 in the TTC 1998-2002 Capital Program, as approved by City of Toronto Council at its meeting of April 29, 1998.

Background:

At its meeting of June 17, 1998, the Commission considered the attached staff report, entitled "Construction of Streetcar Track on Charlotte Street". That report described the alternative looping facilities which had been considered for the 510 Spadina route, (and previously approved as a scope change by the Commission on May 28, 1996), and the fact that a short-turn of 510 Spadina streetcars via Adelaide, Charlotte, and King Streets, is the most cost-effective location, given that it would replace the inner track which had been planned for the Spadina-Queen's Quay loop, at a net cost increase of $250,000.00, and would save the TTC $300,000.00 in annual operating costs. The report explained that the majority of owners of businesses or properties in the area adjacent to the planned Charlotte Street loop, who had attended the public meetings on this matter, were strongly opposed to its construction, primarily due to concerns regarding increases in noise and vibration.

At that meeting, the Commission referred to staff a June 17, 1998 communication (attached) from Mr. Michael Steinberg of Robins, Appleby and Taub, Barristers and Solicitors, and requested comments on the issues raised in Mr. Steinberg's letter. This report responds to that request, and recommends that the Commission approve proceeding with this project.

Discussion:

A copy of staff's June 29, 1998 letter, responding to the issues raised by Mr. Steinberg, is attached, together with a covering letter, also dated June 29, 1998, to the Ministry of Environment, advising Ministry staff of the concerns raised by the public, and staff's approach to addressing these concerns. Staff's letter provides further detail on the $300,000.00 operating cost savings which will result from the construction of the short-turn loop via Charlotte Street.

In response to the concerns raised by Mr. Steinberg regarding the future impact of the Railway Lands development, staff explained that there has been a dramatic shift in the mix of planned development in the Railway Lands, from commercial to residential, and that the reduction in commercial development has resulted in a significant decrease in the projected customer demand, in the peak direction, on the 510 Spadina streetcar line. This being the case, the service which would continue south of King Street, if a short-turn loop is implemented via Adelaide, Charlotte, and King Streets, would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the future demand to and from the Railway Lands.

Staff advised that streetcars can operate on Charlotte Street and allow a suitable operating environment for passenger cars and delivery trucks. Finally, as indicated in staff's letter to Mr.Steinberg, the firm of S.S. Wilson Associates, Consulting Engineers, has been retained to technically assess the potential noise and vibration impacts of streetcar operation on Charlotte Street. Its final report was sent to Mr. Steinberg on July 10, 1998. The conclusion of that study is that the predicted streetcar sound levels and vibration are within acceptable daytime and nighttime criteria, as jointly developed by the TTC and Ministry of Environment staff for the Spadina LRT project, without the need for any noise or vibration attenuation measures. Nevertheless, staff are still planning to use water lubrication on curves and a special rubber-insulated rail design to further mitigate any potential streetcar-generated noise and vibration.

In their June 29, 1998 letter to the Ministry of Environment, staff advised of the TTC's intention to proceed to City of Toronto Council on July 29, 1998, for formal approval of this looping facility, unless Ministry staff advise, prior to that date, that there are outstanding issues that have not been resolved to the Ministry's satisfaction.

Justification:

The construction of a new single streetcar track on Charlotte Street would allow staff to balance service with customer demand in a more cost-effective manner, and would result in an ongoing annual operating cost saving of approximately $300,000.00. The proposed loop does not conflict with the land uses, traffic volumes, and existing ambient noise levels in the area around Charlotte Street. Any noise and vibration from streetcar operations will be mitigated by use of a water lubrication system at curves in the track and a special rubber-insulated rail design.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (June19, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, June 17, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) considered the attached report, entitled "Construction of Streetcar Track on Charlotte Street."

The Commission took the following action:

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

-TTC staff recently met with ten owners of businesses or properties in the area adjacent to the loop planned for the 510 Spadina streetcar line via Adelaide Street, Charlotte Street, and King Street, to explain its benefits and potential impacts. All but two voiced strong opposition to the construction of this loop; however, staff believe that their concerns regarding noise and vibration can be significantly alleviated through mitigating measures, as described in this report;

-these opponents to the project have indicated that they intend to hire a consultant to conduct their own independent review of the potential impacts of the streetcar loop;

-staff will be resubmitting this report to the Commission meeting of July 15, 1998, at which time it will be recommended that the Commission request City of Toronto Council to formally approve construction of a single streetcar track on CharlotteStreet, between Adelaide Street and King Street, providing that the Commission, after hearing deputations at that time, continues to support proceeding with this project;

(2)approved forwarding this report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, advising that the Commission plans to submit its request and documentation directly to City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 1998, through a Notice of Motion;

(3)approved forwarding this report to the Ministry of Environment, on behalf of the City of Toronto, as authorized by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting of June3,4and5, 1998, in order to confirm the acceptability of this section of streetcar track as a minor amendment to the Environmental Assessment for the Spadina streetcar line, and to document the public consultation process which has occurred to date regarding this project; and

(4)approved forwarding this report to Councillors Olivia Chow and Kyle Rae, and to the Toronto Transportation Department.

(Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 24 dated June 17, 1998,

entitled "Construction of Streetcar Track on Charlotte Street.")

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)receive this report for information, noting that:

-TTC staff recently met with ten owners of businesses or properties in the area adjacent to the loop planned for the 510 Spadina streetcar line via Adelaide Street, Charlotte Street, and King Street, to explain its benefits and potential impacts. All but two voiced strong opposition to the construction of this loop; however, staff believe that their concerns regarding noise and vibration can be significantly alleviated through mitigating measures, as described in this report;

-these opponents to the project have indicated that they intend to hire a consultant to conduct their own independent review of the potential impacts of the streetcar loop;

-staff will be resubmitting this report to the Commission meeting of July 15, 1998, at which time it will be recommended that the Commission request City of Toronto Council to formally approve construction of a single streetcar track on CharlotteStreet, between Adelaide Street and King Street, providing that the Commission, after hearing deputations at that time, continues to support proceeding with this project;

(2)forward this report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, advising that the Commission plans to submit its request and documentation directly to City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 1998, through a Notice of Motion;

(3)forward this report to the Ministry of Environment, on behalf of the City of Toronto, as authorized by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting of June 3, 4 and5, 1998, in order to confirm the acceptability of this section of streetcar track as a minor amendment to the Environmental Assessment for the Spadina streetcar line, and to document the public consultation process which has occurred to date regarding this project; and

(4)forward this report to Councillors Olivia Chow and Kyle Rae, and to the Toronto Transportation Department.

Funding:

Funds for this project are included in the Spadina LRT project budget, Project No. CWP 25 as set out on pages 685-686 in the TTC 1998-2002 Capital Program, as approved by City of Toronto Council at its meeting of April 29, 1998.

Background:

At its meeting of May 28, 1996, the Commission approved the staff report, entitled "Project Approval - Spadina LRT - Scope Change: Short-turn at King Street", and, by so doing, approved the design and construction of a single streetcar track on Charlotte Street, between Adelaide and King Streets. That report explained that the construction of this section of track would allow streetcars to turn around via Adelaide Street, Charlotte Street, and King Street, and would allow a better matching of service levels to customer demand on the different sections of the 510 Spadina streetcar line. This, in turn, would allow the TTC to achieve significant operating cost savings on this route. The loop via Charlotte Street would replace the inner track which had been planned for the Spadina-Queen'sQuay loop, and the net cost increase would be $250,000.00.

Staff are planning to proceed with construction of this single streetcar track this fall, and this report provides an update on the status of this project.

Discussion:

The new section of streetcar track to be constructed on Charlotte Street, between Adelaide and KingStreets, is illustrated in Exhibit 1, attached. The new track would allow a scheduled SpadinaStation-King Street short-turn service to be operated, in addition to the SpadinaStation-Union Station through service via Harbourfront. The scheduled short-turn would make use of existing track on Spadina Avenue, Adelaide Street, and King Street, all of which would be joined by the new single track on Charlotte Street.

The scheduled short-turn would allow the TTC to provide a better match of service levels and capacity to the higher level of customer demand which occurs north of King Street and the lower level which occurs south of King Street. The scheduled intervals between streetcars would remain unchanged from the current levels over the busier part of the route north of KingStreet, while between King Street and Queen's Quay, the scheduled interval would be widened from the current 2'20" during peak periods to 4'40", and from the current 2'40" during the midday to 5'20". At present, between 87 and 93 percent of the capacity on this line south of King Street remains unused, so the relocation of the short-turn branch to KingStreet will achieve a better match of capacity to demand, while still leaving sufficient capacity to accommodate ridership south of King Street, including the increase in demand which is expected to result from planned development of the railway lands in the vicinity of Spadina Avenue. Because of the shorter distance between Spadina Station and King Street, compared to between Spadina Station and Queen's Quay, two fewer streetcars would be required during peak periods, and one fewer streetcar would be required during the midday on weekdays and the daytime on weekends. This would allow operating costs on this line to be reduced by approximately $300,000.00 annually. The logic and need to capture cost-saving opportunities like this is particularly apparent in the current environment of decreasing public subsidies for the operation of transit in Toronto.

Design work for the new single track on Charlotte Street has been completed, in consultation with the City of Toronto Transportation Department staff. City staff have advised that they will tender the road/track bed work in August 1998.

Alternative Looping Locations:

TTC staff identified alternative looping opportunities which would allow a short-turn operation south of Queen Street, where ridership drops off significantly and the capacity exceeds demand. Three alternative loopings were identified:

(i)Adelaide Street/Charlotte Street/King Street;

(ii)Adelaide Street/Peter Street/King Street; and

(iii)Clarence Square.

The alternatives were compared on the basis of capital cost and the associated reduction in operating cost, relative to the current short-turn operation via the loop at Spadina-Queen's Quay. A summary of staff's assessment follows.

Capital Costs:

A loop via Charlotte Street would require the installation of a single southbound track on the roadway, including connections to the existing tracks on Adelaide and King Streets, and the associated overhead wires. A portion of the eastbound track on Adelaide Street between SpadinaAvenue and Charlotte Street, would also be reconstructed as part of this project. The net cost to construct the loop is estimated to be $250,000.00.

Peter Street is one block east of Charlotte Street -- further from Spadina Avenue -- and the additional track reconstruction required on Adelaide Street would increase the cost for that loop by roughly $200,000.00, compared to the Charlotte Street option, for a total net additional cost of $450,000.00.

The Clarence Square option would require new streetcar tracks on that roadway, and cost roughly $250,000.00 to $350,000.00 more than a loop via Charlotte Street, for a total net cost of $500,000.00 to $600,000.00. Given the width of, and traffic volumes on, Spadina Avenue at this point, traffic signals would be required on Spadina Avenue at both the entrance to, and exit from, Clarence Square to ensure safe turning operation for the streetcars. The traffic signals would add upwards of $200,000.00 to the construction cost of this loop, and result in an unacceptably short traffic signal spacing in this area. For this reason, the Clarence Square option is not viable.

Operating Cost Savings - Peter Street versus Charlotte Street:

Streetcars operating on a loop via Charlotte Street would require eight minutes less running time than the current short-turn looping via Spadina-Queen's Quay. This would result in two fewer streetcars in the morning and afternoon peak periods, and one less in the midday and on weekends. This translates into an annual operating cost savings of approximately $300,000.00.

Streetcars operating on a loop via Peter Street would typically require about three minutes more running time, relative to a Charlotte Street loop, because of the longer distance involved, and because streetcars on Peter Street would be subject to increased delays from the significantly greater traffic volumes on that roadway. This would allow a saving of a single streetcar inthemorning and afternoon peak periods and during the midday and weekends. Hence, the annual operating cost savings associated with a short-turn via Peter Street would be about $200,000.00.

Conclusions:

A loop via Charlotte Street represents the lowest capital cost and provides the greatest annual cost savings. A southbound streetcar track can be constructed near the centre of the street in a southbound traffic lane, with sufficient width for southbound autos to travel on the right. A northbound traffic lane would be provided. Parking in the northbound lane would be prohibited at all times but, given that parking is already prohibited on that side of the road between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and since there is only space for about five cars when parking is allowed, this impact would be relatively minor. In addition, southbound traffic volumes are very light. Nonetheless, southbound autos would be prohibited from turning left onto King Street throughout the day to minimize any delays to streetcars making the right-turn onto King Street.

Public Consultation:

In order to ensure that property owners and occupants adjacent to Charlotte Street have had the opportunity to fully understand the proposed new streetcar track, TTC staff distributed the attached notice (Exhibit 2), dated January 26, 1998, to owners of property adjacent to the planned loop, on Adelaide, Charlotte, and King Streets. TTC staff have met on different occasions with property owners to discuss any concerns which they have about the project.

Five written responses were received in response to this public notification. One response listed an additional 11 companies which are opposed to the construction, two of which also submitted separate responses. All of the responses expressed concern about, or opposition to, the proposed streetcar loop, primarily with respect to its noise and vibration effects on their property.

On February 16, 1998, staff met separately with Mr. E. Title, the owner of the parking lot on the southwest corner of the Adelaide/Charlotte intersection, and with Mr. J. Mimran, President of ClubMonaco, whose main office is on the northwest corner of the intersection of KingStreet and Charlotte Street, to discuss their specific concerns in greater detail, and committed to examine measures to mitigate any noise and vibration resulting from streetcars on Charlotte Street.

TTC staff held meetings with members of the public on June 1, 1998, and June 3, 1998. In total, there were ten business/property owners represented at these two meetings. All but two voiced strong opposition to the construction of a streetcar track on Charlotte Street. A key concern was the noise and vibration which would be caused by streetcar operations on Charlotte Street and which would be a detriment to their business interests in terms of reduced property values, and reduced rental rates for their buildings. There was also a strong concern that the frequency, or volume, of streetcars which would be operating on this short-turn loop would cause an increase in congestion on Charlotte Street, and would impede access to buildings, off-street loading bays, and to the parking lots on the street.

A sample of the correspondence between various property owners and the TTC regarding this project is attached to this report as Appendix A.

The concerns expressed by the various property owners, regarding noise and vibration of streetcars, must be viewed in context. Charlotte Street is adjacent to two existing high-frequency streetcar routes -- 504 King and 510 Spadina -- and three heavily-travelled city streets -- Adelaide Street, King Street, and Spadina Avenue. It is in the heart of the downtown core, and close to the busy and noisy John Street-centred club and recreation district. Therefore, while the concerns expressed by the property owners are real and legitimate, it must be recognized that these properties are not located in a peaceful or tranquil area of the city.

The property owners advised of their intention to retain a consultant to allow them to conduct an independent assessment of the potential impacts associated with this loop. They advised that there is not sufficient time to conduct their review in advance of the Commission meeting on June 17, 1998. For this reason, staff have proposed a process which would allow deputations on this matter at the Commission meeting on July 15, 1998, as described below.

Mitigating Measures Which the TTC Can Take to Address Public Concerns:

Streetcars operating on Charlotte Street would be turning around and, therefore, would be operating at a relatively slow rate of speed. However, in order to mitigate any noise or vibration resulting from this operation, the new section of track is being designed to incorporate a new rubber-insulated rail design which reduces the amount of vibration transmitted away from the track itself. This type of rail construction was used on the 510 Spadina streetcar line, in order to reduce vibration to properties adjacent to the streetcar tracks. Since the streetcar line opened in July, 1997, the TTC has received no complaints regarding vibration.

The track on Charlotte Street is also being designed to include a water lubrication system on the curved track which would lead from Adelaide Street to Charlotte Street, and on the curved track from Charlotte Street to King Street. This would keep to a minimum any noise which streetcars might generate.

The combination of these two mitigating measures would significantly reduce any noise or vibration which slow-moving streetcars might generate on Charlotte Street.

Approvals and Construction Schedule:

The planned schedule for the construction of the single streetcar track on Charlotte Street is illustrated in Exhibit 3, attached.

It is necessary that a report be filed with the Ministry of the Environment in order to explain why the TTC wants to build such a track, to confirm that this track would constitute a minor amendment to the Environmental Assessment for the Spadina streetcar line, and to discuss any concerns which local property owners have regarding the streetcar line and the mitigating measures which the TTC will take in order to address those concerns. At its meeting of June3, 4 and 5, 1998, City of Toronto Council approved delegating its authority, regarding the submission of such a report, to the TTC. The Commission can, therefore, now forward this report to the Ministry of Environment to serve as the TTC's and the City of Toronto's submission to the Ministry pertaining to the minor amendment to the Environmental Assessment for the Spadina streetcar line, in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. This Ministry process allows the public 30 days to file any complaints or concerns it has, following which the Ministry will consider these concerns and try to facilitate a resolution. If any concerns remain unresolved to the satisfaction of the Minister, then the Minister can require a more detailed Environmental Assessment of this streetcar track. Under the current schedule, this report would be forwarded to the Ministry of Environment by June19, 1998, and the 30-day filing period would end around July 20, 1998, with Ministry follow-up actions, if required, taking place immediately thereafter.

The current report would proceed to the City's Urban Environment and Development Committee on July 13, 1998, for information. This would allow the Committee to comment on the matter at that time. Staff would resubmit this same report to the Commission meeting of July 15, 1998, with the additional recommendation that City of Toronto Council be requested to approve construction of a single streetcar track on Charlotte Street, between Adelaide Street and King Street, providing that the Commission, after hearing deputations at that time, continues to support proceeding with this project. This request would have to be submitted directly to City of Toronto Council at its meeting of July 29, 1998; otherwise, staff would be unable to construct this loop this year. At that meeting, Council would be asked to approve the construction of this section of streetcar track.

Justification:

The construction of a new single streetcar track on Charlotte Street, and the operation of a scheduled Spadina Station-King Street short-turn would allow an appropriate level of service to be offered on the 510 Spadina streetcar route, to meet the observed level of customer demand, while allowing annual operating cost savings of approximately $300,000.00. The track will be constructed in a way which ensures that streetcars operating on Charlotte Street are environmentally compatible with the surrounding area.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (July 10, 1998) from Mr. Michael S. Steinberg, Robins, Appleby & Taub, Barristers and Solicitors, advising that his firm represents the owners and tenants of properties along AdelaideStreet West, CharlotteStreet and King Street which are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed CharlotteStreet streetcar loop; setting out a number of concerns of the affected property owners and tenants; requesting that the Urban Environment and Development Committee either not forward this matter to City Council for its consideration, or else recommend that Council deny the proposal by the Toronto Transit Commission; alternatively, requesting that the Committee recommend that this matter be sent back to all appropriate civic departments for further consideration of the issues outlined in this communication.

Mr. Harry Glicksman, Capitol Building, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of each of the following attachments is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(a)(i)communication dated June 17, 1998, addressed to the Toronto Transit Commission from Mr.MichaelSteinberg, Robins, Appleby and Taub, Barristers and Solicitors;

(ii)communication dated June 29, 1998, addressed to Mr. Steinberg from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission; and

(iii)communication dated June 29, 1998, addressed to the Ministry of the Environment from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission;

referred to in the foregoing Toronto Transit Commission Report dated July 15, 1998, entitled "Approval to Construct Streetcar Track on Charlotte Street"; and

(b)Exhibits 2 and 3 and Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 24 dated June 17, 1998, entitled "Construction of Streetcar Track on CharlotteStreet".)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications (July 28, 1998) from Mr. Michael S. Steinberg, Robins Appleby & Taub, Barristers and Solicitors:

(i)notifying Council that their client, H & L Tile Limited, will pursue legal remedies in the event that approval is given for construction of the proposed Charlotte Street streetcar loop; and

(ii)submitting comments on behalf of the owners and tenants of a large majority of properties along Adelaide Street West, Charlotte Street and King Street West, in opposition to the proposed construction of a streetcar track on Charlotte Street; and requesting Council to refer this item back to City Planning staff for a full report on the short-term and long-term land use planning and public safety issues involved before any approval is given.)

6

Interim Third Party Advertising Sign Minor Variance Process

for Areas Abutting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (Formerly

the Queen Elizabeth Way), Eglinton Avenue West,

Highway 2, Highway 2A and Highway 27.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Road Allowance Sub-Committee, embodied in the following communication (July 2, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Road Allowance Sub-Committee on July 2, 1998, recommended the adoption of the joint report dated June 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation.

The Road Allowance Sub-Committee reports, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, having requested:

(1)the General Manager of Transportation to review those areas affected by this proposal which will result in restrictions in excess of those previously placed by the Province of Ontario, such report to be submitted to each of the Community Councils for comment; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the Road Allowance Sub-Committee on permit fees for the erection and renewal of signs across the Toronto area, such report to provide a comparison with similar fees charged by the Province of Ontario.

Background:

The Road Allowance Sub-Committee had before it a joint report dated June 1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation outlining a process for dealing with requests for minor variances for third party advertising signs that would be prohibited within 400 metres of the sections of former Provincial highways that were transferred to the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on April1, 1997, by the proposed interim Sign By-law that was considered by City Council at its meeting of June 3, 1998.

The Road Allowance Sub-Committee also had before it Clause No. 1 of Report No. 5 of TheUrban 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", which was adopted, as amended, by Council at its Special Meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998.

Mr. Just Cole, Permits Co-ordinator, Leasing and Legislation, Pattison Outdoor Advertising, appeared before the Road Allowance Sub-Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(Joint report dated June 1, 1998, from the

Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

and the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.)

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to outline a process for dealing with requests for minor variances for third party advertising signs, that would be prohibited within 400 metres of the sections of former provincial highways that were transferred to the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on April 1, 1997, by the proposed Interim Sign By-law that will be considered by City Council at its meeting of June 3, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications to the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services receive applications involving minor variances from the Sign By-law relating to the recently transferred portions of Highways 27, 2, 2A and the F.G. Gardiner Expressway;

(2)the review of these applications for minor variance be undertaken by the appropriate staff of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with staff of Works and Emergency Services, using the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) Commercial Sign Policy (attached as Appendix A of this report) as a guideline, as outlined in this report; and

(3)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services prepare a report on each application to be forwarded to the appropriate Community Council for approval by Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting on May 13, 1998, Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 8 of Report No.6 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, entitled "Status Report: Prohibition of Advertising Signs Abutting the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (formerly the Queen Elizabeth Way), Eglinton Avenue West, Highway 2, Highway 2A and Highway27". In considering the matter the Committee took the following actions:

(1)recommended that Council adopt the proposed by-law to prohibit third party signs, as an interim measure, on lands adjacent to certain former provincial highways;

(2)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

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

Discussion:

In response to the Urban Environment and Development Committee request that staff report on a variance/appeal process for reviewing third party advertising proposals within 400 metres of the former provincial highways that now fall under the City of Toronto's jurisdiction, the City Solicitor advises that the Municipal Act, Section 210, paragraph 146 Subsection (g), provides the following:

"The Council may, upon the application of any person, authorize minor variances from the by-law passed under this paragraph, if in the opinion of the Council, the general intent and purpose of the by-law are maintained."

Applications for a minor variance from the proposed Interim Sign By-law, which prohibits signs within 400 metres of the recently transferred provincial highways, could, therefore, be submitted to the City of Toronto. These applications could be considered by Urban Planning and Development Services staff, in consultation with staff in the Transportation Division of Works and Emergency Services and reported upon to the appropriate Community Council. City of Toronto Council would make the final decision on the applications. This Sign By-law variance process may be established without amendment to the Interim Sign By-law itself. A City-wide process for dealing with minor variances will be established as part of the process of harmonizing all of the existing Sign By-laws and developing best practices for the regulation of signs.

Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) Commercial Sign Policy:

While these segments of the provincial highways were still under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), the Province prohibited signs within 400 metres of the highways, unless a permit was granted. The Province has a policy, entitled the "Commercial Sign Policy," which assists MTO staff in determining under what conditions signs would be permitted within 400 metres of its highways.

The portion of the provincial sign policy pertaining to billboards is attached to Appendix A of this report. This guideline could be used by staff, in conjunction with other urban design and site specific planning considerations, including Official Plan policies. The 45-metre prohibition on third party signs that is embodied in the existing Metro Sign By-law, will be adhered to in reviewing these minor variance applications.

The Municipal Act gives Council the power to exercise its discretion to grant minor variances to the Sign By-law. Although Council may adopt a policy regarding the exercise of its discretion, such policy can be used as a guideline only. Each application must be considered on its own merits.

Consultation with Sign Industry Representatives:

Staff have also consulted with the Sign Industry representatives who appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee. These representatives agree with the proposed minor variance approach. While they have expressed some concerns as to how their applications would be evaluated, they have expressed a willingness to work with staff on this process. They also agree that the Community Councils, who currently handle sign variance matters within their jurisdictions, should handle these applications in the same manner as all other sign variance matters.

Conclusions:

The recommendations proposed in this report would provide for a minor variance process for evaluating minor variance applications from the proposed Interim Sign By-law which would prohibit third party advertising signs on lands that are situated within 400 metres of the former provincial highways that were recently transferred to the City of Toronto. The various members of the sign industry who appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee have been consulted by staff in the preparation of this report and they concur with our recommendations. The City Solicitor has reviewed this report and concurs with the recommendations.

Contact Names:

Ms. Diane Stevenson, Zoning Manager, City Planning Division, 392-0142,

Fax No. (416) 392-7536 - E-Mail Address: dstevens@city.toronto.on.ca

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.

--------

Appendix A

Ministry of Transportation of Ontario Commercial Sign Policy

Billboards

(Field Advertising)

"6.074Billboard Definition:

A "billboard sign" shall be a sign which contains a message that is not related to the property that the sign is located on.

6.075 Message on the Billboard:

Must not promote violence, hatred, or contempt against any identifiable group. Identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, ancestry, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or disability.

6.076 Billboard Requirements in Rural Area:

A "billboard sign" which is located in an area designated as a rural area with a posted speed limit of more than 50 km must not:

(a)exceed 8 m (25 ft.) in height above the ground;

(b)exceed 60 m² (650 sq. ft.) in area;

(c)be placed within the controlled area adjacent to a Class 1 and 2* highway;

(d)be placed in or be allowed to overhang a daylighting area;

(e)be placed within 305 m (1000 ft.) of another "billboard sign" per direction, provided there are no left hand "billboard signs" facing the motorist;

(f)be affixed to or mounted upon or be made to form part of a fence;

(g)be placed within 91 m (300 ft.) of the limit of a road, street, or railway that intersects a highway at grade, or

(h)be placed adjacent to a curve of more than 1165 m radius (1.0 degree 30 minutes).

6.077Billboard Requirements in Built-up or Urban Area:

A "billboard sign" which is located in an area designated as a built-up or urban area with a posted speed limit of 50 km or less must not:

(a)exceed 8 m (25 ft.) in height;

(b)exceed 60 m² (659 sq. ft.) in area;

(c)be placed within the controlled area adjacent to Class 1 and 2* highways;

(d)be placed in, or be allowed to overhang, a daylighting area;

(e)be placed within 75 m (250 ft.) of another "billboard sign" per direction, provided there are no left hand "billboard signs" facing the motorist;

(f)be made to form a part of a building; and

(g)be placed within 45 m (150 ft.) of the limit of a road, street or railway that intersects a highway at a grade.

6.078Location of Billboard Signs Related to Direction of Travel of Vehicles:

In situations where "billboard signs" have been placed to be viewed on the left hand side of the highway, no additional "billboard signs" will be permitted within the spacing requirements on the opposite side of the highway (refer to diagram on spacing requirements).

6.079Angle of Billboard Sign as Related to Highway:

The angle of a "billboard sign" as this relates to the centre line of a highway shall be equal to or greater than 45 degrees whether or not the sign is affixed to a building. That is, if the plane forming the face of the sign was extended in a straight line to intersect the centre line of the highway, the angle this formed would be at the minimum angle of 45 degrees.

6.080Billboard Signs in City, Town, Village, etc.:

"Billboard signs" which are located within the limits of a city, town or village and adjacent to an assumed highway shall be subject to these instructions. "Billboard signs" located adjacent to a connecting link are not controlled by the ministry.

6.081Setback Distance for Billboard Signs:

(1)No signs are to be placed within 23 m (75 ft.) of the highway property line, except "location signs" and "bush country signs".

(2)Signs up to and including 11.9 m² (128 sq. ft.) must be set back 23 m (75 ft.) from the highway property line.

(3)Signs over 11.9 m² (128 sq. ft.), but not over 18.60 m² (200 sq. ft.) must be set back 30 m (100 ft.) from the highway property line.

(4)Signs over 18.60 m² (200 sq. ft.), but not over 30.19 m² (325 sq. ft.) must be set back 46 m (150 ft.) from the highway property line.

(5)Signs over 30.19 m² (325 sq. ft.), but not over 60.39 m² (650 sq. ft.) must be set back 84 m (275 ft.) from the highway property line.

(6)Signs greater than 60.30 m² (650 sq. ft.) will not be allowed within 400 m (1,320 ft.).

6.082Basic Setback Distances Must be Maintained:

The setback distances for "billboard signs" located in other than a built-up area must not be reduced to less than the setback distances shown in paragraph 6.081 regardless of the width of the right-of-way of the highway. Where the width of the right-of-way of a highway is greater than 37 m (120 ft.), the distance between the centre line of the highway and a "billboard sign" shall be increased proportionately excepting in the case of signs which are more than 400 m (0.25 mile) from the nearest limit of a highway.

6.083Setback Distance for Billboards in Built-up Area:

A "billboard sign" that is located within a built-up area must not be placed nearer to the centre line of a highway than the basic distances set out in paragraph 6.081 excepting when a building line approved by the District Authority has been established at less than the basic distance from the centre line of the highway. In such cases, the sign may, if the ministry approved, be placed at less than the basic setback distance for signs of a similar size but not closer to the highway than the approved line.

6.084Requirements Regarding Billboard Affixed to a Building:

A "billboard sign" located adjacent to a highway may be affixed to a building providing the height of the sign does not exceed 8 m (25 ft.) above the ground. A "billboard sign" which is affixed to a building shall be on the right side of the highway, facing the motorist. Each such sign must conform to the basic setback provisions as set out in paragraph 6.081.

6.085Each Billboard Must be Covered by a Permit Up to Five Years:

A sign permit, issued by the Ministry of Transportation, must be obtained for each "billboard sign". It is a requirement of the ministry that these permits be obtained, and that they be renewed annually up to a maximum period of five years at which time a new application may be required from the initial date of the original permit. All sign permits issued prior to September 24, 1994, are not affected by the five years and will remain until such time as the sign site becomes available.

The sign permit will be issued in the name of the registered property owner for a sign located on private property. However, when the owner of the property has a documented arrangement with the advertiser/sign operator the sign permit may then be issued to the advertiser/sign operator.

The permit is to be renewed annually by payment only. The advertiser/sign operator will be entered into the sign computer system and, therefore, the renewal notice will go to the advertiser/sign operator and not the property owner.

6.086Signs Must be Placed Within Six Months of Issue of Permit:

When a sign permit has been issued, the sign to which the permit applies must be placed or erected within six (6) months of the date of issue of permit otherwise the permit shall be void and shall be cancelled. When a permit is cancelled in accordance with this procedure, the fee shall not be refunded.

Message on Sign May be Changed:

The message on a billboard for which a permit has been issued may be changed from time to time (poster panels). If the size and setback of the sign remains the same a new permit is not required. A new permit is only required when the size or setback has been changed.

6.087Billboard Signs in Bush Country:

The same procedure for naming a "bush country highway" shall apply in the case of "billboard signs".

The normal restrictions re "billboard signs" shall apply in all matters not specifically dealt with in these paragraphs re "billboard signs" in Bush Country.

6.088Billboard Signs Adjacent to Bush Country Highway May be Moved Nearer to Right-of-Way:

Where a highway has been named as a "bush country highway" and where a "billboard sign" would be hidden from the view of approaching traffic by bush when placed according to the basic setback distance for "billboard signs", these signs may be moved nearer to the right-of-way of the highway than the basic setback distance.

These highways or sections of highway have been identified by district in Appendix "D". All new designations must be approved by the Regional Director/Director of Operations in Central Region.

The sign permit will be issued in the name of the advertiser/sign operator for a sign located on ministry right-of-way for a period of five years.

The permit is to be renewed annually by payment only up to a maximum period of five years. At that time, if after reviewing the status of the waiting list it is determined that no expressed interest has been indicated for that site, the annual renewal by payment only is appropriate. All sign permits issued prior to September 24, 1994, are not affected by the five years and will remain until such time as the sign site becomes available.

The renewal notice will go to the advertiser/sign operator.

In order to maintain fairness and equal access to the highway right-of-way, a "waiting list" will be required in certain districts. The waiting list must be maintained so to be readily available to interested parties.

*Consult the Transportation Corridor Management Office as certain class 2 highways will be allowed "billboard signage"."

--------

Mr. Just Cole, Permits Co-ordinator, Leasing and Legislation, Pattison Outdoor Advertising, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 5 of TheUrban 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", referred to in the foregoing communication dated July 2, 1998, from the City Clerk, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

7

Issues Regarding Private Roads and

Freehold Development Within the City of Toronto.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (June 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on July 29, 1998, regarding the establishment of a 20-unit cap on any future applications of this nature until such time as a City-wide policy is in place.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (June 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To advise Council of issues pertaining to the development of freehold townhouses on private roads pursuant to a request by Etobicoke Community Council dated April 1, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)development of freehold housing on private roads generally be discouraged; and

(2)the Province of Ontario be urged to enact the proposed amendments to the Condominium Act pertaining to Common Elements Condominiums and Phased Condominiums.

Background:

On April 16, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee directed staff to prepare a report reviewing issues pertaining to private roads and freehold townhouse development.

Townhouse development has commonly been one of three types of tenure: rental; freehold on a public street; or condominium townhouses with common element driveways. A fourth type has evolved which is a private road "freehold" townhouse development. This last type has become significant in the Etobicoke District since the first such project was approved in 1992. Since that time, six projects comprising 105 units have been approved in Etobicoke; City-wide 15 projects comprising 235 units were approved from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1997 (see ExhibitNo.1). Typically, these projects contain from 15-35 units and utilize internal circulation routes that are adequate for the project but substantially below municipal standard road widths (e.g., 6-7 metre widths). While these projects have provided quality infill development, compatible with their adjacent neighbourhoods, staff have concerns regarding their long-term maintenance and the potential for redress to the City should future difficulties arise. Recently, an application was filed in the Etobicoke office, to amend the Zoning Code to permit 144 freehold townhouses, of which 130 units would rely on private roads and shared underground utilities.

Comments:

There are significant differences between condominium and freehold private road developments. A condominium unit owner controls the interior space and appliances within the unit. The exterior and structural elements are controlled by the Condominium Corporation. The grounds, utilities driveways and other features are common elements which are also controlled by the Corporation. Maintenance, repairs and replacements of common elements are carried out in accordance with an approved maintenance schedule and funded by reserves which are held by the Corporation and collected from unit owners. Disputes are settled in accordance with Corporation by-laws established under authority of the Condominium Act.

Private road, freehold developments consist of individually-owned lots which have access to public roads either by easements over abutting properties or by a commonly-owned parcel of land. Maintenance, repair and replacement of facilities such as roads, curbs, utilities, are usually funded by agreements (contracts) among the owners. It is anticipated that deed restrictions require owners to bind subsequent purchasers to participate in the maintenance agreements. Disputes would be resolved through litigation among the parties.

A further distinction is that the Ontario New Home Warranty Program explicitly applies to freehold housing and condominiums, including common elements to a maximum of $2.5 million. Staff at the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations have indicated that with freehold housing on private services, the program applies only to the house structure, not the shared facilities.

Proponents of private road developments hold that buyers resist purchasing condominium units and prefer to purchase a house on a lot regardless of obligations to execute a maintenance agreement and to tolerate easements. Financing and phasing of such projects are allegedly easier since banks do not require a high percentage of pre-sales for freeholds as is required for condominium projects. This allows for lower risk and lower financing costs for the builder. Furthermore, delivery of finished homes is speedier since the completion of a sale agreement is not delayed by a lengthy condominium registration process.

Maintenance charges are also less costly since the shared maintenance activities are limited to snow clearance, road maintenance and repair. Repairs to the buildings, which would otherwise be included in common element charges in a condominium, are the responsibility of the unit owner. Since maintenance fees are modest, proponents argue that defaults will be rare.

In the short time that such developments have existed, no default problems have been brought to the City's attention. Staff's concerns, however, relate to more long-term issues.

Townhouses share many structural elements such as load-bearing walls and roofs. In a condominium, these are common elements which are owned and maintained by the Condominium Corporation in accordance with an established maintenance schedule. Repair and replacements are funded by monthly payments to a maintenance fund, part of which is held in reserve for expenditures such as re-roofing, windows-replacement and other major expenses. Similar schedules are in place for other common elements including: landscaping, sidewalks, driveways, roads, underground utilities, electrical service and street lighting. In a rental townhouse situation, the owner of the property is responsible for ongoing maintenance and repair.

Freehold townhouse maintenance, however, is the responsibility of the individual owners since each lot and building are separately owned. Deed restrictions in theory should control many aspects of maintenance; however, enforcement of such agreements in the event of violation would be through civil suits initiated by individual owners. The City is not party to any of the arrangements that are made for maintenance. Although it has been argued that these are "buyer-beware" matters, since the City is frequently requested to intervene in private property matters and enforce property standards, in the event of default or negligence on the part of the maintenance arrangements, owners may approach the City to take control of roads and services which were not designed for maintenance by the City.

Reforms to the Condominium Act:

The Condominium Act has been under review since 1992. The consultative process has ended and the new legislation is expected to be given first reading shortly. The proposed reforms to the Act fall into three general areas, one of which is of particular relevance to the planning process and implications of freehold tenure. These are reforms permitting the development of new types of condominiums.

Two of the new types of condominium proposed would appear to alleviate many of the problems identified by proponents of private road developments. These are:

(1)Common Elements Condominiums in which there are no units. The property consists of common elements only (e.g., marinas, ski hills, cottage access roads). These could also include underground services, stormwater facilities, sidewalks and roads; and

(2)Phased Condominiums in which subsequent phases of development may be folded into the original existing condominium by way of amendment to the condominium description and declaration. This would eliminate the need for each phase to go through the entire approval process and permit phased financing and sales.

These new forms of condominium, if approved, would remove some of the financing and marketing impediments created by the current provisions of the Condominium Act. Furthermore, the Ontario New Home Warranty Program would clearly apply to these forms of condominium, addressing the consumer protection issues surrounding the shared facilities.

Conclusion:

Under current condominium legislation, there appear to be marketing advantages in the private road developments. Staff are concerned, however, that these advantages are short-term and may result in future redress to the City wherein the City will be requested to assume responsibility. Given imminent changes to the Condominium Act, Council should discourage private road developments and urge the Provincial Government to enact the amendments as soon as possible.

Contact Name:

Mr. Ted Tyndorf, Etobicoke Civic Centre, 394-6004, Fax: 394-6063.

--------

Exhibit No. 1

Based on a survey of the District Offices in the City of Toronto, the following is a list of the number of freehold townhouse projects and related numbers of units within the projects that have been rezoned for development on private roadway systems since January 1995:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (April16, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Etobicoke Community Council on April 1, 1998, requested the Urban Environment and Development Committee to review issues regarding private roads and freehold development within the City of Toronto.

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 36 freehold townhouses on the south side of Dundas Street West, east of Prince Edward Drive. This application will be the subject of a public meeting under the Planning Act on May 6, 1998.

In the past, Etobicoke Council approved freehold developments on a private roadway. Notwithstanding these approvals, staff of the Urban Development Department, the Works Department and the Solicitor for the Etobicoke Office continue to have concerns regarding the long-term suitability of freehold developments utilizing common facilities such as roadways and underground services. Staff remain of the opinion that developments which share common facilities are more appropriately dealt with under the provisions of the Condominium Act through the registration of a condominium corporation.

The Etobicoke Community Council requests that the various issues relating to private roads and freehold development be reviewed.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report responds to the request of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting of July 13, 1998, that the Commissioner submit a report directly to Council on July 29, 1998, regarding the establishment of a 20-unit cap on future applications for freehold townhouse development on private roads.

Financial Implications:

There are no funding or financial implications.

Recommendation:

That should Council decide to establish a 20-unit cap on future applications for freehold townhouse projects on private roads, it is recommended that such approvals be limited to projects which do not include underground garages, swimming pools, or other high maintenance shared facilities.

Background:

On April 1, 1998, the Etobicoke Community Council requested the Urban Environment and Development Committee to review issues regarding private roads and freehold development within the City of Toronto. On July 13, 1998, the Urban Economic and Development Committee had before it a report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that:

(1)development of freehold housing on private roads generally be discouraged; and

(2)the Province of Ontario be urged to enact the proposed amendments to the Condominium Act pertaining to Common Elements Condominiums and Phased Condominiums.

The Committee recommended that Council adopt the foregoing report and, in addition, requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report directly to Council, for consideration in conjunction with this matter on July 29, 1998, regarding the establishing of a 20-unit cap on any future applications of this nature until such time as a City-wide policy is in place.

Comment and Conclusion:

The issues raised in my July 13, 1998 report apply to all private road developments regardless of the number of units. While it may be argued that the potential for problems could be greater in larger projects and therefore limiting the number of units may help to avoid future issues, the appropriate cap to restrict the number of units is somewhat arbitrary.

Should Council choose to proceed with the approval of future projects of this nature with a cap, it should be clear that those projects with underground garages or other high maintenance, shared facilities beyond roads and underground utilities, should not be considered for approval. Further, it should be understood that the unit cap would apply only to the units on private roads, not to the size of the project as a whole which may also include units on public streets.

Contact Name:

Ted Tyndorf, MCIP, Etobicoke Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 394-8216, Fax: (416) 394-6063.)

8

Status, and Recreational Use, of

Ontario Hydro Corridors in the City of Toronto.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on existing Official Plan designations and permitted uses in all active hydro corridors throughout the City with the intent of developing a City-wide Official Plan designation for hydro corridors; and

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture be requested to report in the 1999 Capital Budget cycle on opportunities to facilitate the establishment of walking/cycling trails in active hydro corridors.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the reports (May 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and (June 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, subject to striking out the recommendation in each report and inserting in lieu thereof the following new recommendation:

"It is recommended that Council adopt this report and endorse its conclusions.".

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (May 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report responds to the direction of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on May19, 1998, for information on the status of Ontario Hydro Corridors in the new City and the City-wide significance of these corridors.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Committee receive this report for information.

Ontario Hydro Corridors:

Ontario Hydro corridors across the City of Toronto represent integral links in the provincial power grid system. These corridors carry transmission lines ranging in voltage up to 500 kV, and generally vary in width from 30 metres to 180 metres (100 to 600 feet).

Operating lands of Ontario Hydro are managed by Ontario Hydro GRID System Real Estate, a distinct autonomous business unit created in 1993 following a substantial corporate restructuring program. In addition to lands for linear transmission facilities, the group is responsible for the property management of transformer station sites, certain non-essential holdings adjacent to corridors, maintenance yards and other real estate assets. This report focuses primarily on the linear transmission corridors.

GRID System's core business is to integrate and deliver electricity produced by various generating facilities to electricity distributors and direct customers of Ontario Hydro. One of its primary objectives is to maximize the value and financial return of Hydro's real estate assets through disposal of surplus lands, or through lease or licencing to secondary users where the Corporation's technical, environmental, safety and legal responsibilities will continue to be met.

In this regard, GRID System reviews Hydro's operational needs and identifies surplus lands across the Province on an ongoing basis. Within the City of Toronto only two corridors, in the former City of Scarborough, have recently been declared surplus and they have been sold, as discussed further below. A third corridor, also in Scarborough, is no longer used by Ontario but continues to be used by the Toronto Public Utilities Commission. Every indication from Ontario Hydro is that all remaining corridors in this City are, and will remain, in active use for the transmission of electricity.

Current Planning Status:

The Metropolitan Official Plan encourages the co-operation of agencies responsible for the regulation, transmission and delivery of, among other services, electric power, in the planning and future upgrading of their systems to achieve the Plan's objectives. The Plan also provides for the orderly integration of other uses that do not adversely affect the industrial integrity of Metropolitan Industrial/Employment Areas, many of which contain Ontario Hydro corridors. Similarly, the Plan speaks to creating or improving connections for recreational trails and linkages between elements of the Metropolitan Green Space System, many of which are already linked by or include portions of active transmission corridors.

The Official Plans of the former area municipalities, while differing somewhat in specifics, all generally apply "public utility" designations to Ontario Hydro corridors and particularly provide for secondary uses within the corridors, such as parking lots, walkways and bikeways, gardening plots, storage and recreation uses, providing they are compatible with the utility use and adjacent uses and do not require construction of buildings.

While few Plans contemplate conversion of surplus utility corridors to other uses, the North York Plan states that in such cases, re-use for housing shall be given first consideration. The Uptown Secondary Plan also contains policies that assign transferable density from a future service road within a corridor. Both the North York and Etobicoke Plans recognize the potential for commercial uses on certain arterial frontages. The Etobicoke Plan also provides for the rezoning of surplus Hydro corridor lands without an Official Plan Amendment where the zoning conforms to adjacent designations. The criteria for such rezoning includes whether it is feasible for the City to acquire the lands for housing or open space, can the land be developed without environmental or safety hazards, and is the use compatible with adjacent uses.

The Zoning By-laws of the former municipalities also treat Ontario Hydro corridors in a similar fashion, generally applying Transportation/Utility, Public Utility, Open Space or Agricultural zoning permitting the utility use and local utility uses, agriculture and garden plots, recreation uses, parks, walkways and pathways, and parking or open storage uses associated with abutting lands. (In some cases parking and storage have required minor variance.)

Secondary Uses of Corridor Lands:

Ontario Hydro's corporate policy on development within its corridors since 1979 has been to accommodate use by other parties subject to leases, licences or easements and Ontario Hydro's own operational requirements, in order to realize a return from its real estate assets. There are numerous examples where this has occurred across the City today.

Where Hydro's corridors run through commercial or industrial areas, there are many examples, particularly in Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough, where corridor lands are being used extensively by abutting retail, restaurant, cinema, hotel, hospital and industrial uses for parking and storage. In many cases all of the required parking for the abutting use is being provided on corridor land. Corridors in both Etobicoke and North York contain expansive commuter parking lots, TTC "Kiss and Rides" and GO Transit termini.

Corridor lands are used extensively by the former local utilities for electric distribution and water or sewer mains, or for oil and gas pipelines. For example, the Finch Transmission right-of-way in NorthYork contains six major pipelines from Western Canada and Sarnia serving the large tank farm complex on Finch Avenue West.

There are numerous garden plots, playgrounds and neighbourhood parks on these corridors across the City. The former City of Scarborough alone had nine licences for recreation purposes on Hydro lands encompassing approximately 40 hectares (100 acres). In this respect, such corridors do offer the potential to help offset localized deficiencies in public park facilities. There are also a variety of private recreation activities such as mini-golf courses, a cricket pitch in the Finch corridor in Scarborough for the Toronto Police Association, etc. Adjacent to Centennial Park in Etobicoke are a go-kart track and driving range on Hydro lands, together with the public access to the park itself.

There are also examples of Ontario Hydro allowing buildings within its corridors such as the new Loblaws Superstore on Redway Road west of Laird Drive in Leaside, or the Knob Hill Farms store on Highway 2 and the Pickering Playing Fields complex on Bayly Street in Pickering.

Current Status of Hydro Corridors and Development Applications:

Generally across the new City, Ontario Hydro's corridors remain in active use for electricity transmission and there are no indications at this time that any are going to be declared surplus and sold. There are, however, three recent exceptions within the former City of Scarborough. Ontario Hydro in March 1996 declared the four kilometre (2.5 mile) north/south transmission corridor west of WardenAvenue, from Highway 401 to the Finch Transmission right-of-way south of McNicollAvenue (the Warden North corridor), surplus. The lands, varying from 84 to 98 metres (276 to 320 feet) wide, were marketed in early 1997 through Requests for Qualifications and Proposals, preferably from a "master developer" for the length of the corridor. The lands have now been purchased largely by Graywood Investments Ltd., a residential developer.

The First Alliance Church on the north side of Finch Avenue East has also purchased the corridor lands abutting its site for proposed expansion of the church and development of housing for seniors.

The corridor then splits as it crosses Highway 401. The Warden South corridor continues southerly, connecting to the Gatineau Transmission right-of-way north of Eglinton Avenue. This corridor is presently surplus to Ontario Hydro's needs, but is currently under lease to the Toronto Public Utilities Commission (previously the Scarborough Public Utilities Commission) for the Commission's own transmission facilities. This corridor will only be sold as and when the Commission has no further need for it; however, redevelopment potential is limited by its 46 metre (150 feet) width.

The second corridor generally runs diagonally south-easterly to the Scarborough Transformer Station at Lawrence Avenue East and Kennedy Road, adjacent to the Gatineau corridor. This corridor has also been declared surplus and marketed in a similar manner as the Warden North corridor. A buyer for the two portions of corridor within the Maryvale and Dorset Park residential communities has been identified as Norstar Development Corporation.

Preliminary Evaluation Reports on development applications by Graywood and Norstar continue to be deferred by the Scarborough Community Council.

Following a year of land use review of the Warden North and southerly "diagonal" corridors, commenced in May 1996, the former Scarborough City Council in September 1997 approved Official Plan Amendment No. 1001 which added an Open Space designation to the existing Ontario Hydro Corridor designation on these corridors, and which designated three Special Study Areas for future place of worship uses. That amendment was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by Ontario Hydro and First Alliance. More recent appeals by Graywood and potentially Norstar on their applications will be consolidated by the Board into the same hearing, likely to commence this fall.

A restaurant proposal on Dundas Street as a secondary use within the Manby-Richview corridor, supported by both Planning staff and Ontario Hydro, was refused by the former Etobicoke City Council. A decision by the Ontario Municipal Board is pending.

Staff in the North York District office are presently reviewing Official Plan and rezoning applications for a car dealership and restaurant on the south-west corner of Eglinton Avenue East and JonesvilleCrescent within the Gatineau corridor west of Victoria Park Avenue.

These development proposals are the only ones currently affecting (former) Ontario Hydro corridors lands in the City of Toronto.

The City-Wide Significance of Ontario Hydro Corridors:

Aside from the obvious benefits to the City and broader region from accommodating electricity transmission facilities, it is difficult to identify discrete attributes of these corridors that are common across the City. Clearly their use for such secondary purposes as pipelines or to support the requirements of other utilities, neighbouring businesses and industries has substantial economic benefits for the City of Toronto. It should be recognized that their continued use and availability for these purposes is of great significance in maintaining the economic vitality of this City.

Being linear in nature there are many opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle pathway linkages. The Rail and Hydro Corridor Pathway Opportunities Study has been underway across Toronto for some time. The study has identified approximately 168 kilometres (104 miles) of corridor lands for further detailed examination which, in addition to railway lands, could make a significant contribution toward realizing a significant linear trail system throughout the new City.

Such further investigation is essential, since in many employment areas such trails would be through existing parking or industrial storage areas, already encumbered through various leases and licences. Not all stretches of corridor in these areas provide beneficial linkages, such as between a residential and employment area or transit facility. Many links are obstructed by other features such as stream or railway crossings.

The corridors do provide significant opportunities for environmental enhancement. Undeveloped stretches provide habitat for wildlife, groundwater recharge and in many cases opportunities for stormwater management. There are numerous examples across the City where the former municipalities in co-operation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority have utilized corridor lands to implement stormwater management works to improve the quantity and quality of stormwater discharge for the benefit of both stream systems and often abutting properties as well. Such problems have been addressed through substantial public investment; however, some private sector development initiatives for corridor lands should be considered on a case-by-case basis where they have the potential to provide similar benefits.

Perhaps the most significant importance of these corridors is where they run through residential areas. While, to some, the transmission towers are an eyesore or potential health hazard, to many residents these corridors provide passive recreation opportunities and green spaces to enhance the fabric of their community. Many Toronto residents backing onto corridor lands already enjoy licences for backyard extensions onto a corridor for landscaping purposes. There are numerous public recreation facilities within these corridors through lease or licence as well, and Ontario Hydro is not adverse to considering more. Many residents have responded to the recent development applications in Scarborough that these surplus corridors should be retained entirely as Open Space. Such actions will, however, require a clear commitment by City Council to the allocation of necessary funds to acquire such surplus lands.

Conclusions:

The remaining Ontario Hydro transmission corridors in the City of Toronto are going to remain active for some time. This continuing primary function is necessary and important to the well-being of the City's residents and businesses, and should clearly be recognized. The only other potential use of these corridors will therefore continue to be for secondary purposes. There are many successful examples of such uses in a variety of land use contexts and under various planning objectives established across the City, which have benefitted business and residents alike. There will continue to be other opportunities. The City-wide significance of these corridors is that they can and do serve a variety of interests in a variety of ways. Opportunities exist to secure passive recreational walking, trail and cycling facilities within the current planning environment. My report, on the results of a consultants' study, is also before your Committee. This report recommends a strategy for Council to advance these opportunities.

Contact Name:

Mr. Rod Hines, Principal Planner, 396-7020, Fax: 396-4265, hines@city.scarborough.on.ca.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (June1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide further information on the potential for recreational uses in the Hydro corridors, and relevant economic strategies to achieve an enhanced level of use of both active, and surplus Hydro corridors.

Funding Implications:

Not applicable at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information of the Committee and Council.

Discussion:

All former municipalities within Toronto make use of Hydro corridors for recreational purposes. It is clear that there is great potential within the Hydro corridor system for expansion of the current uses to satisfy growing recreational requirements. Current recreational uses of active Hydro corridors are diverse and include recreational and linear trail systems, garden allotments, parking for recreational facilities as well as a range of passive open space uses, which would include stormwater and local environmental management features. In some cases, active recreation areas and sports fields are also accommodated on Hydro corridor lands, but this is a very small percentage of use.

The potential uses of surplus Hydro corridors are equally attractive, but can also provide the added benefit of more active uses to address shortages of active parkland.

Ontario Hydro is disposing of many surplus corridors in the open marketplace and there are a number of mechanisms whereby these lands could be used for recreational purposes. These include:

(a)Acquisition: The entire surplus corridor, or selected sections could be purchased for use by the City as active or passive open space. Although desirable, the purchase of major portions of the surplus Hydro corridor system would not be practical from a financial standpoint in that our parkland acquisition funds are limited and are currently focused on achieving key objectives in parkland and trail linkages, satisfying current deficiencies and purchasing land for facility development.

(b)Parkland Dedication: Through parkland dedication, the development process itself does provide the opportunity for acquisition and development of smaller portions of properties for specific purposes and in limited quantities. Although this will assist in addressing specific deficiencies and provide open space for new residents of these developments, they will not have a significant impact on the overall parks and open space system.

(c)Public/Private Partnerships: If a suitable opportunity for involvement by the City could be achieved, a public/private partnership in the development of Hydro lands is possible and could be focused on achieving specific facility development objectives or to satisfy other local recreational needs. These would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

These scenarios would have to be governed by budget considerations and should be further evaluated in the context of other economic development and assessment issues in specific development scenarios.

Conclusions:

It is clear that the City benefits from current uses of Hydro lands, and that there is the potential for additional parks and recreational needs to be addressed on existing and surplus Hydro lands. However, the costs of acquisition of large tracts of these surplus Hydro corridors is likely prohibitive. The objectives of the City would be advanced by focusing on selective acquisition, potential public/private partnerships and dedication of lands through the development process.

Contacts:

Mr. Tom Tusek, Parks and Recreation, Scarborough Office, 396-7377.

Mr. John Macintyre, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Metro Hall, 397-4451.

9

Exemption of Official Plan Amendments

from Provincial Approval.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1)recommends the adoption of the report (June 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(2)reports having received the report (July 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and having directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to Council for information.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (June 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To report on the exemption of official plan amendments of the City of Toronto from Provincial approval.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications arising from the recommendations of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council:

(1)endorse the exemption of official plan amendments from Provincial approval;

(2)authorize the City Clerk to initiate the appropriate changes in notification procedures to implement the exemption of official plan amendments from Provincial approval; and

(3)authorize other appropriate City officials to take any necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the approval authority for all municipal official plans and official plan amendments in Ontario. Bill 20, The Land Use Planning and Protection Act, which came into effect on May 22, 1996, provides for the exemption of official plans and official plan amendments from Ministerial approval. It also provides the authority for the Minister or the approval authority to apply conditions related to the granting of exemption. This exemption initiative is part of the Province's efforts to enhance local autonomy, eliminate duplication and streamline decision-making.

To facilitate the process of moving toward exemption, the Minister, after consultation, released the "Delegation/Exemption Implementation Strategy" in December 1997. As part of Phase 1 of the Strategy, several municipalities and regions throughout Ontario received exemption orders effective January 19, 1998, under Ontario Regulation 525/97, pursuant to Section 17(9) of the Planning Act. The City of Toronto and a number of other municipalities are included in Phase 2 of the Strategy and are anticipated to be included in an exemption order to be released on or about June 30, 1998.

Comments:

Although Bill 20 provides for the exemption of both official plans and official plan amendments, at this point in time the Minister's exemption from approval applies only to official plan amendments. Official plans will remain subject to the approval of the Minister. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will thus remain as the approval authority for the new official plan of the City of Toronto. With respect to official plan amendments, the Minister has the authority, at any given time, to revoke the exemption order or modify any conditions. The exemption order issued to Phase 1 municipalities earlier this year included three conditions. It is anticipated that the same conditions will apply to the exemption order for the City of Toronto. Condition 1 of the exemption order would require that the City provide a copy of the proposed official plan amendment to the Minister as part of Provincial consultation under Clause 17(15)(a) of the Planning Act. Condition 2 of the exemption order would require that instead of providing a notice of adoption to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the City Clerk will be required to provide a copy of a sworn declaration regarding the following of proper notice and appeal procedures as required under subsection 17(28) of the Act to the Minister within 15 days of it being sworn. Lastly, condition 3 of the exemption order would require that, for those official plan amendments being referred to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), a copy of the record compiled under subsection 17(29) or 22(9) of the Planning Act be forwarded to the Minister at the same time as it is forwarded to the Board.

In discussions with Ministry staff, there is a Provincial expectation that City staff will monitor the effects of this new process and advise them on a regular basis. Also, as the Province is no longer approving official plan amendments, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing staff will no longer be undertaking mediation to resolve disputes. Therefore, City staff may need to play a greater role in mediation to avoid or at least reduce the scope of OMB hearings. The most significant changes resulting from the new process will be the significantly shortened time to achieve approvals and the ability of the Minister, as the Provincial Government's representative, to appeal the adoption of an official plan amendment. There are no financial implications to the City resulting from exemption.

As a result of exemption, after Council gives notice of the adoption of an amendment, any person or public body, including the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, may appeal the adoption to the Ontario Municipal Board within the 20 day appeal period provided for in the Planning Act. If there is no appeal the amendment comes into effect automatically on the day after the appeal period expires. Currently, upon adoption the official plan amendment is sent to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval. As Attachment 1 illustrates, the approval of an official plan amendment by the Minister can lengthen the approval process by up to 90 days.

In order for this new process to work effectively and efficiently, it is necessary that early preconsultation with the Ministry occur to allow for any Provincial interests to be identified and addressed from the outset, thereby avoiding Provincial appeals of municipal decisions to the OMB. The emphasis on preconsultation will require that the Planning Department notify the Minister of all proposed official plan amendments.

Conclusion:

Exemption of official plan amendments is a positive initiative of the Province of Ontario. Such action will significantly reduce the time line for official plan amendment approvals and increase local autonomy in land use planning. There are no significant financial or administrative implications resulting from exemption. Council should endorse the exemption of all City of Toronto official plan amendments from Provincial approval.

Contact Name:

Ms. Jo-Anne Egan, 392-9782, Fax: 392-3821, e-mail: joanne_egan@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

--------

Appendix 1

OPA Process: Non-Exempt and Exempt

Non-Exempt

Exempt

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (July10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide additional information respecting the exemption of official plan amendments of the City of Toronto from Provincial approval.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications arising from the recommendations of this report.

Recommendations:

That this report be received and forwarded to Council for information.

Discussion:

Subsequent to submission of our report dated June 23, 1998, on this matter, staff have received the Exemption Order from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing stating that effective June 30, 1998, all official plan amendments adopted by Council will be exempt from Provincial approval. As a result City staff are now implementing the new procedures outlined in our June 23, 1998 report.

Contact Name:

Ms. Jo-Anne Egan, 392-9782, Fax: 392-3821, e-mail:joanne_egan@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

10

Repeal of By-law Permitting Delegation to the

Metropolitan Commissioner of Planning for

Approval of Road Rights-of-Way Less than 20 Metres.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To modify administrative procedures which will result in faster approval of by-laws permitting road right-of-way widths less than 20 metres.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications associated with the recommendations in this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City of Toronto Council:

(1)repeal By-law No. 59-97 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; and

(2)authorize appropriate City officials to take any necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

Section 305 of the Municipal Act requires that any new public roads established by municipal by-law, with a right-of-way width of less than 20 metres, are to be approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs unless they are part of an application to subdivide land. Ontario Regulation No. 143/95 delegates the approval of by-laws passed by area municipalities to create these sub-standard road rights-of-way to a list of municipalities including Metropolitan Toronto. Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 59-97 delegates the approval of these by-laws to the Metropolitan Commissioner of Planning.

Discussion:

Any newly created public streets that are not shown on draft plans of subdivision are dedicated by by-laws which are adopted by Council. In certain circumstances, sub-standard road right-of-way widths are desirable and practical from a planning and urban design standpoint and do not raise concerns operationally in terms of traffic operations or the provision and location of public utilities. Such proposals often are stimulated by the submission of site-specific development applications or as a result of planning studies. Proposals can also result from situations where the City accepts ownership of existing sub-standard private roads. Proposals of this nature may be initiated and co-ordinated by planning, transportation or public works staff.

Prior to amalgamation, by-laws dedicating roads less than 20 metres in width were adopted by local municipal councils and approved by the Metropolitan Commissioner of Planning. Following amalgamation, dedication by-laws are now adopted by City Council. In a single-tier municipal structure it is appropriate that Council's adoption should be final and binding without the need for further staff approval following Council's action. Metropolitan By-law No. 59-97 should therefore be repealed. Staff should continue the current practice of ensuring that both planning and operational matters are addressed prior to recommending a by-law to City Council.

Conclusions:

New public roads not shown on a draft plan of subdivision must be adopted by Council. Where the proposed right-of-way is less than 20 metres in width, approval of the Minister is required. This approval has been delegated to the Metropolitan Commissioner of Planning. As Toronto is now a one-tier municipality, it is no longer necessary to have the approval authority delegated to staff. Metropolitan By-law No. 59-97 should therefore be repealed. The City Solicitor has been consulted and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services concurs with this conclusion.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Phil Houghton, 394-8238.

11

Request for Allocation of a Portion of the

Existing Provincial Fuel Tax to Municipalities

to Fund the GTA Transit Systems.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that Council concur withthe action taken by the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee, as embodied in the following communication (June 19, 1998) from the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee:

GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs Committee

Friday, June 19, 1998

"Moved by:Mayor Hazel McCallion - Mississauga

Seconded by:Mayor Don Cousens - Markham

WHEREAS the Provincial Government transferred GO Transit to the GTA municipalities effective January 1, 1998; and

WHEREAS the Provincial Government has eliminated transit subsidies, both capital and operation; and

WHEREAS there is a need to expand the GTA transit systems, both GOTransit and local transit, now and in the future;

THEREFORE the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs request that the Provincial Government allocate a portion of the existing fuel tax to the municipalities in order to adequately help fund the necessary expansion and operating costs, now and in the future, of the GTA transit systems; and

THAT the request of the GTA Mayors and Regional Chairs for the allocation of a portion of the provincial tax be referred to Premier Mike Harris, TheHonourable Ernie Eves, Minister of Finance, and The Honourable TonyClement, Minister of Transportation.

CARRIED."

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 16, 1998) from Mr. Pat Crimmins, Committee Co-ordinator/Deputy Clerk, The Regional Municipality of Halton, advising that the Council of the Regional Municipality of Halton endorsed a resolution regarding transportation and GO transit funding issues in the Greater Toronto Area; and attaching Report No. CS-84-98/PPW69-98, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

12

Highway Traffic Amendment Act

(Community Safety Zones), 1998 -

Designation of Community Safety Zones.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Transportation Services staff include in their forthcoming report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, an evaluation as a community safety zone, of Keele Street and Parkside Drive from Lakeshore Boulevard West to Annette Street.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 6, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides information on new legislation which will shortly permit Council to designate portions of highways/streets as community safety zones.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The primary financial implication will be the cost of signs which must be posted to mark any community safety zones designated by by-law. The precise amount of the funds required will depend on the number and extent of community safety zones designated and the provincial regulations as to the signage required for each such zone.

Recommendations:

(1)That Transportation Services staff, in consultation with Members of Council, investigate and report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in the fall of 1998, identifying locations in the City where the designation of community safety zones would likely be an effective measure to increase public safety; and

(2)that when the locations to be designated as community safety zones have been identified, the City Solicitor prepare the necessary Bill to effect the designations for presentation to Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Community Safety Zones), 1998 was enacted by the Legislature and received Royal Assent on June 26, 1998. It is to come into force on a date to be named by proclamation, presently expected to be September 1, 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

When the Highway Traffic Act (Community Safety Zones), 1998 comes into force Council will have the legislative authority to enact by-laws designating any part of a highway under its jurisdiction as a "community safety zone", if Council is of the opinion that public safety is of special concern on such part of the highway. The law will require that the by-law specify the hours, days and months when the designation is to be in effect, and that signs be erected marking the community safety zone. The form of the sign is to be prescribed in regulations to be made this summer.

The effect of a by-law designating part of a highway as a community safety zone is to alter significantly the penalties applying to certain moving violations occurring on the portions of highways so designated. The fines for speeding violations will be doubled, as will the minimum fines for many other violations including:

-careless driving;

-racing motor vehicles on a highway;

-disobeying stop or yield sign;

-failing to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian or person in a wheelchair in a pedestrian crossover;

-failing to signal before turning or changing lanes;

-failing to yield the right-of-way to a bus in a bus bay that has indicated intention to enter the lane of traffic;

-making a prohibited U-turn;

-disobeying portable traffic signals used during construction;

-passing on the right when prohibited;

-following too close; and

-driving the wrong way on a one-way street.

It should be noted that one of the legislative Bills introduced to implement the most recent Provincial Budget contains a provision to increase the minimum fine for failing to stop as required for an amber or red light to $150.00. The new Act will increase this minimum fine to $300.00.

The authority to be given to municipal councils by the Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Community Safety Zones) 1998, is much broader than was contemplated when the proposed legislation was first discussed. Originally, the new authority was to be limited to certain areas of the municipalities such as in the vicinity of schools. However, under the Act as passed Council may designate any part of a highway under its jurisdiction if, in Council's opinion, public safety is of special concern on such portion of the highway.

While the application of the Act is not restricted to specific areas of the City, such as on highways adjacent to schools, there are good reasons for Council to limit the number or types of situations in which community safety zones are designated. Under the Provincial Offences Act the justice of the peace or judge on sentencing has authority to relieve against minimum sentences. Justices of the peace and judges are more likely follow the intent of the legislation and reflect the increased minimum fines when imposing sentence if it can be shown that the designation has been applied sparingly and only where special conditions warrant.

If the Committee supports the development of a community safety zones by-law, it should adopt the recommendations in this report and direct the City Solicitor and the General Manager of Transportation Services to develop an appropriate by-law. On such direction the Transportation Services staff will work to identify locations in the City where designations of community safety zones would be effective measures to increase public safety. Members of Council are encouraged to work with staff in identifying such locations.

Conclusions:

The anticipated proclamation of the Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Community Safety Zones), 1998 later this summer will provide Council with an opportunity to increase public safety by designating community safety zones at appropriate locations in the City. To make best use of this opportunity, Council should direct the preparation of a community safety zone by-law and should direct Transportation Services staff to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in the fall identifying locations where the designation of community safety zones would likely be most effective in increasing public safety.

Contact Name:

Mr. George McQ. Bartlett, Director of Prosecutions, 392-6756, Fax: 392-0005.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (July 8, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber:

Please find attached a motion I would like to introduce at the next available meeting of the Urban Environment and Development committee, perhaps as an added starter to the meeting on July 13, 1998.

As well, I am enclosing a copy of the letter I received from the Minister of Transportation that is relevant to this particular motion.

Thank you.

(Motion dated July 8, 1998, referred to

in the foregoing communication.)

Moved by:Councillor Nunziata

Seconded by:Councillor Prue

WHEREAS the Solicitor General and the Minister of Transportation introduced amendments to the Highway Traffic Act that will provide municipalities with the authority to establish special community safety zones, where fines for driving infractions will be doubled; and

WHEREAS the criteria for establishing these safety areas could include school zones, roads near children's parks, seniors' residences, day care centres and intersections that have reported a high incidence of traffic accidents; and

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to compile of a list of recommended safety zones throughout the City of Toronto based on the criteria as outlined above;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT when the amendments to the Highway Traffic Act have been passed by the Legislature, Council establish these community safety zones throughout the City of Toronto, prominent signs be erected in these zones to warn drivers, and Council endorse the doubling of fines for driving infractions in these designated safety zones.

(Communication dated June 25, 1998, addressed

to Councillor Frances Nunziata from the

Minister of Transportation of Ontario.)

Thank you for your letters of March 18, 1998 and April 15, 1998, advocating the use of red light cameras at intersections.

This government is concerned with the serious safety hazards of aggressive driving behaviours such as red light running. In recognition of the public's interest in red light cameras, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services undertook a review of our position. The result of this review is that it continues to be the government's position, expressed upon the cancellation of photo radar, that it is essential to identify and hold drivers responsible for any moving violations of the Highway Traffic Act.

Holding the driver responsible for his or her own actions allows for the opportunity to improve the driver's behaviour through education or imposition of sanctions, such as increased fines, demerit points, licence suspensions and possible imprisonment. Direct identification of the driver allows for irrefutable evidence of the driver's unsafe behaviour to be registered upon conviction in the Ministry of Transportation's driver abstract.

Peel Regional Police recently completed an intersection safety pilot program which was funded by the Insurance Bureau of Canada. The program was designed to increase police traffic enforcement at high collision intersections in the City of Mississauga. This pilot project enabled uniformed officers to lay more than 1,200 charges over the short test period. Signal violations represented only 40percent of total charges, with the remaining charges being for other serious traffic infractions such as driving while suspended, illegal turns and non-seat belt use. Clearly, any red light camera program would not have been able to catch any of these other serious infractions, representing 60percent of the total charges laid.

Few studies have been conducted respecting the effectiveness of red light cameras in other jurisdictions and, though some successes have been claimed, other studies have shown no effect, or have reported an increase in rear-end collisions.

The government's position has been that it would consider a municipality's proposal for its own red light camera program, if the municipality could demonstrate that the program targeted vehicle drivers, if it would meet any legal concerns raised (such as those of Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner), and if the municipality paid for the provincial services required to assist in the administration of the program.

The most effective way to ensure that drivers running red lights are caught is through police enforcement. The assignment of fines and the accumulation of demerit points which result, and consequent sanctions such as higher insurance rates, serve as strong deterrents to continued aggressive driving behaviour by drivers caught disobeying traffic laws.

As announced in the Budget Speech on May 5, 1998, this government plans to more than double the fines for red and amber light running. This fine increase is being introduced as part of a community safety package that offers $150 million over five years for enhanced policing initiatives. In the area of education, the Ministry of Transportation will also ensure its public education and community road safety marketing programs continue to address the issue of aggressive driving.

On May 27, 1998, the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services Jim Flaherty and I introduced amendments to the Highway Traffic Act that will give municipalities another tool to help make communities safer. Under the proposed amendments, municipalities will have the power to established special community safety zones where fines for driving infractions will be doubled. Prominent roadside signs will let drivers know when they are entering and leaving the special zones designated by the municipality. These zones might include school zones and crossings, roadways near children's parks and day care centres, or problem intersections.

Let me assure you that this government remains committed to effective solutions to combat aggressive driving behaviours on our roads and highways.

Thank you for writing to share your concerns about this important issue.

13

Widening of a Portion of Queen's Quay West to

Accommodate the Waterfront West LRT Extension.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 6, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services Division, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the widening of a portion of the pavement on Queen's Quay West between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street to facilitate the construction of the Waterfront West LRT extension.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the pavement widening on Queen's Quay West, west of Lower SpadinaAvenue, can be accommodated within existing departmental appropriations. Incremental costs relating to the adjustments of parks facilities and utilities will be borne by the TTC, as will costs related to the streetcar line construction.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to widen the pavement on Queen's Quay West described as follows:

"The widening of the pavement on the south side of Queen's Quay West, from a width varying from 14.7 metres to 17.3 metres to a width of 20.5metres (including track allowance) between Lower Spadina Avenue and a point approximately 210 metres west thereof, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2204 dated July 6, 1998"; and

(2)that the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be necessary.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of April 29 and 30, 1998, in considering the 1998 Capital Budget request for the Toronto Transit Commission, approved the funds for the construction of a new streetcar connection on Queen's Quay West between Lower Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street as part of the westerly extension of the Waterfront West line.

TTC staff have advised that all approvals are in place to proceed with the segment of the streetcar line extension between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street and have requested City staff to take the necessary steps to facilitate the project. In this regard, it is necessary to seek Council approval for the widening of the Queen's Quay West pavement for a short distance westerly from Lower Spadina Avenue to accommodate the track allowance. Construction of the extension is scheduled by the TTC to commence in the fall of this year.

Comments:

The straightening of the alignment of Queen's Quay West from Lower Spadina Avenue to BathurstStreet and the widening of the road allowance to provide a 27-metre section was a longstanding objective in the Harbourfront area intended to advance a variety of land use, parks and transportation goals. More particularly, the widening of the right-of-way on the south side was pursued to accommodate the eventual extension of the Waterfront LRT beyond its present terminus at Lower Spadina Avenue. The Implementation Agreement of 1992 between the City of Toronto, Queen'sQuay West Land Corporation (formerly Harbourfront) and the Crown provided the specific mechanism for the City to obtain the widening of lands and construct the realignment.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the City, among other works, constructed the realigned section of Queen's Quay West. The work was authorized by the former Council in 1996 and completed in 1997. At the time of design and approval, it was noted that minor interim modifications to the plan approved under the TTC's Environmental Assessment (EA) would be appropriate in light of the circumstances at that time. These minor amendments were endorsed by the former Metropolitan Council and TTC staff. By all indications, it appeared that the LRT extension would not occur for some indefinite period into the future.

In order to minimize costs of the realignment, only the section of the actual jogged alignment was constructed. The two tangent sections, from Lower Spadina Avenue to about 200 metres west thereof, and from Bathurst Street to about 100 metres easterly, were not reconstructed or widened at that time.

It is noted that the realignment was designed in consultation with TTC staff in such a manner as to facilitate the construction of the Waterfront West LRT and minimize throw-away costs. Most of the line between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street will be built in the new median. The road works, including sidewalks, curbs, gutters, adjacent utilities and grades, were constructed in accordance with the ultimate condition. It is now necessary to secure approval of the widening of the Queen's Quay West pavement in the vicinity of Lower Spadina Avenue as described in Recommendation No. (1) above and shown on the attached print of Sketch No. SK-2204, dated July6, 1998, in order to accommodate the transit work.

The widening of the pavement on Queen's Quay West constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. This matter is being reported to your Committee at this time in order that the statutory requirements set out in the Act (advertising Council's intent to enact the by-law, public deputation hearing) can commence over the summer months to permit final approval and construction commencement this fall. Any required modifications or issues arising out of the detailed design or public consultation processes can be reported to a subsequent meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee or City Council.

The Waterfront West Light Rail Transit project, including the pavement widening described in this report, westerly to Exhibition Place and beyond received Environmental Assessment (EA) approval from the Ministry of Environment and Energy in August 1995. The approved project contemplated the line on Queen's Quay West to Lower Portland Street, then northerly to Lake Shore Boulevard West. TTC staff advise that they have applied to have the EA approval amended to allow the line to extend westerly on Queen's Quay West as far as Bathurst Street, before heading north to the existing tracks on Fleet Street.

A TTC staff report of July 15, 1997, acknowledged that a traffic study of this change is required, particularly with respect to operations at the Bathurst Street/Lake Shore Boulevard West/Fleet Street intersection. There will also be a need to encompass operations at the Bathurst Street/Queen's Quay West intersection in light of potential impacts to the new school/community centre located in the southeast quadrant. Upon completion of this work and design, it will be necessary to submit a further report outlining the necessary pavement alterations at this location.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. John Niedra, Manager of Programmes, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, 392-7711.

(A copy of Drawing No. SK-2004 dated July 6, 1998, referred to in the foregoing report, in on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

14

Construction of a Pedestrian Tunnel Connection Between

70 University Avenue and the City of Toronto Parking Authority's

University Avenue Underground Parking Garage.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 12, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) by adding the words "and content" after the words "inaform"; so that such Recommendation shall read as follows:

"(1)authority be granted for the City of Toronto to enter into an agreement with Hammerson Canada Inc., and the City of Toronto Parking Authority, 33 Queen Street West, Toronto, M5C 1R5, to construct a pedestrian tunnel connecting 70 University Avenue to the City of Toronto Parking Authority underground parking garage located under University Avenue between Front Street and King Street, subject to the terms outlined in the body of this report and in a form and content acceptable to the City Solicitor;":

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain authority to enter into an agreement with Hammerson Canada Inc. and the City of Toronto Parking Authority to construct and maintain a pedestrian tunnelconnection within the road right-of-way between the City of Toronto Parking Authority's University Avenue underground parking garage and 70 University Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The tunnel will be installed at the cost of the proponents and at no cost to the City. The City will realize an annual income from the rental of the road right-of-way occupied by the pedestrian tunnel, based on a fair market value as negotiated by the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted for the City of Toronto to enter into an agreement with Hammerson Canada Inc., and the City of Toronto Parking Authority, 33 Queen Street West, Toronto, M5C 1R5, to construct a pedestrian tunnel connecting 70 University Avenue to the City of Toronto Parking Authority underground parking garage located under University Avenue between Front Street and King Street, subject to the terms outlined in the body of this report and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor;

(2)pedestrian tunnel revenue be directed to the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department; and

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

Discussion:

Mr. Andrè R. Charron of Hammerson Canada Inc., 201 City Centre Drive, Suite 800, Mississauga, Ontario, L5B 2T4, has submitted an application requesting permission to construct and maintain an underground pedestrian tunnel on the west side of University Avenue approximately 20 metres north of Wellington Street. The proposed pedestrian tunnel will measure 5 metres in width, by 1.7 metres in length and have an inside height of 2.8 metres. If approved, the tunnel would connect the building owned by Hammerson Canada Inc. at 70 University Avenue, to the existing City of Toronto Parking Authority University Avenue underground parking garage. The City of Toronto Parking Authority's garage is also connected to 145 King Street which is, in turn, connected to the City of Toronto Underground Pedestrian Path System (Path System). An easement agreement in principle has beenreached between Hammerson Canada Inc. and the City of Toronto Parking Authority to permitthis use. It is possible that with future modifications to provide handicapped accessibility at 145King Street, this connection will become an official part of the Path System extending it under UniversityAvenue between King and Wellington Streets.

Hammerson Canada Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) acknowledges responsibility for all costs of the proposed tunnel connection and has agreed to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto covering the construction, maintenance, use and operation of the proposed pedestrian tunnel connection within the limits of University Avenue, upon the following terms:

(a)to build the pedestrian tunnel connection at no cost to the City of Toronto and to pay in advance of such construction all survey and inspection charges and the total cost of any repairs or alterations to utilities, sidewalks, boulevards, pavements and roadways resulting from the construction of the pedestrian tunnel connection;

(b)to fully indemnify and save harmless the City of Toronto and any other corporation, boards, commissions or bodies having utilities or services on or in University Avenue, which may in any manner be affected by the construction, maintenance, use or operation of this pedestrian tunnel connection from all actions, claims, suits and demands which may be brought against any or all of them by reason of or on account of the construction, maintenance, use and operation of this pedestrian tunnel connection, and from all losses costs, damages, charges or expenses which may be sustained in any work of constructing, altering, relocating or repairing any public services or utilities rendered necessary or desirable by the construction of this pedestrian tunnel connection, in their respective names, regardless of the fact that they are not parties to the Agreement;

(c)to pay all legal costs of the City of Toronto in the preparation and registration of the Agreement;

(d)to allow the construction of utilities over or under this installation, as required from time to time;

(e)to design the proposed pedestrian tunnel in accordance with standards acceptable to the Works and Emergency Services Department, including accessibility for the physically challenged, and that the detailed design plans and drawings of this structure be subject to review by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(f)to provide at its sole expense any traffic control requirements required during construction as deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(g)the lease of rights, including but not limited to sub-surface rights, commercial uses and signage, be reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and be subject to a fair market rental determined by the Commissioner of Corporate Services and payable to the City of Toronto as of the opening date;

(h)to obtain, prior to the start of construction of the pedestrian tunnel connection, all necessary approvals from the various boards, agencies and commissions having plant or utilities within the University Avenue road right-of-way in the vicinity of the pedestrian tunnel connection;

(i)to temporarily or permanently remove, alter, replace or relocate the proposed pedestrian tunnel connection for municipal purposes, in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and restore the road to a condition acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services at no cost to the City of Toronto, upon receiving five years' advance notice from the City of Toronto, such notice shall not be given within ten years following substantial completion of the proposed pedestrian tunnel connection; and

(j)to obtain insurance for comprehensive public liability coverage relating to the construction and use of the proposed pedestrian tunnel connection for the purposes of this Agreement, in an amount not less than $10,000,000.00 per occurrence, and the City of Toronto shall be named in each such contract of insurance as a co-insured and each such contract shall contain a cross-liability clause, and provide for 30 days' notice of material changes or cancellation.

Conclusion:

The proposed underground pedestrian tunnel connection will not have an adverse impact on the UniversityAvenue right-of-way, and will provide convenient access for City of Toronto Parking Authority patrons.

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.

15

Contract No. T-24-98:

Resurfacing of City of Toronto Roads

at Three Locations.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 22, 1998) from the Executive Director, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services Department:

Purpose:

To award a contract for the resurfacing of Toronto roads at three locations.

Funding Source:

The total project cost is estimated to be $3,135,207.28 and is summarized as follows:

(1)Bid Price Amount $2,855,207.28

(2)Other costs (estimate):280,000.00

(a) quality control testing;

(b) traffic signage and pavement markings; and

(c) bicycle-proof catch basin frames and covers.____________

Total project cost $3,135,207.28

Funding for this project has been approved by Council and is available in Capital Account No.C-TR396, City-Road Resurfacing. 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)Contract No. T-24-98 for the resurfacing of City of Toronto roads at three locations be awarded to D. Crupi and Sons Limited which submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $2,855,207.28; and

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

Comments:

On June 17, 1998, the Bid Committee opened tenders for:

Contract No. T-24-98Resurfacing of City of Toronto Roads at Three Locations:

Name $ Amount

D. Crupi and Sons Limited2,855,207.28

Grascan Construction Ltd./Torbridge Construction Ltd.2,971,390.00

Gazzola Paving Limited3,023,563.20

Pave-Al Limited and Orlando Corporation3,038,378.21

Osler Paving Ltd.3,054,755.31

Warren Bitulithic Limited3,126,800.55

Graham Bros. Construction Ltd. 3,264,489.10

Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd.3,308,761.79

Sentinel Paving and Construction Ltd.3,426,961.49

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.

The tender documents submitted by the recommended bidder have been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and were found to be in conformance with the tender requirements. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services concurs with the recommendation made.

Scope of Work:

This contract includes crack repairs, scarifying, grinding, concrete repairs, catch basins, and asphalt overlay on the following roads:

(1)Eglinton Avenue - Martin Grove Road to The East Mall;

(2)Kipling Avenue - Rexdale Boulevard to West Humber Boulevard; and

(3)Victoria Park Avenue - Patrick Boulevard to Finch Avenue.

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to execute a contract for Contract No. T-24-98 in accordance with specifications to D. Crupi and Sons Limited which submitted the lowest price bid for this contract.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. R. Burlie, P. Eng., Manager of Resurfacing, Construction Branch, Metro Hall Office, 392-8322.

16

Contract No. EB9808RD: Reconstruction of Roads,

Sanitary Sewers and Storm Sewers in the

Evans Avenue Area between Royal York Road

and Ourland Avenue.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (June 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to award Contract No. EB9808RD for the reconstruction of roads, sanitary and storm sewer systems in the Evans Avenue area between Royal York Road and OurlandAvenue in the Lake Shore-Queensway Ward.

Funding Sources:

This project has previously been approved by Council in the Capital Budget and funds are available under the updated debt and financial obligation limit.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. EB9808RD for the reconstruction of roads, sanitary sewers and storm sewers in the Evans Avenue area between Royal York Road and Ourland Avenue be awarded to MardaveConstruction (1990) Ltd., being the lowest tender received for the total tendered price of $3,135,195.03 including all taxes; and

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

Background:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on June 10, 1998, opened the following tenders for ContractNo. EB9808RD for the reconstruction of roads, sanitary and storm sewer systems in the EvansAvenue area between Royal York Road and Ourland Avenue:

NumberTendererTotal Tender Price

As read out atAs corrected for

openingarithmetic errors

(1)Mardave Construction (1990) Ltd.$3,134,666.58$3,135,195.03

(2)Grascan Construction Ltd.$3,238,152.98

(3)Osler Paving Ltd.$3,250,431.80

(4)Daimerson Construction Co. Ltd.$3,279,872.13$3,280,589.78

(5)Pave-Al Ltd.$3,280,678.51$3,280,678.50

(6)Sanan Construction$3,328,483.23$3,328,483.27

(7)G. Macera Contracting Ltd.$3,387,555.89

(8)Dagmar Construction Inc.$3,512,862.58$3,512,862.60

The site of the proposed works is shown on the attached plan (Attachment No.1).

Discussion:

The tender documentation submitted by the recommended bidder has been reviewed and was found to be in conformity with the tender requirements.

Conclusions:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for the reconstruction of roads, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems in the Evans Avenue area between Royal York Road and OurlandAvenue, in accordance with the specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department, to Mardave Construction (1990) Ltd. being the lowest tender received.

Contact Name:

T. Ellerbusch, P.Eng., Director of Engineering, Design and Construction, 394-8399,

Fax (416) 394-8942.

(A copy of Attachment No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the July 13, 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

Contract No. EB9807RD: Reconstruction of

Prince Edward Drive North from

Bloor Street West to Dundas Street West

Including Storm Sewer Construction.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)approved the following joint report (June 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; and

(2) directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to Council for information:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to award Contract No. EB9807RD for the Reconstruction of PrinceEdward Drive North from Bloor Street West to Dundas Street West Including Storm Sewer Construction, in the Kingsway-Humber Ward.

Funding Sources:

This project is included in the approved 1998 Capital Budget. The total estimated cost including construction, contingencies, engineering and project administration is $1,387,000.00. Funds are available in the appropriate account for this project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. EB9807RD for the Reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive North from BloorStreet West to Dundas Street West Including Storm Sewer Construction be awarded to IlDucaConstruction Inc., being the lowest tender received for the total tendered price of $1,220,449.05 including all taxes;

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto; and

(3)this report be forwarded to Council for information.

Background:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on June 17, 1998, opened the following tenders for ContractNo. EB9807RD for the Reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive North from Bloor Street West to Dundas Street West Including Storm Sewer Construction.

NumberTenderer Tender Price

Including All

Charges and Taxes

(1)Il Duca Construction Inc. $1,220,449.05

(2)Pave-Al Limited $1,232,125.31

(3)Osler Paving Ltd. $1,269,719.54

(4)Daimerson Construction Co. Ltd. $1,300,210.00

(5)Grascan Construction Ltd. $1,322,584.20

(6)G. Macera Contracting Ltd. $1,353,560.05

(7)Ferpac Paving Inc. $1,354,275.96

(8)Gazzola Paving Ltd. $1,367,255.61

(9)Sanan Construction $1,367,488.74

(10)Vaughan Paving Ltd. $1,382,375.07

(11)Fermar Paving Limited $1,415,898.60

(12)Warren Bitulithic Limited $1,432,339.19

(13)Ferma Road Construction Ltd. $1,498,988.10

The site of the works is shown on the attached plan (Attachment No. 1).

Discussion:

The tender documentation submitted by the recommended bidder has been reviewed and was found to be in conformity with the tender requirements.

Conclusions:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for the Reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive North from Bloor Street West to Dundas Street West Including Storm Sewers, in accordance with the specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department, to IlDucaConstruction being the lowest tender received.

Contact Name:

T. Ellerbusch, P.Eng., Director of Engineering, Design and Construction, 394-8399,

Fax (416) 394-8942.

(A copy of Attachment No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the July 13, 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

Contract No. Y9808-369-2: Pavement Reconstruction

at Various Locations - York District.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)approved the following report (July 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(2)directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to Council for information:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to award Contract No. Y9808-369-2, Pavement Reconstruction at Various Locations within the City of Toronto, York District.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status:

Funds are available in the following accounts:

Approved 1998 Capital Works Program - Transportation$1,150,000.00

Approved 1998 Operating Program for Lead Services$ 175,000.00

Approved 1997 Capital Works Program in Account No. C97-W923$ 50,000.00

Total$1,375,000.00

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. Y9808-369-2, Pavement Reconstruction at Various Locations, be awarded to the lowest bidder, Ferma Road Construction, for the total price of $1,338,500.45, including Goods and Services Tax; and

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

Council Reference/Background History:

On June 24, 1998, the City of Toronto Bid Committee received and opened tenders for pavement reconstruction on streets as shown in Appendix I (attached) within the York District.

Seven firms submitted bids as follows:

Representatives of the Department of Works and Emergency Services have reviewed the low bid tender submitted by Ferma Road Construction. We are satisfied that this company has met the contractual requirements as set out in the tender document and has the capability to carry out the work as specified.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This project is part of the pavement improvement program within the York District for the 1998 fiscal year. In conjunction with the pavement reconstruction, the contract includes the replacement of lead water services within the right-of-way, reconstruction of deteriorated concrete curbs and sidewalks, and two pinch points on Ava Road. The total estimated cost of this contract, plus engineering inspection during construction, is $1,375,000.00.

Conclusions:

It is concluded that Contract No. Y9808-369-2, Pavement Reconstruction at Various Locations, should be awarded to the lowest bidder Ferma Road Construction.

Contact Name:

Mr. Chi H. Ng, Director of Professional Services, 394-2648, Fax: 394-2888.

--------

Appendix 1

Contract No. Y9808-369-2

Pavement Reconstruction - Various Locations

(*) trench restoration only

19

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Adelaide Street West and Brant Street.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 18, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To install traffic control signals and remove the existing pedestrian crossover at the intersection of Adelaide Street West and Brant Street.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic control signal installations are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department's Capital Budget under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost to install traffic control signals and to remove the existing pedestrian crossover is $45,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)traffic control signals be installed at the intersection of Adelaide Street West and Brant Street, coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover; and

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

Background:

In response to a public request, our Department reviewed traffic operations at the intersection of Adelaide Street West and Brant Street.

Discussion:

Adelaide Street West is a four-lane arterial roadway, which operates one-way eastbound. Approximately 15,000 vehicles use this roadway daily during a typical weekday. Brant Street is a two-lane, two-way local roadway controlled by "Stop" signs at Adelaide Street West. A pedestrian crossover is located on the west leg of this intersection. Adjacent traffic signals are located on Adelaide Street West at Portland Street, approximately 205 metres to the west, and at SpadinaAvenue, approximately 215 metres to the east. St. Andrew's Playground and the BrantStreet Public School are located on the west side of Brant Street, north and south of AdelaideStreet West, respectively.

Studies were conducted at this intersection during the busiest eight-hour period of a typical weekday. Approximately 250 pedestrians were observed crossing Adelaide Street West within the pedestrian crossover during this period. Also, the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are satisfied at this intersection to the following extent:

Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume94 percent;

Warrant 2 - Delay to Cross Traffic82 percent; and

Warrant 3 - Collision Hazard 100 percent.

Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 must be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants must be 80 percent satisfied before the installation of traffic control signals is numerically warranted. This intersection satisfies the required warrants for the installation of traffic control signals.

A review of the Toronto Police Service collision records for the three-year period ending December31, 1996, disclosed that 21 collisions had occurred at the intersection of Adelaide Street West and Brant Street. Further analysis revealed that 18 of these collisions were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Nine of these collisions involved a northbound motorist colliding with an eastbound motorist, while seven collisions involved a southbound motorist colliding with an eastbound motorist. Furthermore, two collisions involved a pedestrian. In both of these collisions, an eastbound motorist struck a southbound pedestrian crossing within the pedestrian crossover. The pedestrians involved were not seriously injured, and the investigating Police officer charged the driver of the vehicle in both cases.

The installation of traffic control signals at this intersection will not have a significant negative impact on the operation of Adelaide Street West. However, the installation of traffic control signals will necessitate the removal of six parking spaces on the north side of Adelaide Street West, three to the east and three to the west of Brant Street, in order to maintain safe and efficient traffic operations within 30.5 metres of the intersection.

Councillors Olivia Chow and Kyle Rae were advised and they support the proposed installation of traffic control signals, coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover.

Conclusions:

Traffic control signals should be installed, coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover, at the intersection of Adelaide Street West and Brant Street to improve the operational safety for pedestrians and motorists.

Contact Name:

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

--------

20

Proposed Lane Designation at Various

Traffic Control Signals along the

St. George Street/Beverley Street Bicycle Lanes.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 12, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To designate the southbound median lane for left turns only at the intersections of Bloor Street West and St. George Street, St. George Street and Harbord Street/Hoskin Avenue, and Dundas Street West and Beverley Street.

Funding Sources:

The funds for this work are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department's 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost of installing appropriate signs is $1,500.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the southbound median lane on St. George Street be designated as a left-turn only lane, from Bloor Street West to 30.5 metres north thereof;

(2)the southbound median lane on St. George Street be designated as a left-turn only lane, from Harbord Street/Hoskin Avenue to 30.5 metres north thereof;

(3)the southbound median lane on Beverley Street be designated as a left-turn only lane, from Dundas Street West to 30.5 metres north thereof; and

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

Background:

To provide better guidance for southbound motorists, our Department reviewed the feasibility of designating the southbound median lane for left turns only at the intersections of Bloor Street West and St. George Street, St. George Street and Harbord Street/Hoskin Avenue, and Dundas Street West and Beverley Street.

Discussion:

The intersections of Bloor Street West and St. George Street, St. George Street and HarbordStreet/Hoskin Avenue, and Dundas Street West and Beverley Street are controlled by traffic signals. The southbound approach to each of the intersections currently has pavement markings to indicate a left-turn lane, a shared through and right-turn lane and a bicycle lane. At these intersections southbound through motorists must manoeuvre to the right, proceed through and then manoeuvre back to the left in order to bypass opposing north-south left-turn lanes.

Designation of the southbound median lane for left turns only and the associated installation of lane designation signs at these intersections will provide better guidance for southbound through motorists and reduce the risk for collisions. This proposal will not have any effect on the operation of bicycle lanes.

We have consulted with the local Councillors and they do not have a concern with this proposal.

Conclusions:

The designation of the southbound median lane for left turns only at the intersections of Bloor Street West and St. George Street, St. George Street and Harbord Street/Hoskin Avenue, and DundasStreet West and Beverley Street will provide better guidance for southbound through motorists.

Contact Name:

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

(A copy of the location map, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the July 13, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

21

Amendments to Parking Regulations on the

West Side of Bathurst Street, between

Dupont Street and the Access to the

Toronto Transit Commission Hillcrest Complex.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 22, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To amend the parking regulations on the west side of Bathurst Street, between Dupont Street and the access to the Toronto Transit Commission Hillcrest Complex.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed parking regulations are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department's 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost of installing appropriate signs is $600.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the parking prohibition currently in effect on the west side of Bathurst Street, between Dupont Street and Davenport Road, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, be rescinded;

(2)parking be prohibited on the west side of Bathurst Street, between the access to the Toronto Transit Commission Hillcrest Complex and Davenport Road, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

(3)the stopping prohibition currently in effect on the west side of Bathurst Street, between Dupont Street and the access to the Toronto Transit Commission Hillcrest Complex, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, be modified to be in effect at all times; and

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

Background:

At the request of staff of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), our Department investigated parking regulations and traffic operations on the west side of Bathurst Street, between Dupont Street and the TTC Hillcrest Complex access.

Discussion:

Bathurst Street, between Dupont Street and the signalized access to the TTC Hillcrest Complex, is a four-lane roadway with an estimated two-way, daily traffic volume of 30,000 vehicles. This section of Bathurst Street is approximately 250 metres in length. Also, a CNR bridge is located approximately 125 metres north of Dupont Street. The current parking regulations on the west side of this section of Bathurst Street are: "No Stopping", between 7:00 a.m., and 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, and "No Parking", between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

TTC staff have raised a concern that stopped or parked vehicles in the southbound curb lane in this area force all southbound traffic into the median lane. During weekday daytime periods vehicles stop in the curb lane to access a TTC employment office located on the west side of Bathurst Street and during night-time and weekend periods vehicles legally park in the curb lane. As a result, large vehicles such as trucks travel under the CNR bridge in the median lane. At this bridge the clearance for the curb lane is higher than the clearance for the median lane. This is due to the presence of TTC overhead streetcar wires above the median lane. Therefore, some large vehicles cause material damage to the streetcar wires as well as a disruption to the transit service.

To alleviate this, warning signs are installed in advance of the bridge as well as at the bridge to inform large vehicles of the restricted clearances at this bridge. However, keeping the curb lane available for moving traffic would encourage large vehicles to use the curb lane, between Dupont Street and the access to the TTC Hillcrest Complex.

During night-time and weekend periods a stopping prohibition will displace approximately five parking spaces in this area, but sufficient alternate parking exists nearby (i.e., on the west side of Bathurst Street, between the Hillcrest Complex and Davenport Road) to accommodate the displaced parking spaces. Also, an off-street parking lot is located next to the TTC employment office which motorists can use when going to this office.

The proposed introduction of the "No Stopping" zone has been discussed with TTC staff and they concur with the recommendations. Furthermore, Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons have been consulted and they have no concerns with this proposal.

Conclusions:

The introduction of a "No Stopping" regulation on the west side of Bathurst Street, between DupontStreet and the access to the TTC Hillcrest Complex, should reduce occurrences of large vehicles damaging TTC streetcar wires on the underside of the CNR bridge.

Contact Name:

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

(A copy of the location map, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the July 13, 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 Northbound Right-Turn Prohibition:

Woodbine Avenue at the Driveway to

61-65 Woodbine Avenue.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 24, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To prohibit northbound right turns on Woodbine Avenue at the driveway to 61-65WoodbineAvenue.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of appropriate signs are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department's 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost of installing the appropriate signs is $400.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)northbound right turns on Woodbine Avenue at the driveway to 61-65 Woodbine Avenue be prohibited at all times; and

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

Background:

At the request of Councillor Sandra Bussin, our Department investigated the operational safety of Woodbine Avenue at the driveway to 61-65 Woodbine Avenue.

Discussion:

The driveway to 61-65 Woodbine Avenue is located where Kew Beach Avenue meets WoodbineAvenue. Kew Beach Avenue, a local one-way westbound roadway, turns right and merges into Woodbine Avenue in a northbound direction in this area. In January 1997 our Department approved a driveway to the proposed redevelopment of 61-65 Woodbine Avenue. One major condition for this redevelopment was that the access to this site be restricted to in-right/out-right movements on Kew Beach Avenue. To reinforce these movements, an island was placed within the "throat" of this driveway. However, due to constraints within the roadway geometry, it was not possible to totally prevent right turns from Woodbine Avenue into this site by physical means. A sketch of the driveway is attached to this report.

Even though the right-turn manoeuvre from Woodbine Avenue to this site is awkward, a number of motorists have been observed making this turn. They have to slow to almost a stop and cross KewBeach Avenue to enter this site. This creates potential collisions with northbound motorists on Woodbine Avenue and on Kew Beach Avenue, and also with pedestrians in this area. The prohibition of northbound right turns from Woodbine Avenue at this location would reduce the potential for collisions. Alternate, safe routes are available to motorists destined to 61-65 Woodbine Avenue.

Councillor Bussin is in agreement with this recommendation and Councillor Jakobek has been advised.

Conclusion:

Northbound right turns on Woodbine Avenue at the driveway to 61-65 Woodbine Avenue should be prohibited at all times to reduce the potential of collisions at this location.

Contact Name:

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

(A copy of the sketch, referred to in the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the July 13, 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

Landscape Improvements and

Parking Stall Installation on Keele Street

North of Eglinton Avenue West.

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 25, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is:

(1)to obtain Council authority to construct landscape improvements and parking stalls on KeeleStreet north of Eglinton Avenue West 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 this improvement is available in the Economic Development Capital Account No. 903, Eglinton Avenue West Community Improvement Plan. The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer previously certified that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Finance Obligation Limit approved by City Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)approval be given to proceed with the construction of landscape improvements and parking stalls on Keele Street north of Eglinton Avenue West;

(2)subject to the construction of these improvements:

(a)Keele Street within the parking area north of Eglinton Avenue be designated "one-way street - northbound"; and

(b)northbound U-turns be prohibited on Keele Street at Yore Road;

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

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

Background:

Keele Street north of Eglinton Avenue West is a four-lane roadway with a pavement width of approximately 14 metres and a right-of-way width of 23 metres. The current parking regulations on the east and west side of Keele Street allow for curb lane parallel parking. The existing sidewalk width on the east side of Keele Street is 6.2 metres including a 1.5 metre wide asphalt boulevard. On the west side, the existing sidewalk is 2.8 metres wide including a narrow asphalt boulevard. This section of Keele Street does not function as an arterial road since it is "jogged" with respect to KeeleStreet to the south and Trethewey Drive and Yore Road play the role of connecting KeeleStreet south of Eglinton Avenue to Keele Street northerly. This section of Keele Street carries very low traffic volumes and provides access to seven houses.

The proposed construction of landscape improvements and parking stalls on Keele Street in thislocation will improve the aesthetics of the commercial area and increase the number of parking spaces for local merchants. The plan requires converting the section of Keele Street through the parking area to one-way northbound. This change will not disrupt traffic flow in the area since KeeleStreet does not carry high two-way traffic volumes and the local road system provides for adequate circulation opportunities. Details of the landscape improvements and parking area enhancements are discussed below and are shown on the attached plan. The plan has been discussed with the Councillors as part of the Eglinton Avenue West Community Plan and they agree with it.

Discussion:

The proposed parking arrangement consists of two, six-space sections of angle parking on both sides of Keele Street with a 7.0 metre manoeuvring driveway. The sidewalk width on the east side of Keele Street will be reduced from 6.2 metres to 3.8 metres, including a 1.0 metre wide impressed concrete boulevard. This reduction is not a concern since 3.8 metres is an adequate width for this area. On the west side, the sidewalk width will be increased from 2.8metres to 3.8 metres, including a 1.0 metre wide impressed concrete boulevard. This improvement requires that Keele Street through the parking area operate one-way northbound in the same direction as the parking stall angle, and that northbound U-turns be prohibited at Yore Road. Pedestrian level lighting will be provided to complement the proposed design.

To construct the parking area and landscape improvements the following work will be undertaken:

(a)removal and reconstruction of concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk and boulevard;

(b)construction of catch basins and catch basin leads;

(c)potential utility relocations;

(d)planting trees; and

(e)installation of light poles.

Pedestrian and Cyclist Issues:

In order to clearly delineate the space for pedestrians crossing Keele Street, a concrete crosswalk will be constructed on the north side of Eglinton Avenue West. Also, streetscape improvements will add to the overall feeling of safety. While there is no physical impact on cyclists as a result of this proposal, there will be operational friction from motorists manoeuvring in and out of the parking stalls. However, this is not unlike similar situations elsewhere in the City.

Conclusions:

A new parking area on Keele Street north of Eglinton Avenue West has been proposed in order to enhance the aesthetics and increase parking for local businesses in the area. The total number of parking spaces will increase from six to 12 and operation of Keele Street through the parking area will become one-way northbound.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

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

Fax: 392-4426.

(A copy of the location plan, referred to in the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the July 13, 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 July 29, 30and 31, 1998, received this Clause as information, subject to adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that, notwithstanding subsection 128(5) of the Council Procedural By-law:

(1)Item (d), entitled 'Intervenor Funding of Community Groups at Ontario Municipal Board Hearings', embodied in this Clause, be amended to indicate that the City Solicitor was requested by City Council on March 4, 1998, to develop a policy regarding the provision of intervenor funding from the City to community groups, for Ontario Municipal Board hearings; and

(2)Item (j), entitled 'Request to Install Traffic Control Signals: Bayview Avenue and Tudor Gate', embodied in this Clause, be amended to provide that the signal light on Bayview Avenue at Tudor Gate be approved as recommended by the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the North York Community Council; and that the timing of installation be subject to funding.")

(a)Election of Vice-Chair of the

Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having elected Councillor Ron Moeser as Vice-Chair of the Committee:

Council, on June 3, 4, and 5, 1998, adopted By-law No. 276-1998, a by-law "Toamend further Council Procedural By-law No. 23-1998 [being a By-law "ToGovern the Proceedings of the Council and the Committees thereof"]."

Section 27 of By-law No. 276-1998 states:

"27.Section 107 of By-law No. 23-1998 is deleted and the following is substituted:

"107.The Members on each Committee shall meet on the day of the Inaugural Meeting to elect a Committee Chair and a Committee Vice-Chair from among the Committee's eligible members, and in the event of a vacancy occurring, shall elect a new Chair or Vice-Chair to hold office for the remainder of the term."

(b)F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project; and

Contract No. T-54-98, Tender No. 62-1998:

F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, Railway Relocation

Along Lake Shore Boulevard from the DonRoadway to Leslie Street.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following reports and communications until its meeting scheduled to be held on October 5, 1998:

-(July 7 and 9, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, entitled "F.G.GardinerExpressway East Dismantling Project";

-(July 13, 1998) from Councillors Sandra Bussin and Tom Jakobek, EastToronto;

-(June 18, 1998) from the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor;

-(June 8, 1998) from the Chair, South East Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee; and

-(July 8, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, entitled "F.G.Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project - Railway Relocation along LakeShoreBoulevard from DonRoadway to LeslieStreet - Contract No. T-54-98, Tender No.62-1998";

(2)referred the remaining communications to the General Manager, Transportation Services; and requested the General Manager:

(a)to develop, in consultation with the local community, a plan to minimize traffic infiltration and improve the safety of pedestrians on EasternAvenue and other streets in South Riverdale, as well as in affected areas of East Toronto (Ward 26), and submit a report thereon to the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(b)to conduct a detailed study of current and future rail movements (including Harbour Remediation and Transfer Facility trains) through this corridor, and their impacts, and review in detail the rail issues raised by the deputations; and submit a report thereon, including any alternative options, to the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(c)to submit a report containing any origin destination traffic studies to the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(d)to meet with representatives of the film industry to develop a plan for routing large vehicles during the demolition of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East;

(3)requested the Medical Officer of Health to submit a report to the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on theshort and long-term impacts of dismantling or refurbishing the GardinerExpressway East on the health of children in the demolition area, including the impact on distribution of particulates and air quality; such report to be presented to the local community for its review and approval prior to consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(4)requested the Chief Financial Officer to submit a report to the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on possible funding sources available for the proposed extension of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway over Leslie Street, should Council decide to proceed with that option:

(i)(July 7, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, entitled "F.G.GardinerExpressway East Dismantling Project", recommending that the Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project proceed as originally approved by the former Metropolitan Toronto and City of Toronto Councils; providing additional information related to the Dismantling Project as requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee and City Council; advising that many of the concerns raised about the GardinerEast Dismantling Project have already been addressed through previous planning and design work or can be addressed with appropriate mitigating measures; that those concerns which cannot be addressed relate to a desire to maintain the existing Expressway structure; expressing the opinion that the approved plan for the dismantling of the F.G.Gardiner Expressway East continues to provide the best combination of transportation service, urban character improvements and cost savings over the long term;

(ii)(July 9, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, entitled "F.G.GardinerExpressway East Dismantling Project", providing a summary of the differences between the current plan for the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project and an alternative plan developed to by-pass the LakeShoreBoulevard East and Carlaw Avenue intersection;

(iii)(July 13, 1998) from Councillors Sandra Bussin and Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, requesting that the Urban Environment and Development Committee support and recommend to City Council the "Alternative Plan" for the dismantling of the F.G.Gardiner Expressway East and the renovation of Lake Shore Boulevard East; expressing the belief that the "Alternative Plan" will better accommodate the transportation needs of their constituents while, at the same time, improving accessibility to the harbour lands; that the "Alternative Plan" will also achieve the very desirable objective of refurbishing the streetscape and the environment along the LakeShore corridor in this area; and further recommending that staff be requested to meet with the area studio and other business property owners to seek their input on the "Alternative Plan";

(iv)(June 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Task Force on the Gardiner/LakeShore Corridor reaffirms that it prefers the option selected as part of the environmental assessment process with the ramps coming down at BouchetteStreet;

(v)(June 8, 1998) from the Chair, South East Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee, advising that at its meeting of May 26, 1998, the City of Toronto's South East Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee discussed issues respecting the Gardiner East Dismantling Project, and had before it, the following motions:

"That the South East Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee:

(i)objects to any dismantling options that would eliminate or bypass the controlled intersection at Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East, and any other design or construction options that would constrict vehicular or rail access to the Port Area, as reductions in the level of access would have substantial negative impacts on local businesses, the development potential of the Port Area and would impede access of emergency vehicles to the Port Area;

(ii)requests Council, in its consideration of the Gardiner East Dismantling Project, to direct Toronto Transportation staff to consult with appropriate Civic Officials and report on the impact on local emergency services, should the controlled intersection at CarlawAvenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East be removed; and

(iii)request Council, in its consideration of the Gardiner East Dismantling Project, to direct Toronto Transportation staff to undertake short-term improvements to the Cherry Street/Lake Shore Boulevard East intersection in conjunction with PhaseI of the GardinerExpressway dismantling, including, but not limited to, traffic signal modifications to extend the green light for north bound vehicles on Cherry Street, improved pavement markings, and the establishment of warning lights and activated signals for pedestrian and cyclists, while longer-term improvements for the intersection are developed.";

(vi)(July 2, 1998) from Mr. James Alcock, Chairman, Citizens for Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway (C.R.E.G.E.), requesting that the Urban Environment and Development Committee not approve further progress on the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, and setting out the reasons therefor; that the rehabilitation of all of the existing Expressway structure be approved, and that new double ramps be provided at the eastern end of the structure over the Leslie Street intersection; stating that, after this is done, Lake Shore Boulevard, west of LeslieStreet under the Gardiner Expressway, should be downgraded to a more local status with the creation of bicycle lanes in both directions on Lake Shore Boulevard;

(vii)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Kenneth W. Ferguson, Vice-President, Toronto Film Studios Inc., expressing grave concern regarding the City's plan to relocate certain railway tracks in connection with the proposed demolition of the Gardiner Expressway, east of the Don Valley Parkway; urging the Urban Environment and Development Committee to weigh the consequences of such railway relocation on both the local community and the film and television industry; and advising that it would be premature for CityCouncil to award a contract to relocate the railway tracks until several major conflicts resulting from the relocation have been mitigated;

(viii)(July 8, 1998) from Mr. Barry Munro, P.Eng., expressing support for the option to rehabilitate the F.G. Gardiner Expressway east of the Don Valley Parkway, and for the 1987 motion to provide a two-lane ramp for westbound traffic at Leslie Street in order to maintain a constant traffic flow;

(ix)(April 6, 1998) from Mr. Manny Danelon, Industry Co-Chair, Film Liaison Industry Committee, advising that the Film Liaison Industry Committee (FLIC) on March 26, 1998, unanimously adopted a motion to oppose the demolition of the Gardiner Expressway due to the effect of such demolition on the studio district in terms of noise and traffic congestion;

(x)(July 13, 1998) from Mr. Boris Mather, Director, Citizens for a Lakeshore Greenway, urging the Urban Environment and Development Committee to proceed with the original plan to dismantle the eastern portion of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway, thereby beautifying the waterfront;

(xi)(July 9, 1998) from Ms. Gail Thompson, Director, Location Promotion and Services, Ontario Film Development Corporation, expressing concerns regarding the demolition of the Gardiner Expressway between Leslie Street and the Don Valley Parkway; stating that the plan to relocate the railway tracks from the centre of Lake Shore Boulevard to the north boulevard, directly adjacent to the Toronto Film Studios and Cinevillage, will cause irreparable harm to the business undertaken at those two facilities; that the City of Toronto will lose business to other jurisdictions due to the unfavourable filming conditions that will result from the relocation of the railway tracks; and urging the Urban Environment and Development Committee to reconsider its position about proceeding with the demolition of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East until all conflicts have been resolved and an analysis has been made of the impact of the demolition; and

(xii)(July 13, 1998) from Ms. Catherine Lake (and on behalf of Ms. Monique Volpe and Mr.Nigel Lake) expressing concern with the current speed and volume of traffic on LoganAvenue, between Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard, particularly transport trucks and vans; stating that the dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway will make this neighbourhood a speed zone of more traffic accessing the new ramp location, and will subject the community to even more stresses and unhealthy toxins in its living environment; and submitting a copy of minutes from a meeting attended by some of the residents in consultation with the Lura Group.

--------

Mr. John Kelly, Project Manager, Transportation Services, made a presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

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

-Mr. James Alcock, Chairman, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway; and filed a written brief with respect thereto;

-Mr. Stephen Richard Morrison, President, The Rose Corporation;

-Mr. Kenneth W. Ferguson, Vice-President, Toronto Film Studios Inc.;

-Ms. Elizabeth Borek, Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

-Mr. Peter Smith, Toronto;

- Mr. Kevin Walters, Toronto;

-Mr. David Hanna, Toronto; and submitted various articles with respect thereto;

-Ms. Ang McCluskey, Toronto;

-Ms. Kathy Chandler, Toronto;

-Mr. Barry Munro, P.Eng., Toronto;

-Mr. Boris Mather, Director, Citizens for a Lakeshore Greenway;

-Mr. Wilfrid Walker, Transport 2000 Ontario; and filed a written brief with respect thereto;

-Mr. Manny Danelon, Industry Co-Chair, Film Liaison Industry Committee;

-Mr. Peter Lukas, Showline and The Ontario Film/TV Owners Association;

-Ms. Gail Thompson, Director, Location Promotion and Services, Ontario Film Development Corporation;

-Mr. Ken Greenberg, Urban Strategies;

-Mr. J. Michael Kirkland; The Kirkland Partnership Inc.;

-Mr. David Glassey; Toronto;

-Ms. Catherine Nasmith, Co-Chair, Task Force on the Gardiner/LakeShore Corridor; and submitted copies of two articles from the March 1998 issue of "STPP Progress"; and

-Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto.

(c)Application of Former City of Toronto's 1984 Special Legislation

Respecting Demolition Control to the New City of Toronto.

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

(June 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor responding to a request made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee on May 19, 1998, during consideration of the conversion to condominium, and demolition, of rental housing before and after the proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act, for a report on the feasibility of amending the former City of Toronto's special demolition control legislation in the City of Toronto Act, 1984, so that the Act will apply to the whole of the urban area of the new City; advising that the costs of filing an application for special legislation includes a filing fee of $150.00, the cost of publishing a notice of application once a week for fourweeks in the Ontario Gazette and newspaper, the cost of printing the Private Bill and the cost of printing the Act in the annual statutes; that, based on 1996 costs for a similar sized Private Bill, costs are estimated at $6,000.00 with newspaper advertising costs being the largest component; and recommending that, if the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends an application for special legislation, authority be granted to apply for special legislation substantially in the form of the draft Private Bill attached to this report.

(d)Intervenor Funding of Community Groups at Ontario Municipal Board Hearings.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)referred the following report to the City Solicitor and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, with a request that they submit a joint report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the criteria for extending intervenor funding to community groups; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on whether it is appropriate for applications by community groups for intervenor funding to be reviewed by a City Committee; and, if so, to identify the Committee to conduct such review:

(June 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services reporting, in response to Council's request at its June 3, 4 and 5, 1998 meeting, on a policy for requests for intervenor funding; advising that an emphasis on advance community consultation, negotiation, facilitation and mediation, rather than on litigation, will best ensure that the decision making process for development and planning matters is accessible to all citizens; and recommending that Council not support intervenor funding but continue to make decisions on requests on a case-by-case basis, evaluating at the time of the request the availability of funds and whether other dispute resolution methods could be used to achieve the interests of the City of Toronto.

(e)Toronto Transit Commission

Project Approval and Procurement Authorization

- General Business Computer.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee that increased project financing approval in the amount of $1,608,395.00 gross be granted to CityProject No. 710 of the Toronto Transit Commission, "Computer Equipment and Software -Various":

(June 19, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that the Commission on June 17, 1998, approved the following recommendations contained in a report, entitled "Project Approval and Procurement Authorization - General Business Computer":

"It is recommended that the Commission approve:

(1)awarding a contract to GlassHouse Systems Inc., in the amount of $1,433,900.00 to replace the existing IBM 9121/480 with an IBM 2003/225, including the hardware and IBM operating system software;

(2)an additional $350,000.00 for the transfer and upgrade of existing third party (non-IBM) software;

(3)an additional $24,495.00, required to pursue the option to purchase nine additional channels, for a total upset limit of $1,808,395.00;

(4)approval to declare the current IBM 9121/480 surplus and authorize the Manager of Materials and Procurement to dispose of it in the best interest of the Commission;

(5)forwarding this report to the City of Toronto Council requesting increased project approval be granted in the amount of $1,608,395.00 gross ($731,820.00 net) by advancing approved expenditures from future years; and

(6)authorize staff to proceed with the award of this contract, due to the critical nature of the request and hold in TAC accounts, pending City Council approval."

(f)1998 Wheel-Trans Budget Update.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the BudgetCommittee the adoption of the recommendations of the Toronto Transit Commission, embodied in the following communication:

(June 19, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that the Commission on June 17, 1998, approved the following recommendations contained in Report No. (5), entitled "1998 Wheel-Trans Budget Update":

"It is recommended that the Commission approve:

(1)increasing the 1998 Wheel-Trans Operating Budget of $38.2M by up to $625,000.00, and the workforce complement from 380 to 383, as set out below:

(a)increasing the Sedan Taxi service by up to $400,000.00 to accommodate unbudgeted costs associated with increased trip demand;

(b)increasing the Wheel-Trans maintenance costs by $75,000.00 as a result of decreasing Orion bus reliability and thereby delaying the planned reduction of the Wheel-Trans Maintenance workforce; and

(c)allocating the legal costs associated with the current Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Challenge of the Wheel-Trans application process and eligibility criteria, in the amount of $150,000.00 to the 1998 Wheel-Trans Operating Budget;

(2)increasing the current purchase order upset limits of the Sedan Taxi Contracts by up to $400,000.00 in order to provide for these additional trips; and

(3)forward this report to the City of Toronto requesting City Council approval, through the City Budget Committee, of a draw from the Corporate Contingency Account in the amount of $625,000.00, bringing the 1998 Budget to $38.8 million."

(g)Sheppard Subway: Status of Permits and Approvals.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of this matter until its next meeting, scheduled to be heldon September8, 1998; and

(2)requested the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, to submit a full report to the September 8, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the potential cost overruns on the Sheppard Subway project:

(May 21, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that the Commission on May 20, 1998, considered Report No. (27), entitled "Sheppard Subway Status of Permits and Approvals"; that the Commission received the subject report for information and approved the following:

(1)that staff report on the critical path for completion of the Sheppard Subway, including tenders, site plan approvals, building permits, design work, tunnelling work and any other appropriate deadlines associated with the project; and further

(2)that any site plan approval conditions which add costs beyond the approved budget for the Sheppard Subway project be forwarded to the City Budget Committee and City Council for additional project and funding approval;

and stating that the foregoing is forwarded for the information of the City of Toronto Council.

(h)510 Spadina: Progress Towards Resolution of Safety Problem.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication, having regard that City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, by the adoption of Clause No. 45 of Report No. 8 of The Toronto Community Council, already dealt with this matter:

(June 19, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that the Commission on June 17, 1998, considered Report No. (22), entitled "510Spadina: Progress Towards Resolution of Safety Problem"; and setting out the action taken by the Commission with respect thereto.

(i)Russell Hill Subway Train Accident of

August 11, 1995 - Due Diligence Checklist Update.

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

(June 19, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that at its meeting on Wednesday, June 17, 1998, the Commission considered a report, entitled "Russell Hill Subway Train Accident of August 11, 1995 - Due Diligence Checklist Update."; and that the Commission received the updated Due Diligence Checklist contained therein, which provides a status report on the progress toward closing the Coroner's Jury Recommendations and the TTC's Internal Team Recommendations.

(j)Request to Install Traffic Control Signals:

Bayview Avenue and Tudor Gate.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)recommended to the Budget Committee, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council, the adoption of the recommendation of the North York Community Council, embodied in the communication (June 19, 1998) from the City Clerk, subject to amending the motion by Councillor Flint by striking therefrom the third operative paragraph, viz:

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT provision be made in the 1998Transportation budget to cover the cost of installing this signal light.";

(2)recommended to the Budget Committee that funds for the proposed traffic control signals at BayviewAvenue and Tudor Gate be allocated from cancelled projects within the Works and Emergency Services Department's 1998 Capital Budget for Transportation Services;

(3)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to submit a report to the next meeting of the Budget Committee on the funding sources for the proposed traffic control signals at Bayview Avenue and Tudor Gate; and

(4)received the following communication from Mr. Clifford R. Jenkins, President, TheYork Mills Ratepayers' Association:

(i)(June 2, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the North York Community Council on May27, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee the adoption of a motion by Councillor Flint, which contains the following operative paragraphs:

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT a traffic signal light be installed on Bayview Avenue at Tudor Gate; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this light be activated in off-peak hours so as to allow a single vehicle to legally turn left onto BayviewAvenue; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT provision be made in the 1998 Transportation budget to cover the cost of installing this signal light.";

submitting a copy of a report (May 26, 1998) from the Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, Transportation Services, wherein it states that based on a review of the intersection, the traffic volumes recorded during the busiest hours of a typical weekday do not satisfy the minimum technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals; and further stating that the Urban Environment and Development Committee previously approved the re-striping of Bayview Avenue to provide a centre two-way left-turn lane between YorkRoad/Wilket Road and Post Road, which will assist motorists turning left onto BayviewAvenue, from Tudor Gate, CountryLane and other streets and driveways in this vicinity.

(ii)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Clifford R. Jenkins, President, The York Mills Ratepayers' Association, recommending strongly that the City of Toronto install traffic control signals at the intersection of Bayview Avenue and Tudor Gate in the interest of the community's safety.

--------

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

-Mr. Ryan Brooker, North York;

-Mr. Paul Elstro, North York;

-Ms. Margaret Nightingale, North York;

-Mr. Ruby Osten, Toronto;

-Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South; and

-Councillor Milton Berger, North York Centre South.

(k)Request for the Installation of Noise Barriers on Romanway Crescent.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of this matter to its meeting scheduled to be held on October5, 1998; and

(2)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to examine the shrubbery and pavement on Jane Street in the vicinity of Romanway Crescent to determine whether changes to the landscaping and/or road surface would accommodate the concerns of the residents of Romanway Crescent; and submit a report thereon to the October 5, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(May 1, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber, submitting a copy of a staff response dated March 23, 1998, prepared with respect to a constituent's request for noise barriers on Romanway Crescent, wherein it states that such installation is not supported due to the cost involved and the impacts on public security and aesthetics; and advising that her constituent wishes to pursue this matter and make a deputation before the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

--------

Ms. Maria Demarco, Toronto, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(l)Review of Level Crossings and the

Construction of Grade Separations in the City of Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following communication to the General Manager, Transportation Services, with a request that he submit a report to the Committee on the issue of level crossings and grade separations in the new City of Toronto:

(June 1, 1998) from Mr. Tony O'Donohue, P. Eng., submitting comments pertaining to a proposed review of level crossings and the construction of grade separations in the City of Toronto; and recommending that the Urban Environment and Development Committee adopt thefollowing:

"Request staff:

(a)to report on the locations of all level crossings in Toronto;

(b)to report on the financial formulas to be used for the construction of grade separations;

(c)to review the contributions of benefitting developers/industries; and

(d)to review the status of the Strachan Avenue level crossing; and, further, comment on safety, legal and the rights of the abutting new residential community."

(m)Summary of History and Status of the Acquisition of Steeles Avenue.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)established a Steeles Avenue Sub-Committee, comprised of the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and Members of the Committee whose Wards abut Steeles Avenue (i.e, Councillors Li Preti, Moscoe and Sgro); and

(2)requested the Steeles Avenue Sub-Committee to meet with the General Manager, Transportation Services, in order to develop a strategy for dealing with Steeles Avenue, and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(June 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services advising that Council at its meeting of June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted Clause No. 7 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Proposal to Commence Negotiations for a New Agreement with the Region of York Regarding Steeles Avenue", in which staff were requested to prepare a summary of previous reports on Steeles Avenue; providing a summary of the information previously presented to Metro Council in this regard; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(n)Metropolitan Toronto Coach Terminal Inc.

Financial Statements for Year Ended December 31, 1997.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)received the following communication, and having directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to the Audit Committee for its consideration; and

(2)requested the General Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Coach Terminal Inc., to submit a report directly to the Audit Committee, for consideration with this matter on July 21, 1998, regarding Note (6) to the Non-Consolidated Financial Statements, viz:

"6.Economic Dependence:

The Company is dependent on the continuing support of its parent, the Commission. In addition, a significant portion of the Company's revenue is attributable to four tenant carriers. Agreements with three of these carriers have expired. The ability of the Company to continue as a going concern is dependent on the renegotiation of the agreements with these carriers, or alternates.":

(June 23, 1998) from the General Secretary, Metropolitan Toronto Coach Terminal Inc., advising that the Board of Directors of MTCTI on June17, 1998, approved the attached Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 1997; and stating that the foregoing is forwarded to the City of Toronto for information.

(o)Scarborough Port Union Pedestrian Underpass:

Transportation Capital Budget Project No. C-TR-703.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)directed that the following report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for consideration; and

(2)requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to submit a report to the next meeting of the Budget Committee regarding the proposed reallocation of $900,000.00 from Project No. C-TR-703, Scarborough Port Union Pedestrian Underpass, to Project No.C-TR-701, Scarborough Sidewalk Construction; specifically, whether such proposed reallocation is an appropriate use of funds given the transportation requirements City-wide:

(July 9, 1998) from the the General Manager, Transportation Services, recommending that $900,000.00 be re-allocated from Project No. C-TR-703, Scarborough Port Union Pedestrian Underpass, to Project No. C-TR-701, Scarborough Sidewalk Construction, and, further, that this report be forwarded to theScarborough Community Council for its information; advising that the proposed Port Union Pedestrian Underpass is one component of the PortUnion Common/Waterfront Regeneration Project which stretches from Highland Creek to the Rouge River, and that the underpass links the Port Union Road Headland to the Village Common by creating a tunnel underneath the railway line separating them; explaining that construction of the underpass was originally expected to begin in 1998, but has now proceeded to the point where only $100,000.00 in engineering work can be completed in 1998; stating that $1,000,000.00 was allocated in the 1998 Capital Works Program for the Port Union Pedestrian Underpass; and that, because of the delay in construction to 1999, it is appropriate to reallocate $900,000.00 from this project to the Scarborough Sidewalk Construction program which was cut back as part of the original budget process.

Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE,

Chair

Toronto, July 13, 1998

(Report No. 9 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998.)