TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998

URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 13

1Trial Installations of Community Safety Zones.

2Potential Abandonment of Rail Corridors:Report of the Caucus Rail Strategy Committee.

3Toronto Transit Commission Support forAlternative Funding Mechanisms for Municipal Public Transit Systems in Ontario

4Communication Plan for New Bus Garage.

5Toronto Transit Commission:Replacement of McBrien Building Switchboards.

6Revised Terms of Reference for theToronto Cycling Committee.

7Standing Authority to Dedicate Landas a Public Highway or a Public Lane.

8Contract No. 59714, Tender No. 129-1998:Reconstruction of Pavements, Sidewalksand Curbs on Christie Street.

9Installation of Mid-Block Pedestrian Traffic Control Signals on Yonge Street, North of Shuter Street.

10Installation of Traffic Control Signals on Fleet Street Between Bathurst Streetand Lake Shore Boulevard West.

11Installation of Approved Traffic Control Signals: Status Report.

12Removal of Parking Restriction on Residential Side Streets in the Cedarvale Area

13Partial Rescission of the Eastbound Left-Turn Prohibition:Bloor Street West and Lansdowne Avenue.

14Proposed Relocation of the Pedestrian Crossover and Extension of the Eastbound Left-Turn Prohibition at Dundas Street West and Humberside Avenue.

15Amendments to Stopping Regulations: Spadina Avenue, North of College Street.

16Amendments to Parking Regulations on the North Side of Adelaide Street West, Between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue.

17Other Items Considered by the Committee.

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 13

OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on November 2, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998

1

Trial Installations of Community Safety Zones.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1)amending Recommendation No. (3)(a) of the Urban Environment and Development Committee by:

(a)deleting therefrom the following Parts (vi) and (vii):

"(vi)all of Parkside Drive; and

(vii)Annette Street, in the vicinity of St. Cecilia's Public School;"; and

(b)adding thereto the following new Parts (vi), (vii) and (viii), with the provision that upon completion of the trial project and contingent upon it being successful, such additional locations be given high priority for designation as a permanent community safety zone:

"(vi)Courcellette Street;

(vii)Blantyre Avenue; and

(viii)Fallingbrook Road.";

(2)amending Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report dated October 16, 1998, from the General Manager, Transportation Services, by:

(a)deleting the date "February 1, 1999" and inserting in lieu thereof the date "January1,1999"; and

(b)adding thereto the following new Parts (x) and (xi):

"(x)all of Parkside Drive, from Bloor Street to Lake Shore Boulevard; and

(xi)Annette Street, in the vicinity of St. Cecilia's Public School;",

so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2)the following test locations be designated as community safety zones on January 1, 1999, to be in effect at all times:

(i)Keele Street, between Bloor Street West and Annette Street;

(ii)East Avenue, between Lawrence Avenue East and Island Road;

(iii)O'Connor Drive, between Woodbine Avenue and Pape Avenue;

(iv)Scarlett Road, between St. Clair Avenue West and Eglinton Avenue West;

(v)Dundas Street West, between Montgomery Road and 100 metres east of Old Oak Drive;

(vi)Bathurst Street, between Kenton Drive and Hounslow Avenue;

(vii)Finch Avenue West, between Goldfinch Court and Endell Avenue;

(viii)Bathurst Street, between the north limit of Steeles Avenue West and 100metres south of Greenwin Village Road;

(ix)Steeles Avenue West, between 100 metres west of Carpenter Road and 100metres east of Bathurst Street;

(x)all of Parkside Drive, from Bloor Street to Lake Shore Boulevard; and

(xi)Annette Street in the vicinity of St. Cecilia's Public School;"; and

(3)amending Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the report dated October 16, 1998, from the General Manager, Transportation Services, by deleting the words "in the fall of 1999" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "in June 1999", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(3)staff report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in June 1999 on the effectiveness of the trial community safety zones;".)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following report (October 16, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

(2)that the Province of Ontario be requested to install photo radar cameras in certain locations around the proposed community safety zones;

(3)that the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested:

(a)to compile a secondary list for trial installations of community safety zones following completion of the test project; such list to include the following locations:

(i)Shuter Street, from Parliament Avenue to River Street;

(ii)Eastern Avenue, from Broadview Avenue to Kingston Road;

(iii)St. Clair Avenue and Dufferin Street;

(iv)St. Clair Avenue and Vaughan Road;

(v)Dufferin Street and Eglinton Avenue;

(vi)all of Parkside Drive; and

(vii)Annette Street, in the vicinity of St. Cecilia's Public School; and

(b)to canvass all Members of Council for other locations within their Wards, in order of priority, for possible addition to the secondary list for trial installations of community safety zones;

and to submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(4)that the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to prepare a cost/revenue analysis of one of the trial community safety zones, including the policing costs and the revenue generated; such analysis to include the monitoring of any charges laid through the courts from the pilot control section:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a number of community safety zones within the City of Toronto in order to test their effectiveness on improving driver compliance with traffic regulations.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed community safety zone test locations are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1999 Current Budget estimates. The estimated cost of installing the appropriate signs is $23,700.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)in co-operation with the Toronto Police Service, Transportation Services staff devise and conduct a program of "before" and "after" studies at a representative number of locations to be designated as community safety zones;

(2)the following test locations be designated as community safety zones on February 1, 1999, to be in effect at all times:

(i)Keele Street, between Bloor Street West and Annette Street;

(ii)East Avenue, between Lawrence Avenue East and Island Road;

(iii)O'Connor Drive, between Woodbine Avenue and Pape Avenue;

(iv)Scarlett Road, between St. Clair Avenue West and Eglinton Avenue West;

(v)Dundas Street West, between Montgomery Road and 100 metres east of Old Oak Drive;

(vi)Bathurst Street, between Kenton Drive and Hounslow Avenue;

(vii)Finch Avenue West, between Goldfinch Court and Endell Avenue;

(viii)Bathurst Street, between the north limit of Steeles Avenue West and 100 metres south of Greenwin Village Road; and

(ix)Steeles Avenue West, between 100 metres west of Carpenter Road and 100 metres east of Bathurst Street;

(3)staff report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in the fall of 1999 on the effectiveness of the trial community safety zones; and

(4)the necessary by-law(s) be enacted to give effect thereto.

Background:

At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, City Council adopted the recommendations presented in a report by the City Solicitor, dated July 6, 1998 (see Appendix 1), and in so doing, instructed staff to identify a limited number of potential locations for community safety zone designation, for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

City Council also adopted 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."

On August 27, 1998, the Chief Judge of the Provincial Division of the Ontario Court of Justice established the Set Fines for the offences affected by the community safety zone designation, and this order came into effect on September 1, 1998. The Set Fine for community safety zone offences is approximately double the minimum fine for the same offences outside these zones (see Appendix 2).

It should be noted that there are a number of traffic control devices being tested within the "Speed Compliance on Major Arterial Roads" program, and these are not included within this report, but will be reported on at a subsequent Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting in the near future.

Discussion:

The Province of Ontario has amended the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) to provide municipalities with a new traffic management tool. Specifically,

"The council of a municipality may by by-law designate a part of a highway under its jurisdiction as a community safety zone if, in the council's opinion, public safety is of special concern on that part of the highway."

The Province provides no criteria for the selection of these zones, and the zones must be specific sections of roads or intersections. The HTA amendment includes strict signage requirements. (See Appendix 3.) Municipalities can establish community safety zones to be in effect at all times, or during whatever times of the day, days of the week and/or months of the year it so chooses. However, the prescribed signs cannot be altered to identify specific times, days or months. Therefore, unless the zones are in effect at all times, large sign tabs would have to be installed adjacent to the prescribed signs in order to conform with the legal requirements of community safety zone designation. Staff recommend that the community safety zones be in effect at all times in order to realize maximum benefits from the designations; for simplicity of public awareness and enforcement; and for maximum simplicity and legibility of the signs.

Staff are not confident that the designation and signing of community safety zones will be a significant deterrent to illegal driving behaviour. The degree of impact of these zones will likely be proportional to the level of enforcement provided by the Toronto Police Service. Its resources for this effort are limited, so the greatest possible impact will be achieved by designating a select few community safety zones. Furthermore, in order to properly assess the impact of these zones, Transportation Services staff should conduct a detailed series of "before" and "after" studies at the test sites to quantify speed profiles, traffic volumes, and illegal traffic manoeuvres. These studies should be conducted both with and without the impact of police enforcement, both "before" and "after" the community safety zones have been introduced. There are limited staff resources to undertake these studies, which is further reason to limit the number of test sites. In order to provide staff with time to conduct the "before" studies, the zones should not be signed prior to February1,1999.

In order to focus the designation of community safety zones to locations where they would be of greatest deterrent benefit, staff used the following criteria to assess candidate locations:

(i)there is a history of repeated offences of similar nature;

(ii)enforcement alone has not been effective; and

(iii)other mitigating measures are inappropriate or have not been effective.

In addition to the first three criteria, staff also assessed other elements where the public is exposed to the highest safety risks:

(iv)at high collision locations;

(v)adjacent to elementary schools; and

(vi)at elementary school crossings.

It is not practical to designate all school crossings as community safety zones. There are approximately 700 throughout the City of Toronto, of which approximately 100 are patrolled by student (child) patrollers, and the rest are controlled by adult crossing guards.

Staff have consulted with the vast majority of City Councillors on this issue. The majority acknowledge the value of limiting the number of test locations and conducting meaningful "before" and "after" studies. However, a few Councillors suggested that many more sites should be designated, such as one or two per Ward. Generally, Councillors expressed a certain degree of scepticism regarding the legislation, and questioned its effectiveness. Some suggested that the legislation should include an increase in the loss of demerit points upon conviction, in order to strengthen the deterrent value of community safety zones.

The effectiveness of the legislation was also questioned in relation to the limited enforcement resources which could be dedicated to this program. Several Councillors suggested that the community safety zone designations be removed periodically or rotated from site to site in order to heighten the impact and allow for concentrated enforcement efforts. There were also comments on the need for public awareness information, such as brochure distribution close to the test sites.

Councillors were asked to either suggest candidate locations for community safety zones or comment on sites suggested by staff or other Councillors. (Attached as Appendix 4 is the list of specific locations mentioned by Councillors.) Staff have assessed the candidate locations in relation to the criteria mentioned earlier and attempted to balance the comments and opinions of Councillors. Those locations suggested by Councillors which are not part of the initial test are available in the event that the effects of the trial community safety zones are beneficial and the program is expanded.

The list of locations suggested by staff for the trial of community safety zones equates to approximately one section of road for each Community Council area, plus an additional high collision location intersection. Each location is described briefly below:

(i)Keele Street, between Bloor Street West and Annette Street.

This four-lane arterial roadway in the Toronto Community Area has been the subject of considerable study in the past in relation to continual speeding concerns in proximity to schools. A school speed zone was installed in 1996. Parkside Drive, south of Bloor Street West, historically has a lower speed profile (than Keele Street north of Bloor Street West) and traffic control signals are being installed at two intersections on this section of road in 1998. The estimated cost of sign installation is $3,000.00.

(ii)East Avenue, between Lawrence Avenue East and Island Road.

This section of road in the eastern-most portion of the Scarborough Community Area has a history of speeding problems. A school is located on it, two pedestrian crossovers, and a transition from a 50 km/h to a 40 km/h speed limit. The estimated cost of sign installation is $3,900.00.

(iii)O'Connor Drive, between Woodbine Avenue and Pape Avenue.

This four lane, 50 km/h arterial roadway in the East York Community Area has been the focus of considerable public concern with respect to speeding, collisions, and PXO violations. The estimated cost of sign installation is $4,700.00.

(iv)Scarlett Road, between St. Clair Avenue West and Eglinton Avenue West.

The majority of this four-lane, 50 km/h arterial roadway is in the York Community Area, but the northerly portion is in the Etobicoke Community Area. There is a long history of traffic safety concerns related to this section of road. The estimated cost of sign installation is $4,800.00.

(v)Dundas Street West, between Montgomery Road and 100 metres east of Old Oak Road.

This four-lane, 50 km/h arterial roadway has a history of speeding and collision concerns in the Etobicoke Community Area. It is the most problematic section of Dundas Street West, between Islington Avenue and Royal York Road. The estimated cost of sign installation is $1,100.00

(vi)Bathurst Street, between Kenton Drive and Hounslow Avenue.

(vii)Finch Avenue West, between Goldfinch Court and Endell Avenue.

These sections of Bathurst Street and Finch Avenue West, in the North York Community Area, span the Bathurst Street and Finch Avenue West intersection which has consistently ranked as a High Collision Location. The improvements undertaken in the past have not reduced the collision frequency. The estimated cost of sign installation is $3,800.00

(viii)Bathurst Street, between the north limit of Steeles Avenue West and 100 metres south of Greenwin Village Road.

(ix)Steeles Avenue West, between 100 metres west of Carpenter Road and 100 metres east of Bathurst Street.

These sections of Bathurst Street and Steeles Avenue West, in the North York Community Area, span the Bathurst Street and Steeles Avenue West intersection which has consistently ranked as a High Collision Location. The improvements undertaken in the past have not significantly reduced the collision frequency. The estimated cost of sign installation is $2,400.00.

The total cost of manufacturing and installing the community safety zone signage at all the recommended locations is estimated to be approximately $23,700.00.

One suggestion raised is the installation of community safety zone signs on all the streets in proximity to and approaching the principal section of road being designated. If this strategy were used the signage costs would more than double. The purpose of signing the side streets would be to allow for increased fines for violations originating from the side street, such as disobeyance of a stop sign.

As mentioned earlier, staff will conduct detailed "before" and "after" studies in order to measure the effectiveness of community safety zones. Staff have requested close co-operation from the Toronto Police Service in order to isolate the effects with and without the presence of enforcement. In order to provide staff with time to conduct "before" studies, installation of the zones should occur in February 1999. Staff will report on the test results in the fall of 1999.

The Province of Ontario has been asked what promotional activities it will undertake to advise the public of these new traffic control devices. Staff of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services have advised that a promotional campaign has been designed which is before the Minister for approval.

Conclusions:

The Province of Ontario has amended the HTA in order to provide municipalities with the option of designating special sections of road, or intersections, as community safety zones. If a motorist is convicted of any one of a variety of offences committed within a community safety zone, they will be subject to a Set Fine approximately twice as expensive as the minimum fine for the same offence committed elsewhere. The Province anticipates that driver obeyance of the rules of the road will thus be improved within community safety zones.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of this new device, staff propose to undertake "before" and "after" studies at select recommended locations and report back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in the fall of 1999.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

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

__________

Appendix 1

(Report dated July 6, 1998, addressed to the

Urban Environment and Development Committee

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 to 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 also submits the following facsimile (October 30, 1998) from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park:

See Recommendation No. (2)(i) - Keele Street, between Bloor Street West and Annette Street. Please include all of Parkside Drive.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (October 30, 1998) from Councillor David Miller, High Park-Parkdale:

As I am unable to attend the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 2, 1998, due to the school closing issue, would you please include Annette Street, in the vicinity of St. Cecilia's Public School, in your list of trial installations of community safety zones.

This City, Metro and the Police have made numerous efforts to make this part of Annette Street safe over the years but have not been successful. Since it is a different type of road - a local arterial - than most of the others proposed, it would be an appropriate additional trial of community safety zones.

_________

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

-Councillor Joe Mihevc, York-Eglinton; and

-Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber.

(A copy of Appendices 2, 3 and 4, referred to in the foregoing report (October 16, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 2, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the Metropolitan Clerk.)

2

Potential Abandonment of Rail Corridors:

Report of the Caucus Rail Strategy Committee.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (October 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

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

(1)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to:

(a)review the feasibility of notifying all Committees of Adjustment that any applications regarding the abandonment of rail corridors, other than spur lines, be held in abeyance until such time as the City has established firm planning policies with respect to the disposition of such corridors; and

(b)develop planning policies to protect rail corridors, and consider the possibility of placing an interim control by-law on the utilization of such corridors;

and submit a report thereon directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting on November 25, 1998; and

(2)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to review the taxation policies regarding rail rights-of-way, and explore the feasibility of a transfer to the City and lease back for a nominal sum in order to remove the tax incentive to sell such rights-of-way; and submit a report thereon directly to Council for consideration with this matter at its meeting on November 25, 1998.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (October21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report provides comments on the Report of the Caucus Rail Strategy Committee with regard to the potential abandonment of rail corridors.

Financial Implications:

This report does not have any financial implications for the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(1)support the recommendations of the Caucus Rail Strategy Committee report (attached), in particular the recommendations to fully explore all practical options for ensuring continuity of adequate commuter rail services and the option of enacting legislation to facilitate the purchase of intact abandoned rights-of-way by municipalities and other interested parties, such options to include direct Provincial funding for GO Transit services and provision of additional funding authority to municipalities; and

(2)forward a copy of this report and Council's resolution of June 3, 1998, with regard to GOTransit's Funding Relationship with the City of Toronto to the Caucus Rail Strategy Committee.

Background:

The Canada Transportation Act, enacted in July 1996 by the Government of Canada, makes it easier and significantly shortens the time frame for railway companies to discontinue operations and sell, lease, transfer or abandon rail rights-of-way. The abandonment process described in the Act requires that railway companies: maintain three-year plans identifying any line where service may be discontinued; give public notice of its intent to sell any specific right-of-way; negotiate first with companies intending to continue rail operations within these corridors; and in the absence of an agreement for continued rail operations, offer these rights-of-way to the federal, provincial and municipal governments at net salvage value.

In response to this change in federal legislation, Mr. Joe Tascona, M.P.P. (PC - Simcoe County) established the Caucus Rail Strategy Committee to review the Ontario Government's policy and actions with respect to rail services. The Caucus Committee's report and a copy of my initial response are attached.

Discussion:

(A)Caucus Rail Strategy Committee Report:

The Caucus Rail Strategy Committee reports notes that the Canada Transportation Act provides a very short time frame for discontinuance of rail operations. After a rail line has been identified in the three-year plan for 60 days, there is only a 60 day notice public period to advertise the sale of the line. If there is no acceptable offer from another rail operator, the federal, provincial and municipal governments (in sequence) have 30 days each to indicate their interest in purchasing a right-of-way. It should also be noted that the right-of-way need only be offered to the Federal Government if the rail line crosses a provincial boundary or goes outside Canada. The Caucus Rail Strategy Committee report also notes that, "Due to the relative high land value in Toronto, funding of such acquisition by the City may be an issue."

The Caucus Committee report recommends that:

(1)the Ontario Government:

(a)continue to monitor the railway rationalization process and provide information and technical support to affected industries and municipalities as requested;

(b)document any concerns or problems stemming from the discontinuance process set out in the Canada Transportation Act in preparation for input to the statutory review of that legislation in 2000;

(c)bring to the attention of the federal Minister of Transport, any matters related to the discontinuance process requiring more immediate attention and that, in this regard, concern be registered immediately regarding the inadequate statutory time period (30days) for municipalities to respond to an offer to purchase;

(d)closely monitor any discontinuance affecting GO Transit rail services and ensure that all practical options for ensuring continuity of adequate commuter services are explored fully; and

(e)continue to facilitate the purchase of abandoned railway rights-of-way by municipalities and other interested parties and that the option of enacting legislation to facilitate the purchase of intact abandoned rights-of-way be further explored with stakeholders; and

(2)the Ministry of Finance be encouraged to continue to work with the railways to resolve outstanding property and fuel taxation issues.

(B)Comments:

The existing rail corridors are an integral and essential component of the transportation infrastructure serving the City and the GTA. GO Transit currently operates commuter rail service in seven corridors (Lakeshore West, Milton, Georgetown, Bradford, Richmond Hill, Stouffville, and Lakeshore East). The GO Transit rail corridors are also used to a limited extent for freight rail operations. The CP North Toronto (mid-town) and CP McTier (Rexdale) subdivisions, now used exclusively for freight rail traffic, are identified as future commuter rail corridors in the Metro Official Plan. Maintaining and enhancing commuter rail service is essential to accommodate the population and employment growth expected within the GTA over the next 20 years. All estimates indicate that demand for GO Transit service will double over that time period. Any loss or disruption of commuter rail service would have significant adverse impacts on a portion of the 100,000 passengers that currently use GO Transit each day.

In my report of June 1, 1998, to City Council with regard to GO Transit's Funding Relationship with the City of Toronto, I emphasized that the City cannot sustain the level of funding required for the operation, maintenance and expansion of GO Transit services without a significant property tax increase, a reduction in other services, or both. Council considered that report at its meeting on June 3, 1998 and adopted recommendations, among other things, requesting the Province to accept its funding responsibilities for GO Transit (the transit equivalent of the 400 series highways) and authorize new funding sources (e.g.,fuel tax, vehicle licence and parking surcharges) for the City and other municipalities.

Exhibit 1 shows the four rail lines within the City identified for abandonment or transfer in CN's and CP's three-year plans. GO Transit has concluded an agreement with CP for the long-term (99-year) lease of the Galt line and the CP Havelock line has been transferred to an internal shortline rail operator. The remaining two lines, CN Newmarket and CP Belleville-Don Branch, continue to be listed in the railway companies three-year plans but have not been advertised for sale in a public notice. Based on discussions with railway industry representatives there appears to be a consensus that there is surplus freight rail capacity in Central and Eastern Canada (east of Manitoba) and that additional lines will be identified for discontinuance or transfer.

The abandonment of existing rail corridors would impose additional cost on the City and GTA Regions. CN discontinued service on the CN Newmarket subdivision from Bradford to Barrie in 1997 and negotiations for acquisition of the right-of-way are currently ongoing with the local municipalities, including Simcoe County. It is our understanding that the Province is helping to facilitate the negotiations but has indicated that it will not provide funding.

Conclusions:

Council should support the Caucus Rail Strategy Committee's recommendations, in particular the recommendations to fully explore all practical options for ensuring continuity of adequate commuter rail services and the option of enacting legislation to facilitate the purchase of intact abandoned rights-of-way by municipalities and other interested parties. As previously requested by Council, the options considered should include direct Provincial funding for GO Transit services and provision of additional funding authority to municipalities.

Contact Name:

Mr. Rod McPhail, City Planning, Metro Hall Office, 392-8100; Fax: 392-3821.

(Communication dated September 29, 1998, addressed to

Mr. Joe Tascona, M.P.P., Simcoe Centre, from the

Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.)

Mayor Lastman forwarded a copy of the "Report of the Caucus Rail Strategy Committee to my attention for review and comment. I am pleased that the Caucus Rail Committee recognizes the vital importance of passenger and freight rail service to the economic and environmental health of the City of Toronto, the Greater Toronto Area and the Province as a whole.

Your report highlights two critical issues (the extremely short legislated time frame for governments to consider abandonment/discontinuance options and the high cost of acquiring rail corridors within the City of Toronto) that must be addressed to ensure the protection of existing rail corridors. It is essential that these issues be co-operatively addressed by all levels of government. I welcome your Committee's recommendations to fully explore all practical options for ensuring continuity of adequate commuter services and to consider the option of enacting new legislation to facilitate the purchase of intact abandoned rights-of-way.

City of Toronto staff would be pleased to assist your Committee and provincial staff develop and evaluate alternative solutions to this important issue.

A copy of your report will be forwarded to the City's Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration at its November 2, 1998 meeting.

(Communication dated May 8, 1998,

addressed to Heads and Members of Councils

from Mr. Joe Tascona, M.P.P., Simcoe Centre.)

After being elected as the Member of Provincial Parliament for Simcoe Centre, I realized that the issue of abandoned rail lines, and shortlines were important issues which many municipalities would be facing. Since the Federal Government passed the Canada Transportation Act 1996 and the Province passed the complementary legislation, the Ontario Shortlines Railways Act, municipalities are now faced with an array of options when one of the major rail carriers abandons a route.

I formed a Committee with other members of the Progressive Conservative Caucus who wished to investigate this issue. We listened with a number of stakeholders, from the major carriers to those advancing alternative uses if the rails are removed. After months of consultation I prepared a report reviewed by both the Committee and the Caucus as a whole. This report reviews the background issues describing why the rationalizing is occurring and different approaches which municipalities can take. The report also makes several recommendations for the Provincial Government's role.

I hope that this report assists you in your dealings with abandoned railways. Remember we are here to help. If you require any further information please feel free to contact my office.

_________

Report of the

Caucus Rail Strategy Committee

Prepared by Joseph N. Tascona, M.P.P. Simcoe Centre

Chair of the Caucus Rail Committee

Committee Members

Toby Barrett, M.P.P. Norfolk

Jack Carroll, M.P.P.Chatham Kent

Ted Chudleigh, M.P.P.Halton North

Harry Danford, M.P.P.Hastings-Peterborough

Barbara Fisher, M.P.P. Bruce

Steve Gilchrist, M.P.P.Scarborough East

Bill Grimmett, M.P.P.Muskoka Georgian Bay

John Hastings, M.P.P.Etobicoke Rexdale

Bert Johnson, M.P.P.Perth

Frank Klees, M.P.P.York Mackenzie

Julia Munro, M.P.P.Durham York

Jerry Ouellette, M.P.P.Oshawa,

Dough Rollins, M.P.P.Quinte

Toni Scarica, M.P.P.Wentworth North

Bruce Smith, M.P.P.Middlesex

Joe Spina, M.P.P.Brampton North

Jim Wilson, M.P.P.Simcoe West

Terence Young, M.P.P.Halton Centre

1.0Introduction:

The Caucus Rail Strategy Committee was established to review Ontario Government policy and actions with respect to railway services. The need to do so arose from the concerns of several members regarding constituency issues related to railway services and the use of abandoned railway rights-of-way.

The Committee met on several occasions and received briefings on railway matters from Ministry of Transportation staff and presentations by invited stakeholders. A synopsis of the information gathered and issues discussed was circulated to all Committee members with a questionnaire soliciting input on government strategy and policy direction.

This report presents a background of the current situation with respect to railway services in Ontario. Much of this addresses the discontinuance process which was one of the primary concerns of the members. Also addressed is the acquisition of railway rights-of-way following service discontinuance.

The report then presents a summary of issues which were the main focus of discussions and provides conclusions and recommendations for the government's consideration.

2.0Background:

The railway network in Ontario consists primarily of the two national railways, Canadian National Railways (CN) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CP), with the latter operating in southern and eastern Ontario through its subsidiary, St. Lawrence & Hudson Railway (STL&H). In addition, there are a growing number of regional and shortline railways. The national railways and several of the regional and shortline railways fall within federal jurisdiction. However, most of the shortline railways are within provincial jurisdiction.

2.1National Railways:

CN and CP provide national railway services in Canada as well as in many of the northern U.S. states. They are regulated in Canada by the Canada Transportation Act 1996 and by federal railway safety legislation. They are publicly traded corporations with shares held widely across North America and function as business enterprises. They own and maintain their own track and rights-of-way and own or lease most of their operating equipment.

As with other business enterprises functioning in today's global economy, they are focussed on maintaining their competitive position and on maximizing returns on their investment. Current federal legislation allows the railways to discontinue service on lines they consider marginal or unprofitable after first offering them for sale to potential shortline operators, provincial and municipal governments. There is no longer any consideration of "public interest" in the discontinuance process nor any opportunity for the Province or other parties to focally oppose the withdrawal of rail service. Similarly, there is no longer any federal subsidy program to continue service on unprofitable lines. Both railways are engaged in a process of rationalization which is reducing the total length of trackage in Ontario and the number of railway employees.

2.2Regional and Shortline Railways:

Historically regional and shortline railways have been important in the economic development of Ontario (e.g., Ontario Northland Railway, Algoma Central Railway, Essex Terminal Railway). More recently, as a consequence of national railway rationalization, there has been growth in this segment of the railway industry (e.g., Goderich - Exeter Railway, Huron Central Railway). These railways, operating on tracks and rights-of-way purchased or leased from the national railways, provide some local service, but primarily act as feeders to the national network. Operating with small, flexible, often non-union work forces, they are able to function with lower costs and more focused service than the national carriers they replace.

Regional and shortline railways have similar latitude to that of national railways in discontinuing service after offering lines for sale. Ontario has no programs for subsidizing unprofitable railways.

Many of the newer shortline railways operate within provincial jurisdiction subject to the Ontario Shortline Railways Act 1995, administered by the Ministry of Transportation. Through an interdelegation agreement with the Federal Government, these railways are subject to federal standards of railway safety and are inspected by federal officials.

2.3Freight Services:

Except for three shortline railways dedicated to short passenger tours, all railways in Ontario provide freight service. Railways under federal jurisdiction are required by the Canada Transportation Act to "accommodate" traffic offered by shippers adjacent to their lines. The price of freight services are the product of negotiation between shippers and the railways. However, there are regulatory mechanisms for arbitration and/or access to the services of a competing railway when a shipper and carrier cannot agree on service prices.

The primary users of railway freight services in Ontario are automotive assembly plants, petroleum and chemical industries, forest product industries, the mining industry, the steel industry, and the agricultural industry (corn, wheat, soybeans, fertiliser). The railways' intermodal services (truck trailers or containers moved between major centres) are also a significant and growing business.

Shippers generally select truck transportation, rather than railway freight services for hauls of less than 800 kilometres and many industries, particularly manufacturers of secondary products, ship exclusively by truck. Truck service now accounts for 70-80 percent of freight movement in Ontario, and is usually selected for its service characteristics which are often better suited to today's low inventory and "just in time" replenishment practices than rail freight services.

2.4Passenger Services:

Intercity railway passenger services in Ontario and across Canada are provided by VIA Rail, a federal Crown agency, chiefly on infrastructure owned by CN and CP. VIA Rail owns and operates its own equipment. Regional railway passenger services are also provided by Ontario Northland and AlgomaCentral Railway.

The Federal Government provides annual capital and operating subsidies for VIA Rail and also provides subsidies for certain services of Ontario Northland and Algoma Central Railway. Federal subsidies to VIA Rail have been steadily reduced over the past five years and rail passenger funding is expected to continue to decline. The Ontario Government, through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, also subsidizes Ontario Northland rail passenger services.

GO Transit, established in 1967, has been a provincial agency responsible for commuter rail services in the Greater Toronto Area. Effective January 1, 1998, it was transferred to the municipalities it serves.

Passenger services are provided at the discretion of VIA Rail and GO Transit. Decisions are influenced by ridership and the availability of government funding.

There are also several short tourism railways offering seasonal local passenger tours on tracks which they own or lease. Frequently these operate with volunteer labour and use historic equipment which has been restored by local railway enthusiasts. There are no provincial programs for funding such enterprises.

2.5Railway Rationalization:

Rationalization has resulted in the creation of a dozen or more shortline railways since 1995. Eight of these new railways are licensed under the Ontario Shortline Railways Act, 1995. The remainder are within federal jurisdiction. Generally, rationalization has developed so that industries dependent on railway freight services have been able to continue to receive services either through shortline creation or the retention of a rail spur connection to a mail line. In a few cases, shippers have had to switch to truck service. In only one documented case was a small shipper required to either close or relocate. Several communities which no longer have railway services continue to maintain an industrial base served exclusively by truck transportation (e.g., Owen Sound, Orillia, Lindsay).

In one particular case - Bruce Energy Centre (Kincardine) - representations have been made that reinstatement of railway freight service is a necessary element to support proposed local industrial development. However, availability of rail freight service is only one of several essential criteria cited by development proponents. Energy prices are a key issue.

As rationalization becomes more pervasive, shippers and municipalities are being obliged to become more proactive in developing local solutions to retain rail services which may be, at best, only marginally profitable for shortline operation. Shippers and municipal governments in Guelph, Orangeville, Barrie, and Collingwood are engaged actively in the assessment of, and/or proceeding with, the purchase of lines that would otherwise be discontinued. Port Colborne and Nepean already own railway lines which support freight service to local industries.

Rail passenger services have yet to be adversely affected by rationalization. However, in two locations in Ontario, VIA Rail has been obliged to purchase lines which CN would otherwise have abandoned as they were no longer required for freight services - Chatham/Windsor and Smith'sFalls/Ottawa. Similar situations will develop respecting GO Transit if the national railways proceed with discontinuance plans on lines now carrying GO trains (e.g., Bradford-Toronto).

2.6Abandoned (Discontinued) Railway Rights-of-Way:

Under both current federal and Ontario railway legislation, the Province and municipalities have the opportunity to purchase railway lines and the right-of-way within the discontinuance process for "net salvage value", if no commercial short line operator has expressed interest. If the "net salvage value" cannot be agreed upon by the parties there are regulatory mechanisms for a value to be established. Should the Province or a municipality purchase a line under these provisions they may, instead of operating it as a railway, remove the track and convert it to other uses.

Alternatively, if neither the Province nor municipalities purchase a line once its service has been discontinued, the railway may remove or sell the track assets and dispose of the property. This provides an opportunity for the Province, municipalities, or other interested parties to purchase the right-of-way for other uses (hiking, snowmobile trails, bike paths, etc.).

Railway legislation which prevailed prior to July 1996 had no explicit provision for provincial or municipal purchase. However, the railways have, in the past, followed a protocol of offering the lands to federal, provincial and municipal governments in succession. In the absence of government interest, they then sell parcels of land to abutting landowners.

Ontario, which at one time had allocated funds for purchasing abandoned railway rights-of-way for alternative uses, currently has no ongoing program for purchasing such property. However, through an interministerial committee, the Province facilitates purchases by other interested parties.

In the U.S., the National Trails Systems Act provides a legislative framework for rights-of-way to be purchased, notwithstanding any opposition from adjacent landowners. Some states have similar legislation to facilitate preserving land to specific use including railway rights-of-way (e.g.,California Land Banking Act). While such U.S. legislation facilitates right-of-way preservation by public agencies or the private sector, it does not provide public funding. There is no comparable federal or Ontario legislation.

2.7The Provincial Role:

Ontario supported the Federal Government in its introduction of the Canada Transportation Act, 1996. Combined with the privatization of CN, it has resulted in a more efficient national railway industry focused on serving its primary customers in accessing national and transborder markets.

Ontario's companion legislation, the Shortline Railways Act, has enabled shortline entrepreneurs to establish local railway businesses, simply, safely, and with minimal regulatory costs and process. Coupled with Bill 7, the Labour Relations and Employment Statue Law Amendment Act 1995, which removed labour succession rights when an activity moves from federal to provincial jurisdiction, this legislation has been instrumental in ensuring continued efficient rail service to a growing list of Ontario communities.

The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) continues to monitor the railway rationalization process and provides advice and guidance to affected industry and municipalities as requested. Usually such advice relates to federal and Ontario legislation, regulatory process and the experience of other parties. Currently both MTO and the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism are represented on a Steering Committee, chaired by the Town of Orangeville, supporting a consulting assignment to assess the technical and market potential of the railway line between Streetsville and Orangeville. The role of Ministry staff on such committees is to provide technical rather than financial support.

MTO also chairs the interministerial committee on Abandoned Railway Rights-of-Way (ARROW) which facilitates the acquisition of abandoned rights-of-way by interested parties.

The Ministry of Finance is addressing railway concerns regarding property taxes on railway rights-of-way (Bill 149) and is also reviewing property tax issues on railway lands ancillary to and supporting activity on the rights-of-way (e.g., railway years). Fuel taxation is also an issue that should be reviewed to ensure that the railways can be competitive with the trucking industry.

3.0Issues:

Several issues emerged in the course of committee discussion and from presentations by stakeholders. Primarily, these are related to the consequences of rationalization. However, a railway stakeholder, in a presentation, also raised taxation issues relevant to railway profitability.

3.1Municipal/Local Industry Role:

In drafting the Canada Transportation Act, federal legislators likely under-estimated the degree of municipal interest in participating in the preservation and/or purchase of lines under the discontinuance process. Similarly, they may have over-estimated municipal ability and resources to address these matters within the statutory time limits.

Although municipalities and shippers have advance notice of railways' three-year discontinuance plans, in practice, within the terms of the legislation, parties may have only 60 days' notice of the commencement of the discontinuance process. However, even with that notice, industries and municipalities often anticipate that the railway will receive an acceptable offer from a shortline operator and it is only when the time for offers has expired and during the 60-day period when the line is offered to the Province and the municipality, that serious study of the situation commences.

Municipal staff and elected councils lack the resources to address a potential investment in, and/or the operation of, a railway in such a short time. Frequently consultants must be engaged and the requisite funding approved by council before any meaningful analysis commences. This alone requires several weeks. Thorough analysis and an eventual decision require several more weeks or months. This issue has been a concern particularly in Guelph, but also has arisen in Barrie, Collingwood and, most recently, Orangeville.

Fortunately both CN and CP, sometimes following MTO representations, have accommodated communities showing serious interest in investing in the retention of rail services by deferring the final stages of the discontinuance process. However, they are under no statutory obligation to do so and there is no assurance that they will be co-operative in all cases.

3.2Acquisition of Abandoned (Discontinued) Railway Rights-of-Way:

There is no formal or statutory process covering the purchase of railway rights-of-way nor any obligation for governments or other parties to preserve them for current and/or future potential uses as linear properties. Potential current uses include paths and trails. Future uses include corridors for pipelines, communications, and the potential reversion to a railway.

Lack of legislation or a clearly defined policy for acquisition is seen by some as an impediment to the preservation of a transportation/communication resource. However, in some specific situations there has been strong local opposition to the preservation of a right-of-way which may provide opportunity for unauthorized access to adjacent land and the potential for unlawful activity in locations not easily policed or supervised. Abutting landowners often would prefer to acquire the adjacent land themselves.

Municipalities often have an interest in purchasing local railway rights-of-way, but less interest in funding extensive acquisitions beyond local or urban boundaries. Co-ordinating municipal interest to preserve a lengthy corridor has proven problematic in at least one case (Bruce Energy Centre, Kincardine).

In Toronto, the issue of the acquisition and alternative use of potential discontinued lines has arisen. These corridors, in some cases, are now used by GO Transit and have the potential for continued use by that agency or for other transportation services. Due to the relative high land value in Toronto, funding of such an acquisition by the City may be an issue. Pressure may be exerted on the Province to assist in funding. However, to do so may be perceived as a precedent to be raised by other communities seeking funding for similar purposes.

3.3Railway Taxation:

Right-of-way property taxes have been identified by the railways as a significant element in the profitability of the railways generally, and of specific lines in particular. Taxation can be a key factor in influencing the commercial viability of low traffic density shortlines. Right-of-way property is currently assessed based on the assessment of adjacent property and as municipalities undertake reassessment, railway taxes have escalated significantly.

4.0Conclusions:

The Committee, in drawing conclusions, is mindful of the fact that the current legislative and regulatory framework for railway rationalization has been in place for less than two years, and several of its provisions are untested. The railways, industry, and affected communities are still in a process of developing effective working relationships within that framework as specific transfers and discontinuances take place.

The fact that no serious dislocations have occurred to date is reassuring, but several critical negotiations and assessments are under way and outcomes at this point are uncertain. The communities of Collingwood, Barrie, Guelph, and Orangeville are making significant progress towards ensuring continuity of rail freight services for key local industries. Their experience shows clearly that municipalities can rise to the challenge of participating in developing options to ensure the continuity of railway services. However, that experience also shows that significant time is required for the requisite analysis and through communication and negotiation among the parties. Certainly, should the national railways adhere strictly to the statutory time limits within the discontinuance process for offering lines to governments (30 days for each level), it is unlikely that any municipality would be in a position to participate in purchasing a railway line.

Developments respecting ongoing discontinuances and shortline transfers need to be monitored continually in order to ensure that the process works fairly with regard to industry and community interests. Information on legislation, regulation and experience continues to be required by additional municipalities as they are affected.

The Committee is pleased that the current railway discontinuance process in federal legislation gives municipalities the right to purchase railway tracks and rights-of-way for continued railway uses or for other purposes. Alternatively, municipalities can, following service discontinuance, purchase right-of-way property from the railway for any use. Concerns about achieving consensus among municipalities and adjacent landowners regarding preservation of intermunicipal corridors have been noted. However, it seems difficult to address this issue in any general or universal way. Clearly circumstances, needs and local preferences will vary among specific situations and resolution on a case-by-case basis among affected parties and interests may continue to be the best option.

The United States' approach of enacting legislation to facilitate the purchase of intact abandoned rights-of-way may be an alternative deserving further exploration.

Providing for continuity of GO Transit rail services on lines being discontinued is a critical issue. Again, such situations will need to be examined on their individual merits. Similarly any perceived need for expansion of GO Transit rail service should be assessed as opportunities arise. Investment in such rail lines by governments or transportation agencies must be carefully evaluated, taking into account alternative commuter service options. As GO Transit becomes a municipal responsibility it is anticipated that municipal governments will take a lead in such evaluations.

Issues relative to property taxes raised by the railways appear to have some importance in affecting railway profitability and investment decisions. The Committee notes that these are being reviewed and addressed by the Ministry of Finance.

5.0Recommendations:

The Committee recommends as follows:

That the Ontario Government continue to monitor the railway rationalization process and provide information and technical support to affected industries and municipalities as requested.

That the Ontario Government document any concerns or problems stemming from the discontinuance process set out in the Canada Transportation Act in preparation for input to the statutory review of that legislation in 2000.

That the Ontario Government bring to the attention of the federal Minister of Transport, any matters related to the discontinuance process requiring more immediate attention and that, in this regard, concern be registered immediately regarding the inadequate statutory time period (30 days) for municipalities to respond to an offer to purchase.

That the Ontario Government closely monitor any discontinuance affecting GO Transit rail services and ensure that all practical options for ensuring continuity of adequate commuter services are explored fully.

That the Ontario Government continue to facilitate the purchase of abandoned railway rights-of-way by municipalities and other interested parties and that the option of enacting legislation to facilitate the purchase of intact abandoned rights-of-way be further explored with stakeholders.

That the Ministry of Finance be encouraged to continue to work with the Railways to resolve outstanding property and fuel taxation issues.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following Motion which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998:

Moved by:Councillor Ashton

Seconded by:Councillor Pantalone

"WHEREAS GO Transit is a regional rail network that is vital for the urban development and environmental sustainability of the GTA and provides the transit equivalent to the 400series highways, the operation, maintenance and expansion of which continues to be funded entirely by the Province;

WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has mandated that the City of Toronto must provide $53 million to fund 49.9 percent of the annual budget for GO Transit but 83percent of GO Transit users commute daily from outside the City of Toronto;

WHEREAS GO Transit recently announced service improvements for express routes from the 905 regions which negatively affect residents of the City of Toronto;

WHEREAS GO Transit staff have identified the need for $1.1 billion of capital expansion required to meet the demands of growth over the next 20 years;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, in accordance with Subsection8.1(4) of the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority Act 1997, the City of Toronto exercise its right to formally request a review by the Provincial Minister of Transportation of the City of Toronto's funding allocation for GO Transit;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Minister also be requested to consider immediate resumption of full funding for GO Transit by the Province;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Minister of Transportation reaffirm the Government of Ontario's position of user pay by reallocating GO Transit costs based on the proposed new allocation formula outlined in the report dated June1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, entitled 'GO Transit's Funding Relationship with the City of Toronto', and that the report be adopted."

Disposition:The foregoing Motion was adopted, without amendment.

Council subsequently adopted, without amendment, the report dated June1, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, entitled "GO Transit's Funding Relationship with the City of Toronto", embodying the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)Council request the Province to accept its funding responsibilities for GO Transit, and treat the operation, maintenance and capital expansion of inter-regional transit in the same way as the 400 series highways;

(2)if the Province does not alter its decision to discontinue Provincial funding of GO Transit, Council strongly oppose the funding formula set by the Province and support the alternative formula put forth in Exhibit 2 of this report for funding the operating, maintenance and rehabilitation deficit for GO Transit;

(3)Council request the Province, through appropriate legislative changes, to empower the City, all GTA Regions and Hamilton-Wentworth to establish new sources of revenue, including fuel taxes, and surcharges on parking and vehicle licenses;

(4)Council request the Federal Government, in preparing its plan to meet Canada's environment commitments in accordance with the Kyoto agreement, to address ways and means of improving public transit services, particularly commuter rail service, in the Greater Toronto Area and other large urban centres;

(5)Council seek the endorsement of the Province, and of the GTSB upon its formation, for the alternative funding formula, and request the Mayor, Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and appropriate City staff to present the City's position to Provincial and Federal officials; and

(6)the City Clerk forward copies of this report to the Provincial Ministers responsible for Municipal Affairs and Housing, Transportation, and Environment; Federal Ministers for the Greater Toronto Area, Environment, and Transport; Alan Tonks (GTSB Moderator); GO Transit; and the Regions of Durham, Halton, Peel, York and Hamilton-Wentworth, for their consideration."

(A copy of each of the following attachments to the foregoing report dated October 21, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 2, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(i)Exhibit 1; and

(ii)a communication dated August 7, 1998, addressed to Mr. Joe Tascona, M.P.P., SimcoeCentre, from Mayor Mel Lastman, City of Toronto.)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report provides comments on the feasibility of implementing specific initiatives as requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Financial Implications:

This report does not have any financial implications for the City.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 2, 1998 had before it my report dated October 21, 1998 responding to the Caucus Rail Strategy Committee's report in regard to the potential abandonment of rail corridors. The Committee, in addition to recommending adoption of the aforementioned report, requested me to report directly to this Council on the following initiatives:

(1)review the feasibility of notifying all Committees of Adjustment that any applications regarding the abandonment of rail corridors, other than spur lines, be held in abeyance until such time as the City has established firm planning policies with respect to the disposition of such corridors; and

(2)develop planning policies to protect rail corridors, and consider the possibility of placing an interim control by-law on the utilization of such corridors.

Discussion:

The disposition of rail corridors is governed by The Canada Transportation Act which stipulates specific time lines for each part of the process involved in disposing a rail corridor. The time from when a rail corridor is identified in the railway company's three-year plan to its final disposition could range anywhere from six to eleven months, during which each level of government would be offered an opportunity to purchase the corridor. Should a purchase of the corridor not materialize through this process the railway company can discontinue railway operations and dispose the corridor.

Due to the importance of such corridors for urban infrastructure needs, planning policies in regards to protection of rail corridors could more appropriately be addressed in the context of formulating City-wide Official Plan policies. The initiatives discussed below would be appropriate at the latter stage of the process stated under the Canada Transportation Act, which enables the railway company to discontinue railway operations and dispose the corridor.

(1)Requesting Committees of Adjustment to defer its hearing of a severance application.

(2)Using an Interim Control By-law to provide time to study future development options

Through an interim control by-law (passed under Section 38 of the Planning Act), City Council can prohibit specified uses of land, buildings or structure for a period of up to one year which could be extended provided the total time period from the date of passing the by-law does not exceed two years. This mechanism provides a "holding period" for a planning study to be completed.

Conclusions:

Requests to Committees of Adjustment for adjournment of severance applications and passing interim control by-laws are mechanisms which are appropriate at a latter stage of disposition of a rail corridor, should City Council have concern that private redevelopment interests may affect the City's long-term vision for those lands.

Since the Committees of Adjustment cannot defer hearing of applications for longer periods of time, such requests should be transmitted to them through staff reports on individual application basis, if such a deferral is deemed necessary.

Similarly, since interim control by-laws have a maximum validity of two years, its use should be considered on individual case basis if the planning policies regarding protection of rail corridors are not yet finalized.

Contact Name:

Rod McPhail

Director of Transportation Planning, Metro Hall office

tel: 392-8100; fax: 392-3821.)

3

Toronto Transit Commission Support for

Alternative Funding Mechanisms for

Municipal Public Transit Systems in Ontario.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that copies of the Clause be forwarded to:

(1)the National Climate Change Secretariat, in particular the Municipalities Table and the Transportation Table; and

(2)the Board of Directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that Council endorse the motion approved by the Toronto Transit Commission, as embodied in the following communication (October 13, 1998) from the General Secretary of the Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, October 7, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) approved the following motion:

"WHEREAS provincial subsidies for the TTC will run out in 1999; and

WHEREAS the City will have to overcome a yearly average shortfall of about $180million; and

WHEREAS the annual sum required is unacceptable in terms of placing the cost on the property tax system;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the TTC supports an alternative funding mechanism including a gasoline tax dedicated to public transit or from a dedicated portion of the existing gasoline taxes;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this motion go to City Council through the Urban Environment and Development Committee for endorsement;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Province be requested to either provide enabling legislation to the City of Toronto or to establish such a tax itself, with monies directed to Municipalities' Public Transit Systems;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT TTC staff prepare a report supporting such an initiative; such report examining potential yearly incomes and comparisons with other jurisdictions where similar tax is imposed."

The foregoing is forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and City Council for necessary action and endorsement, as noted above.

4

Communication Plan for New Bus Garage.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (September 29, 1998) from the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, and the Chief Administrative Officer, City of Toronto:

This report outlines a process for obtaining input to the design of the new bus garage located at Comstock Road and Lebovic Road to keep Councillors informed of intentions/progress prior to final decisions as requested by Toronto City Council at its meeting of July8, 9 and 10,1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statements:

If the recommendations of this report are adopted, the risk of incurring additional project costs related to schedule delays will be reduced.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Toronto City Council endorse the process for obtaining public and technical input for the new bus garage as described herein.

Background:

At its July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 meeting, City of Toronto Council asked that "the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on changes to current protocol of the Toronto Transit Commission to provide that City Councillors representing Wards in which initiatives are being considered and that will have an effect on the local community are kept informed of intentions/progress prior to any final decisions at the Commission."

Discussion:

The design process for the new bus garage and related facilities occurs over a period of approximately 15 months. Preliminary Design occurs in the first 30 percent of the design activity and is aimed at conceptualizing and finalizing the configuration and layout. Detail design advances the design from 30 percent to 100 percent completion and produces tender-ready documents.

An outline of the basic steps of the consultative process which the TTC will be undertaking during the design of the new bus garage is illustrated in Exhibit A, attached, and described as follows:

(a)0 Percent to 10 Percent Stage (Conceptual Design):

During this stage, garage plans and site layouts will be distributed to all agencies involved in the design review and approval process. Working meetings to discuss the plans will be arranged with City Planning staff and other affected Departments and Agencies. At the end of this design stage, the proposed layout and architectural concept is completed and will be submitted to City staff through a site plan control application, to local Councillors and subsequently to the Commission for approval. An information package will be distributed through the local Councillors to the local community inviting them to a public meeting. Garage plans and configuration will be presented at the public meeting. Comments from the public will be incorporated into the design, as appropriate. Subsequently, an information report will be submitted to the Commission and the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding the outcome of the public meeting.

(b)10 Percent to 30 Percent Stage (Preliminary Design):

Following approximately four to six months of design, at the 30 percent stage, the basic functional layout of the project and related surface facilities has been confirmed. At this stage, project plans will once again be distributed and a second set of working meetings will be held with the involved agencies. Input from these reviews will be incorporated as appropriate.

(c)30 Percent to 90 Percent Stage (Detail Design):

Approximately half-way through this design stage, the proposed design will be submitted to City staff, local Councillors and subsequently to the Commission for approval with regard to external appearance. Working meetings to discuss the plans will be arranged with City Planning staff and other affected Departments and Agencies. An information package will be distributed through the local Councillors to the local community inviting them to another public meeting to review the garage appearance. Subsequently, an information report will be submitted to the Commission and the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding the outcome of the public meeting.

(d)90 Percent to 100 Percent Stage (Document Preparation):

During this design stage, the site plan control agreement will be finalized and executed with the City staff. This agreement is a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit.

The TTC has adopted this pre-submission consultative process related to site plan approval to ensure that opportunities for timely input by all affected parties are built into the design process at an early stage. The consultative process described in this report is intended to avoid expensive redesign costs and expedite approval.

Conclusions:

A process has been established to ensure adequate input on the design of the new bus garage related surface facilities from the public and local Councillors, Agencies and staff. The proposed process enables construction to proceed in a timely manner in order to meet the project schedule. This process also ensures that the interests and inputs of all affected parties are included in the design in a timely manner.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (October 8, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, October 7, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) considered the attached report, entitled "New Bus Garage Design: City of Toronto Council Motions of July 8, 9 And 10, 1998."

The Commission received the above report for information and requested that it be forwarded to the City of Toronto Urban Environment and Development Committee for information in response to items raised by City of Toronto Council at its meeting on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.

The foregoing is forwarded to the City of Toronto Urban Environment and Development Committee for information.

(Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 21, entitled

"New Bus Garage Design: City of Toronto Council Motions

of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.")

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commission receive this report for information and that it be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in response to items raised at the July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 City of Toronto Council meeting.

Funding:

Sufficient funds are included in Project No. 3.9 - Buildings and Structures, under the section for Bus Garage Replacement Program (as set out on pages 377-389, State of Good Repair) of the TTC 1998-2002 Capital Program which was approved by the City of Toronto Council at its meeting of April 29, 1998.

Background:

In 1995, a bus garage replacement study recommended the purchase of property in a centrally located industrial area for construction of a new 250 bus garage to replace the Eglinton and Danforth bus garages. At its July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 meeting this year, City of Toronto Council requested that the TTC address several issues related to the construction of the new bus garage. Subsequently, at its July 22, 1998 meeting, City of Toronto Council approved the purchase of property at Comstock Road and Lebovic Road (south of Eglinton Avenue between Warden Avenue and Pharmacy Avenue).

Discussion:

The following outlines steps taken or to be taken to address each of the items raised by Council:

(1)"As part of the Site Plan Control Application, the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to address air quality, noise concerns and urban design."

The TTC is currently recruiting an acoustical consultant to conduct a noise study. An air quality study is being conducted by TTC staff. Both reports resulting from these studies will be submitted to the Ministry of Environment and will be included in the Site Plan application process. Urban design issues are being addressed through extensive consultation with City staff as well as local residents.

(2)"The Toronto Transit Commission be requested to agree that vehicle servicing shall not take place within 45 metres of Comstock Road, as provided for in the Zoning By-law."

This requirement has been incorporated in the conceptual design which was accepted by City staff on July 29, 1998.

(3)"The Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on any future routing changes as a consequence of the new TTC bus garage relocating in Scarborough."

Preliminary routing changes will be identified and submitted as part of the traffic impact study currently underway to address item (5) below.

(4)"The Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on changes to current protocol of the Toronto Transit Commission to provide that City Councillors representing Wards in which initiatives are being considered and that will have an effect on the local community are kept informed of intentions/progress prior to any final decisions at the Commission."

The attached report has been submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting of October 5, 1998.

In summary, the report indicates that at the completion of the conceptual phase and prior to completion of the detailed design phase, TTC staff will:

-brief and obtain input from local Councillors;

-present the design to the Commission;

-present the design to the public; and

-advise the Commission of any design issues.

During the latter part of the design, a Site Plan application will be finalized so that an agreement can be executed prior to construction.

(5)"The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with appropriate staff of the City of Toronto and the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission, be requested to submit a further report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on any necessary improvements to the road system to facilitate the operation of this facility."

A traffic impact study is currently underway to investigate, analyze and report on the impact of the bus garage on intersection/roadway operation and to recommend operational or physical road and intersections improvement. The traffic impact study will be concluded by the end of September 1998. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in consultation with City staff and the Chief General Manager of the TTC will submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in November 1998 regarding improvements to the road system to facilitate the operation of this facility.

Current Status:

TTC staff met City staff on July 29, 1998, and September 18, 1998, to present the project concept and to incorporate any concerns related to zoning, by-laws and community concerns into the project's overall concept, where possible.

Design of the utilities and site services contract has been completed and construction is anticipated to commence this year. The preliminary design for the new bus garage is underway and is scheduled to be completed later this year.

Input from local Councillors, the Commission and the community will be obtained upon completion of the preliminary design and again prior to completion of the detailed design, as shown in the attached project schedule.

Justification:

This report is being submitted to the Commission to address items raised by City of Toronto Council at its July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 meeting.

(A copy of each of the following attachments has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 2, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(i)Exhibit A, referred to in the foregoing joint report dated September 29, 1998, from the ChiefGeneral Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, and the Chief Administrative Officer, Cityof Toronto; and

(ii)the Project Schedule, referred to in the foregoing TTC Report No. 21.)

5

Toronto Transit Commission:

Replacement of McBrien Building Switchboards.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that Council endorse the action taken by the Toronto Transit Commission, embodied in the following communication (October 8, 1998) from the General Secretary of the Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, October 7, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission considered the attached report, entitled "Replace McBrien Building Switchboards."

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

"It is recommended that the Commission approve:

(1)proceeding with the replacement of McBrien Building Switchboards at a total cost of $290,000.00;

(2)forwarding this report to the City of Toronto Council advising it of a scope change; and

(3)staff to proceed with this expenditure and hold in TTC accounts, pending City Council project approval."

The foregoing is forwarded to City of Toronto Council for the necessary project approval, as detailed in the report.

(Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 18, entitled

"Replace McBrien Building Switchboards".)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commission approve:

(1)proceeding with the replacement of McBrien Building Switchboards at a total cost of $290,000.00;

(2)forwarding this report to the City of Toronto Council advising it of a scope change; and

(3)staff to proceed with this expenditure and hold in TTC accounts, pending City Council project approval.

Funding:

Due to lower costs than anticipated for surface vehicle hoist in Project 3.2, sufficient funds are available in 1998 for this unbudgeted expenditure within Project Program 3.2 - Equipment of the 1998-2002 Capital Program as approved by City Council on April 29,1998. This item has been included in the proposed 1999-2003 Capital Program under 3.2 - Equipment.

Background:

The existing primary electrical distribution system (switchboard), located in the basement of the McBrien building, receives, controls and directs power to the entire building. The switchboard is approximately 40 years old and does not meet present Ontario Hydro code requirements for short circuit capacity. On July 28, 1998, the Chief General Manager approved funds in the amount of $46,000.00 commence design work.

Discussion:

Following maintenance work to the switchboard in March 1998, Ontario Hydro approved power re-connection with the understanding that upgrade of the major internal components will be carried out within approximately one year.

The main concern with the switchboard is the fact that the 50,000A short circuit capacity of the existing main breakers is significantly lower than the recently upgraded Toronto Hydro service, which has a short circuit capacity of 100,000A. As a result of this incompatibility, there exists the potential for damage to the building facilities in the event of a short circuit fault. The switchboard could be destroyed creating a power blackout in the entire building for an extended period of time.

Justification:

The work identified is to be completed in late 1998 or early 1999, in order to address the high risk of damage to the McBrien Building electrical distribution systems, computer systems and heating and ventilation systems, and to return this facility to a state of good repair and safety. Project approval will provide the necessary funds to complete this project this year and thereby comply with the Electrical Code.

6

Revised Terms of Reference for the

Toronto Cycling Committee.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended this Clause by adding to Part (6), headed "Quorum", of the Terms of Reference for the Toronto Cycling Committee, the following paragraph:

"Notwithstanding subsection 9(4) of the Council Procedural By-law, if there is no quorum present 30 minutes after the start of the meeting, the Clerk shall call the roll and record the names of the Members present.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Toronto Cycling Committee, embodied in the following communication (September 25, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Toronto Cycling Committee on September 22, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(1)the Terms of Reference for the Toronto Cycling Committee contained in Appendix 'A' to the report (September 2, 1998) from the Executive Director, City Planning, and the General Manager, Transportation Services, be adopted, subject to:

(a)amending item "(4) Composition," insofar as it pertains to City Councillors and citizens-at-large, to provide for the appointment of:

-1City Councillor; and

-15citizens-at-large, to include equitable representation for all of the geographic districts of the City, and one cycle courier representative, selected through the Nominating Committee process;

so that item "(4) Composition" shall now read as follows:

"The Toronto Cycling Committee will be comprised of 21 members, including a Councillor and two citizens as Co-Chairs, as follows:

-1City Councillor;

-15citizens-at-large, including one cycle courier representative, equitably representative of all geographic districts of the City, selected through the Nominating Committee process;

-5representatives of the following organizations (one from each organization to be appointed):

-Toronto Pedestrian Committee;

-Toronto Bicycling Network;

- Community Bicycle Network;

- Toronto District School Board; and

- Toronto Catholic District School Board.

The above-mentioned five organizations may designate an alternate representative to attend meetings."; and

(b)deleting under the heading "(5) Term," the words "Council Members shall be appointed for the Term of Council,"and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"Initially, the Member of Council shall be appointed for a term ending on May 31, 1999, and for a period of 18 months thereafter, and until his/her successor is appointed.";

(2)the City Clerk be authorized to begin the process of 15 citizen appointments to the Toronto Cycling Committee through the Nominating Committee;

(3)the Toronto Cycling Committee continue with the current membership until such time as Council has appointed a Councillor and citizen members, and the five designated organizations have named their representatives; and

(4)community cycling advisory groups be recognized in the Terms of Reference and be provided with minimal Secretariat support.

The Toronto Cycling Committee reports, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, having requested the Clerk of the Committee to canvass the existing members of the Toronto Cycling Committee for confirmation of their interest in continuing to serve on the Committee, until such time as the new membership has been appointed by Council.

Background:

The Toronto Cycling Committee had before it a joint report (September 2, 1998) from the Executive Director, City Planning, and the General Manager, Transportation Services, headed " Revised Terms of Reference for the Toronto Cycling Committee," responding to a request by Toronto City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, for a report to be submitted to the Toronto Cycling Committee on any necessary revisions to the proposed Terms of Reference, wherein it recommend that the Toronto Cycling Committee recommend to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and Council that the Terms of Reference for the Toronto Cycling Committee be adopted and that the City Clerk be authorized to begin the process of citizen appointments.

The Toronto Cycling Committee also had before it a document (undated), headed "Composition of the Toronto Cycling Committee--Various Options," submitted by Mr. Daniel Egan, Planner, City Planning Division, Urban Planning and Development Services, outlining:

(a)the original proposal for the composition of the Toronto Cycling Committee, embodied in the communication (March 9, 1998) addressed to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team from Mr. Jack Becker, Co-Chair, Toronto Cycling Committee [Clause No. 4 of Report No. 6 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team]; and

(b)an alternate membership model embodied in the aforementioned report (September 2, 1998) addressed to the Toronto Cycling Committee from the Executive Director, City Planning, and the General Manager, Transportation Services.

(Joint report dated September 2, 1998, addressed to the

Toronto Transit Commission from the Executive Director, City Planning,

and the General Manager, Transportation Services.)

Purpose:

To recommend revisions to the proposed Terms of Reference for the Toronto Cycling Committee.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Toronto Cycling Committee recommend to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and to Council that the Terms of Reference for the Toronto Cycling Committee, attached as Appendix 'A' to this report, be adopted and that the City Clerk be authorized to begin the process of citizen appointments to the Toronto Cycling Committee.

Background:

At its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998, Toronto City Council adopted Clause No. 4 of Report No.6 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and, in so doing, adopted, in principle, the proposed Terms of Reference and instructed the Interim Functional Leads for Transportation and Planning to report to the Toronto Cycling Committee on any necessary revisions.

Discussion:

Staff of the Planning and Transportation Departments are proposing a more concise Terms of Reference for the Toronto Cycling Committee (attached as Appendix 'A'). By eliminating background information, duplication and appendices and by focusing on essential information, the proposed Terms of Reference has been reduced from 14 pages to 4 pages. While we have attempted to retain most of the intent of the Terms of Reference produced jointly by the former Cycling Committees, we are recommending substantive changes to three sections: the composition of the Committee; term of membership; and the Sub-Committee responsibilities. These recommended changes are described below.

The proposed changes to the Terms of Reference reflect, for the most part, comments and suggestions made by Cycling Committee and Sub-Committee Co-Chairs at our meeting with them on September 1, 1998. We have also consulted with City Clerk's and Legal staff in preparation of this report.

Composition:

In order to ensure the effectiveness of committee meetings we are recommending a smaller Committee and a simpler nomination process.

We recommend that the number of members be reduced from 31 to a maximum of 21. A smaller Committee will enable individual members more opportunity for discussion and will facilitate effective decision-making. We have proposed reducing the number of groups and organizations represented in favour of a majority of members being citizens at-large. There will also be opportunities for other citizens and members of local groups and agencies to participate fully in Sub-Committee meetings

We have also proposed that the citizen members and the cycle courier representative be appointed by the Nominating Committee. The Nominating Committee has a clearly defined process for citizens applying for appointments to a City committee. Applicants must attend an orientation session before applying for appointment. Short-listed applicants are interviewed by the Nominating Committee and successful candidates are recommended to Council for appointment. The former Toronto City Cycling Committee had an excellent record of participation by citizens selected through an identical process over the past several years.

Term of Membership:

The Co-Chairs of the Toronto Cycling Committee and the Sub-Committees felt that a two-year staggered membership similar to the former Toronto City Cycling Committee, whereby half of the positions would become available each year, would provide better continuity among citizen members than a three-year term coinciding with the term of Council.

Sub-Committee Responsibilities:

To ensure more effective allocation of staff resources to support the Sub-Committees we are proposing changes to the Sub-Committee responsibilities to better reflect staff expertise. For example, the proposed Planning and Facilities Sub-Committee would deal with all physical infrastructure matters rather than having all three Sub-Committees deal with various elements of the physical infrastructure.

In addition, we are recommending a fourth Sub-Committee to develop a communications strategy for the Cycling Committee. This is an opportune time for the new Committee to evaluate the effectiveness of the communications vehicles of the former committees, such as the Cyclometer newsletter and the web-sites and identify priorities for the new Committee. This will likely require several meetings of Committee Members over the short term but may not require regular ongoing meetings similar to the other Sub-Committees.

Conclusion:

City Planning and Transportation Services staff recommend a number of changes to the proposed Terms of Reference for the Toronto Cycling Committee in order to ensure an efficient and productive Committee and effective allocation of staff resources.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Daniel Egan, City Planning Division, Urban Planning and Development Services, 392-1142.

--------

(Appendix 'A')

Proposed Terms of Reference for the Toronto Cycling Committee

(1)Purpose of the Committee:

To advise City Council and its Departments, Agencies, Boards, and Commissions, on the design, development and delivery of bicycle policies, programs and facilities to promote and enhance cycling within the new City of Toronto.

(2)Goal:

A liveable and environmentally friendly City that is accessible and safe for people of all ages and abilities to get around by bicycle and to ensure the role of cycling in a transportation system appropriately balanced among all road users.

(3)Focus:

The Toronto Cycling Committee will focus on:

• representing cyclists' interests within the City;
• physical infrastructure (planning, design standards, operations, maintenance);
• education, safety and security of cyclists and other road users;
• promoting bicycle use;
• environment, air quality and economic development issues related to cycling;
• better integration of transit-bicycle trips; and
• co-ordinating initiatives with cycling interests outside the City of Toronto.

(4)Composition:

The Toronto Cycling Committee shall be comprised of 21 members, including a Councillor and two citizens as Co-chairs, as follows:

3City Councillors, at least one representing the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

1312 citizens at-large, with equitable representation for all geographic districts of the City, and 1 cycle courier selected through the Nominating Committee process;

51 representative appointed by each of the following organizations:

-Toronto Pedestrian Committee;

-Toronto Bicycling Network;

-Community Bicycle Network;

-Toronto District School Board; and

-Toronto Catholic District School Board.

The above-mentioned organizations may designate an alternate representative to attend meetings.

(5)Term:

Council Members shall be appointed for the term of Council.

Citizens and the cycle courier member shall be appointed for a two-year term or until their successors are appointed or City Council terminates an appointment. Half of these positions would become available each year. Membership on the Committee shall be limited to a maximum of two terms. Reappointment to the Committee shall require a minimum of one year off after two consecutive terms.

Representatives of the five organizations are appointed according to the procedures of their organizations.

(6)Quorum:

Quorum shall be nine members.

(7)Attendance:

In order to be a member in good standing, regular attendance at meetings is required. A member who is absent (or not represented by an alternate where terms of the Member's appointment permits same) for three consecutive meetings, without providing the Committee with written or verbal notification and reason for such absence, shall be deemed to have resigned from the position.

(8)Compensation:

No compensation shall be made to members of the Committee for their participation.

(9)Meetings:

The Toronto Cycling Committee meetings shall, generally, be held monthly or at the call of the Chair, with the provision that at least six meetings shall be held per year.

The Committee may consider holding meetings in different areas of the City to encourage participation from all areas of the City. Meetings are open to the public.

The meetings shall be advertised with a proposed agenda at least two weeks in advance through the various cycling newsletters, on Internet through the City's and the Toronto Cycling Committee's web site, the Toronto Cycling Committee's voice mail telephone line, and elsewhere, as practical. The meeting announcement and proposed agenda shall be available through the City Clerk's office.

Ad hoc meetings of all or part of the Toronto Cycling Committee may be convened, as required. The location, frequency, and participation of these meetings shall be at the discretion of the Chair and of the Toronto Cycling Committee.

(10)Staff Support:

The Cycling Committee's notices, agendas, minutes and correspondence will be prepared by City Clerk's staff. The Committee will be supported by staff dedicated to working on cycling issues, and by staff of the City's service areas as warranted, including:

-Urban Planning and Development Services;

-Works and Emergency Services;

-Economic Development, Tourism and Culture;

-Corporate Services;

-Toronto Transit Commission; and

-Toronto Police Service.

(11)Reporting:

The Toronto Cycling Committee shall report, in consultation with staff, principally to the Urban Environment and Development Committee of the City of Toronto Council and to other Standing Committees, Departments, Agencies, Boards and Commissions, as required. Joint reporting may be appropriate in some cases, depending on the subject and on departmental and standing committee interests. This will include work program and budget proposals to be considered within the budgets of the appropriate Departments, Agencies, Boards, and Commissions.

(12)Sub-Committees:

Toronto Cycling Committee members are expected to participate actively on at least one sub-committee. Sub-Committee Chairs shall be members of the Toronto Cycling Committee and elected by the Committee. Sub-Committees are open to full participation by the public. Sub-Committees shall report, in consultation with staff, to the Toronto Cycling Committee.

The location and frequency of Sub-Committee meetings shall be at the discretion of the Chair of each Sub-Committee and of the Toronto Cycling Committee.

City Clerk's staff will arrange meeting rooms for Sub-Committees. Sub-Committees will be supported by staff, where possible, with expertise pertinent to the focus of each Sub-Committee meeting.

While the Committee may modify the number and purpose of sub-committees according to its priorities, the initial structure will consist of the following four Sub-Committees:

(A)The Network Planning and Facilities Sub-Committee provides input to staff and makes recommendations to the Toronto Cycling Committee on the design, development and delivery of policies, programs and facilities to improve the physical infrastructure for cyclists, including bicycle parking, on-street bicycle lanes and routes, off-street trails, development within rail and hydro corridors, maintenance, intersection design and signage.

(B)The Safety and Education Sub-Committee provides input to staff and makes recommendations to the Toronto Cycling Committee on the design, development and delivery of policies and programs to improve the safety of cyclists and other road users, including skills training for cyclists (including CAN-BIKE program); education related to the use of on-street and off-street facilities; education of others on cycling matters including motor vehicle drivers; and legislation affecting cycling.

(C)The Promotion and Development Sub-Committee provides input to staff and makes recommendations to the Toronto Cycling Committee on the design, development and delivery of policies and programs to promote and enhance cycling including co-ordinating Bike Week; stimulating economic development through partnerships with business, government and local communities; working directly with corporate and community groups to increase bicycle use in general; and integration of bicycle-transit trips.

(D)The Communications Sub-Committee works with staff to develop and maintain a communications strategy to promote the City's cycling program and make cycling information accessible to residents of the City, including special events such as the Toronto International Bike Show booth; and communications media such as Cyclometer and the Cycling Committee's web site.

7

Standing Authority to Dedicate Land

as a Public Highway or a Public Lane.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (October 7, 1998) from the Executive Director of Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services Department, subject to:

(A)adding thereto the following new Recommendation No. (2):

"(2)prior to any such dedication of land, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to consult with the respective local Councillor(s); and the Councillor(s) retain the option of requesting a referral of the dedication to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, if deemed necessary; and

(B)renumbering the remaining Recommendations accordingly:

Purpose:

To obtain standing authority to dedicate appropriate City property as a public highway or a public lane.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)standing authority be granted to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services or his designate(s) (or any successor) to approve of the acceptance, laying out and dedication of land for public highway or public lane purposes in those cases where the land in question has been acquired/accepted for such purposes, and to take all steps necessary to implement such dedication, including requesting the City Solicitor to submit the relevant Bills to Council for enactment, and making payment of any costs necessary to register the resultant by-laws in the relevant Land Registry Office;

(2)authority be granted to introduce any Bills necessary to implement the foregoing to Council;

(3)this authority supersede and replace any policies, authorities and by-laws of the seven former municipalities relating to the subject matter hereof; and

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

Background:

The City of Toronto now has title to many parcels of land acquired by the former municipalities for public works purposes. As well, the new City of Toronto has acquired title to some land for public works purposes. By the adoption by City Council of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 11, as amended, of The Corporate Services Committee at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, the Commissioner of Corporate Services was, inter alia, authorized to approve of the acquisition and/or acceptance of land or easements, for nominal consideration, required for public works purposes. In order for lands to which the City of Toronto has title to form part of a public highway or public lane, a by-law must then be enacted dedicating such lands as public highway or lane. In the former municipalities, it was found most efficient to delegate to staff the authority to approve of the dedication of lands acquired for that purpose as highways. Having done so, the by-laws to legally implement those decisions would still be submitted to Council for enactment, having the result that Councillors were still made aware of the evolution of property into dedicated highways.

Conclusions:

To efficiently process the dedication of roads/lanes and to process the enactment and registration of the relevant by-laws, it is recommended that for the new City, harmonized standing authority should be granted to staff to take the necessary steps to have land acquired by the City for road purposes actually dedicated as such. Accordingly, standing authority should be granted to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services or his designate(s) (or any successor) to approve of the laying out and dedication of City land for public highway or public lane purposes, where the land in question has been acquired/accepted for such purposes, and to take all steps necessary to implement such dedication, including requesting the City Solicitor to submit the relevant Bills to Council for enactment, and making payment of any costs necessary to register the resultant by-laws in the relevant Land Registry Office.

Contact Name:

Mr. John House, 392-8338.

8

Contract No. 59714, Tender No. 129-1998:

Reconstruction of Pavements, Sidewalks

and Curbs on Christie Street.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)approved the following joint report (October 19, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, as amended; and

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

Purpose:

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

Source of Funds:

Funds are available in the appropriate accounts for this project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Contract No. 59714, Tender No. 129-1998 for the reconstruction of pavements, sidewalks and curbs on Christie Street be awarded to Ferma Road Construction Limited in the total amount of $1,198,343.50 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest tender received; and

(2)this report be forwarded to the next meeting of Council for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Bid Committee, at its meeting held on October 14, 1998, opened the following tenders for Contract No. 59714, Tender No. 129-1998, for the reconstruction of pavements, sidewalks and curbs on Christie Street:

TendererPrice Complete

Including All Charges and Taxes

Ferma Road Construction Limited$ 1,198,343.50*

Il Duca Construction Inc.$ 1,278,471.09

GM Sansalone Engineering Inc.$ 1,302,415.50

CRCE Construction Limited$ 1,383,049.00

Grascan Construction Limited$ 1,646,000.00

*Tender price corrected for mathematical error. Purchasing and Materials Management has verified that the mathematical error was corrected.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

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

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

Conclusion:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for the reconstruction of pavements, sidewalks and curbs on Christie Street in the Toronto Midtown and Davenport Wards, in accordance with specifications, to Ferma Road Construction Limited at the tender price quoted, being the lowest tender received.

Contact Name:

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

Mr. John Niedra, Manager of Programmes, 392-7711.

9

Installation of Mid-Block Pedestrian Traffic Control

Signals on Yonge Street, North of Shuter Street.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (October 19, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services; and, further, that the proposed traffic control signals be supported by the judicious use of guide rails, if deemed necessary by the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from the former City of Toronto Council to install mid-block pedestrian traffic control signals on Yonge Street at the Trinity Way access to the Eaton Centre.

Funding Sources:

Funding for the installation of mid-block pedestrian traffic control signals will be provided under Phase One of the Downtown Yonge Street Improvement Plan, Capital Fund Code 216-650. The estimated cost of the installation is $55,000.00.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that mid-block pedestrian traffic control signals be installed on Yonge Street, at the Trinity Way entrance to the Eaton Centre, north of Shuter Street, in conjunction with the installation of streetscape elements which would encourage pedestrians to use the new traffic control signals.

Background:

At its meeting on June 2 and 3, 1997, the former City of Toronto Council adopted Clause No. 7 of Report No. 7 of The City Services Committee, entitled "Pedestrian Crosswalk on Yonge Street at Trinity Way Access to the Eaton Centre (Ward 6)", and, in so doing, requested that a new pedestrian traffic control signal be installed on Yonge Street at the Trinity Way access to Eaton Centre. The rationale for this specific location is to add a link in a mid-block pedestrian thoroughfare extending from the Eaton Centre and connecting a public route that leads to Trinity Square Park, through to Toronto City Hall and University Avenue.

Discussion:

On the section of Yonge Street between Dundas Street and Shuter Street, pedestrians tend to cross at any point between the existing signals, whenever a gap in traffic is available. Collision statistics provided by the Toronto Police Service over a five-year period ending December 31, 1997, indicate that ten collisions occurred involving a pedestrian crossing Yonge Street between Shuter Street and Dundas Street. Provision of a mid-block pedestrian signal at a location which could serve a large number of these pedestrian crossings, along with appropriate streetscaping elements to guide pedestrians to the signal, will provide a focal location for these crossings.

The Trinity Way pedestrian access to the Eaton Centre is located approximately 80 metres north of Shuter Street and approximately 170 metres south of Dundas Street. Normally, mid-block pedestrian signals are not recommended in such close proximity to existing signalized intersections because of the safety concerns that can result. When signalized intersections are closely spaced together, it is possible that drivers approaching the first traffic signal may focus on the signal indications at the next intersection. During periods of high traffic volume, it is possible that the queue of vehicles at one of the intersections may extend through the pedestrian signal resulting in some pedestrians crossing between vehicles. As well, a certain distance is required for motorists to apply their brakes and bring their vehicles to a stop upon seeing a red signal indication. At a speed of 60 kilometres per hour this safe stopping distance is 85 metres. At 50 kilometres per hour this safe stopping distance is 65metres. When signals are in very close proximity, the concern is that motorists, proceeding through the first signal, would be unable to bring their vehicles to a stop before the second signal stop-bar.

From a traffic operations standpoint the preferable location for a signal would be half-way between Dundas Street and Shuter Street, approximately 125 metres from both signals. However, given the goal of extending the mid-block pedestrian link at the location 80 metres north of Shuter Street, we have examined this location in detail to identify the measures required to mitigate the safety concerns that result from the close spacing of this proposed signal to the existing one at Shuter Street.

(1)Limited vision signal equipment. The signal equipment facing northbound traffic at the proposed signal, and those facing southbound traffic at the Shuter Street signal, will be fitted with specialized signal lenses that can be aimed so that motorists will not see the indications of the second intersection until they proceed through the first intersection.

(2)Simultaneous operation. The operation of the proposed Trinity Way signals will be linked to the Shuter Street signal.

(a)Phasing at each signal will be identical and simultaneous to minimize any driver confusion that could be caused by contradictory signal indications at the two intersections.

(b) This type of operation will reduce the probability of vehicle queues blocking the pedestrian signal.

(c)Simultaneous operation will address the safe stopping distance concerns to a certain degree. However, while the majority of vehicles will be able to proceed through both intersections on a green signal, there is a possibility that a vehicle proceeding through at the end of the green signal or on the amber signal could be faced with a red signal at the second intersection.

Councillors Kyle Rae and Olivia Chow have expressed no concerns with this proposal.

Conclusions:

The installation of mid-block pedestrian traffic control signals north of Shuter Street at the TrinityWay entrance to the Eaton Centre, would serve the pedestrian crossing needs in this area, and could be operated at this close proximity to existing signals if certain mitigating measures are taken.

Contact Name:

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

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 2, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

10

Installation of Traffic Control Signals on

Fleet Street Between Bathurst Street

and Lake Shore Boulevard West.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that, subject to the availability of funding in the 1999 Budget, this installation be included in Category 1(b), entitled 'Traffic Control Signals Funded by Others', of Appendix 1, entitled '1998 Approved Traffic Control Signals and Committed for 1998 Installation', to the report dated October 9, 1998, from the General Manager, Transportation Services, as embodied in Clause No. 11 of Report No. 13 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed 'Installation of Approved Traffic Control Signals: Status Report'.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1)pedestrian-activated traffic control signals be installed on Fleet Street, between Bathurst Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West; and

(2)Dylex Limited be invited to make a financial contribution towards the installation of the proposed traffic control signals at this location; and the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to meet with Dylex officials to determine an appropriate amount.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to submit an updated study of Fleet Street, between Bathurst Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West, to the Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (October19, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request for the installation of traffic control signals or a pedestrian crossover on Fleet Street between Bathurst Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West (across from Stadium Road) to assist pedestrians crossing Fleet Street.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information and forwarded to Council.

Background:

Councillor Joe Pantalone has requested that a report be submitted to the November 2, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Services Committee on the feasibility of installing traffic control signals or a pedestrian crossover on Fleet Street, mid-block between Bathurst Street and LakeShore Boulevard West (across from Stadium Road). We have not had sufficient time to provide an updated assessment of this request. However, this issue has been addressed many times in the past and we can comment on our concerns with this proposal.

Discussion:

Fleet Street runs parallel to Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Bathurst Street and the crossover traffic control signals at Lake Shore Boulevard West. Fleet Street is four lanes wide and has a speed limit of 50 km/h. Fleet Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West are separated by a raised concrete median. Stadium Road intersects Lake Shore Boulevard West on the south side forming a "T"-type signalized intersection. This intersection is located 160 metres east of traffic signals at the above-noted crossover and 200 metres west of the signals at Bathurst Street. There is no traffic control device on Fleet Street, opposite Stadium Road. Eastbound and westbound TTC streetcar stops are provided on Fleet Street, opposite Stadium Road.

Previous studies that were conducted in response to requests for a pedestrian crossover or traffic control signals at this location have led to the following conclusions:

(1)There is insufficient pedestrian demand to warrant either a pedestrian crossover or traffic control signals. The majority of pedestrians cross Fleet Street to/from the westbound TTC streetcar stop. We have consistently recorded less than 200 pedestrians crossing at this location over an eight-hour study period. There have not been any changes in this area which would have created a major change in this pedestrian crossing demand. Also, a pedestrian crossover would not be suitable in this type of environment.

(2)This section of Fleet Street carries the traffic destined from eastbound Lake Shore Boulevard to northbound Bathurst Street and the traffic destined from southbound Bathurst Street to westbound Lake Shore Boulevard. Due to the short spacing between this location and the existing signals at Lake Shore Boulevard and at Bathurst Street, good co-ordination will not be possible causing delay for east-west traffic on Fleet Street, and possible vehicle queuing through the intersections.

(3)Due to the necessarily long signal cycle lengths, pedestrians would encounter long delays in crossing Fleet Street and Lake Shore Boulevard. A pedestrian starting from the north curb could require as much as five minutes to actuate the signals and walk across both Lake Shore Boulevard and Fleet Street in two separate stages. This would likely lead to poor pedestrian compliance.

Other concerns, which we have not yet been able to explore, are

(1)the impact that an additional signal on Fleet Street would have on streetcar service and the proposed extension of the Harbourfront LRT; and

(2)how this proposal would impact possible changes to this area with redevelopment.

We have not had the opportunity to consult with Councillor Pantalone or Councillor Silva on the issues discussed in this report.

Conclusions:

The pedestrian crossing demand on Fleet Street between Lake Shore Boulevard and Bathurst Street (across from Stadium Road) is insufficient to justify the installation of traffic control signals or a pedestrian crossover. Also, installation of traffic control signals could result in other safety and operational concerns at this location.

Contact Name:

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

_________

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

-Mr. Michael Sherman, Vice-President, Corporate and Public Affairs, and Corporate Secretary, Dylex Limited; and also filed a written brief with respect thereto;

-Ms. Alexis Robinson, Dylex Limited; and

-Ms. Molly Bennett, Retail Administration, Dylex Limited.

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 2, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting of November 2, 1998 for an updated traffic study in conjunction with the Committee's recommendation that traffic control signals be installed on Fleet Street between Bathurst Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West (across from Stadium Road) to assist pedestrians crossing Fleet Street.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 2, 1998 had before it a report dated October 19, 1998 from the General Manager, Transportation Services, responding to a request made by Councillor Joe Pantalone for a report on the feasibility of installing traffic control signals or a pedestrian crossover on Fleet Street, midblock between Bathurst Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West (across from Stadium Road), to assist pedestrians crossing Fleet Street.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommended approval of the installation of pedestrian-activated traffic control signals on Fleet Street, mid-block between Bathurst Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West (across from Stadium Road), and also requested an updated study at this location. This report is being submitted directly to City Council in order that it may have the information available when considering the Committee's recommendation.

Discussion:

Fleet Street runs parallel to Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Bathurst Street and the crossover traffic control signals at Lake Shore Boulevard West. Fleet Street is four lanes wide and has a speed limit of 50 km/h. Fleet Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West are separated by a raised concrete median. Stadium Road intersects Lake Shore Boulevard West on the south side forming a "T"-type signalized intersection. This intersection is located 160 metres east of traffic signals at the above-noted crossover and 200 metres west of the signals at Bathurst Street. There is no traffic control device on Fleet Street, opposite Stadium Road. Eastbound and westbound TTC streetcar stops are provided on Fleet Street, opposite Stadium Road.

Our Division conducted updated pedestrian delay studies on the section of Fleet Street, opposite Stadium Road. The results of the studies determined that a pedestrian crossover (PXO) is warranted at this location. During the busiest eight-hour period of a typical weekday, 570 pedestrians were recorded crossing this section of Fleet Street. A review of the collision statistics provided by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services revealed that over the five-year period from January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1997 there were no reports of collisions involving a pedestrian on this section of Fleet Street.

The results of this further study do not affect the comments or conclusions of our previous report (dated October 19, 1998) which expressed concerns with the safety and operational efficiency of traffic control signals at this location.

Conclusions:

Our studies indicate that pedestrian usage has increased on Fleet Street, in the vicinity of Stadium Road, since our last investigation at this location.

Contact Name:

Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, 416-397-5021.)

11

Installation of Approved Traffic

Control Signals: Status Report.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the following motion be referred to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the budget implications thereof:

Moved by Councillor Flint:

'It is further recommended that all traffic control signals approved in 1998 for which funding is not available in 1998, be installed in 1999.' ")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (October 9, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from the Urban Environment and Development Committee for a status report regarding the installation of traffic control signals which have been approved in 1998.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received and forwarded to City Council for information.

Background:

At its meeting of October 5, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, to submit a report to the November 2, 1998 meeting listing the 21 traffic control signals that have been approved to date for which funding is available in 1998, as well as the signals which have been approved for which funding is not available in 1998.

Discussion:

In 1995 the former Metropolitan Toronto Council discussed the issue of an imbalance between the number of proposed traffic control signals and the approved budget: funding was only available to install signals at approximately 50 percent of the locations where signalization was justified. In response to this problem, staff developed a "Safety First" rating system in order to prioritize the installation of justified new traffic control signals.

As reported in 1995, the basic aims of the rating system are to give safety issues top priority; to give high priority to the conversion of pedestrian crossovers which are no longer operating in a satisfactory manner; to give high priority to the needs of pedestrians, particularly children and senior citizens; and to minimize liability on the City.

The priority rating system which was adopted in 1995, and which has been in use since then, is as follows:

Priority 1:locations at which the accident warrant is met, whether on a major arterial or a local road. The accident warrant includes motor vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists;

Priority 2:pedestrian crossovers which are not operating in a satisfactory manner, whether on a major arterial or a local road; and

Priority 3:all other locations, ranked in order of safety and pedestrian needs criteria.

Attached as appendices to this report are lists of traffic control signals approved and either installed or committed in 1998 (publicly and privately funded), and lists of traffic control signals either approved or under study in order of priority.

Appendix 1:1998 Approved Traffic Control Signals and Committed for 1998 Installation

Appendix 2:1998 Approved Traffic Control Signals on Waiting List

Appendix 3:Candidate Traffic Control Signal Locations Presently Under Study

The approved Capital Budget for new traffic control signal installation in 1998 is $1.6 million. The same sum is proposed in the 1999 Capital Budget.

Conclusions:

The "Safety First" priority rating system, which was adopted in 1995, should be retained to establish priorities for installing approved traffic control signals.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Les Kelman, Director, Transportation Systems, 392-5372.

--------

Appendix 1

1998 Approved Traffic Control Signals and Committed for 1998 Installation

1(a)Publicly Funded Traffic Control Signals:

(1)Keele Street at Humberside Avenue

(2)Wilson Avenue at Ridge Road

(3)Kipling Avenue at Genthorn Avenue

(4)2450-2500 Birchmount Road

(5)Doris Avenue at Empress Avenue

(6)Overlea Boulevard at William Morgan Drive

(7)Sheppard Avenue East at Gateforth Drive

(8)Dufferin Street at Samor Road

(9)1775 Weston Road

(10)Morningside Avenue at Finch Avenue East/Old Finch Avenue

(11)McCowan Road at Kenhatch Boulevard

(12)Dundas Street West at Montrose Avenue

(13)Parkside Drive at Indian Valley Crescent

(14)Parkside Drive at Spring Road

(15)Islington Avenue at Winnipeg Road

(16)1201 Wilson Avenue

(17)Sewells Road at Brenyon Way

(18)Broadview Avenue at Hillside Drive

(19)Tapscott Road at Newgale Gate

(20)Bathurst Street at Carr Street/Robinson Street

(21)Adelaide Street West at Brant Street

1(b)Traffic Control Signals Funded by Others:

(1)Dundas Street West, west of Humbercrest Boulevard

(2)1333 Sheppard Avenue East

(3)Meadowvale Road at Highway 401 eastbound ramp

(4)Meadowvale Road at the Toronto Zoo

(5)Lawrence Avenue East at Cedarbrae Mall

(6)Sheppard Avenue East at Grand Marshall Drive

(7)Eglinton Avenue East at Lebovic Avenue

(8)800 Warden Avenue

(9)Kennedy Road at Antrim Crescent

(10)Lake Shore Boulevard East at Northern Dancer Boulevard

(11)Progress Avenue at William Kitchen Road

(12)Weston Road north of St. Clair Avenue West

--------

Appendix 2

1998 Approved Traffic Control Signals on Waiting List

2(a)Publicly Funded Traffic Control Signals:

Priority 1 - Nil

Priority 2 - Nil

Priority 3:

(1)45 Overlea Boulevard

(2)Lawrence Avenue East at Charlottetown Boulevard

(3)Ellesmere Road at Dolly Varden Boulevard

(4)Royal York Road at Newcastle Street

(5)McNicoll Avenue at Harold Evans Road/Placer Court

(6)Bayview Avenue at Tudor Gate

2(b)Traffic Control Signals Funded by Others:

Priority 1 - Nil

Priority 2 - Nil

Priority 3:

(1)McNicoll Avenue at Silver Springs Boulevard (funding to be finalized)

(2)Finch Avenue East at Baylawn Drive (developer has not committed funds)

(3)Lake Shore Boulevard East at Woodbine Avenue/Kew Beach Avenue (deferred until March 1999)

(4)Midland Avenue at Lockie Avenue (funding to be finalized)

--------

Appendix 3

Candidate Traffic Control Signal Locations Presently Under Study

3(a)Publicly Funded Traffic Control Signals:

Priority 1:

(1)St. Clair Avenue West at Poplar Plains Road

(2)Kipling Avenue at Stevenson Road

Priority 2:

(3)Ossington Avenue at Dewson Street

(4)Warden Avenue at Mack Avenue

Priority 3:

(5)Yonge Street north of Shuter Street

(6)Bloor Street West at Robert Street/Walmer Road

(7)Dixon Road at McArthur Street

(8)Laird Drive at Vanderhoof Avenue

(9)McNicoll Avenue at Eagle Point Road

(10)Brimley Road at Golden Gate Court/Omni Drive

(11)Dundas Street West at Humber Hill Avenue

(12)Bathurst Street north of Rockford Road

(13)O'Connor Drive at Glenwood Crescent

(14)Kingston Road at St. Augustines Rest Home

(15)Sheppard Avenue East at Agincourt GO Station

(16)Lawrence Avenue at East Avenue

3(b)Traffic Control Signals Funded by Others:

Priority 3:

(1)Jane Street at York Gate Mall

(2)4300 Steeles Avenue East

(3)Finch Avenue West, west of Kipling Avenue

(4)Steeles Avenue East at Call-Net

(5)King Street West at Sudbury Street

(6)Milner Avenue at Grand Marshall Drive

(7)The Queensway, west of The West Mall

(8)Eglinton Avenue East at Torrance Road

(9)Victoria Park Avenue at Call-Net

(10)Gerrard Street East at Dengate Road

(11)The East Mall south of Burnhamthorpe Road

(12)Steeles Avenue West at Murray Ross Parkway

12

Removal of Parking Restriction on

Residential Side Streets in the Cedarvale Area

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the York Community Council with respect to the removal of parking restrictions on residential side streets in the Cedarvale area, as embodied in Clause No. 3 of Report No. 10 of The York Community Council, viz:

"The York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the newly implemented parking restrictions on the residential side streets in the Cedarvale area be removed; and that the regulations which were in place prior to August1998 be reinstated; and

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the issue of the re-installation of parking meters on the south side of EglintonAvenue West to the General Manager, Transportation Services, with a request that he conduct a comprehensive review thereof and submit a further report to the York, NorthYork and Toronto Community Councils.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (October 8, 1998) addressed to the Urban Environment and Development Committee from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it Clause No.3 of Report No.10 of The York Community Council, headed "(1) Removal of Parking Restrictions on Residential Side Streets in the Cedarvale Area; and (2) Request for Re-installation of Parking Meters on the South Side of Eglinton Avenue West, Ward 28, York Eglinton".

Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for comment insofar as it relates to City-wide implications only.

(Clause No. 3 of Report No. 10 of The York Community Council,

referred to in the foregoing communication.)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for comment insofar as it relates to City-wide implications only.)

The York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the newly implemented parking restrictions on the residential side streets in the Cedarvale area be removed; and that the regulations which were in place prior to August1998 be reinstated; and

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

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the York Manager of Traffic/Parking, to report on the installation of a No Right Turn from Strathearn Road on to Gloucester Grove; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to direct the York Director of Economic Development, to undertake a study of the Cedarvale area to determine the economic impact on local businesses as a result of the installation or removal of traffic control measures.

The York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having had before it the following communications:

(September 10, 1998) from Councillor Rob Davis requesting that the York Community Council reconsider its decision of June 25, 1997, to remove the parking meters on Eglinton Avenue West between Rostrevor Road and Menin Road; advising that several conditions have arisen, which if known at that time, could have had an impact on the original decision; that many of the business owners in the area have contacted his office regarding their concerns and requesting that deputations be made before the York Community Council.

(September 2, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc advising that several residents have complained regarding the No Parking from 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., seven days a week by-law and signs which have been implemented on Cedarvale streets between Eglinton Avenue West and Dewbourne Avenue; and requesting that the above restrictions be removed in that the two-hour parking by-law allows for sufficient control of parking on these streets.

(September 11, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc advising that in view of the turn restrictions on Eglinton Avenue West on to Strathearn Road from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 to 7:00 p.m., and the possibility of traffic infiltration from Strathearn Road on to Gloucester Grove; and requesting that staff be requested to report on the appropriateness of installing a No Right Turn restriction from Strathearn Road on to Gloucester Grove.

(September 10, 1998) from Mr. Richard R. Kent, 989 Eglinton Avenue West, #322, Toronto, to Councillor Rob Davis, advising that the elimination of the parking and stopping on the south side of Eglinton Avenue West and the removal of the parking meters, will have a severe adverse impact on the seniors who reside in the building of up to 144 units; many of the residents are in wheelchairs, need assistance to taxicabs, Wheel-Trans and other services; the adjacent streets are one-way running south to north which means that vehicles are unable to access these streets from Eglinton Avenue West.

(Undated) from Mr. Bryan G. Levman, President, Guidelines Advertising Ltd., 1063 Eglinton Avenue West, objecting to the turn restrictions in the area.

Petitions signed by approximately 38 residents of 989 Eglinton Avenue West, objecting to the removal of the stopping regulation and parking meters in front of their building.

Petitions signed by approximately 209 owners/operators of businesses in the Cedarvale area, opposing the removal of the parking meters which would have a negative effect on the business and residential community; and requesting that the Community Council reconsider this matter immediately.

Petition signed by approximately 122 Forest Hill students who patronize the restaurants in the area, objecting to the removal of parking on the south side of Eglinton Avenue West.

--------

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

-Dr. George Milne, Chiropractor, and Chair of the Upper Village BIA;

-Mr. George Calabrese, Treasurer, Upper Village BIA;

-Coordinator, Upper Village BIA;

-Dr. Goldstein, 152 Strathearn Road;

-Owner/operator, La Lucciola Pizzeria, 965 Eglinton Avenue West, Toronto;

-Resident on Strathearn Road, Toronto;

-Mr. Brian Levman, President, Guidelines Advertising Ltd., 1063 Eglinton Avenue West;

-Mr. Phil Hutchinson, Property Manager, 989 Eglinton Avenue West, Toronto.

-B. Joffe, 24 Rostrevor Road, Toronto;

-Dale Brattney, Menin Road, Toronto;

-Mr. Gil Kezwer, Winnett Avenue, Toronto;

-Mr. Robert Marcovitz, Westover Hill Road, Toronto; and

-Other residents and business owners/operators.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (October 30, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request by City Council at its meeting of October 1 and 2, 1998, to consider the City-wide implications of reinstating previous parking regulations on the south side of EglintonAvenue West between Strathearn Road and Rostrevor Road, and on the residential side streets south of Eglinton Avenue West, in the Cedarvale community.

Financial Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information, and that the matter of the parking elements of the Cedarvale Neighbourhood Speed and Traffic Study be referred to the YorkCommunity Council for its further consideration and resubmission to City Council.

Background:

Toronto City Council at its meeting of October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it Clause 3 of Report No.10 of The York Community Council, headed "(1) Removal of Parking Restrictions on Residential Side Streets in the Cedarvale Area; and (2) Request for Re-installation of Parking Meters on the South Side of Eglinton Avenue West, Ward 28, York Eglinton". Council referred this Clause to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for comment insofar as it relates to City-wide implications only.

Comments:

Development of the Cedarvale Traffic Management Plan:

Traffic issues in the Cedarvale community, south of Eglinton Avenue West and west of BathurstStreet, have been of concern to residents for many years. The problems, which also impact on the Northwest Forest Hill community on the north side of Eglinton Avenue West, stem largely from the termination of the W. R. Allen Road. Over the years, many efforts have been made to deal with the problems.

In May 1996 turn restriction time periods prohibiting southbound entry onto the local streets along Eglinton Avenue West between Bathurst Street and Alameda Avenue were extended to reduce vehicular through volumes, impacting negatively upon the residential community. As a direct result, and in response to community concerns regarding the extended turn restriction time periods, the former York City Council recommended that a community-based Speed and Traffic Management Study be undertaken.

A Cedarvale Traffic Task Force was established, consisting of 90 concerned residents and members of Eglinton Avenue West businesses, supported by the Mayor, the local Councillor, the Metro Councillor for York-Eglinton and York/Metro Transportation staff. To guide the study, a Residents Steering Committee was established. Terms of Reference for the Cedarvale Neighbourhood Speed and Traffic Management Study were drafted and approved. The firm Delcan Corporation was selected to undertake the study.

In January 1997 a preliminary traffic management plan was presented for consideration at an open meeting of the Task Force held at Cedarvale Public School. Based on strong feelings communicated by many of the residents attending the meeting, the majority concluded that many of the elements of the preliminary traffic plan were unacceptable to the community as a whole. As a result, the Cedarvale Residents Steering Committee undertook an extensive public consultation process in developing and formulating an amended Cedarvale Neighbourhood Speed and Traffic Management Plan.

The former York Council at its meeting of June 25, 1997, approved implementation of the community-based and supported Cedarvale Neighbourhood Speed and Traffic Management Plan and further requested the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Council to approve and implement those portions of the plan within its jurisdiction.

Description of Plan:

The Cedarvale Neighbourhood Speed and Traffic Management Plan consists of a blend of various traffic management measures, as well as numerous traffic-calming elements:

(1)Consistent all-way stop controls throughout the neighbourhood:

This decision was based on emphasizing safety through consistency at all intersections, rather than a quantitative study approach.

(2)Introduction of new turn prohibitions:

No left turn anytime prohibitions were introduced at two intersections for safety reasons.

(3)Revised entry/exiting turn restriction hours:

Revisions to existing prohibited hours of entry/exiting into and from the Cedarvale Community were introduced.

(4)Relocation of on-street parking meters:

Parking meters on the south side of Eglinton Avenue West between Strathearn Road and Rostrevor Road which operated during the off-peak periods were removed and transferred to the flankage streets between Eglinton Avenue West and the public lane first south. The intent was to provide two through traffic lanes eastbound on Eglinton Avenue in an effort to encourage non-local traffic to stay on the arterial route. A total of 26 metered curbside parking spaces were established on the flankages to replace 25 spaces removed from Eglinton Avenue West.

(5)Revised day-time on-street parking regulations:

Introduction of on-street parking on each of the side streets between the public lane and Dewbourne Avenue, during the hours of 10:00 am to 4:00 pm, for a maximum one hour duration to supplement Eglinton Avenue West customer parking needs. Approximately 96curbside parking spaces on these side streets are available.

(6)Installation of various traffic calming-measures throughout the community:

The introduction of a total of 45 traffic-calming measures. These measures include intersection throat narrowings, speed regulator humps, raised intersection pedestrian crossings and road narrowings with speed regulator humps; the purpose of which is to reduce vehicular travel speeds, improving pedestrian and cycling environments.

Local versus City-wide Implications:

The Cedarvale plan is intended to encourage a more hospitable community environment for residents to walk and cycle, by discouraging speeding vehicles and excessive volumes of through traffic. In this regard, the parking elements discussed above were designed to improve the arterial capacity while still addressing the parking supply needs of the local businesses. With implementation of this aspect of the plan in August 1998 a great deal of concern has been expressed, culminating with the recent recommendations of the York Community Council.

There is clearly an overriding local focus to this issue in terms of controlling traffic and parking on the neighbourhood streets and striking an appropriate balance between the needs of the local businesses and the adjoining residential community. In terms of potential City-wide implications, the capacity of the arterial route to accommodate through traffic demands would appear to be the primary concern. However, it has been demonstrated that from a capacity perspective, the street can serve this demand even if off-peak parking is provided. Accordingly, both local street and EglintonAvenue West parking elements of the Cedarvale plan are arguably local in nature.

It should be pointed out that the individual elements of the Cedarvale plan are components of an overall strategy. The removal or adjustment of any one of the various elements, including parking, may not entirely undermine the plan which evolved through extensive public consultation, but the intent and effectiveness could be compromised as elements are altered. In any event, it would be appropriate to refer this matter to the York Community Council for its further consideration and resubmission to City Council.

Contact Persons:

Mr. Stephen C. Brown, Manager Traffic/Parking, 394-2655, 394-2888 (fax).

Ms. Jacqueline White, Manager, Central Traffic Region, 397-5021, 392-8504 (fax).

__________

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

-Dr. George Milne, Chiropractor, and Chair of the Upper Village BIA;

-Mr. John Cautillo, Toronto;

-Ms. Grace Russo, Upper Village BIA;

-Ms. Elaine Levine, Toronto;

-Mr. Phil Hutchinson, Property Manager of 989 Eglinton Avenue West;

-Ms. Esme Temple, Toronto;

-Mr. David Eisenberg, Italian Association of BIAs;

-Mr. Ara Kurk, Owner, Frame and Gift Inc., 1005 Eglinton Avenue West;

-Ms. Robyn Butler, Manager of a gift shop on the north side of Eglinton Avenue West;

-Councillor Rob Davis, York-Eglinton; and

-Councillor Joe Mihevc, York-Eglinton.

(A copy of the attachment, entitled "Appendix 3: City of York - 'The Cedarvale Community Traffic Plan' - Ward 1", to the foregoing report dated October 30, 1998, from the General Manager, Transportation Services Division, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

13

Partial Rescission of the

Eastbound Left-Turn Prohibition:

Bloor Street West and Lansdowne Avenue.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (October 5, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To modify the eastbound left-turn prohibition at the intersection of Bloor Street West and LansdowneAvenue, which is currently in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, to be in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the proposed partial rescission of the eastbound left-turn prohibition are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost of this work is $600.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the eastbound left-turn prohibition at the intersection of Bloor Street West and Lansdowne Avenue, currently in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, be modified to be in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

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

Background:

At the request of Councillor Dennis Fotinos, our Department assessed the feasibility of rescinding the eastbound left-turn prohibition on Bloor Street West at Lansdowne Avenue in order to reduce non-resident traffic on local roadways in the vicinity of the subject intersection.

Discussion:

The intersection of Bloor Street West and Lansdowne Avenue is controlled by traffic signals. Eastbound left-turn movements are prohibited during the 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. period, Monday to Saturday. This turn prohibition has been in place since prior to 1965 and was likely installed due to the streetcar service that used to run across Bloor Street West.

Based on our field observations and intersection capacity analysis, we can support permitting eastbound left turns to be made at all times, except during weekday peak periods. Minimal increases in delay to the eastbound traffic will be experienced during the off-peak period. If eastbound left turns are allowed during this time period, non-resident traffic will no longer need to use St. Clarens Avenue, Margueretta Street or Pauline Avenue. Permitting eastbound left turns during the weekday peak periods would lead to undesirable delays and congestion to eastbound motorists.

We have consulted with Councillors Betty Disero, Dennis Fotinos, Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva and they have expressed no concern with this proposal.

Conclusions:

The modification of the existing eastbound left-turn prohibition at the intersection of Bloor Street West and Lansdowne Avenue will have a minimal impact on the eastbound traffic, while it will decrease non-resident traffic on local roadways near this intersection.

Contact Name:

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

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 2, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

14

Proposed Relocation of the Pedestrian Crossover

and Extension of the Eastbound Left-Turn Prohibition

at Dundas Street West and Humberside Avenue.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (October 5, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To relocate the existing pedestrian crossover (PXO) and extend the hours that the existing eastbound left-turn prohibition is in effect at the intersection of Dundas Street West and Humberside Avenue in order to improve the operational safety of this intersection.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the relocation of the PXO and the installation of the eastbound left-turn prohibition are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost of these works is $16,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the existing pedestrian crossover on Dundas Street West, immediately north of Humberside Avenue, be relocated 15 metres further north thereof;

(2)the existing eastbound left-turn prohibition at the intersection of Dundas Street West and Humberside Avenue, which is currently in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, be extended to be in effect at all times; and

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

Background:

As a result of two public inquiries, Transportation Services staff have reviewed the operation of the pedestrian crossover (PXO) and eastbound left-turn movements at the intersection of Dundas Street West and Humberside Avenue.

Discussion:

A PXO is located on the north leg of the Dundas Street West and Humberside Avenue intersection. During the busiest eight-hour period of a typical weekday approximately 100 pedestrians use this PXO to cross Dundas Street West. The majority of these pedestrians are adults crossing to/from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus stops at this intersection. The technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals at this intersection are not satisfied.

Because of the curvilinear characteristic of Dundas Street West near Humberside Avenue, the existing sightlines for pedestrians and southbound motorists are not ideal. The minimum recommended stopping sight distance for a roadway with a 50 km/h speed limit like Dundas Street West is 65metres. The existing sightlines between eastbound pedestrians and southbound motorists are approximately 55 metres. To mitigate this concern, we have determined that it is feasible to relocate the existing PXO northerly by approximately 15 metres. The proposed relocation would increase the visibility for pedestrians and approaching traffic on Dundas Street West. In conjunction with the proposed relocation of the PXO, staff of the TTC support the relocation of the southbound bus stop from the existing near side location at the intersection to a far side location, south of Humberside Avenue, to further enhance visibility for pedestrians.

To increase southbound motorists' awareness of the PXO, we have installed a "PXO Ahead" and "Hidden Intersection Ahead" sign, on Dundas Street West north of Humberside Avenue. Also, we have removed newspaper vending boxes and some vegetation, which has improved the visibility at this intersection. All other environmental criteria at this location are suitable for a PXO.

At this intersection eastbound left turns are prohibited during weekday morning and afternoon peak periods. As noted above, the minimum recommended stopping sight distance for southbound motorists is 65 metres. However, the existing sightlines between southbound through and eastbound left-turning motorists are approximately 45 metres. Therefore, for safety reasons, eastbound left turns should be prohibited at all times at this intersection. This prohibition would displace approximately five vehicles per hour. These motorists would have a number of feasible alternates(i.e., Kenneth Avenue, Jerome Street, Abbott Avenue and Indian Road) to access Dundas Street West. As a result, traffic impacts in this community would be negligible.

A review of the Toronto Police Service collision records over a three-year period ending December31, 1997, disclosed that nine collisions had occurred at this intersection. One of these involved a pedestrian. In this particular collision a northbound motorist, who passed a stopped TTC bus, struck a pedestrian who was crossing Dundas Street West from the east side within the PXO. The pedestrian sustained minor injuries and the investigating officer charged the driver. There were also three collisions between eastbound left-turning and southbound through motorists. It is likely that inadequate sightlines were a partial contributor to the collisions.

Councillors Betty Disero and Dennis Fotinos support the proposed relocation of the PXO and extension of the eastbound left-turn prohibition at the intersection of Dundas Street West and Humberside Avenue.

Conclusions:

For safety reasons, at the intersection of Dundas Street West and Humberside Avenue, the PXO should be relocated northerly by approximately 15 metres and eastbound left turns should be prohibited at all times.

Contact Name:

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

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 2, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

15

Amendments to Stopping Regulations:

Spadina Avenue, North of College Street.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (October 15, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To amend the stopping regulations on the west side of Spadina Avenue to allow vehicles to stop

and make deliveries to the Scott Mission.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed stopping regulation changes are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost of installing appropriate signs is $1,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the existing full time stopping prohibition on the west side of Spadina Avenue be changed to a parking prohibition at all times between 30.5 metres north of College Street and 50.5metres north of College Street; and

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

Background:

At the request of the Scott Mission, staff of the Transportation Services Division and the Toronto Transit Commission have investigated means to enable large vehicles to continue to make deliveries to the Scott Mission without compromising the integrity of the temporary bollards recently installed along the streetcar right-of-way in this vicinity.

Discussion:

The Scott Mission is a benevolent organization which depends on donations from others. The Scott Mission is located on the west side of Spadina Avenue between College Street and Spadina Circle. There is a very narrow laneway on the south side of the building for receiving deliveries. Generally, the Mission is not able to predict when deliveries will occur and these deliveries can arrive in vehicles of varying sizes. Occasionally, the vehicles will be semi-trailers. In the past, this type of vehicle would gain access to the laneway by pulling across both directions of travel on Spadina Avenue, including the streetcar track allowance, and then backing into the laneway. With the recent installation of temporary bollards on Spadina Avenue to prevent vehicle access across the streetcar tracks, this manoeuvre by semi-trailers is no longer possible. Other smaller vehicles are still able to back into the laneway. We met with representatives of the Scott Mission to determine whether any action could be taken to enable the deliveries by semi-trailers to continue and not jeopardize their receipt of these donations.

We considered various options including the full-time removal of bollards, the installation of removable bollards, and the scheduled temporary removal of bollards. However, none of these options are considered feasible due to the following concerns:

(1)all of these options result in safety concerns by creating an opening across the streetcar track allowance which could then be used by other vehicles making illegal turns and U-turns;

(2)the timing of the delivery of donations is unpredictable; and

(3)there was concern with the safety of these semi-trailers pulling across all lanes of Spadina Avenue and then reversing into the laneway.

Therefore, we considered the alternative of creating a loading zone, which would allow these large vehicles to stop along the west side of Spadina Avenue. The deliveries would then be unloaded at curb side and transported into the Scott Mission. Considering the infrequency of these type of deliveries, the Scott Mission representatives felt that this was an acceptable compromise.

At the present time stopping is prohibited on the west side of Spadina Avenue between College Street and a point just north of the laneway to the Scott Mission (58 metres). The purpose of this stopping prohibition is to maintain two lanes of traffic at all times. The Scott Mission will only require use of this area infrequently and the other uses on this section of Spadina Avenue do not create a high demand for loading activity. There is sufficient space to create a 20-metre loading zone immediately south of the laneway and still maintain a 30.5-metre No Stopping zone. As a result, a loading zone could be created without significantly affecting traffic operations on Spadina Avenue. Therefore, we are recommending that a No Parking regulation be introduced in this 20-metre section, which will allow for the loading/unloading of vehicles.

Councillor Olivia Chow, who looks after this area of the Downtown Ward, has expressed no concern with this proposal.

Conclusion:

Changing the stopping prohibition on the west side of Spadina Avenue, north of College Street, to provide a 20 metre loading zone will enable the Scott Mission to continue to receive deliveries by large vehicles without compromising the safety of the streetcar track allowance or adversely affecting traffic operations on Spadina Avenue.

Contact Name:

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

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 2, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

16

Amendments to Parking Regulations on the

North Side of Adelaide Street West, Between

Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (October 13, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To permit parking on the north side of Adelaide Street West, between Bathurst Street and SpadinaAvenue, during the weekday afternoon peak period.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed parking regulations are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost of installing appropriate signs is $1,000.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the stopping prohibitions on the north side of Adelaide Street West, between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue, in effect from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, be rescinded; and

(2)the existing one hour maximum parking regulation on the north side of Adelaide Street West, between Bathurst Street and Brant Street, in effect from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, be modified to be in effect from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday; and

(3)the existing metered parking regulation on the north side of Adelaide Street West, at a rate of $1.00 for one hour, between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue, in effect from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, be modified to be in effect from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday; and

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

Background:

At the request of a local business owner and Councillor Olivia Chow, our Department reviewed the feasibility of allowing parking during the weekday afternoon peak period on the north side of Adelaide Street West, between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue.

Discussion:

Adelaide Street West is a four-lane, one-way eastbound roadway. Generally, stopping/parking is prohibited on both sides of Adelaide Street West, between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue, during the weekday peak periods. Metered parking is provided on the north side of the roadway for a maximum period of one hour during daytime periods on weekdays and Saturdays. At other times parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours. Parking is prohibited at all times on the south side of Adelaide Street West.

The average weekday traffic volumes for the morning peak, off-peak and afternoon peak periods are 1,150, 825 and 850 respectively. The traffic volumes during a typical weekday are similar in the afternoon peak period as in the mid-day off-peak period when parking is allowed.

If parking is provided in the northerly curb lane during the weekday afternoon peak period, it is possible to accommodate the existing traffic flows in the remaining three lanes. Therefore, we have no objection to the rescission of the weekday afternoon peak period stopping prohibition on the north side of Adelaide Street West. Based on this modification, parking meters on the north side of Adelaide Street West should operate from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, for a maximum period of one hour.

Councillors Olivia Chow and Kyle Rae have been consulted and support this proposal.

Conclusions:

Allowing parking during the weekday afternoon peak period on the north side of Adelaide Street West, between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue, will provide additional parking opportunities and turnover without a significant negative impact on the safety or level of service on Adelaide Street West.

Contact Name:

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

(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 2, 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

Other Items Considered by the Committee.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws Regarding the

Conversion of Condominiums and Demolition of Rental Housing.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(A)endorsed Recommendations Nos. (1), (9), (10) and (11) embodied in the following report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(B)referred the following motion to the Community Councils and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for review and comment thereon to the November 30, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'That the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommend to Council that:

(1)Recommendation No. (2)(a), embodied in the report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended as follows:

135.1-(i)delete the words "where appropriate"; and

(ii)strike out the word "discouraging" and insert in lieu thereof the word" prohibiting";

135.3-add the word "only" after the words "rented residential units";

135.4-delete the words "whenever possible" and "wherever appropriate";

135.5-strike out (a) and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(a)to prohibit redevelopment applications which involve the demolition of rental units without replacement of those rental units with an equivalent number of rental units of a similar number, type, size, and level of affordability in the new development, or the equivalent number of such units which, in the opinion of City Council, is consistent with the intent of this policy; and";

(2)the following new Recommendations (12) and (13) be added thereto:

"(12)notification of applications involving the demolition of rental units be extended to all tenants, and the application fees be adjusted to cover the costs thereof; and

(13)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of establishing a provision that no building permit be issued and no planning application be considered for properties which have outstanding City work orders against them;"';

(C)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the November 30, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on:

(i)the feasibility of City Council requesting all political parties running in the next provincial election to commit to the introduction of controls regarding the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing; such report to include appropriate rationale and documentation in support of a request of this nature; and

(ii)the feasibility of amending Parts A.1(e) and A.2(e) of Appendix A to expand the notification period beyond fourteen (14) days for tenants of rental housing for which applications for conversion to condominium or demolition have been received; and

(D)requested the Chief Building Official to communicate (e.g., by fax) directly with all Members of Council, the City Solicitor, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and the Chief Planner, whenever an application is received for either conversion to condominium or demolition of rental housing; such communication to include the basic details of the affected rental housing (e.g.,number of units, tenants, etc.).

(October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that:

(1)the Urban Environment and Development Committee schedule a statutory public meeting for November 30, 1998 to consider proposed official plan amendments with respect to the conversion of rental housing to condominium and the demolition of rental housing as detailed in Recommendation No. (2);

(2)Council adopt new official plan policies to regulate the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing by:

(a)adding the following new section to the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan:

Section 3.2.3 Conversion and Demolition of Rental Housing

It is the policy of Council:

135.1to preserve, maintain and, where appropriate, replenish the supply of residential buildings, and particularly rental buildings, across the City of Toronto by restricting the demolition of residential property and the conversion of rental units to condominium, and by discouraging the conversion of rental units to equity co-operative;

135.2to restrict the conversion to condominium of any building, or any related group of buildings, including equity co-operatives, containing six or more rented residential units as it would be premature and not in the public interest, unless the vacancy rate in the City of Toronto, as reported by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for private rental apartments and townhouses, respectively, has been at or above 2.5percent for the preceding two-year reporting period;

135.3despite Policy 135.2, to consider allowing the conversion of buildings containing six or more rented residential units where the rents that were charged for each unit in the building or related group of buildings one year prior to the application, were at or above the average high-end rent level by unit type as prescribed by Council from time to time, and based on Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reports;

135.4to seek, whenever possible, the retention of rented residential units, and to consider, where appropriate, acquiring or leasing the property where such units are at risk of being demolished;

135.5(a)when considering redevelopment applications involving the demolition of rented residential units, to seek the replacement of the demolished rental units with rental units of a similar number, type, size, and level of affordability in the new development, and/or alternative arrangements, which in the opinion of Council are consistent with the intent of this policy; and

(b)when considering such applications in the context of an increase in height and/or density, to secure such replacement units and/or alternative arrangements through an appropriate legal agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act;

(b)adding the following definition under the Glossary of Terms, Section1.4.4 of the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan:,

"related group of buildings"

buildings that are under the same ownership and on the same parcel of land as defined in the Planning Act;

(c)deleting the following sections dealing with conversions:

(i)sections 2.5.6, 4.5.3, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5 in the East York Official Plan;

(ii)sections 2.2.13 and 11.15.2 and the words "or conversion of existing rental accommodation" in sections 11.15.3 and 11.15.4 in the Etobicoke Official Plan;

(iii)sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 in Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan;

(iv)section 6.18 in the Toronto Official Plan; and

(v)section 9.7(b) and item 6. in Part (B) in Appendix I of the York Official Plan;

(d)deleting the following sections dealing with demolitions:

(i)section 2.6.3 in Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan;

(ii)section 2.2.15 in the Etobicoke Official Plan;

(iii)section 9.8 in the York Official Plan;

(iv)section 6.19 in the City of Toronto Official Plan; and

(v)sections 4.10 and 4.10.1 in the East York Official Plan;

(e)deleting the following sections dealing with the replacement of housing:

(i)section 2.6.4 in Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan; and

(ii)section 2.2.16 in the Etobicoke Official Plan; and

(f)making any related technical amendments to the Official Plans listed in Recommendations Nos. (2) (b), (c), (d) and (e) above, to reflect the amendment and deletion of the sections;

(3)upon adoption of the Official Plan policies outlined in Recommendation No.(2) above, Council delegate the responsibility for hearing deputations on condominium conversion applications to meetings of the respective Community Councils and authorize the amendment of the Procedural By-law as necessary, and repeal the interim policies and procedures that Council adopted in Clause No. 4 of Report No.7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee on June 3, 4 and5, 1998;

(4)Council adopt the application, notice and meeting requirements for condominium conversion and demolition applications detailed in Appendix A;

(5)Council resolve that for the purposes of defining "high-end rental units" in accordance with Policy No. 135.3 (refer to Recommendation No. (2)(a) above), the factor of 1.5 times the City's average rent (by bedroom size), as detailed in AppendixB, shall be used.

(6)Urban Planning and Development Services staff be requested to review the demolition control by-laws of the former municipalities with respect to, among other matters, the scope and coverage of the various by-laws, as well as the delegation procedures, conditions, penalties and enforcement issues, and report back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on harmonizing the by-laws;

(7)as an interim measure, Council enact a by-law in the form of the attached draft Bill (Appendix C) which designates the former City of Scarborough as a demolition control area pursuant to section 33 of the Planning Act, requires Council to approve the issuance of demolition permits for residential properties containing six or more units, and delegates to the Chief Building Official the authority to issue demolition permits for residential properties containing five or fewer dwelling units;

(8)authority be granted to apply to the Province for special legislation on demolition control substantially in the form of the draft Private Bill contained in Schedule A of Appendix D which would extend the former City of Toronto's special legislation to all of the new City;

(9)a copy of this report and the Committee's action be forwarded to the Community Councils for review at their meetings scheduled to be held on November 12, 1998 with a request that their comments be made available for the Urban Environment and Development Committee's consideration at its November 30, 1998 public meeting;

(10)a copy of this report be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to fulfill the consultation requirement with respect to the Minister's recent announcement of exempting amendments to the City's Official Plan from Provincial approval; and

(11)the appropriate City officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action to give effect thereto, including preparing and introducing any necessary Bills and giving notice of the public meeting.

__________

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

-Ms. Jane Pepino, Aird and Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of GoldlistProperties;

-Mr. Howard Tessler, Executive Director, Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations; and also filed a written brief with respect thereto;

-Mr. Gary Griesdorf, Executive Director, Greater Toronto Apartment Association;

-Councillor Jack Layton, Don River;

-Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway-Humber; and

-Councillor Joe Mihevc, York-Eglinton.

(b)Examination of Service Levels for

Road Maintenance and Related Budget Implications.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(A)recommended to the Budget Committee and the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:

(1)the adoption of the following report (October 15, 1998) from the GeneralManager, Transportation Services Division, subject to:

(a)amending Recommendation No. (1)(a)(ii) by striking out the words "continue to", and adding the word "Etobicoke" after the word "Scarborough,"; so that the Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(1)(a)(ii)the City clear the windrows of snow from single-family residential driveways in the North York, Scarborough, Etobicoke and Forest Hill communities;"';

(b)amending Recommendation No.(1)(a)(v) to provide that all senior citizens over the age of 65years immediately receive the services outlined therein for the 1998/1999 winter season, viz:

"(1)(a)(v)The City provide a sidewalk and windrow clearing service to all senior citizens over the age of 65years, and disabled residents residing in single-family residences. This service is subject to no other occupant who is under the age of 65 years residing in the same house and who is capable of removing snow. This service to be provided at no charge to eligible recipients."; and

(c)amending Recommendation No. (4)(i) by adding thereto the words "with the exception of the former Cities of Etobicoke and Scarborough where the current level of leaf pick-up services would continue to be provided in the 1999 fall season"; so that the Recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(4)(i)starting in the fall of 1999 residents in all areas be required to bag leaves from their property to be collected by the Solid Waste Management Services Division, with the exception of the former Cities of Etobicoke and Scarborough where the current level of leaf pick-up services would continue to be provided in the 1999 fall season;";

(2)that there be no loss in snow removal service to individual properties for the1998/1999 winter season, as recommended in Recommendations Nos.(1)(a)(ii)and(iii); and

(3)that this matter be submitted to Council for its meeting scheduled to be held on November25, 1998;

(B)requested the Chief Administrative Officer to submit a report either to the November 10, 1998 meeting of the Budget Committee, if possible, or directly to the November 25, 1998 meeting of Council, on

(1)the establishment of a reserve in the area of road maintenance and related services whereby operating savings are placed in such reserve and used to equalize service levels in 1999 and 2000; and

(2)an envelope program whereby services can vary between the former municipalities but the total expenditures are somewhat equalized; and

(C)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a report to the November 10, 1998 meeting of the Budget Committee on the source of funding for the $125,000.00 that would be required to provide the services outlined in Recommendation No. (1)(a)(v) for the 1998/1999 Winter Season:

(October 15, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, regarding the harmonization of service levels for road maintenance throughout the new City of Toronto.

_________

Mr. Gary H. Welsh, Director, Transportation Services, District Four, made an overhead presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

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

-Councillor Mario Giansante, Kingsway-Humber;

-Councillor Joe Mihevc, York-Eglinton; and

-Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber.

(c)Scarborough Group Home Zoning By-law No. 25225

and Appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board by

the Former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto,

the Catholic Children's Aid Society and the

St. Leonard's Society of Metropolitan Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)referred this matter to the Scarborough Community Council; and

(2)requested the Scarborough Community Council to forward its comments with respect thereto to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on November 30, 1998:

(i)(October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that:

(1)Council repeal Scarborough Zoning By-law No. 25225;

(2)authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills at Council; and

(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action to give effect thereto and advise the Ontario Municipal Board of Council's decision;

advising that Scarborough By-law No. 25225 increases the separation distance between group homes from 300 metres to 800 metres; however there is no planning rationale or apparent need for the aforementioned increased separation distance; that the repeal of the By-law will nullify the appeals and eliminate the need for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing; and stating that the former municipalities' group home policies will be reviewed in the preparation of the new Official Plan and City-wide implementation policies.

(ii)(October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services expressing the Department's support of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Department for the repeal of the Scarborough Group Home Zoning By-law No.25225, as recommended by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in her report dated October 15, 1998, to the Urban Planning and Development Committee.

(iii)(August 25, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July29,30and31, 1998, struck out and referred Clause No. 15 of Report No. 7 of TheScarborough Community Council, headed "Ontario Municipal Board Appeal -Group Homes", to The Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration.

(d)Support of the Dundas E.A.S.T.

(Everybody's Access to Safe Travel) Project.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following recommendation oftheToronto Pedestrian Committee, embodied in the following communication, to the General Manager, Transportation Services:

"(c)that appropriate staff be requested to prepare a brief report by February 1999 on how this greening can occur throughout the new City as a means of: increasing sustainable transportation (walking, cycling, transit); reducing costs, air pollution, smog, and paved surfaces; and the beautification of Toronto as property values are increased.":

(September 28, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Toronto Pedestrian Committee on September 17, 1998, had before it a motion for consideration regarding support of the Dundas E.A.S.T. project; such motion containing the following operative paragraphs:

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Toronto Pedestrian Committee:

(a)fully support initiatives such as proposed by DUNDAS E.A.S.T. which calls for wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes, treed boulevards, and a general "greening" of the street; and recommends to Toronto Council that it implement this project as a model for similar "greening" of future projects (as called for in the Official Plan);

(b)that appropriate staff be requested to report on this project, including the entire right-of-way; and

(c)that appropriate staff be requested to prepare a brief report by February 1999 on how this greening can occur throughout the new City as a means of: increasing sustainable transportation (walking, cycling, transit); reducing costs, air pollution, smog, and paved surfaces; and the beautification of Toronto as property values are increased."

__________

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

-Ms. Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee; and

-Mr. Bill Brown, Dundas E.A.S.T. Project; and also filed a written brief with respect thereto.

(e)Urban Design Guidelines for Parking Facilities in the Kings, Downtown.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)referred the following report back to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(2)requested the Commissioner to submit a further report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of establishing a policy whereby parking structures greater than 5000 square metres would be subject to the one percent for art policy:

(October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that Council adopt the urban design guidelines for parking facilities in TheKings districts.

(f)"Prudent Avoidance" Policy on Siting Cellular Telephone Transmission Towers.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for a report thereon, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health; such report to include the development of a policy which results in a master agreement that establishes fair rental rates of return for lease of public land, as per the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' discussion papers on lease of rights-of-way:

(October 14, 1998) from Councillor John Adams, Midtown, recommending that the ChiefPlanner, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, be directed to review and report on a policy for the appropriate siting of wireless (cellular) telephone transmission towers and that this policy be based on the idea of "prudent avoidance"; stating that the City of Toronto should adopt such a policy, and should have a rule that wireless telephone transmission towers should be located outside residential neighbourhoods and at least 200metres from schools and day care centres.

(g)Rapid Transit between Eglinton Avenue West and Black Creek,

and Eglinton Avenue West to the Airport.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for consideration at the appropriate time:

(October 9, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, referred the following Motion to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration:

Moved by:Councillor Nunziata

Seconded by:Councillor Berardinetti

"WHEREAS years of study, planning and engineering work went into the Eglinton Subway before the Province cancelled its construction; and

WHEREAS rapid transit plans within Toronto will be developed at some point over the coming years;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to include in her review and studies of rapid transit in Toronto, an evaluation of rapid transit between Eglinton Avenue West and Black Creek, and Eglinton Avenue West to the airport."

(h)Future of Industrial Lands in the City of Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having

(1)referred the following suggestion, embodied in the communication (August 10, 1998) from Mr. O'Donohue, to the Economic Development Committee for consideration, viz:

"(4)that City Council develop a marketing strategy for attracting industries;";

(2)referred the remainder of the aforementioned communication to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for consideration as part of the Portlands study; and

(3)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, as part of the new Official Plan process, on the development of a City-wide industrial reinvestment strategy:

(August 10, 1998) from Mr. Tony O'Donohue, President, Environmental Probe Ltd., expressing concern regarding the gradual erosion of industrial-zoned lands, especially in the former City of Toronto; and suggesting that City Council take the following action:

(1)recognize the gradual erosion of industrial land;

(2)complete a detailed study of industrial lands by qualified urban planners;

(3)review the definition of industry and include provisions for 'high tech' industries;

(4)develop a marketing strategy for attracting industries; and

(5)do not rezone any more industrial lands while the study is underway.

__________

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

-Mr. Tony O'Donohue, President, Environmental ProbeLtd., and also filed a written brief with respect thereto; and

-Mr. Alfredo Romano, Castan Corporation.

(i)F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having been orally advised by the Chair of the Committee that, at the request of the local Councillors, the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project has been further deferred to the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee scheduled to be held on November30 and December 1, 1998, and all interested parties have been advised thereof.

(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of City Council on November 25, 26, and 27, 1998, declared his interest in Item (e), headed "Urban Design Guidelines for Parking Facilities in the Kings, Downtown", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that his family has an interest in the property in the area.)

Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE,

Chair

Toronto, November 2, 1998

(Report No. 13, of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998.)