City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents



	Accessing City Hall
	Mayor
	Councillors
	Meeting Schedules

City of Toronto Council and Committees

All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1998

URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 14

1Options for Ward Boundary Changes(All Wards)

2Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws Regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing(All Wards)

3Access to the City Centre Airport(Ward: Downtown)

4F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project,Railway Relocation Along Lake Shore Boulevard from Don Roadway to Leslie Street, Contract No. T-54-98, Tender No. 62-1998(Ward: Don River)

5Proposed Amendments to By-law No. 60-1998 "The Carbon Monoxide Detector By-law"(All Wards)

6Scarborough 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(All Wards)

7Proposed Conversion of Temporary Traffic Control Signals at Park Home Avenue and Beecroft Road, and Park Home Avenue and Senlac Road (Ward: North York Centre)

8Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals Bloor Street West and Forestview Road/Mapledawn Road (Ward: Markland Centennial)

9Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:Brimley Road and Golden Gate Court/Omni Drive(Ward: Scarborough City Centre)

10Rescission of the Eastbound Left-turn Prohibition at Eglinton Avenue West and Avenue Road; and Amendment to the Existing Parking Regulations on the East Side of Avenue Road,

Between Roselawn Avenue and Elwood Boulevard (Ward: North Toronto)

11Other Items Considered by the Committee.

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 14

OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on November 30, 1998 and December 1, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1998

Options for Ward Boundary Changes

(All Wards)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause :

(1)to provide that:

(a)the ward boundary division for Lakeshore - Queensway (Ward 2) be Highway 427, south to the Queen Elizabeth Way, east to Royal York Road, and south to Lake Ontario, as shown on the attached revised map;

(b)the southerly ward boundary division for Seneca Heights (Ward 12) be Highway 401, between Bayview Avenue and Leslie Street, as shown on the attached revised map;

(c)the ward boundary division for Davenport (Ward 21) follow the CP Rail Line, east to Ossington Avenue, north on Ossington Avenue to Davenport Road, and east on Davenport Road to Christie Street, as shown on the attached revised map;

(d)the ward boundary division for Midtown (Ward 23) follow the Vale of Avoca Ravine to the southerly boundary of the Mount Pleasant Cemetery, as shown on the attached revised map; and

(e)as a result of the decision of the North York Community Council which was made subsequent to the York Community Council deliberations on this matter, the ward boundary division for York Humber (Ward 27) be revised to follow Black Creek to Eglinton Avenue, east to the CN Rail Line, as shown on the attached revised map; and

(2)by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a)the City Solicitor be authorized to represent the City in the court application to determine Council's right to enact a by-law creating single member wards and changing the overall size of its membership;

(b)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Clerk, be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the long-term process for ward distribution with a ten-year horizon; and

(c)Council express its appreciation to staff of the City Clerk and other appropriate City staff for the exemplary work they have done on the ward boundaries project.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following:

(1)ward boundary line changes and divisions for the following 10 Wards where no disagreement exists between the recommendations of the Community Councils:

(a)Kingsway-Humber (Ward 3), as shown on Map 3;

(b)Markland-Centennial (Ward 4), as shown on Map 4;

(c)Black Creek (Ward 7), as shown on Map 7;

(d)North York Centre (Ward 10), as shown on Map 10;

(e)Scarborough City Centre (Ward 15), as shown on Map 15;

(f)Scarborough Highland Creek (Ward 16), as shown on Map 16;

(g)Scarborough Agincourt (Ward 17), as shown on Map 17;

(h)Scarborough Malvern (Ward 18), as shown on Map 18;

(i)Trinity-Niagara (Ward 20), as shown on Map 20; and

(j)Downtown (Ward 24), as shown on Map 24;

(2)where a boundary conflict exists and the existing boundary line splits a property, the existing ward boundary be followed and the entire property be moved into the ward in which it fronts, unless the existing boundary line already splits the property front yard, the property should be moved into the ward with the largest percentage of the front yard;

(3)ward boundary line changes and divisions resolving boundary conflicts that resulted from Community Council recommendations, such that:

(a)East York (Ward 1), as shown on Map 1, follow the existing ward boundary lines as amended to:

(i)exclude the Shoppers World site south of Danforth Avenue;

(ii)move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2); and

(iii)divide East York (Ward 1) into three single member wards as shown on Map 1;

(b)North York Humber (Ward 6), as shown on Map 6, follow the existing ward boundary line for this ward and ward division, as amended only to move those properties, split by the existing ward boundary, into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2);

(c)North York Spadina (Ward 8), as shown on Map 8, follow the existing ward boundary line for this ward and the ward division, as amended only to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No (2);

(d)North York Centre South (Ward 9), as shown on Map 9, follow the existing ward boundary lines for this ward and the ward division, as amended only to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2);

(e)Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13), as shown on Map 13, as amended only to follow the existing west ward boundary line for this ward south of Bracken Avenue;

(f)High Park (Ward 19), as shown on Map 19, as amended to follow the centre line of JaneStreet between Annette Street and Bloor Street West and follow the southlimit of the Toronto Transit Commission right-of-way, north of BloorStreet West between Jane Street and the Humber River;

(g)North Toronto (Ward 22), as shown on Map 22, as amended by Recommendation No. (3)(c) for North York Spadina (Ward 8) and Recommendation No. (3)(d) for NorthYork Centre South (Ward 9), and as amended to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2);

(h)Midtown (Ward 23), as shown on Map 23, as amended by Recommendation No.(3)(a) for East York (Ward 1) and as amended to follow the existing ward boundary along the centre line of Bathurst Street, the north side of Heath Street West, and the property lines west and parallel to Spadina Avenue;

(i)Don River (Ward 25), as shown on Map 25, as amended by Recommendation No. (3)(a) for East York (Ward 1), and as amended to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2);

(j)East Toronto (Ward 26), as shown on Map 26, as amended by Recommendation No. (3)(a) for East York (Ward 1) and Recommendation No. (3)(e) for Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13), and as amended to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2);

(k)York Humber (Ward 27), as shown on Map 27, as amended by Recommendation No. (3)(f) for High Park (Ward 19) and Recommendation No.(3)(b) for North York Humber (Ward 6), and as amended to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2); and

(l)York Eglinton (Ward 28), as shown on Map 28, as amended by Recommendation No. (3)(c) for North York Spadina (Ward 8) and Recommendation No. (3)(h) for Midtown (Ward 23), as amended to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2);

(4)ward boundary division for Lakeshore-Queensway (Ward 2), as shown on Map 2;

(5)ward boundary line changes and divisions for Rexdale-Thistletown (Ward 5), as shown on Map 5;

(6)ward boundary line changes and division for Don Parkway (Ward 11), as shown on Map 11, as amended to move those properties split by the existing ward boundary into this ward or the adjoining ward as per Recommendation No. (2), and as amended to move the area north of Highway 401 into Seneca Heights (Ward 12) to allow the proposed west ward division of Seneca Heights to meet Council's population criteria;

(7)ward boundary line changes and division for Seneca Heights (Ward 12), as shown on Map 12, as the new ward boundaries for single member wards within, as amended by Recommendation No. (6);

(8)ward boundary line changes and divisions for Scarborough Wexford (Ward 14), as shown on Map 14, as amended to divide the ward along Highway 401;

(9)ward boundary line changes and ward division for Davenport (Ward 21), as shown on Map 21, such that the division runs eastward along the Canadian PacificRailway tracks, north on Lansdowne Avenue to Davenport Avenue, along Davenport Avenue to Christie Street;

(10) Recommendation Nos. (2), (3) and (4) of report (November 24, 1998) from the CityClerk, viz:

"(2)the City Solicitor commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a favourable determination of City Council's right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council;

(3)the City Solicitor be requested to prepare the necessary implementing by-law giving effect to the recommended changes to the existing ward boundary lines; and,

(4)subject to the judicial determination, as set out in Recommendation No. (2):

(a)if the court determines that the City Council has the right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council, then the City Solicitor be requested to prepare the necessary implementing by-law giving effect thereto; and

(b)if the court determines that the City Council does not have the right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council without legislative change, then the City Solicitor be requested to report to City Council forthwith, including in any such report recommended draft legislation for Council's consideration.";

(11)subject to City Council's decision to divide the wards to permit single member representation, the staff work team be requested to propose to City Council, through the Community Councils and with public input, recommendations for ward names that reflect the communities which make-up the new single member wards, directing the City Clerk to prepare recommendations, based on community consultations, for ward names for the revised ward system as adopted by City Council; and

(12)the Community Council recommendations with respect to this matter be received.

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

(a)Councillor D. Holyday and Councillor D. O'Brien (Markland-Centennial -Ward 4) submit, directly to City Council for its meeting on December 16, 1998, a report pertaining to preferred options respecting the Ward 4 boundary, for consideration with this matter;

(b)Councillor B. Sinclair and Councillor E. Brown (Rexdale-Thistletown - Ward 5) submit, directly to City Council for its meeting on December 16, 1998, a report pertaining to preferred options respecting the Ward 5 boundary, for consideration with this matter;

(c)the City Solicitor:

(i)report directly to City Council for its meeting on December 16, 1998, as to whether he can strongly represent the City of Toronto respecting single member wards in all legal proceedings and, if not, recommend a legal firm that the City could hire to strongly pursue the City's position in this regard, for consideration with this matter; and

(ii)consult with the Province to gain its support with regard to the legal action being taken by the City of Toronto:

(Attached for Members reference is a map showing the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommendations for ward boundary line changes and divisions across the City, followed by a map for each ward showing the Urban Environment and Development Committee's ward-specific recommendations.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (November 24, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

This report provides an overview of the Community Council recommendations, and their implications, pertaining to ward boundary changes.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no immediate financial implications from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Urban Environment and Development Committee review the Community Council recommended wards in sequence, starting with East York (Ward 1), and recommend to City Council ward boundary line changes and divisions;

(2)the City Solicitor commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a favourable determination of City Council's right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council;

(3)the City Solicitor be requested to prepare the necessary implementing by-law giving effect to the recommended changes to the existing ward boundary lines; and

(4)subject to the judicial determination, as set out in Recommendation No. (2);

Background:

City Council, at its April 28 and May 1, 1998 meeting, directed staff to develop options for ward boundary changes. In a report from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, dated October 26, 1998, options for ward boundary changes were presented to each Community Council for their consideration. Statutory public meetings to consider public comments on the ward boundary options were held by each Community Council on the following dates:

East York Community CouncilNovember 3

York Community CouncilNovember 4

Toronto Community CouncilNovember 5

Scarborough Community CouncilNovember 12

North York Community CouncilNovember 16

Etobicoke Community CouncilNovember 18

The various recommendations from each Community Council are attached to this report as Appendix"A".

In addition to the ward-specific recommendations from the Community Councils, a number of other recommendations were adopted in regard to the ward boundary exercise.

The Scarborough Community Council recommended that an office be established by the City to review the ward boundary changes prior to the municipal elections in the Year 2003 and that regular reviews be undertaken in every subsequent third election year. This recommendation should be considered by the Committee for recommendation to the next term of City Council.

The Toronto Community Council requested the City Clerk to consolidate the recommendations of each Community Council for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998. This staff report fulfils this request.

The Toronto Community Council also requested the City Clerk to provide further notice of the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, including direct notice to all resident and ratepayer groups, all Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) and all historical societies within the City of Toronto. In response to this request, City Clerk's staff placed additional notices in the Toronto Star and various Community newspapers, and sent notices to all resident and ratepayer groups, BIAs and historical societies on file with the City Clerk's Office.

The East York Community Council adopted a recommendation requesting the City Solicitor to clarify whether the Province accepts or concurs with the position of single member wards and report further to City Council on the legal ramifications. The legal issues impacting ward boundary changes are discussed later in this report.

The East York Community Council also adopted a recommendation that City Council be requested to re-open the issue of single member wards for further public consultation. City Council, at its meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998, adopted the principle that each of the existing City wards be divided in two, thus enabling election of a single Councillor per ward at the next municipal election in the year 2000. For City Council to re-open this motion, a motion would need to be introduced by a Member who voted in the affirmative and a two-thirds vote of City Council would be required.

The East York Community Council also adopted a motion to advise the Urban Environment and Development Committee that further public meetings must be held in the community of East York before any divisions or changes are made to the boundaries in the East York area.

Comments:

This report considers all the boundary recommendations put forward by the Community Councils. The report discusses:

(i)the recommendations pertaining to each of the 28 wards across the City and the implications of such recommendations; and

(ii)the status of the outstanding legal issues impacting the boundary review exercise.

Community Council Recommendations Pertaining to Individual Wards:

In considering all the Community Council recommendations on preferred ward boundaries, a number of conflict areas exist where two or more Community Council recommendations do not match. The main conflict areas include the western and southern boundary of East York (Ward 1), along the southern border of the former City of North York, and between Midtown (Ward 23) and York Eglinton (Ward 28). Appendix "B" shows the ward boundaries across the City as recommended by the Community Councils and the resulting conflict areas.

The following comments review the Community Council recommendations pertaining to each ward and discuss the implications of such recommendations in light of the principles used in the ward boundary review exercise as established by City Council. The individual wards are discussed in order of ward number, beginning with East York (Ward 1). A map is attached to this report for each of the 28 wards, depicting the proposed ward boundaries as recommended by the respective Community Councils. The maps also show, as shaded, the areas of conflict between the different Community Council recommendations. The population numbers listed on each map indicate the estimated 1996 population based on the ward boundary recommendations made by each Community Council. Population numbers shown in parenthesis depict the ward populations with the conflict areas (shaded areas) removed from the ward.

It is recommended that the Urban Environment and Development Committee review the Community Council recommended wards in sequence, starting with East York (Ward 1), and recommend to City Council ward boundary changes and divisions. As the Committee works through the wards and adopts recommendations, by default, it will be defining boundaries for the adjoining wards.

East York (Ward 1):

The East York Community Council recommended deferring any recommendation on ward divisions until legal advice was received regarding single member wards and staff investigated other ward division options such that the Todmorden Community is maintained in one ward. The Community Council also reported that it had no objection to moving the southern boundary line to Danforth Avenue, and that the neighbourhoods of Governor's Bridge and 701 Don Mills remain as part of the East York community. Map 1 shows the ward boundaries as recommended by the EastYork Community Council. It also recommended that the ward boundary issue be delayed until the first meeting of the Community Council to be held in January 1999.

The legal implications of dividing the current wards is discussed in another section further in this report. Staff investigated ways to maintain the Todmorden community in one ward, but found that doing so would result in proposed ward populations that would be above and/or below the plus and minus 25 percent population principle.

The Toronto Community Council, in adopting its recommendations on ward boundaries, selected a boundary option (23-1a, as amended) for Midtown (Ward 23), a boundary option (25-1a, as amended) for Don River (Ward 25), and a boundary option (26-1a, as amended) for East Toronto, all of which conflict with the East York Community Council recommendations.

The Toronto Community Council amendment to move Midtown ward's east boundary line further east along the southern property lines of the Governor's Bridge neighbourhood to the CN Rail line, south along the CN Rail line and west along Danforth Avenue to the Don River, conflicts with the East York Community Council recommendation to retain the lands south of the Governor's Bridge neighbourhood in the East York ward. This area does not include any residential population, but does include the "Brickworks" site.

The area of conflict with the Don River ward, as recommended by the Toronto Community Council, is bounded on the north by the north side of Fulton Avenue, Pape Avenue and Aldwych Avenue, on the south by Danforth Avenue, on the east by Donlands Avenue, and on the west by the CN Rail line. Including the north side of Fulton Avenue, as recommended by the Toronto Community Council, follows property lines and not the more recognizable feature of a street centre line (e.g., Fulton Avenue).

Lakeshore Queensway (Ward 2):

The Etobicoke Community Council recommended the adoption of staff option 2-1a, subject to a further report from staff with respect to the division of the industrial lands on a more equitable basis, and an adjustment of the boundary from Royal York Road to Dwight Avenue.

Amending ward option 2-1a to divide the industrial areas more equitably between the proposed split wards will not contravene the ward boundary principles, as the population estimates will not be significantly affected. Map 2 shows staff option 2-1a with an amendment that moves the ward division boundary further west along the Queen Elizabeth Way to Highway 427.

A further amendment to incorporate the Mimico community has been reviewed by staff and incorporated into Map 2 such that the ward division boundary follows south of the Queen Elizabeth Way along Islington Avenue, the CN Rail line, Dwight Avenue, Lakeshore Road, and Royal York Road to Lake Ontario. The population parity between the two proposed wards, as amended, is not as close as the three ward options (2-1a, 2-1b, 2-1c) put forward by staff, but does still meet the population principle and maintains the Mimico community intact.

Kingsway Humber (Ward 3):

The Etobicoke Community Council recommended option 3-1a. Map 3 shows the recommended ward division.

Markland Centennial (Ward 4):

The Etobicoke Community Council recommended option 4-1b. Map 4 shows the recommended ward division.

Rexdale Thistletown (Ward 5):

The Etobicoke Community Council requested staff to report further on the merits of a proposed ward division submitted by Mr. V. Crisanti. The proposal divides the ward along Finch Avenue, Albion Road, Kipling Avenue, and the west branch of the Humber River. The arguments for the proposal suggest it preserves existing communities and provides a fairer distribution of the workload in the residential and business sectors.

The proposed ward division would result in population distributions which meet the population principle established for this review process. The proposal would, however, divide a portion of the Jamestown community, as defined by the City Planning Division, if the boundary line followed Finch Avenue to Albion Road. If, instead, the proposed boundary line followed Finch Avenue, Martin Grove Road and Albion Road, the entire Jamestown community would be maintained within one ward. Map 5 shows the ward division as requested by the Community Council, with an amendment to maintain the Jamestown community intact. The proposal is consistent with the population principle.

North York Community Council Area Wards 6-12:

The North York Community Council recommended that, subject to City Council's decision to revert back to single member wards, that the old ward boundaries of the former City of North York be maintained. The former City of North York wards were based on a division of the current City of Toronto (former Metro Toronto wards).

North York Humber (Ward 6):

Maintaining the existing ward boundary creates a conflict with the York Community Council recommendations pertaining to York Humber (Ward 27) and York Eglinton (Ward 28). The areas subject to boundary conflicts are shown shaded on Maps 6, 27, and 28. Following the existing ward boundary would contravene the boundary principle adopted by City Council of following recognizable geographic features. It defines the southern ward boundary with property lines. Following local street centre lines, as presented in options 6-1a, 27-1a, and 28-1a would define the ward by more recognizable features.

The existing boundary also included the area bounded on the north by Wilson Avenue, on the south by Highway 401, on the east by Jane Street, and on the west by Keele Street. The ward options prepared by staff moved this area into Black Creek (Ward 7) in consideration of Council's principle of following recognizable geographic features and North York Community Council's previous recommendation to consider Highway 401 in areas for boundary modification, where appropriate.

The two former City of North York wards within North York Humber were divided along Highway401 and Jane Street. Map 6 shows the ward division based on the Community Council recommendation.

Black Creek (Ward 7):

As discussed in the North York Humber (Ward 6) section, the area south of Wilson Avenue to Highway 401, and shown in staff option 7-1a, was proposed for inclusion in this ward. The two former City of North York wards within this ward followed Sheppard Avenue West and Black Creek to Steeles Avenue West. Map 7 shows the ward divisions as recommended by the Community Council.

North York Spadina (Ward 8):

Maintaining the existing ward boundary creates a conflict with the York Community Council recommendations pertaining to York Eglinton (Ward 28). The conflicting area is shown shaded on Maps 8 and 28. Following the existing ward boundary would contravene the boundary principle adopted by City Council of following recognizable geographic features. It defines the southern ward boundary with property lines. Following local street centre lines, as presented in options 8-1a and 28-1a would define the ward by more recognizable features.

In preparing the staff options, the area bounded on the north by Wilson Avenue, on the south by Highway 401, on the east by Bathurst Street, and on the west by the Allen Road, was proposed for inclusion in this ward from North York Centre South (Ward 9). This area was moved in consideration of Council's principle of following recognizable geographic features and North York Community Council's previous recommendation to consider Highway 401 in areas for boundary modification, where appropriate.

The boundary line between the two former City of North York wards within North York Humber followed a line which generally divided the Downsview air base from the DeHavilland community (as defined by City Planning). This division was not included in the options prepared by staff as the resulting wards would not have met the population criteria adopted by Council. Map 8 shows the ward divisions based on the Community Council recommendation. If the south boundary of North York Spadina (Ward 8) is moved north along Glencairn Avenue, then the proposed south ward division would have a population less than the minus 25 percent population criteria. Therefore, the proposed ward division would need to be shifted. Drawing the ward division line along Sheppard Avenue, as shown in staff option 8-1a, would result in population distributions in both proposed wards in North York Spadina which satisfy the population principle.

North York Centre South (Ward 9):

Maintaining the existing ward boundary creates a conflict with the Toronto Community Council recommendations pertaining to North Toronto (Ward 22). The conflicting areas are shown shaded on Maps 9 and 22. The entire southern boundary of the ward between Bathurst Street and Leslie Street conflicts with the recommended option (22-1a) for the North Toronto Ward. The current ward boundary in this area follows property lines and in many cases, splits private properties. Defining the ward boundary by following local street centre lines would result in a more recognizable ward boundary.

In preparing the staff options, the area north of Highway 401 and bounded by Sheppard Avenue on the north, Leslie Street on the east and Bayview Avenue on the west, was proposed for inclusion in Seneca Heights (Ward 12). This area was moved in consideration of Council's principle of following recognizable geographic features and North York Community Council's previous recommendation to consider Highway 401 in areas for boundary modification, where appropriate.

North York Centre (Ward 10):

Staff option 10-1a reflects the North York Community Council recommendation to maintain the former City of North York wards. Map 10 shows the recommended ward division.

Don Parkway (Ward 11):

In preparing the staff options for this ward, the area bounded on the north by Sheppard Avenue, on the south by Highway 401, on the east by the Don Valley Parkway, and on the west by Don Mills Road, was proposed for inclusion in Seneca Heights (Ward 12). This area was moved in consideration of Council's principle of following recognizable geographic features and North York Community Council's previous recommendation to consider Highway 401 in areas for boundary modification, where appropriate. Maintaining the area north of Highway 401 in this ward would result in a proposed western ward with a population (53,300) greater than the upper limit established through the population principle. To bring the proposed ward's population back within the population threshold, the area north of Highway 401 should be moved into Seneca Heights (Ward12).

In regard to the southern ward boundary, the existing boundary line does not follow any recognizable feature between the west branch of the Don River and the CN Rail line. Also, the boundary line is projected east to Sunrise Avenue and south and east to Victoria Park Avenue. The staff options proposed a southern ward boundary which followed the west branch of the Don River to the intersection with the CN Rail line, and then projected to Sunrise Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue. The intent of the staff option was to follow more recognizable geographic features in defining the ward boundary. The Urban Environment and Development Committee's recommendations with respect to East York (Ward 1) will define the southern boundary of this ward.

The two former City of North York wards within this ward followed the Don Valley Parkway and the CN Rail line. Map 11 shows the ward divisions as recommended by the Community Council.

Seneca Heights (Ward 12):

As discussed in the North York Centre South (Ward 9) and Don Parkway (Ward 11) sections, the areas: (i) bounded on the north by Sheppard Avenue, on the south by Highway 401, on the east by the Don Valley Parkway, and on the west by Don Mills Road, and (ii) bounded by Sheppard Avenue on the north, Highway 401 on the south, Bayview Avenue on the west, and Leslie Street on the east, were proposed for inclusion in this ward. The Urban Environment and Development Committee's recommendations with respect to North York Centre South (Ward 9) and Don Parkway (Ward 11) will define the southern boundary of this ward.

The two former City of North York wards within this ward followed Finch Avenue and the CN Rail line. Map 12 shows the ward divisions as recommended by the Community Council.

Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13):

The Scarborough Community Council recommended option 13-2b. Map 13 shows the Community Council recommended ward division.

It should be noted that the Toronto Community Council recommendations for East Toronto (Ward26) conflict with the Scarborough Bluffs ward. The Toronto Community Council recommendation essentially maintained the existing ward boundary between East Toronto and Scarborough Bluffs, whereas the Scarborough Community Council recommendation for Scarborough Bluffs excluded that area west of Victoria Park Avenue between Bracken Avenue and Queen Street East, as proposed in the staff options. Staff proposed the change in the ward options to ensure the boundary line followed a street centre line to Lake Ontario.

Scarborough Wexford (Ward 14):

The Scarborough Community Council did not make a recommendation regarding a revised ward boundary and division for this ward. However, in adopting recommendations for Wards 13, 15 and 17, by default the remaining areas would form a proposed Scarborough Wexford ward. This is shown on Map 14. The Community Council did not discuss the proposed ward division for this ward, but the logical division is Highway 401, as was proposed in all the options prepared by staff, and shown on Map 14.

Scarborough City Centre (Ward 15):

The Scarborough Community Council recommended option 15-1a. Map 15 shows the recommended ward division.

Scarborough Highland Creek (Ward 16):

The Scarborough Community Council recommended option 16-1a, subject to the ward division being amended to follow Morningside Avenue between Highway 401 and the CN Rail line. The population distribution within the revised ward option meets the population principle adopted by City Council. Map 16 shows the recommended ward division.

Scarborough Agincourt (Ward 17):

The Scarborough Community Council recommended option 17-2a. Map 17 shows the recommended ward division.

Scarborough Malvern (Ward 18):

The Scarborough Community Council recommended option 18-1a. Map 18 shows the recommended ward division.

High Park (Ward 19):

The Toronto Community Council recommended option 19-1a, subject to the inclusion of the area north of Bloor Street West, west of Jane Street to the Humber River up to and including the southern edge of the TTC right-of-way. Map 19 shows staff option 19-1a, as amended by the Community Council. The current ward boundary extends north of Bloor Street West. The staff options proposed the boundary line to follow Bloor Street as it was a more recognizable feature.

It should be noted that the maps for staff options 19-1a, 19-1b, 19-1c, 27-1a, 27-1b, 27-1c, 27-2a, 27-2b, 27-3a, and 27-3b all showed the ward boundary immediately west of Jane Street. In fact, this was a graphical error and the boundary line should have followed the centre line of Jane Street between Annette Street and the boundary line just north of Bloor Street West.

Trinity-Niagara (Ward 20):

The Toronto Community Council recommended staff option 20-1a. Map 20 shows the recommended ward division.

Davenport (Ward 21):

The Toronto Community Council recommended staff option 21-1a. Map 21 shows the recommended ward division.

North Toronto (Ward 22):

The Toronto Community Council recommended staff option 22-1a. As was discussed in the North York Humber (Ward 8) and North York Centre South (Ward 9) sections, a conflict exists between these two wards and the North Toronto ward. Map 22 shows the Toronto Community Council recommendation and areas of conflict with adjoining wards. The current ward boundary in this area follows property lines and also splits properties. A more understandable ward boundary would follow local streets closest to the current boundary. The Urban Environment and Development Committee's recommendation with respect to North York Spadina (Ward 8) and North York Centre South (Ward 9) will define the northern boundary for North Toronto (Ward 22).

The Toronto Community Council also recommended moving the southern ward boundary, proposed as following Eglinton Avenue West, south of Eglinton Avenue to the current ward boundary. The current boundary is described as 33 metres south of Eglinton Avenue West between Bathurst Street and The Belt Line Trail. The staff options proposed the boundary follow Eglinton Avenue West as it is a more recognizable feature.

Midtown (Ward 23):

The Toronto Community Council recommended option 23-1a, subject to a number of amendments which essentially recreate the current ward boundaries and conflict with recommendations made by the East York Community Council in regard to East York (Ward 1) and the York Community Council in regard to York-Humber (Ward 28). Map 23 shows the ward divisions recommended by the Toronto Community Council with the conflict areas shown shaded.

The Toronto Community Council amendment to move the east boundary line further east along the southern property lines of the Governor's Bridge neighbourhood to the CN Rail line, south along the CN Rail line and west along Danforth Avenue to the Don River, conflicts with the East York Community Council recommendation to retain the lands south of the Governor's Bridge neighbourhood in East York (Ward 1). This amendment would not impact residential populations, but would move the "brickworks" site into the Midtown ward from the East York ward. The Urban Environment and Development Committee's recommendation with respect to East York (Ward 1) will define the eastern boundary for Midtown (Ward 23).

The Toronto Community Council amendment to maintain the current boundaries with respect to Heath Street West, Lonsdale Road, Lonsmount Drive and Monclair Avenue conflict with the York Community Council recommendation to adopt option 28-1a to follow the Cedarvale ravine southeast from Bathurst Street and along the centre line of Heath Street West to Spadina Road. The Toronto Community Council also recommended that both sides of Spadina Road, from St. Clair Avenue West to Heath Street West remain in Midtown ward. This recommendation conflicts with the York Community Council recommendation to follow the centre line of Spadina Road.

The amendments recommended by Toronto Community Council keep the existing ward boundary in this area, a boundary which follows property lines. The boundary options proposed by staff were designed to avoid following property lines by following more recognizable features, including street centre lines and the Cedarvale ravine.

The Toronto Community Council also recommended moving the northern ward boundary, proposed as following Eglinton Avenue West, south of Eglinton Avenue to the current ward boundary. The current boundary is described as 33 metres south of Eglinton Avenue West between Bathurst Street and The Belt Line Trail. The staff options proposed the boundary follow Eglinton Avenue West as it is a more recognizable feature.

Downtown (Ward 24):

The Toronto Community Council recommended option 24-1a. Map 24 shows the recommended ward division.

Don River (Ward 25):

The Toronto Community Council recommended option 25-1a, subject to amendments to: (i) include Cherry Beach in the same single member ward as the Leslie Street Spit and (ii) include the north side of Fulton Avenue in the ward. The recommended ward option and latter amendment conflicts with the East York Community Council's indication to move the ward boundary to Danforth Avenue. Map 25 shows the Toronto Community Council recommended option and area of conflict.

The area of conflict is bounded on the north by the north side of Fulton Avenue, Pape Avenue and Aldwych Avenue, on the south by Danforth Avenue, on the east by Donlands Avenue, and on the west by the CN Rail line. Including the north side of Fulton Avenue, as recommended by the Toronto Community Council, follows property lines and not the more recognizable feature of a street centre line. Using Danforth Avenue as the boundary between East York ward and Don River ward follows a more recognizable feature. Following the Toronto Community Council recommendation would result in Don River proposed ward populations of 42,300 and 45,800. Following Danforth Avenue, as recommended by the East York Community Council, would result in Don River proposed ward populations of 42,300 and 36,400. In this part of the City, it makes sense to either follow the centre line of local streets or arterial roads (e.g., Danforth Avenue) so that the boundaries are understandable. The Urban Environment and Development Committee's recommendation with respect to East York (Ward 1) will define the northern boundary for Don River (Ward 25).

Based on the Community Council amendment to retain Cherry Beach and the Leslie Street Split in the same single member ward, the proposed ward division line would follow Cherry Street stopping at the Cherry Street bridge.

East Toronto (Ward 26):

The Toronto Community Council recommended option 26-1a, subject to a number of amendments, which result in conflicts with East York (Ward 1) and Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13). The Community Council also requested staff to investigate another ward option such that the west division of East Toronto ward be bounded by Danforth Avenue on the north and on the south, Lake Ontario, Coxwell Avenue, Queen Street East, Kingston Road, and Woodbine Avenue. Map 26 shows the ward recommended by the Toronto Community Council.

The conflict area between East York ward and East Toronto ward is bounded on the north by Milverton Boulevard, Oak Park Avenue, Doncaster Avenue, Barrington Avenue, Coleman Avenue, Maryland Boulevard, Avonlea Boulevard and Sibley Avenue and on the south by Danforth Avenue. The recommendation by the Toronto Community Council to include Maryland Boulevard and Avonlea Boulevard in their entirety will result in boundary lines which follow property lines. The East York Community Council recommended the boundary line be drawn along Danforth Avenue. Following the Toronto Community Council recommendation would result in East Toronto ward populations of 42,200 and 42,600. Following the East York Community Council recommendation would result in East Toronto ward populations of 34,700 and 41,000. In this part of the City, it makes sense to follow either the centre line of local streets or arterial roads (e.g., Danforth Avenue) so that the boundaries are understandable and avoid following property lines. The Urban Environment and Development Committee's recommendation with respect to East York (Ward 1) will define the northern boundary for East Toronto (Ward 26).

Between the East Toronto ward and Scarborough Bluffs ward, another conflict area results from Toronto Community Council recommending the area of Victoria Park Avenue, south of Bracken Avenue, be included in the Scarborough Bluffs ward (i.e., current boundary line), whereas the Scarborough Community Council recommended option 13-2b which included this area in East Toronto ward. The staff options included this area in East Toronto Ward so that the east boundary of the ward followed a street centre line its entire length to Lake Ontario. The Urban Environment and Development Committee's recommendation with respect to Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13) will define the eastern boundary for East Toronto (Ward 26).

The Toronto Community Council also recommended that the internal division of the ward be amended such that all of Eastwood Road, between Woodbine Avenue and Bellhaven Road, be included in the proposed west ward division. Staff interpreted this recommendation to include both sides of Eastwood Road, in this area, in the west ward division. This change would mean the ward division line would follow property lines in this area and not street centre lines.

The Toronto Community Council also requested staff to investigate a proposed west ward in East Toronto ward that would be bounded on the north by Danforth Avenue and on the south and east by Lake Ontario, Coxwell Avenue, Queen Street East, Kingston Road, and Woodbine Avenue. This request replicates the proposed west ward division shown on staff option 26-2b and would result in a ward population of 37,600, consistent with the population principle.

York Humber (Ward 27):

The York Community Council recommended option 27-1a, which conflicts with the recommendations of the North York Community Council in regard to North York Humber (Ward6) and the Toronto Community Council in regard to High Park (Ward 19). Map 27 shows the York Community Council recommended boundaries and the areas of conflict.

As was discussed in the North York Humber (Ward 6) section, following the existing ward boundary lines would mean following property lines. The staff options shown in 27-1a and 6-1a follow local street centre lines which make the boundary more understandable. The Urban Environment and Development Committee's recommendation with respect to North York Humber (Ward 6) will define the northern boundary for York Humber (Ward 27).

York Community Council also requested the North York Community Council to consider allowing the area south of Highway 401 and west of Highway 400 to be included as part of York Humber (Ward 27). The recommendation adopted by the North York Community Council would not accommodate this request.

As was discussed in the High Park (Ward 19) section, the Toronto Community Council recommendation to move the ward boundary line north of Bloor Street West to the TTC right-of-way conflicts with the recommended option from York Community Council. The Urban Environment and Development Committee's recommendation with respect to High Park (Ward 19) will define this southern boundary for York Humber (Ward 27).

It should also be noted that a graphical error was shown on staff options 27-1a, 27-1b, 27-1c, 27-2a, 27-2b, 27-3a, 27-3b which depicted the ward boundary immediately west of Jane Street when , in fact, it should have been shown following the centre line of Jane Street. Map 27 shows the correct boundary line for this area.

York Eglinton (Ward 28):

The York Community Council recommended option 28-1a, which conflicted with North York Community Council recommendation for North York Spadina (Ward 8) and Toronto Community Council recommendations for Midtown (Ward 23). Map 28 shows the York Community Council recommended option.

As was discussed in the North York Spadina (Ward 8) section, following the existing Ward 8 boundary would contravene the boundary principle adopted by City Council of following recognizable geographic features. It defines the southern ward boundary with property lines. Following local street centre lines, as presented in options 8-1a and 28-1a would define the ward by more recognizable features. Following the existing northern boundary for York Eglinton would result in a ward population below the threshold established by the population principle (i.e., plus or minus 25percent) and is therefore not recommended. The Urban Environment and Development Committee's recommendation with respect to North York Spadina (Ward 8) will define the southern boundary for York Eglinton (Ward 28).

As was discussed in the Midtown (Ward 23) section, the Toronto Community Council recommendations for the western boundary of Ward 23 (and eastern boundary of Ward 28) are in conflict. The Toronto Community Council recommendation to generally maintain the existing ward boundary would result in the use of property lines for boundaries and split properties. The boundary options proposed by staff were designed to avoid following property lines by following more recognizable features, including street centre lines and the Cedarvale ravine. The Urban Environment and Development Committee's recommendation with respect to Midtown (Ward 23) will define this eastern boundary for York Eglinton (Ward 28).

Legal Issues Impacting the Boundary Review Process:

As discussed in the previous staff report on ward boundary changes, dated October 26, 1998, there remains a difference of opinion between the City and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as to whether the City of Toronto has the authority to create single member wards and to change the overall size of City Council under the current legislation. Council will recall that the Province passed legislation earlier this year to allow the size of City Council to be increased by adding a third Councillor in East York (Ward 1). This legislative change did not otherwise amend the City of Toronto Act, 1997, to allow Council to otherwise change its structure. The City Solicitor remains of the opinion that the City's legislative authority in this regard is unclear, and that without legislative amendments to clarify the existing ambiguity, any by-law changing the size or composition of City Council would be vulnerable to legal challenge.

The above-mentioned report of October 26, 1998 outlined the following two options:

(a)seeking the necessary legislative amendment through a Private Member's Bill, as directed by City Council at its meeting of April 28 and May 1, 1998; and

(b)should the request for a Private Member's Bill be unsuccessful, commencing a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking a determination of City Council's right to enact a by-law to change the size and composition of Council.

The City Solicitor advises that the City has been unsuccessful in seeking a Private Member's Bill. Thus, it is recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to commence a court application under Rule 14 seeking a determination of City Council's right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council.

Prior to the court's determination of City Council's authority to change its size and composition, City Council can enact a by-law changing ward boundary lines, as its legislative authority to do so is clear. If City Council approves changes to the existing ward boundaries resulting from the Community Council recommendations outlined in this report, Council must pass an implementing by-law giving effect to such changes. As the preparation of such a by-law will require detailing the legal description of the area to be included in each ward, it is recommended, should Council approve such changes, that the City Solicitor submit the necessary by-law to a future meeting of City Council early in 1999.

Until the recommended court application is determined, however, the City Solicitor advises that no by-law should be introduced creating single member wards by the division of the existing wards. City Council can approve changes to the existing ward boundaries immediately, but should wait for the determination of the court application before introducing a by-law creating single member wards.

Conclusion:

The staff options for ward boundary changes were presented to the public and Community Councils through a series of public meetings. The subsequent Community Council recommendations result in a number of conflict areas which need to be resolved by the Urban Environment and Development Committee for a final set of recommendations to City Council. This report considers all the Community Council recommendations and identifies the areas of conflict for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Contact Names:

Mr. John Hollins, Director, Elections, City Clerk's Division, 392-8019,

E-mail: jhollins@city.north-york.on.ca.

Mr. Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, City Clerk's Division, 392-8668,

E-mail: pfay@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

--------

Appendix "A"

Community Council Recommendations on Ward Boundary Changes

East York Community Council:

The East York Community Council held a public meeting on November 3, 1998. The Community Council made the following recommendations:

(1)requested the Urban Environment and Development Committee to submit a consolidated report to City Council which shall incorporate recommendations from all Community Councils, including the following:

(a)by striking out Recommendation No. 1 contained in the joint report (October26,1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and replacing it with the following Recommendation No. 1:

(i)that the City Solicitor be requested to clarify whether the Province of Ontario accepts or concurs with the position of single member wards and report further to City Council on the legal ramifications;

(b)that the City Council be requested to re-open the issue of single member wards for further public consultation;

(c)that the East York Community Council defer any recommendations to the Urban Environment and Development Committee until legal advice has been received regarding recommendation (1) (a) (1) and staff have investigated other ward division options such that the Todmorden Community is maintained in one ward and that this issue should be delayed until the first meeting of the East York Community Council to be held in January, 1999;

(d)that the East York Community Council has no objections to moving the southern boundary line to Danforth Avenue;

(e)that notwithstanding the railway lines, the neighbourhoods of Governors Bridge and 701 Don Mills Road remain as part of the East York Community;

(f)that a preferred option for ward boundary minor refinements and ward divisions as the basis for ward revisions for the municipal elections to be held in the year 2000 be deferred until advice has been received from the City Solicitor;

(g)that if the division of the ward boundaries to permit single member ward representation requires provincial legislation, the Members of Provincial Parliament for the ridings of York East, Don Mills, Beaches-Woodbine and Riverdale be advised that the East York Community Council is opposed to these changes and requests their assistance;

(h)that the Urban Environment and Development Committee be advised that further public meetings must be held in the community of East York before any divisions or changes are made to the boundaries in the East York area;

(2)received the following communications (November 3, 1998) from Ms. Carol Burtin-Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association, East York; (November 3, 1998) from Mr. Colin MacLeod, East York; (Undated) from Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York; and (November 3, 1998) from Mr. Justin Van Dette, East York;

(3)received the following joint report (October 26, 1998) of the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(4)received the presentation by Mr. Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst and Mr. John Hollins, Director of Elections, regarding the options for Ward Boundary Changes.

York Community Council:

The York Community Council at its public meeting held on November 4, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(1)the proposed ward boundary changes as indicated on Map 27-1a, Ward 27, York Humber, be approved;

(2)the proposed ward boundary changes as indicated on Map 28-1a, Ward 28, York Eglinton, be approved; and

(3)after its consideration of the staff report on November30,1998, that the Committee's recommendations be forwarded to the York Community Council for further consultation with the public at its December 9, 1998 meeting, prior to Council's adoption on December16, 1998.

The Community Council also requested the North York Community Council to consider allowing the area located south of Highway 401 to the proposed north boundary (Woodward Avenue/CN Rail) as noted on Map 27-1a, to be included as part of a continuing community of Ward 27, York Humber.

Toronto Community Council:

The Toronto Community Council at its public meeting on November 5, 1998, adopted the following recommendations:

(1)recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(a)with respect to High Park (Ward 19):

(i)Bloor Street West, west of Jane Street to the Humber River, and the area north of Bloor Street West up to and including the southern edge of the T.T.C. right-of-way be added to the proposed west ward of High Park;

(ii)the Option set out in Map 19-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(a)(i), be adopted;

(b)with respect to Davenport (Ward 21):

the Option set out in Map 21-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(a)(i), be adopted;

(c)with respect to Trinity-Niagara (Ward 20):

the Option set out in Map 20-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be adopted;

(d)with respect to Midtown (Ward 23):

(i)the Option set out in Map 23-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)the CN Rail Line be the dividing line between the ward and the area bounded by the East York Community Council, excluding the Governor's Road Bridge neighbourhood;

(b)the present status quo remain in place with respect to Heath Street West;

(c)the south side of Eglinton Avenue West, between Bathurst Street and the Belt Line remain in North Toronto (Ward 22);

(d)both sides of Spadina Road, from St. Clair Avenue West to HeathStreet West, remain in Midtown;

(e)the present status quo remain in place with respect to Lonsdale Road, Lonsmount Drive and Montclair Avenue;

(ii)the Option set out in Map 23-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(d)(i), be adopted;

(e)with respect to North Toronto (Ward 22):

the Option set out in Map 22-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(d)(i)(c), be adopted;

(f)with respect to Downtown (Ward 24):

the Option set out in Map 24-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted;

(g)with respect to Don River (Ward 25):

(i)the Option set out in Map 25-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)Cherry Beach remain in the same new ward as the Leslie Street Spit;

(b)the north side of Fulton Avenue be included in the proposed east ward; and

(ii)the Option set out in Map 25-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(g)(i), be adopted;

(h)with respect to East Toronto (Ward 26):

(i)the Option set out in Map 26-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)Coleman Avenue to Sibley Avenue be included in the proposed east ward;

(b)Maryland Boulevard and Avonlea Boulevard be included in their totality in the proposed east ward;

(c)the Shoppers' World Site be included in its totality in the proposed east ward;

(d)all of Eastwood Road, between Woodbine Avenue and Bellhaven Road be included in the proposed west ward;

(e)Victoria Park Avenue, south of Bracken Avenue, be located in the proposed west ward for Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13);

(i)the proposed boundaries for the areas covered by the East York, York and Scarborough Community Councils be amended in accordance with Recommendation Nos. (1)(a) to 1(h);

(j)if the Legislature does not enact the necessary amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 before the end of the current legislative session, the City Solicitor be authorized to commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a determination of City Council's right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council under the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997;

(2)requested the Urban Environment and Development Committee to set aside a specific time at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998 to consider this matter; and

(3)requested the City Clerk, in consultation with appropriate officials, to:

(a)consolidate the recommendations of each of the Community Councils, for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998;

(b)provide further notice of the special session of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, as set out in Recommendation No.(2), including direct notice to all resident and ratepayer groups, all BIAs and all historical societies within the City of Toronto; and

(c)report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998, with respect to the proposed west ward in East Toronto, on locating the northern boundary on Danforth Avenue, and the southern boundary on Queen Street East from Coxwell Avenue to Kingston Road and from Kingston Road to Woodbine Avenue.

Scarborough Community Council:

At its meeting on November 12, 1998, the Scarborough Community Council adopted the following recommendations:

(1)the adoption of the following Options for Ward Boundary Changes:

Ward 13 -Scarborough Bluffs:Option 2b;

Ward 15 -Scarborough City CentreOption 1a;

Ward 16 -Scarborough Highland CreekOption 1a,

subject to the boundary going straight down Morningside Avenue and the area thus affected of Ward 13 being taken into Ward 13, in accordance with Maps 13-2a and 2b;

Ward 17 -Scarborough AgincourtOption 2a;

Ward 18 -Scarborough MalvernOption 1a; and

(2)that an office be established by the City to review the Ward Boundary changes prior to the Municipal Elections in the Year 2003 and that regular reviews be undertaken in every subsequent third election year.

North York Community Council:

On November 16, 1998, the North York Community Council held a public meeting on ward boundary changes, and adopted the following recommendation:

"if a decision is made by City Council to revert to the single ward system, that the old ward boundaries of the former City of North York be maintained."

Etobicoke Community Council:

At its meeting on November 18, 1998, the Etobicoke Community Council adopted the following recommendations:

(1)Ward 2 -Lakeshore-Queensway -Option 2-1a;

(2)Ward 3 -Kingsway-Humber -Option 3-1a;

(3)Ward 4 -Markland-Centennial -Option 4-1b; and

(4)Ward 5 -Rexdale-Thistletown -a revised Option using Finch Avenue, from Highway 427 east to Albion Road, east on Albion Road to Kipling Avenue, south to the West Branch of the Humber River, and then east to the Humber River, as the boundary.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the City Clerk to submit a further report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, with respect to:

(i)the division of the industrial lands in Ward 2 -Lakeshore-Queensway, on a more equitable basis within the existing ward boundaries; and adjustment of the boundary from Royal York Road to Dwight Avenue; and

(ii)the proposed revised Option for Ward 5 -Rexdale-Thistletown.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report provides options for:

(1)minor refinements to the existing 28 City wards; and

(2)ward boundary divisions to permit single member ward representation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no immediate financial implications from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)if the Legislature does not enact the necessary amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 before the end of the current legislative session, the City Solicitor be authorized to commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a determination of City Council's right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council under the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997;

(2)Community Councils recommend to the November 30, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee a preferred option, within its Community Council jurisdiction, for divisions within City wards, based on minor refinements, to permit single member ward representation;

(3)the Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its November 30, 1998, meeting, consider this staff report, and the public input provided to and the recommendations submitted by each Community Council, and forward overall recommendations on ward boundary changes to City Council;

(4)City Council adopt a preferred option for ward boundary minor refinements and ward divisions as the basis for ward revisions for the municipal elections to be held in 2000;

(5)subject to City Council's decision to divide the wards to permit single member representation, the staff work team be requested to propose to City Council, through the Community Councils and with public input, recommendations for ward names that reflect the communities which make-up the new single member wards; and,

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

Background:

City Council, at its April 28 and May 1, 1998, meeting, had before it Clause No. 1 of Report No. 4a of the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding ward boundary review and adopted the following motions:

(1)the City Solicitor be authorized to request from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 to permit single member ward representation within the City of Toronto and to allow for increases or decreases in the overall size of City Council;

(2)the four commonly accepted principles on which ward boundaries options are to be evaluated be approved and that variations in average ward populations of plus or minus 25 percent be accepted as the norm;

(3)a Staff Working Group with representation from Clerk's, Legal, Planning, Economic Development, Social Development and Corporate Policy and Planning be created to co-ordinate the process, liaise with Members of Council, and undertake the necessary research;

(4)existing ward boundaries within the new City of Toronto be used as the basis for the new ward boundaries, with minor refinements where needed;

(5)Council indicate its support for the principle that each of the existing City wards be divided in two, thus enabling election of a single Councillor per ward at the next municipal election in the year 2000;

(6) the appropriate staff develop plans which give effect to City Council's decision that there will be three Councillors from East York;

(7)the process and time line outlined for refining existing boundaries and dividing wards be approved for implementation;

(8)Community Councils be requested to hold meetings to invite the public's input on the matter of ward boundaries, ward division and governance, and report thereon through the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(9)the appropriate City officials be authorized to give effect hereto.

Subsequent to City Council's direction, a number of Community Councils considered the matter of ward boundary changes. North York Community Council, at its May 27, 1998, meeting, requested staff, among other matters, to:

(i)take into account the population of the respective wards and attempt to keep the equalization of population while taking into consideration natural boundaries; and

(ii)have Highway 401 be considered in areas for modifications of boundary lines, where appropriate. York Community Council, at its May 27, 1998, meeting, requested staff, among other matters, to consider using major arterial roads as natural dividing boundaries, as part of "minor refinements". East York Community Council also considered this matter at its May27, 1998, meeting, and requested scenarios which would allow the appropriate division of the Ward 1, East York, into three equal wards.

This report responds to the direction of City Council, and requests of various Community Councils, by identifying options for minor refinements to current ward boundaries and options for dividing the wards to achieve a single member ward system.

Comments:

This covering report:

(a)discusses the legal issues impacting the boundary review exercise;

(b)outlines the process through which staff developed the ward options;

(c)explains how the options are presented; and

(d)describes the remaining process for City Council to approve a revised ward system prior to the next municipal election in 2000.

Attached to this report are six (6) option papers presenting ward boundary options for each Community Council area.

Legal Issues Impacting the Boundary Review Process:

The City's statutory authority to change ward boundaries is obtained from both the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (the "Act") and the Municipal Act. The City Solicitor is of the opinion, expressed in the previous staff report, that amendments to the Act are required to permit Council to change its overall size or move to single member ward representation. Subsequent to City Council's authorization, the City Solicitor requested the Province to amend the Act, to permit single member ward representation within the City of Toronto and to allow for increases or decreases in the overall size of City Council.

As of the date of this report, there remains a difference of opinion between the City and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as to whether amendments to the Act are necessary to permit City Council to change its ward boundaries and Council composition. The City Solicitor remains of the opinion that an amendment to the Act is necessary to clear up any ambiguity regarding the statutory authority of the City to permit single member ward representation and to allow for increases or decreases in the overall size of City Council. Without such enabling legislation in place, it is doubtful that City Council has the statutory authority to create single member wards or to change the number of its overall membership. As a result, any such by-law enacted by City Council may be subject to legal challenge.

In the absence of the Minister taking action to ensure the City has the proper enabling legislation in place, the City will need to seek legislative amendment through a Private Member's Bill. Staff are currently pursuing this avenue. The challenge for the City is time. The current session of the Provincial Legislature is expected to conclude in December and is expected to recess until the Spring of 1999, at which time there is the possibility that a provincial election may be announced. City Council must have its ward boundary changes adopted and approved before January 1, 2000, for implementation in the next municipal election. Therefore, the practical window of opportunity for seeking the statutory authority is within the current legislative session, ending this December.

If the option of statutory amendments through a Private Member's Bill is unsuccessful, the City's only recourse is to commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a determination of City Council's right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council under the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997 . It is recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to pursue such an application, if the Legislature fails to enact the necessary amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 before the end of the current legislative session.

Work Process:

City Clerk's staff lead this project with assistance from a cross-corporate team representing the City Planning Division, the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, the Social Development Division, the City Solicitor's Division, and the Economic Development Division. City Clerk's staff also consulted with Members of Council on the need for minor boundary refinements to existing wards and possible options for ward divisions.

The Municipal Act requires City Council to consider criteria, established through regulation by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, when examining ward boundary changes. To date, no such criteria have been prescribed. City Council's direction for the ward boundary review cited four principles for identifying options:

(a)representation by population;

(b)representation of communities;

(c)recognition of distinct geographical features; and,

(d)present and future populations.

With respect to principle (a) above, Council directed that variations in ward populations of plus or minus 25 percent be accepted as the norm for developing new ward options. These principles were followed by staff in developing options for a revised 28-ward system incorporating minor refinements and for identifying ways to divide the wards to allow for single member representation. However, in some instances, the application of these principles led to conflicts between two or more principles. In cases of such conflict, the principle of representation by population, within the plus or minus 25percent variation from the average, was used as the overriding principle in this exercise.

Applying the 25 percent criterion provides enough flexibility to develop ward options that will prevent communities from being further divided, consider significant population trends, incorporate densely populated areas that cannot be easily divided, and include a population that would otherwise become physically isolated. Given that the existing 28 wards were used as the starting point for dividing the wards, the 25 percent criterion allows for options to be developed which meet this criterion. A figure smaller than 25 percent would not allow for practical options to be developed.

1996 Statistics Canada census data was used to estimate populations for the ward options. In particular, census enumeration areas (i.e., block-level geographic units through which census data is collected) were used as the basis for determining representative populations for each option. Census data is the commonly used reference data for population-based analysis and is used by the provincial and federal governments in determining their electoral boundaries. All population data used in this exercise has been rounded to the nearest hundred.

Some important assumptions were needed to guide this exercise. First, the options presented through this report respond to the direction of City Council only. Other principles were not considered in developing these ward boundary options (e.g., using a 10 percent population variation principle instead of the 25 percent criteria established by Council). Second, staff investigated options for boundary changes within the context of "minor refinements" to the 28 existing wards, precluding any notion of completely redesigning the ward system or deleting any one ward to accommodate another new ward elsewhere. Third, the minor ward boundary changes contemplated through this report will mean that the geographical responsibilities of each Community Council will be modified slightly after the next election as minor refinements are made to their boundaries through this exercise.

Minor Refinements to Existing Ward Boundaries:

The first step in developing ward options was to identify minor refinements to the existing wards. The term "minor refinements" was not defined in the previous staff report or through the direction of City Council. Staff have interpreted minor refinements to deal with current ward boundary anomalies and inconsistencies which should be resolved. This included addressing current ward boundaries that crossed and/or followed private property lines. Most cases involved the boundary interfaces of the former municipalities. In general, minor refinements were identified to eliminate boundaries with no "on-the-ground" definition (i.e., no street identifiers) and minimize the use of property lines as a boundary definition. Also, distinct geographical features were used wherever possible to delineate ward boundaries and maximize community inclusions (based on social, economic, natural, and major infrastructure).

Minor refinements were identified for every existing ward except the following wards: Kingsway Humber, Markland Centennial, Rexdale Thistletown, North York Centre, and Downtown. Options put forward for minor refinements followed the closest distinguishable geographic feature, such as a local street, or a more recognizable feature such as an arterial road, rail line or watercourse. The Highway 401 corridor was used as a natural divide for refining the existing ward boundaries, unless the new ward population contravened the preeminent population principle. Minor refinements to existing ward boundaries in the Scarborough Community Council area were necessary to resolve minor boundary issues and ensure the wards could be divided into single member wards and still satisfy the population criteria.

The population principle (i.e., plus or minus 25 percent) applied to the existing 28 wards translates into an average ward population of 85,200, with a range of 63,900 (minus 25 percent) to 106,500 (plus 25 percent). Table 1 attached to this report shows the variations from average for the current wards and the options for minor refinements. With the minor refinements suggested through this report, each of the 28 wards will meet the population variance criteria of plus or minus 25 percent, except for Ward 1 - East York. East York Ward's new population is 28 percent greater than the average ward population size (as is the current population of Ward 1). However, given the fact EastYork Ward is currently represented by three Members, and options are included in this report to divide the ward into three single member wards, it was concluded that the variance in population above the acceptable range was not an issue. The attached option papers outline the specific options for ward minor refinements.

Options for Ward Divisions to Permit Single Member Representation:

The second step was to identify potential ward divisions within the new ward boundaries, as amended above through the minor refinements. Options were developed having regard for the four principles endorsed by Council.

(a)representation by population (with variations of +/- 25 percent from average ward populations):

The population principle (i.e., plus or minus 25 percent) applied to the proposed 57 wards translates into an average ward population of 41,800, with a range of 31,400 (minus 25 percent) to 52,300 (plus 25 percent). Table 2 attached to this report shows the variations from average for the options for ward divisions. Relative population parity within a ward was the desired goal when examining options for dividing the wards. Representative population within the plus or minus 25 percent range was taken as the overriding criteria for devising the ward division options. Every option presented through this report has a population that falls within the criterion range established by City Council.

(b)representation of communities:

In developing the options for dividing each ward, every effort was made to maintain identifiable communities. Defined communities referenced in the City official plans and mapped by the City Planning Division were used in considering ward division options. In certain cases, dividing a ward to maintain a community intact resulted in boundaries whose population contravened the basic population principle, and were therefore considered unacceptable options. Where possible, and consistent with the other principles, ward division options recognized the validity of former local municipal ward boundaries.

(c)recognition of distinct geographical features:

Where possible, ward division options followed highly visible infrastructure features (e.g., arterial roads, highways, rail lines) and geographic features (e.g., watercourses). In some cases, however, to achieve the population principle, following such features was not possible and other features such as local streets and changes in land use were used for boundaries. The boundaries for the ward division options presented with this report all follow some recognizable features and no boundary lines split or cross properties.

(d)present and future population trends:

Present populations and the potential for future population growth were also considered in developing ward division options. However, this principle presented a challenge for dealing with the Scarborough Community Council area, where significant population growth is occurring and the existing wards with minor refinements were to be the basis for ward divisions. The large populations within the existing wards, coupled with the population growth from development, made it extremely difficult to identify ward division options that had sufficiently low populations to accommodate anticipated future growth. The division options suggested for the current Scarborough Community Council wards have populations generally larger than the other options across the City and closer to the upset population limit without contravening the population principle.

Ward Boundary Options:

Attached to this report are six (6) options papers presenting ward boundary options for each Community Council area. All options presented in the papers satisfy the principles and all fit within the population range established by City Council. No options were included which did not satisfy at least the population principle of plus or minus 25 percent of the ward average. The options fulfil the mandate set by Council to investigate minor refinements and ward divisions for the existing 28 wards, and not to redesign the entire ward system.

The ward options create a system of wards that are more easily defined, recognized and understood. The options eliminate all former boundary lines which split private properties and minimize the use of property lines for boundary definition. The revised boundaries generally follow "on-the-ground" recognizable features such as arterial roads, rail lines, and watercourses. Overall, the options represent minimal change to the existing ward system, accommodating the desire to divide wards, and yet minimize disruption of neighbourhoods and communities.

An overview of the options for ward boundary minor refinements and ward divisions is shown in the maps attached to this report. Map 1 depicts option 1 for ward boundary minor refinements and generally proposes the least amount of change to the existing boundaries. Map 2 depicts option 2 for ward boundary minor refinements and generally follows more arterial roads. Map 3 shows option3 for ward boundary minor refinements and applies only to five wards (North York Humber, North York Spadina, North York Centre South, North Toronto, and York Humber) where more opportunity for minor refinements exist. Maps 1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a and 3b show the options for ward divisions based on the revised boundary options depicted in Maps 1,2 and 3, respectively.

Not all wards have more than one option. For some wards, no minor refinements were necessary (e.g., Kingsway Humber, Markland Centennial, Rexdale Thistletown, North York Centre, Downtown) or only one or few practical options existed (e.g., Lakeshore Queensway, Black Creek, Seneca Heights, Scarborough Bluffs, Trinity-Niagara). For a few wards, a number of practical options were available (e.g., North York Centre South, North Toronto, York Humber).

Each option paper profiles each affected ward by briefly describing the options for ward boundary minor refinements and options for ward boundary divisions and illustrating the ward boundary options on ward-specific maps. The rationale for and implications of each option are also outlined.

Approving a Revised Ward System:

This report and the option papers are being presented to each Community Council throughout November 1998. In accordance with the Municipal Act, at least one public meeting must be convened before City Council can pass a by-law changing ward boundaries or changing the composition of City Council. Public meetings have been scheduled for each Community Council to allow for public comment on the ward boundary options. The public meetings, to be hosted by each Community Council, are scheduled for the following dates:

East York Community CouncilNovember 3

York Community CouncilNovember 4

Toronto Community Council November 5

Scarborough Community CouncilNovember 12

North York Community CouncilNovember 16

Etobicoke Community CouncilNovember 18

All public comments and Community Council recommendations on the options will be forwarded to the November 30, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration and final recommendation to City Council.

The challenge in approving a revised ward boundary system for the City is in gaining consensus on a set of recommended boundary changes that are co-terminus. If one Community Council recommendation on a preferred set of boundary changes does not coincide with the adjoining Community Councils preferred option, the Urban Environment and Development Committee will have to make a recommendation, and City Council will need to make a decision, which selects one option over another.

If the preferred options of the Community Council are not compatible, the Urban Environment and Development Committee and City Council should consider in their respective debates the four principles established by Council, including communities of interest, distinct geographic features, representative populations and future population trends. Only if Council, after such deliberations, still cannot decide between two or more options considered equally appealing, then Council should consider applying an objective decision-making framework to help determine its decision on ward boundary changes. The following two decision-making principles, based on the notion of representative population, should be used to resolve conflicts between ward boundary recommendations:

(a)revised ward boundaries, incorporating minor refinements, should be as close to the existing ward average (85,200) as possible; and

(b)the population estimates for the new ward divisions should be as close to parity as possible.

The new ward system adopted by City Council will not come into effect until the 2000 municipal election. However, the Municipal Act dictates that boundary changes must be approved by City Council prior to January 1, 2000, if they are to be implemented by the next municipal election that same year. Therefore, Council has just over one year in which to have an approved ward system in place. Council must first pass a by-law setting out the boundary changes. The Bill will set out the "metes and bounds" of the revised ward system and will be brought forward by Legal Division staff, but cannot be prepared until Council has adopted a set of changes. Subject to Council adopting the by-law, the Act allows for an appeal of the by-law to the Ontario Municipal Board. Notices of appeal must be filed with the City Clerk within 35 days of the ward boundary by-law being approved by City Council. If Council's by-law is appealed to the Board, control of the process is transferred to the Board. Depending on the demands placed on the Board, it could be well into 1999 before a hearing is scheduled. If the ward changes are not approved by the end of 1999, the status quo boundaries will remain for the next election, including two member ward representation. Therefore, a Council decision on ward boundary changes is needed as soon as possible to have a revised ward system in place for the 2000 municipal election.

With a revised ward system with single member wards in place, it will be necessary to individually identify each new ward. It is recommended that the staff work team be requested to propose to City Council, through the Community Councils and with public input, recommendations for ward names that reflect the communities which make-up the new single member wards. Until such time as ward names are approved, and for consistency, each existing ward should retain its existing ward name and number and each ward division be referenced with an "a", "b", or "c" ("c" for Ward 1 only), with "a" assigned to the most northern and/or western ward division and "b" assigned to the most southern and/or eastern ward division.

Conclusions:

Staff have used the principles approved by Council to develop a number of options to make minor refinements to the existing 28 wards and divide the wards to permit single member representation. The resulting options provide an overall ward system that is easier to define, recognize and understand. Six option papers attached to this report outline the ward options.

The City Solicitor is of the opinion that all uncertainty as to City Council's statutory authority to change its representation basis must be resolved as soon as possible. The implementing by-law must be adopted and in effect prior to the statutory deadline of January 1, 2000. The revised ward system Council adopted will be used as the basis for the next municipal election.

The City Solicitor concurs with the recommendations included in this report. The City Planning Division has provided support in the preparation of this report.

Contact Name:

Mr. John Hollins, Director, Elections, City Clerk's Division, 392-8019,

E-mail: jhollins@city.north-york.on.ca.

Mr. Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, City Clerk's Division, 392-8668,

E-mail: pfay@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 11, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The East York Community Council reports having advised the Urban Environment and Development Committee to consider the following position put forth by the Community Council:

(1)that the City Solicitor be requested to clarify whether the Province of Ontario accepts or concurs with the position of single member wards and report further to City Council on the legal ramifications;

(b)that the City Council be requested to re-open the issue of single member wards for further public consultation;

(c)that the East York Community Council defer any recommendations to the UrbanEnvironment and Development Committee until legal advice has been received regarding recommendation (1) (a) (1) and staff have investigated other ward division options such that the Todmorden Community is maintained in one ward and that this issue should be delayed until the first meeting of the EastYork Community Council to be held in January, 1998;

(d)that the East York Community Council has no objections to moving the southern boundary line to Danforth Avenue;

(e)that notwithstanding the railway lines, the neighbourhoods of Governors Bridge and 701 Don Mills Road remain as part of the East York Community;

(3)received the following joint report (October 26, 1998) of the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(4)received the presentation by Mr. Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst and Mr. JohnHollins, Director of Elections, regarding the options for Ward Boundary Changes.

The East York Community Council reports for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee that it received the joint report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Background:

The East York Community Council, at its meeting on November 3, 1998, had before it the following joint report (October 26, 1998) of the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with respect to Options for Ward Boundary Changes.

The East York Community Council also had before it communications from the following in opposition to the proposed Ward Boundary Changes in Ward One, East York:

-(November 3, 1998) from Ms. Carol Burtin-Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association, East York;

-(November 3, 1998) from Mr.Colin MacLeod, East York;

-(Undated) from Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York; and

-(November 3, 1998) from Mr. Justin Van Dette, East York.

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

-Mr. John Papadakis, East York;

-Ms. Carol Burtin-Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners Association, East York;

-Mr. John Ridout, East York;

-Mr. Colin McLeod, East York;

-Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York;

-Mr. Justin Van Dette, East York;

-Mr. Gord Crann, East York;

-Ms. Donna-Lynn McCallum, East York;

-Mr. Brian Barron, President, Ward 2 Property Owners Association, East York;

-Mr. Jerry Hagen, East York; and

-Mr. Allan Gaw, East York.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 19, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting on November 18, 1998, recommended the following preferred options within its Community Council jurisdiction for divisions within City wards, based on minor refinements, to permit single member ward representation:

(1)Ward 2 - Lakeshore-Queensway - Option 2-1a;

(2)Ward 3 - Kingsway-Humber - Option 3-1a;

(3)Ward 4 - Markland-Centennial - Option 4-1b; and

(4)Ward 5 - Rexdale-Thistletown - a revised Option using Finch Avenue, from Highway 427 east to Albion Road, east on Albion Road to Kipling Avenue, south to the West Branch of the Humber River, and then east to the Humber River, as the boundary.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the City Clerk to submit a further report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, with respect to:

(i)the division of the industrial lands in Ward 2 - Lakeshore-Queensway, on a more equitable basis within the existing ward boundaries; and adjustment of the boundary from Royal York Road to Dwight Avenue; and

(ii)the proposed revised Option for Ward 5 - Rexdale-Thistletown.

Background:

The Etobicoke Community Council had before it a report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing options for (1) minor refinements to the existing 28 City wards, and (2) ward boundary divisions to permit single member ward representation.

The Community Council also had before it the following communications with respect to the foregoing:

-(November 11, 1998) from Ms. S. Pavan, Beacon Hill Tenants Association, in favour of Option 5-1a (Rexdale-Thistletown);

-(November 14 1998) from Mr. M. Harrison, Etobicoke, in favour of Option 2-1c (Lakeshore-Queensway);

-(Undated) from Mr. B. Melanson, Etobicoke, in favour of one member per ward, with a reduced number of wards across the City in line with the new Federal and Provincial ward boundaries;

-(November 9, 1998) from Mrs. S. Giovanella, President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents' Associations, in favour of one member per ward;

-(November 16, 1998) from Mr. V. Crisanti, Etobicoke, proposing a revised boundary for the division of Ward 5 (Rexdale-Thistletown);

-(November 17, 1998) from Councillor M. Giansante, in support of Option 3-1a (Kingsway-Humber);

-(November 18, 1998) from Ms. R. Swarbrick, Etobicoke, supporting the retention of the two councillor ward system, and therefore not in favour of the proposals for revisions to the ward boundaries; and

-(November 18, 1998) from Mr. M. Kachala, Vice President, Kingsway Sunnylea Residents's Association, in favour of two councillors per ward which the Association feels serves the best interest of the residents and taxpayers and is effective, direct responsible and competitive democracy at its best.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to the foregoing matter:

-Mr. B. Melanson, Etobicoke;

-Mr. T. Reardon, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents' Associations;

-Mr. L. Paron, Etobicoke;

-Mr. R. Summers, Etobicoke;

-Ms. R. Swarbrick, Etobicoke;

-Mr. M. Stanise, Etobicoke;

-Mr. I. Nishisati, Past President, Humber Valley Village Ratepayers Association;

-Mr. P. Milczyn, Chair, Lakeshore Planning Council;

-Mr. F. Di Giorgio, on behalf of Councillor M. Giansante;

-Mr. R. Ciupa, Etobicoke; and

-Mr. H. Ashley, Etobicoke.

Copies of the written submissions are attached for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 17, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The North York Community Council on November 16, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and Council, that if a decision is made by City Council to revert back to the single ward system, that the old ward boundaries of the former City of North York be maintained.

Background:

The North York Community Council had before it the following:

(1)report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing options for: (a) minor refinements to the existing 28 City wards, and (b) ward boundary divisions to permit single member ward representation; and

(2)report (November 5, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the York Community Council on November 4, 1998, recommended to the North York Community Council that consideration be given to allowing the area located south of Highway 401 (Ward 6, North York Humber) to the proposed north boundary (Woodward Avenue/CN Rail) as noted on the map attached to its report, to be included as part of a continuing community of Ward 27, York Humber.

A staff presentation was made by John Hollins, Director of Elections, Clerk's Division, and Peter Fay, Senior Policy and Planning Analyst, Clerk's Division.

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

-Mr. Dominic Di Luca, President of the Stanley Community Centre Seniors' Club, who was in favour of splitting the wards into two;

-Mr. Hank Mulder, President of 325 Bogert Avenue Tenants' Association, who spoke in opposition to the wards being split;

-Mr. Jim Loftus, President of the 7 Roanoke Road Tenants' Association, who had concerns over the splitting of neighbourhoods;

-Mr. Morry Smith, who was in favour of retaining two Councillors per ward; and

-Mr. John Maletich, who spoke in favour of splitting the existing wards.

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

Recommendation:

The Scarborough Community Council recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following Options for Ward Boundary Changes:

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs:Option 2b;

Ward 15 - Scarborough City CentreOption 1a;

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland CreekOption 1a,

subject to the boundary going straight down Morningside Avenue and the area thus affected of Ward 13 being taken into Ward 13, in accordance with Maps 13-2a and 2b;

Ward 17 - Scarborough AgincourtOption 2a;

Ward 18 - Scarborough MalvernOption 1a; and

Background:

The Scarborough Community Council had before it a report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, recommending that the Community Council recommend to the November 30, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee a preferred option, within its Community Council jurisdiction, for divisions within City wards, based on minor refinements, to permit single member ward representation.

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

-Mr. Clancy Delbarre, Highland Creek Community Association;

-Ms. Sheila White, C.D. Farquharson Community Association;

-Mr. Douglas Grigg, Cliffcrest Community Association;

-Mr. John Stapley, Toronto;

-Mr. Ben Loughlin, Toronto;

-Mr. John Brickenden, Toronto;

-Ms. Helena Nielsen, Toronto; and

-Mr. Alan Heisey, Snr., Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 9, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council:

(1) recommends to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(a)with respect to High Park (Ward 19):

(i)Bloor Street West, west of Jane Street to the Humber River, and the area north of Bloor Street West up to and including the southern edge of the T.T.C. right-of-way, be added to the proposed west ward of High Park;

(b)with respect to Davenport (Ward 21):

(c)with respect to Trinity-Niagara (Ward 20):

the Option set out in Map 20-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be adopted;

(d)with respect to Midtown (Ward 23):

(i)the Option set out in Map 23-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)the CN Rail Line be the dividing line between the ward and the area bounded by the East York Community Council, excluding the Governor's Road Bridge neighbourhood;

(b)the present status quo remain in place with respect to Heath Street West;

(c)the south side of Eglinton Avenue West, between Bathurst Street and the Belt Line remain in North Toronto (Ward 22);

(d)both sides of Spadina Road, from St. Clair Avenue West to Heath Street West, remain in Midtown;

(e)the present status quo remain in place with respect to Lonsdale Road, Lonsmount Drive and Montclair Avenue;

(e)with respect to North Toronto (Ward 22):

(f)with respect to Downtown (Ward 24):

the Option set out in Map 24-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted;

(g)with respect to Don River (Ward 25):

(i)the Option set out in Map 25-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)Cherry Beach remain in the same new ward as the Leslie Street Spit;

(b)the north side of Fulton Avenue be included in the proposed east ward; and

(h)with respect to East Toronto (Ward 26):

(i)the Option set out in Map 26-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)Coleman Avenue to Sibley Avenue be included in the proposed east ward;

(b)Maryland Boulevard and Avonlea Boulevard be included in their totality in the proposed east ward;

(c)the Shoppers' World Site be included in its totality in the proposed east ward;

(d)all of Eastwood Road, between Woodbine Avenue and Bellhaven Road be included in the proposed west ward;

(e)Victoria Park Avenue, south of Bracken Avenue, be located in the proposed west ward for Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13);

(ii)the Option set out in Map 26-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(h)(i), be adopted;

(i)the proposed boundaries for the areas covered by the East York, York and Scarborough Community Councils be amended in accordance with Recommendation Nos. (1)(a) to 1(h);

(2)requests the Urban Environment and Development Committee to set aside a specific time at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998 to consider this matter.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, having requested the City Clerk, in consultation with appropriate officials, to:

(a)consolidate the recommendations of each of the Community Councils, for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting to be held on November30, 1998;

(b)provide further notice of the special session of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, as set out in Recommendation No. (2), including direct notice to all resident and ratepayer groups, all BIAs and all historical societies within the City of Toronto; and

Recommendation No. (1)(j) was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Disero, Jakobek, Johnston, Korwin-Kuczynksi, Layton, McConnell and Pantalone.

Nays:Councillor Miller.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, on November 5, 1998 had before it a report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Options for Ward Boundary Changes.

During consideration of the foregoing matter, the Toronto Community Council also had before it the following communications:

-(October 10, 1998) from Mr. Alan Heisey Sr, the Annex Residents Association;

-(November 3, 1998) from Ms. Helen Ness and Ms. Nancy Heaney, Junction Community Police Liaison Committee;

-(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Carolyn Riemer, Dundas West Residents Association;

-(November 5, 1998) from Mr. Norman McLeod, Swansea Historical Society;

-(October 31, 1998) from Councillor Silva;

-(November 4, 1998) from Mr. Bill Roberts, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association;

-Revised Map 21-1a, submitted by Ms Lynn Daly; and

-Revised Map 23-1a, submitted by Councillor Bossons.

Mr. Peter Fay, City Clerk's Division, made a presentation to the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

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

-Mr. William Roberts, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association;

-Ms. Fanny Patterson, Director, Annex Residents' Association;

-Mr. Zak Khan, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Dale Ritch, C.O.R.R.A.;

-Ms. Carolyn Riemer, Dundas West Residents' Association;

-Mr. Sid Bruyn, Chair, Parents Council;

-Ms. Lynn Daly, Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre;

-Mr. William Phillips, Secretary, South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association;

-Ms. Hilary MacKenzie, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Ms. Marion Lewis, Toronto, Ontario

The Community Council's actions are noted above.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 5, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The York Community Council at its Special Meeting held on November 4, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(1)the proposed ward boundary changes as indicated on Map 27-1a, Ward 27, York Humber, be approved;

(2)the proposed ward boundary changes as indicated on Map 28-1a, Ward 28, York Eglinton, be approved; and

The Community Council reports, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, having requested the North York Community Council to consider allowing the area located south of Highway 401 (Ward 6, North York Humber) to the proposed north boundary (Woodward Avenue/CN Rail) as noted on Map 27-1a, to be included as part of a continuing community of Ward 27, York Humber.

Background:

The Community Council had before it a joint report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing options for: (1) minor refinements to the existing 28 City wards, and (2) ward boundary divisions to permit single member ward representation.

At this Special Meeting of the Community Council to hear public comments on the proposed ward boundary changes, approximately 25 persons were in attendance. Most of the deputants were from the west section of Ward 27, York Humber, who emphasized the importance of maintaining the existing cohesiveness of the Weston, Mt. Dennis and Black Creek communities, in view of their historical and economic significance. Since these communities remained undivided as reflected in Map 27-1a, the deputants expressed preference for this option.

It was also suggested that by extending the proposed northerly boundary (Woodward Avenue/CNRail) on Map 27-1a to Highway 401, not only would the Weston Business Improvement Area be able to establish a closer commercial link with the Cross Roads Shopping Centre, but this area would also form part of a continuing community to be included in Ward 27.

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

-Ms. Elaine Heaton, Weston Residents and Ratepayers' Association, Ward 27;

-Mr. Albert Pietersma, Weston Community Improvement Plan, Ward 27;

-Mr. Lorne Berg, Executive Director, Black Creek Business Area Association, Ward 27;

-Ms. Marjorie Sutton, President, Mount Dennis Association; and Chair, Mount Dennis Community Improvement, Ward 27;

-Mr. John Kiru, Coordinator, Weston Business Improvement Area, Ward 27;

-Ms. Sandra Melville, President, Warren Park Ratepayers' Association, Ward 27;

-Mr. Steve Tasses, Chair, Keele-Eglinton Business Improvement Area, Ward 27;

-Mr. Karl Stankov, West Fairbank Ratepayers Association, Ward 28

-Mr. Bob Churchill, North York; and

-Mr. Tim Lambrinos, Executive Assistant to Councillor George Mammoliti, Ward 6, North York Humber.

--------

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

-(November 16, 1998) from Mr. Albert Pietersma, Weston Community Improvement Committee (WCIC), in support of Option 1a for the division of City of Toronto Ward 27 (Map 27-1a, York Humber), with one amendment: that the northern boundary of the new west ward be extended to Highway 401; and setting out the reasons therefor.

-(November 18, 1998) a facsimile addressed to Councillor Betty Disero, Davenport, from Ms. May Uusbergin support of the section of Ward 21, Davenport, being moved to Ward19, High Park; and setting out the reasons therefor.

-(November 23, 1998) from Ms. Sheila White, Past President, C.D. Farquharson Community Association, expressing the Association's objections to the boundary changes proposed for Ward 18, Scarborough-Malvern; and setting out the reasons therefor.

-(November 25, 1998) from Ms. Sylvia Giovanella, President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents' Associations, submitting, as requested, comments from the various Ratepayers' Associations located within Ward4; pointing out that the aforementioned comments are from persons who were not at the special meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council on November 18, 1998; and requesting that consideration be given to holding a meeting at the Etobicoke Civic Centre in early December 1998, at which time Councillors Holyday and O'Brien would state the reasons for their option preference, and then the public would be permitted to vote.

-(November 26, 1998) from Mr. Ross Vaughan, President, Islington Ratepayers and Residents Association, expressing support for the position taken by Councillor Doug Holyday, Markland Centennial; pointing out that Option 4-1a has the lowest number of factors to be considered and is, therefore, the simplest solution; and urging that the traditional communities in this area of the city not be divided.

-(November 25, 1998) from Ms. Diana Fancher, President, West Toronto Junction Historical Society, expressing support for changing the area from Bloor Street north to the CP Rail tracks, and from Keele Street to the CP Rail tracks on the west, from Ward 21 to Ward 19; and setting out the reasons therefor.

-(November 27, 1998) from Ms. Dianne Burnett, Project Co-ordinator, West Toronto Junction Team, advising that the Team's vision and commitment to the area is to strengthen, unite and rebuild the section known as the Junction; that the West Toronto Junction is currently part of Ward 21 and is an integral part of that vision; and expressing support for the DundasWest Residents' Association's efforts to become part of Ward 19.

-(November 27, 1998) from Ms. Maureen Lynett, President, Malta Village Business Association, expressing support of the Ward 21 residents' request for a section of Ward 21 (Dundas/Keele to Dundas/Bloor) to rejoin Ward 19.

-(November 27, 1998) from Mr. Victor Latchman, Chairman, and Mr. Paul Komarnicky, Director, Junction Gardens BIA, expressing the Board of Management's strong desire to see the West Toronto Junction Triangle become properly situated during the proposed ward boundary change activity; and requesting that the boundary between Wards 19 and 21 be redrawn along the tracks all the way from Bloor Street north, rather than along Keele Street to the tracks.

-(November 27, 1998) from Mr. Bill Roberts, Director, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association, expressing support for the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council to run the Ward 19 north-western boundary between Jane Street and the Humber River along the southern edge of the TTC right-of-way; further expressing support for one Councillor per ward, and for the division of the existing City wards into two parts; and recommending that:

(1)the former village of Swansea and the Bloor West Village BIA not be separated; and

(2)if it is the City's intent to change the boundary between Wards 19 and 21, then a boundary should be selected north of the existing properties fronting on the Bloor Street West diversion using the southern edge of the subway cut.

-(November 27, 1998) from Mr. Mr. Sam Singh, President, The Association of Concerned Citizens of Etobicoke North, expressing strong support of Option Map 5-1b for Ward 5 (Rexdale-Thistletown); and setting out the reasons therefor.

-(November 29, 1998) from Kean Bhatacharya concern to protect against the changes of boundary of Ward 18.

-(November 30, 1998) from Councillor Mike Tzekas, Scarborough Wexford, expressing concern to simply add that Highway 401 should be used as a natural divide for refining the new ward boundary into two separate wards.

-(undated) communication from residents of Ward 21 expressing to remain part of boundaries.

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

-Mr. Justin Van Dette (regarding East York boundaries);

- Mr. Phil Egginton, President, Bridlewood Community Association;

- Mr. Ben Loughlin, Scarborough;

- Ms. Margaret Simpson, Toronto;

- Mr. William Gallos, Toronto;

- Mr. William Roberts, Swansea Ratepayers Association;

- Ms. Helen Ness, Toronto;

- Ms. Carolyn Reimer, Dundas West Residents Association; and filed a written submission;

- Mr. Zak Khan, Toronto;

- Mr. Abdul Alakhatib; Toronto;

- Mr. Colin McLeod, East York;

- Ms. Louise Bridge Toronto;

- Mr. Alex Grenzebbach, Toronto;

- Mr. Ross Vaughan, Etobicoke;

- Councillor S. Bussin, East Toronto (Ward 26);

- Councillor B. Disero, Davenport (Ward 21);

- Councillor D. Fotinos, Davenport (Ward 21);

- Councillor D. Holyday, Markland Centennial (Ward 4);

- Councillor C. Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park (Ward 19);

- Councillor D. Miller, High Park (Ward 19);

- Councillor M. Prue, East York (Ward 1);

- Councillor B. Sinclair, Rexdale-Thistletown (Ward 5); and

- Councillor M. Walker, North Toronto (Ward 22).

(A copy of the appendices, which were appended to the foregoing reports, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 30, 1998 and December 1, 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 December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (December 3, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To report, as requested, regarding the City's representation in the court application recommended by the Urban Environment and Development Committee to determine whether City Council has the right to enact a by-law changing its size and composition.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

If the City Solicitor's office represents the City on the recommended court application, the cost of the application would be absorbed by the Legal Division's operating budget. Additional costs would be incurred if outside legal counsel were retained.

Should City Council enact the desired by-law without a court declaration of its right to do so, such a by-law and the results of an election held on the basis of such a by-law could be subject to legal challenge, which if successful, could be costly and disruptive if it results in the nullification of both the by-law and the election.

Recommendations:

It is recommended, should City Council authorize the commencement of a court application to determine its right to enact a by-law creating single member wards and changing the overall size of its membership, that the City Solicitor be authorized to represent the City in such a court application.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of November 30 and December 1, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee requested the City Solicitor to:

1.report directly to Council as to whether he can strongly represent the City of Toronto's wishes for single member wards in all legal proceedings and if not, report on a recommended legal firm that the City could hire to strongly pursue the City's position; and

2.consult with the Province to gain their support with regard to the legal action being taken by the City of Toronto in this regard.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The legal application recommended in the City Clerk's reports dated October 26, 1998 and November 24, 1998, and by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting of November30 and December 1, 1998, is an application under Rule 14.05(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194).

Rule 14.05(3)(d) provides for an application where the relief being claimed is, "the determination of rights that depend on the interpretation ... of a statute ..." The issue to be determined, in this case, is the question of whether City Council has the right to pass a by-law changing its size and composition. As this issue depends on the interpretation of the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 and the Municipal Act it may be determined by way of such an application.

The purpose for bringing such an application is to obtain the court's interpretation of the two above-mentioned statutes with respect to this issue. In bringing the application, the City is merely seeking preventative clarification of the interpretation issues arising out of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 and the Municipal Act, by asking the court to determine whether City Council has the right to pass the desired by-law.

While City Council has endorsed the principle of single member wards, it has also acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding its authority to create such wards by requesting the City Solicitor to seek legislative amendment to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 to permit single member wards and to allow changes to the overall size of City Council. As the provincial government has to date been unwilling to support the legislative amendments sought by Council, the court application is the only means available to obtain the required clarity.

If such a preventative application is not brought, and clarity is not obtained prior to enacting the desired by-law, the City's by-law may be vulnerable to legal challenge. If, on such a challenge, a court were to find that City Council lacked the authority to enact the by-law, both the by-law and the outcome of any election held on the basis of that by-law could be nullified.

If, on the hearing of the recommended application, the court determines that City Council has the legislative authority to enact a by-law changing its size and composition, City Council could then enact a by-law creating single member wards and/or changing the overall size of its membership, with a reduced risk of being set aside. If the court determines that City Council lacks the legislative authority, the Province would then be precluded from asserting that legislative amendment is not required, and a further request for the requisite legislative amendment would have an increased likelihood of success.

There could be an issue as to whether the court will entertain an application under Rule 14.05(3) in these circumstances. Courts are sometimes reluctant to make declarations on hypothetical questions or on matters that will arise in the future. However, where, as here, the question is of significant practical importance, the courts are more likely to entertain such an application.

In order to commence an application, an issue must require resolution. As the party commencing the application, the City must take the position that an interpretation issue exists. If the City were to take the position that the legislation provides clear authority for City Council to enact the desired by-law, it would be putting forward no issue for resolution by the court.

Regardless of whether the City Solicitor or outside legal counsel represents the City in this application, the City's position, so as to have grounds for commencing the application, would have to be that the City's authority to enact the desired by-law is unclear. As the City Solicitor is familiar with the issues, and as retaining outside legal representation will result in additional costs, it is recommended that, should City Council authorize the commencement of the above-mentioned application, the City Solicitor be authorized to represent the City in the application.

In accordance with the directions of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, the City Solicitor's office has contacted the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and is currently in discussions to obtain the Minister's support and participation in a court application to determine this issue.

Conclusions:

In commencing an application for clarification of the City's right to enact a by-law changing its size and composition, the City's position, as applicant, must be that an issue requiring resolution by the court exists. Thus, regardless of who is representing the City in the application, the City cannot commence an application taking the position that its authority to enact the desired by-law is clear and that no interpretation issue exists. Such a position would reveal no grounds for the application.

Council's authorization of the above-mentioned court application is recommended so as to seek clarification of Council's right to enact the desired by-law. Without such clarification, and in the absence of the requested legislative amendments, such a by-law, and any election held on the basis of such a by-law, would be vulnerable to a potentially expensive and disruptive legal challenge.

It is recommended that, should City Council wish to commence a preventative court application to clarify its legal authority to enact a by-law creating single member wards and changing the overall size of its membership, the City Solicitor be authorized to represent the City in the application.

Contact Name:

Christina Hueniken, 392-8429.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (December 8, 1998) from Councillor Douglas Holyday, Markland Centennial, Ward4:

As I stated at the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, I believe that Option 4-1a which uses Highway 427 as a boundary is the logical method of splitting our ward.

City Council had specified that the following four principles were to be used in determining the new boundaries:

(a)representation by population;

(b)representation of communities;

(c)recognition of distinct geographical features; and

(d)present and future populations.

Option 4-1a adheres to each of the above criteria.

Most significantly, Option 4-1a uses the most distinct dividing element: Highway 427. We are fortunate to have such an ideal "major infrastructure element" at our disposal as this quarter mile wide expanse of concrete, asphalt and sound barriers neatly splits our current ward in half.

With Option 4-1a, the M9C postal code area is fully to the west of the highway; the M9B area is fully to the east.

School areas are also divided by the highway, with Silverthorn Collegiate Institute servicing the west and Martin Grove Collegiate Institute the east. Likewise, the public schools are separated by the highway, while the catchment area boundary for these schools crosses both Rathbnurn and Burnhamthorpe Roads making it less than ideal for the split proposed under Option 4-1b.

In addition, with Option 4-1a, the two ensuing wards would also each contain a major park, Centennial in the west and West Deane in the east.

Above all, communities are not divided with Option 4-1a, the east-west split. Option 4-1b divides our communities, resulting in residents on the north side of Rathburn and Burnhamthorpe Roads being a different ward than those on the south side, with the added confusion of also having to determine whether they are east or west of the highway.

A further disadvantage to Option 4-1b is the fact that postal walks would be overlapped which would result in Councillors' newsletters, etc., being wastefully distributed in the wrong areas.

Ross Vaughan, President of Islington Ratepayers and Residents Association, addressed the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998 and strongly made these points. On December 3, 1998 he further advised me that at a meeting the previous evening, four ratepayer groups indicated support for Option 4-1a and signed a petition to that effect.

It is clear that Option 4-1a, using the natural divider offered by the 427 Highway is the best choice to split Markland-Centennial and I urge you to support this option.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(December 9, 1998) from Councillor Elizabeth Brown and Councillor Bruce Sinclair from Rexdale Thistletown, requesting that Council refer the issue with respect to the Ward 5 boundary option to the Etobicoke Community Council for further discussion;

(ii)(December 10, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding the following communications with respect to the options for Ward boundary changes:

(a)(November 25,1998) from the President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents' Associations; and

(b)(December 8, 1998) from Ms. Joanna Twitchin, Co-President, Thistletown Ratepayers Association;

(iii)(December 11, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding the recommendations of the East York Community Council with respect to the options for Ward boundary changes;

(iv)(December 14, 1998) from the City Clerk submitting revised pages with respect to the options for Ward boundary changes; and

(v)(December 15, 1998) from Councillor O'Brien providing preferred option regarding the boundaries of Ward 4.)

(City Council has had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications and petitions respecting ward boundary changes:

(i)petition signed by approximately 129 citizens in support of the area bounded by Bloor Street West, the CPR tracks and Keele Street, remaining part of Ward 21;

(ii)(December 15, 1998) from Mr. David Thornton, President, The Moore Park Residents' Association;

(iii)(December 15, 1998) from Ms. Rose Andrachuk;

(iv)(December 16, 1998) from Mr. Mark Tyler;

(v)petition containing five signatures, filed by Councillor Douglas Holyday, Markland-Centennial; and

(vi)(December 16, 1998) from Mr. Justin J. Van Dette, Toronto, submitting a petition containing signatures of residents in the Parkview Hills Community, filed by Councillor Jane Pitfield, East York.)

Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws

Regarding the Conversion to Condominium

and Demolition of Rental Housing

(All Wards)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on February 8, 1999, and the holding of a statutory public meeting if necessary, having regard that the Committee has requested further reports on this matter.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated November 23, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, recommends that the report (November 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be adopted subject to:

(1)Section 3.2.3Conversion and Demolition of Rental:

(a)Section 135.1- strike out the word "discouraging" and insert in lieu thereof the word "prohibiting" so that such section shall now read as follows:

"135.1to preserve, maintain and 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, by prohibiting the conversion of rental units to equity co-operative, and by encouraging new rental housing production."

(c)Section 135.4 - delete the words "where appropriate" so that such section shall now read as follows:

"135.4to seek the retention of rented residential units, except where the whole or part of a building which contains such units is in the opinion of the Chief Building Official structurally unsound, and to consider, acquiring or leasing a property where such units are at risk of being demolished.";

(2)any further amendments that City Council may adopt following the consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting scheduled to be held on February 8, 1998, of the various reports requested of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services with respect to the foregoing proposed new official plan policies to regulate the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing.

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

(a)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services being requested to report back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting scheduled for February 8, 1999, on the following matters:

(i)extended protection to all rental units in multiple residential zones;

(ii)all rental units, regardless of the market rent, being given protection of the Official Plan provision;

(iii)planning notification being extended to all tenants;

(iv)all reports submitted to City Council to include complete details on outstanding work orders and the condition of the building at the preliminary application stage;

(v)a number of issues concerning equity co-operatives, including:

-addressing the problem of shareholders trapped in co-ownership or equity co-operatives, as it relates to co-ownership and equity co-operative buildings established prior to The Rental Protection Act, without deterioration of the protection intended for existing rental units; and

-amending Recommendation No. 2 of the York Community Council report be deleting from paragraph 135.2 the words "or more" and inserting in lieu the words "or less" so that the revised policy shall now read as follows:

"135.2to restrict the conversion to condominium of any building, or any related group of buildings, exclusive of equity co-operatives where 33 per cent or less of the units are tenanted, 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."

(vi)the North York Community Council's recommendations A. & B., embodied in the report (November 17, 1998) from the City Clerk, for clarification purposes, viz:

"A.Moved by Councillor Feldman:

That a further clause 135.6 be added as follows:

135.6Council may consider exempting specific sites or areas from the restrictions imposed by policies 135.2, 135.3, 135.4 and 135.5, if the following conditions exist:

(i)the building is functionally obsolete;

(ii)it is no longer economically feasible to retrofit the building for the purposes of preserving the stock;

(iii)the existing building is a blight on the neighbourhood characteristic; and

(iv)the in-situ tenants want to buy the building; and

B.Moved by Councillor Flint:

That Council may exempt properties, generally, specifically, or in areas included in official plan amendments or detailed secondary plans, from the provisions of this official plan amendment whenever desirable for the purposes of good planning."

(d) the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be requested to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting scheduled for February 8, 1999, on the status of:

(i)the 'High Rise Maintenance Inventory' report, co-funded the CMHC and the City; and

(ii)the potential for developing a maintenance protection enforcement strategy to preserve and enhance the rental housing stock and protect tenants from neglectful maintenance;

The Urban Environment and Development Committee further reports, for the information of Council, having held a statutory public meeting on November 30, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 of The Planning Act and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

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

Purpose:

To respond to the deputations and motions made at the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Community Councils concerning the planning report on new condominium conversion and demolition control policies (October 15, 1998).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no additional funding or financial implications associated with this follow-up report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the following consolidated list of revised recommendations be adopted:

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

(a)adding the following new sections 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 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, by discouraging the conversion of rental units to equity co-operative, and by encouraging new rental housing production.

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 2.5% 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 only 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 the retention of rented residential units, except where the whole or part of a building which contains such units is in the opinion of the Chief Building Official structurally unsound, and to consider, where appropriate, acquiring or leasing a 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 definitions under the Glossary of Terms, Section 1.4.4 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.

"rented residential units"

means premises used for rented residential purposes, and includes premises that have been used for rented residential purposes and are vacant.

(c)deleting the following sections dealing with conversions:

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

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;

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

section 6.18 in the Toronto Official Plan; and

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:

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

section 2.2.15 in the Etobicoke Official Plan;

section 9.8 in the York Official Plan;

section 6.19 in the City of Toronto Official Plan; and

sections 4.10 and 4.10.1 in the East York Official Plan;

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

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

section 2.2.16 in the Etobicoke Official Plan; and

(f)making any related technical amendments to the Official plans listed in Recommendations Nos, (1)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) to reflect the amendment and deletion of the sections.

(2)upon adoption of the Official Plan policies outlined in Recommendation No. (1), 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 UEDC on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998;

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

(4)Council resolve that for the purposes of defining "high-end rental units" in accordance with Policy No. 135.3 (refer to Recommendation No. (1)(a)) the factor of 1.5 times the City's average rent (by bedroom size) as detailed in Appendix B shall be used.

(5) 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 Committee on harmonizing the by-laws;

(6)as an interim measure, Council enact a by-law in the form of the attached draft Bill (AppendixC) 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;

(7)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;

(8)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.

1.0Background and Context:

At its meeting on November 2, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) made several motions concerning the planning report of October 15, 1998. These motions were referred to the Community Councils and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, with a request that their comments be forwarded back to the UEDC for consideration at the meeting on November 30, 1998. This report has been prepared in response to the UEDC's request.

Specifically, this report addresses a number of issues that have been raised by the UEDC, the Community Councils, and deputants to the UEDC. These issues include: general revisions to the wording of the proposed policies; notification and application fees; outstanding work orders; political party commitment to rental preservation; acquisition of rental property; coverage of equity co-operatives; an exemption for specific sites, and coverage of vacant units. Each issue will be discussed in turn in the sections below.

2.0Deputations at the UEDC:

The need for the City to bring forward a package of initiatives to address the broader housing situation, inclusive of preservation policies, was raised by Ms. Jane Pepino, a deputant at the November 2, 1998 UEDC meeting, acting on behalf of Goldlist Properties Inc. (see Appendix F). I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that the proposed condominium conversion and demolition policies and by-laws are, in fact, a part of a larger Municipal Housing Strategy that is being jointly developed by housing and planning staff. The framework for the strategy was adopted by Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998. It identifies a number of ways that the City can influence the development of affordable housing, such as providing a leadership or advocacy role, offering land or buildings, financing or funding development, assisting with community supports, reviewing taxation and fees, or supporting the creation and preservation of housing through the land use planning process.

To begin implementing the multiple initiatives required to realize the production of affordable housing, Council has subsequently approved the report on the new multi-residential property tax rate, and endorsed affordable housing demonstration projects for two City owned sites. While the production of new affordable housing is an important goal, equally important is the retention of the current affordable housing stock. Given the recent repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act (RHPA) and the vulnerability of the rental stock, the proposed set of condominium conversion and demolition policies is a critical initiative that must be implemented as soon as possible.

In response to the deputant's suggestion, and in recognition of the municipal housing strategy being developed, I recommend that policy 135.1 be amended by adding the words "and by encouraging new rental housing production."

3.0Motions made by the UEDC:

(a) General Revisions to Wording of the Proposed Policies:

At its meeting on November 2, 1998, the UEDC made a number of motions in an effort to clarify and strengthen the intent of the proposed policies contained in the report of October 15, 1998. Specifically, it was moved that Policy 135.1 be amended by deleting the words "where appropriate". This appears acceptable and is recommended for adoption by Council.

It was further suggested that this policy be changed by inserting the word "prohibiting" in place of the word "discouraging", as it was considered that this would provide a stronger position against the conversion of rental units to equity co-operative. However, the proposed change could pose some legal problems, as the City cannot prohibit something (i.e. equity co-operatives) that it does not have the authority to regulate. At present, new equity co-operatives are simply registered with the Province under the Co-operative Corporations Act. No municipal approvals are required to create this form of housing.

Also it was suggested that Policy 135.3 be amended by adding the word "only" in an attempt to limit the situations where conversions would be allowed. Again this change would be appropriate.

The UEDC, also in an attempt to strengthen the wording of the policies, requested that Policy 135.4 be changed to delete the words "whenever possible" and "wherever appropriate". While I consider the deletion of "whenever possible" to be beneficial, I believe that the words "wherever appropriate" should remain. As discussed later in this report, one Community Council expressed concern over this policy as it requests Council to consider acquiring or leasing a rental property where such units are at risk of being demolished. The words "wherever appropriate" should offer Council full discretion, and make it clear that the acquisition or leasing option would only be considered in very unique circumstances.

With respect to Policy 135.5(a), the UEDC recommended that the existing policy be replaced by:

"(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"

The key proposed change is the use of the words "to prohibit redevelopment applications...without replacement...of rental units", instead of the words "to seek the replacement of rental units...when considering redevelopment applications". Again, while the suggested change is intended to improve the City's ability to replace rental units, the City cannot prohibit the submission of a redevelopment application (e.g. official plan amendment, rezoning, plans of subdivision and condominium) that does not provide for rental housing. In addition, a refusal to approve a redevelopment application, based solely on the applicant not providing rental units would likely not be sustainable, if challenged.

We recognize the weaknesses in the Province's Tenant Protection Act (TPA) and reduced tools available to the City. However, through the proposed policy (135.5), we are attempting to exercise the City's ability to lawfully secure replacement units as part of a Section 37 agreement, where the owner agrees to provide such housing when seeking additional height and/or density in a redevelopment project.

(b)Notification and Application Fees:

The UEDC also requested that the following recommendation be added to the October 15, 1998 report:

"(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.

The TPA requires landlords to give tenants, in a building proposed to be demolished, at least 120days notice before the tenancy will be terminated.

The recommended notice and meeting requirements for demolition applications in an area subject to the special legislation are detailed in Appendix A of the October 15, 1998 report. As there is no legal requirement to provide notification to tenants of Committee meetings at which a demolition application will be considered, the City Solicitor is of the opinion that including the cost of providing such notification in the application fees would not be justified. Therefore, the proposed extension of notice and adjustment of application fees is not recommended for adoption.

On the subject of notification, the UEDC also requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report to the November 30, 1998 meeting on:

(ii) the feasibility of amending Parts A.1(e) and A.2(e) of Appendix A (of the October 15, 1998 report) 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.

The 14 day period is in keeping with the 15 days notice previously required under the RHPA. The former legislation appeared to offer ample time for tenants to attend the meetings. It is important to consider that the notice of the public meeting should not be the first time that tenants would be made aware of the application. If approved, Appendix A.1(b) and A.2(b) will require that tenants, in a building proposed to be converted or demolished, be notified at the outset when a condominium conversion or demolition application is made to the City (by means of a notice being placed in a central area of the property). Given the earlier notice, tenants have been offered adequate time to organize and prepare their case long before the public meeting pertaining to the application is scheduled.

(c)Outstanding Work Orders:

Another recommendation made by the UEDC, as well as the North York Community Council, concerned the City's ability to withhold a planning application or building permit for a new building, based on outstanding work orders against the existing building. Specifically, UEDC recommended that:

"(13)the Commissioner of 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;"

As noted earlier, the City cannot prohibit the submission of a planning application. In addition, refusal of an application on the basis of outstanding work orders would be appealed to the OMB and would be vulnerable. With respect to an application for a permit for a new (replacement) building, the Chief Building Official advises that the Building Code Act does not allow for a condition related to outstanding work orders to be imposed when issuing a building permit. The best avenue for dealing with outstanding work orders is through the enforcement of property standards by-laws and the Building Code Act.

As there are other means available to the City to remedy buildings in disrepair, and given the questionable practice of prohibiting conversion or redevelopment applications on the basis of outstanding orders on an existing building, it is suggested that the above UEDC recommendation not be adopted.

(d)Political Party Commitment to Rental Preservation:

At its November 2, 1998 meeting, the UEDC also requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report 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.

The official plan policies recommended in this report are intended to regulate condominium conversions, and should be sufficient on their own.

In terms of demolitions, however, the municipal powers are more limited. Section 33 of the Planning Act and the former City of Toronto's special legislation allow demolition to be postponed for a certain period. They do not permit the City to refuse the demolition of rental property.

At present there are ten applications for redevelopment that if approved would result in the demolition of 1,161 units. Based on a substantial increase in the number of inquiries that have been received by planning staff concerning potential demolition and conversion projects, since the TPA was proclaimed, the number of active applications is expected to continue to grow.

I believe the recent interest in demolitions and conversions, along with the clear need for affordable housing as presented in the October 15, 1998 report (and the work of the Mayor's Action Task Force on Homelessness and the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes), provides the necessary rationale and documentation, should Council wish to make a request to the provincial political parties to determine their position on rental housing controls.

4.0Additional Recommendations made by Community Councils:

On November 12, 1998 the planning report (October 15, 1998), along with UEDC's motions, was considered by the Etobicoke, East York, Scarborough, Toronto, and York Community Councils. North York Community Council dealt with the report at a special meeting on November 16, 1998.

The East York, York, and North York Community Councils endorsed the report, subject to a number of amendments being made. The key amendments (not referred to in the previous discussion) are outlined below.

The Etobicoke and Scarborough Community Councils received the report, whereas the Toronto Community Council endorsed the recommendations and requested that monthly reports on units affected by demolitions and conversions be provided to the Council Strategy Committee for People Without Homes, and to all Members of Council. With respect to this matter, the Chief Building Official and I will set up a process for circulating these reports.

(a)Acquisition Of Rental Property:

The East York Community Council endorsed the report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services embodied in the report (November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, subject to amending Policy 135.4 by deleting the words "and to consider acquiring or leasing the property where such units are at risk of being demolished" after the word "units" so that the policy would read as follows:

"135.4 to seek the retention of rented residential units":

As I understand, the Community Council was concerned about the City's ability to purchase rental properties, given the substantial financial burdens it is now facing. Recognizing this, the original recommendation read: "to 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." It was felt that the words "to consider, where appropriate" offered full discretion for Council in deciding whether to purchase a rental property at risk. There is no requirement for Council to do more than consider the matter. Only in very unique situations would Council be prepared to acquire a property.

I am therefore, recommending that the original wording of the (October 15, 1998) report continue to be applied (with the exception of the deletion of the words "whenever possible", as discussed in Section 3 (a) above).

(b) Coverage of Equity Co-operatives:

The York Community Council recommended that policy 135.2 be amended by:

deleting the words "including" and substituting the words "exclusive of"; and

deleting the words "containing six or more rented residential units" and by substituting the words "where 33 percent or more of the units are tenanted",

so that based on their revisions, the policy would read as follows:

135.2to restrict the conversion to condominium of any building, or any related group of buildings, exclusive of equity co-operatives, where 33 percent or more of the units are tenanted, 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 2.5 percent for the preceding two year period.

In particular, I have serious concerns about the above recommendation as it removes the minimum unit number threshold that was intended to apply to all rental properties - not just equity co-operatives. Also, it excludes equity co-operatives (and other rental buildings) where 33 percent or more of the units are rented. This runs completely counter to the intent of the policy, as it is those buildings with the greatest number of rental units that we most want to protect.

Equity co-operatives are particularly problematic. I realize that some people who have purchased shares in equity co-operatives are now experiencing some difficultly in securing loans/mortgages. However, I am also concerned about the impact that wide-scale conversion may have on the future tenancies and rental units in these equity co-operative buildings.

Except in specific circumstances, tenants in equity co-operatives cannot be evicted for the shareholders own use. While the TPA states that existing tenants in an equity co-operative building to be converted cannot be evicted, any future tenants in the building once converted to condominium may be evicted, if the owner or his family wish to occupy the premises.

For a variety of reasons, condominium buildings typically have a much higher market value than comparable equity co-operative buildings. Once converted to condominium, it is expected that the current price of the equity co-operative buildings will rise. In time, there would most likely be upward pressure on the rents of the tenanted equity co-operative units, in order to cover the expected higher unit purchase price and carrying costs.

For years most of the former municipalities have made it clear, through their resolutions and official plan policies that they are opposed to the conversion of rental buildings to condominium. Municipal powers to restrict the conversion to equity co-operatives, however, is limited. The vast majority of equity co-operatives have been created through the conversion of rental buildings, as a means of by-passing municipal and provincial conversion legislation. By permitting the conversion of equity co-operatives to condominium, I am concerned about supporting this two step conversion process now and in the future.

For the above reasons, coupled with the problematic wording of the amendment, I cannot support the proposed change.

The North York Community Council also referred the following motions to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for a report to the November 30th meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(A)That a further clause 135.6 be added as follows:

135.6Council may consider exempting specific sites or areas from the restrictions imposed by policies 135.2 135.3, 135.4 and 135.5, if the following conditions exist:

(i)the building is functionally obsolete;

(ii)it is no longer economically feasible to retrofit the building for the purposes of preserving the stock;

(iii)the existing building is a blight on the neighbourhood characteristic;

(iv)the in-situ tenants want to buy the building; and

(B)That Council may exempt properties, generally, specifically, or in areas included in official plan amendments or detailed secondary plans, from the provisions of this official plan amendment whenever desirable for the purposes of good planning.

In response to these suggestions, I understand the Community Council's interest in being able to use some discretion when dealing with specific proposals, particularly with respect to demolitions. The first three criteria under A seem to address situations where a rental building has fallen into disrepair, to the point where it may no longer be salvageable. In an effort to deal with these concerns, I am recommending that the following words be used under policy 135.4:

"to seek the retention of rented residential units, except where the whole or part of a building which contains such units is in the opinion of the Chief Building Official structurally unsound, and to consider, where appropriate, acquiring or leasing a property where such units are at risk of being demolished."

This would permit the demolition of those buildings where is it no longer practical to consider the rehabilitation of the structure.

Suggested policies A (iii) and B above deal with special exemptions: where in-situ tenants want to buy the building; and for specific sub-areas of the City. A key problem with A (iii) is that many tenants are vulnerable and not able to voice their concerns about a proposal to change the property. Tenants opposed to buying may be pressured to change their decision or vacate their units. With respect to B above, I would like to emphasize that the policies as proposed do allow for good planning principles to be applied.

In my opinion, it would not be advisable to consider exemptions for either specific buildings or neighbourhoods in isolation of the broader City-wide perspective. To do so, would result in tenants being evicted at a time when there are few alternatives elsewhere in the City. Furthermore, these types of exemptions would place greater pressure on the overall housing market, which is already under tremendous stress.

(d) Coverage of Vacant Units:

The condominium conversion and demolition policies as presented in the October 15, 1998 report refer to preserving "rented residential units". The intention was to cover occupied and vacant rental units, thereby protecting both the tenants and rental housing stock. To clarify the meaning of the term "rented residential units", it is suggested that the following definition be inserted into the glossary of the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan.

"rented residential units" means premises used for rented residential purposes, and includes premises that have been used for rented residential purposes and are vacant.

5.0Conclusion:

This report has discussed the modifications proposed by the UEDC and Community Councils.

The following proposed modifications are not recommended for adoption because of the legal implications:

-prohibiting redevelopment applications that do not include replacement rental housing;

-prohibiting equity co-operatives;

-adjusting demolition application fees to include the cost of providing notification; and

-not issuing building permits and not processing planning applications for properties with outstanding City work orders against them.

For reasons detailed in the report, the following proposed modifications are also not recommended for adoption:

-deleting the words "where appropriate" in Policy 135.4;

-increasing the notification period for public meetings on condominium conversion and demolition applications;

-deleting reference to Council considering, where appropriate, the acquisition or leasing rental properties at risk;

-excluding equity co-operatives from conversion policies; and

-providing additional exemptions to the conversion and demolition policies.

However, the proposals to delete the words "where appropriate", and "whenever possible" in Policies 135.1 and 135.4, respectively, and to add the word "only" in Policy 135.3 are acceptable and recommended for adoption.

As well, the UEDC and Community Council motions raised the issue of having to provide for the demolition of structurally unsound rented units and consequently Policy 135.4 has been revised. Changes have also been recommended to apply the policies to vacant rental units.

Contact Name:

Ms. Barbara Leonhardt, Director, Policy and Research, 392-8148.

--------

Appendix A

Application, Notice and Meeting Requirements for

Condominium Conversion and Demolition Applications

A.1Condominium Conversion Applications:

As part of an application for approval of draft plan of condominium which involves the conversion of existing rental accommodation in buildings with six or more rented residential units:

(a)the applicant shall be requested to satisfy the necessary submission requirements, including a list containing the names and addresses of tenants in the rental property;

(b)the applicant shall be requested to post a notice of the application in a manner prescribed by the City in a central area of the property;

(c)the applicant may be required to submit a report from a qualified consultant, agreeable to the City, evaluating the structural soundness and general condition and maintenance of the structures and associated facilities;

(d)the City shall hold a meeting to hear deputations on a condominium application which involves conversion of existing rental accommodation in buildings with six or more rental units;

(e)the City shall, at least fourteen (14) days before the meeting, issue notice of the meeting to (i) the tenants of the subject building of the public meeting by prepaid first class mail; and (ii) the general public by placing an advertisement in the local community newspaper; and

(f)the applicant will be requested to pay for the cost of providing notice of the meeting referred to in (e).

A.2Demolition Applications in Areas subject to special legislation (City of Toronto Act, 1984, as amended from time to time).

As part of an application to demolish buildings containing six or more residential units in an area subject to special legislation:

(a)the applicant shall be requested to satisfy the necessary submission requirements, including a list containing the names and addresses of any tenants in the residential property;

(b)the applicant shall be requested to post a notice of the application in a manner prescribed by the City in a central area of the property;

(d)the City shall hold a meeting to hear deputations on a demolition application which involves the demolition of existing accommodation in buildings with six or more residential units;

(e)The City shall, at least fourteen (14) days before the meeting, issue notice of the meeting to (i) the tenants of the subject building of the public meeting by prepaid first class mail and (ii) the general public by placing an advertisement in the local community newspaper; and

(f)the applicant will be requested to pay for the cost of providing notice of the meeting referred to in (e).

--------

Appendix B

Interpretative Guidelines

Prescribed Rent Level Re: Condominium Conversions

Until changed by Council, the prescribed rent level above which conversions may be permitted is 1.5times the average rental rate for each unit type across the City as reported by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

For example, 1997 rent levels for apartments are as follows:

1997 Apartment Rents by Unit Size

City of Toronto

Unit Type	1997 Average Rents	1.5x 1997 Average Rent	Estimated Number of Units Across City *
Bachelors	$555	$833	526
1-bedroom	$683	$1,025	2050
2-bedroom	$821	$1,232	4916
3-bedroom	$1,002	$1,503	1550
Total Units			9042

Notes:-Rent levels pertain to CMHC's 1997 Rental Market universe of 248,905 units.

-CMHC's rental universe only pertains to privately rented apartment units containing 3 or more non-ground related wellings.

-CMHC's rental market universe is 52 percent of the total occupied rental units or 474,605 units (1996 Census) in the City.

*Estimated Impact Across City is approximately twice the 1997 CMHC universe.

Source: CMHC's 1997 Rental Market Survey

Note:Average 1997 rents for townhouses are $864.00 for two bedrooms, $1,018.00 for three bedrooms and $1,125.00 for four bedrooms.

--------

Appendix C: Draft By-Law

City of Toronto

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To designate the area formerly known as the City of Scarborough as an area of demolition control under section 33 of the Planning Act and to authorize the Chief Building Official to issue certain residential demolition permits.

WHEREAS under section 33 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, when a by-law respecting standards for maintenance and occupancy of property is in force in the municipality, Council may by by-law designate any area within the municipality to which the standards and maintenance occupancy by-law applies as an area of demolition control;

AND WHEREAS under subsection 2(7) of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 1), the maintenance and property standards by-laws of the former Cities of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, Toronto and York and the former Borough of East York continue to apply to the part of the urban area to which they applied before the coming into force of section 28 of that Act;

AND WHEREAS By-law No.20483, being "a by-law prescribing standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property.", as amended, of the former City of Scarborough, applies to the area of the City of Toronto comprising the whole of the former City of Scarborough;

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

1.The area of the City formerly known as the City of Scarborough, as delineated by a heavy line on the map in Schedule A at the end of this by-law, is designated as an area of demolition control.

2.(1) The Chief Building Official is authorized to issue, without conditions unless subsection (2) applies, on behalf of Council, demolition permits for parts of residential properties in the area described in section 1, where the application to demolish falls within the following categories:

(a)demolition incidental to interior or exterior alterations, or both, or additions to a residential property for the same use;

(b)demolition incidental to alterations or additions, or both, to existing commercial portions of a residential property; or

(c)demolition of a residential property with less than six (6) dwelling units.

(2) If the application is for the demolition of a residential property with less than six (6) dwelling units where a building permit has been issued to erect a new building on the site of the residential property sought to be demolished, the permit shall be issued subject to the following conditions:

(a)that the applicant for the permit construct and substantially complete the new building to be erected on the site of the residential property to be demolished not later than two (2) years from the day demolition of the existing residential property is commenced; and

(b)that on failure to complete the new building within the two year period specified in clause(2)(a), the City Clerk shall be entitled to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.) for each dwelling unit contained in the residential property in respect of which the demolition permit is issued and that such sum shall, until payment, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the permit to demolish the residential property is issued.

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of August, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

Appendix D:

Communication (June 10, 1998) to the Urban Environment and Development Committee from H.W.O. Doyle, City Solicitor on the feasibility of special legislation to provide that the former City of Toronto's 1984 special legislation respecting demolition control applies to the whole of the urban area of the new City.

Purpose:

To advise the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of amending the former City of Toronto's special demolition control legislation in the City of Toronto Act, 1984, so that the Act will apply to the whole of the urban area of the new City.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The costs of filing an application for special legislation includes a filing fee of $150.00, the cost of publishing a notice of application once a week for four weeks in the Ontario Gazette and newspaper, the cost of printing the Private Bill and the cost of printing the Act in the annual statutes. Based on 1996 costs for a similar sized Private Bill, costs are estimated at $6,000.00 with newspaper advertising costs being the largest component.

Recommendations:

If your Committee recommends an application for special legislation, it is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to apply for special legislation substantially in the form of the draft Private Bill attached to this report.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting held on May 19th, 1998, had before it the May 1, 1998 report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development entitled: "City Powers, Policies and Procedures re: the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing before and after the proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act". As set out in Clause 4 of Report 7 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, the Committee recommended, among other matters, that Council adopt the following recommendation:

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

Discussion:

There are six pieces of special legislation that apply in the former City of Toronto that have provisions dealing with residential demolition matters that the Commissioner will be considering in her overall review of demolition matters. The Commissioner has confirmed, as set out in section 2a) of her May1, 1998 report, that the special legislation being referred to in Recommendation (4) is the Cityof Toronto Act, 1984, S.O. 1984, c. Pr6 (the "1984 Act"). A copy of the 1984 Act is on file with the City Clerk.

In the case of the demolition of a building containing six or more dwelling units and subject to certain exemptions, the 1984 Act permits Council to refuse to issue a demolition permit for up to one year, even though a building permit has been issued to erect a new building on the site. Under the 1984 Act Council also has the ability to acquire and maintain the property for residential use.

As noted in section 2 "Demolition Control" of the Commissioner's May 1, 1998 report, after the proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act Council will no longer have authority under the Rental Housing Protection Act to require an owner to apply to Council for approval to demolish a rental building. When dealing with demolition applications Council will have to rely on its powers under section 33 of the Planning Act (respecting demolition permits) and, in the case of the geographic area of the former City of Toronto, the 1984 Act and other special legislation.

An application can be made for special legislation to extend the application of the 1984 Act to the whole of the urban area of the new City. The final format of any new legislation is subject to the approval of the Provincial Legislative Counsel.

There are two matters that Council should be aware of in considering the merits of proceeding with an application for special legislation. The first consideration is time. Assuming a June, 1998 proclamation date, it is not possible to receive special legislation before the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, is proclaimed in force. In order to have its maximum effect in regulating the loss of rental housing due to demolition, the special legislation would have to be received before the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997. It is also expected that the House will rise for its summer recess on June 25, 1998, and return on September 28, 1998.

Under the rules of the Provincial Legislature on applications for Private Bills (which includes applications by municipalities for special legislation), a Private Bill will not receive first reading until after a declaration proving publication of the notices (once a week for four weeks in the Ontario Gazette and newspaper) has been received by the Clerk of the House. The rules also provide that applications for Private Bills that are received after the first day of September in any calendar may be postponed until the first regular Session in the next following calendar year. Under these circumstances it is unlikely that a successful application would be approved before the winter.

The second matter for consideration, particularly in the case of a majority government, is whether or not the Minister of Municipal Affairs would support the application. After a Private Bill receives first reading it is referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills for hearings. The Committee has authority to amend the Private Bill and may also determine that the Private Bill should not be reported to the House, i.e., the Private Bill dies at the Committee. There is also the possibility that after the 1984 Act is specifically drawn to the Minister's attention, that the Minister may take action to have the 1984 Act repealed.

In order to expedite the overall processing of an application for special legislation and as encouraged by the Standing Committee's guidelines, the usual practice is to consult ahead of time with Legislative Counsel on the form of the Private Bill, and with Ministry of Municipal Affairs' staff on both the form and content of the Private Bill, before giving notice and filing the application for the Private Bill with the Clerk of the House. This process also permits the City Solicitor and applicable Commissioner to seek instructions from Council on any substantive changes to the draft Private Bill being recommended by the Province.

Attached to this report as Schedule A is a draft Private Bill.

Conclusion:

If your Committee wishes to recommend an application for special legislation to extend the application of the 1984 Act to the whole of the urban area of the new City, your Committee could recommend the adoption of recommendation (1) of this report.

Contact Name:

Ms. Christina M. Cameron, Legal Services Division, 392-7235.

--------

Schedule A

Bill Pr1998

An Act Respecting the City of Toronto

PreambleThe City of Toronto has applied for special legislation with respect to applying the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 1984, respecting demolition control, to the whole urban area of the City and not just to the area of the former City of Toronto.

It is appropriate to grant this application.

Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

Definitions1. In this Act,

1997,c.2"city" means the City of Toronto incorporated by the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 1);

"urban area" has the same meaning as in the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 1).

Application2. Despite clause 2(5)(a) of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No.1), the provisions of the 1984, c. Pr6City of Toronto Act, 1984, apply to the whole of the urban area of the city.

Commencement3. This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.

Short title4. The short title of this Act is the City of Toronto Act, 1998.

--------

Appendix E

Definition of Co-operatives Contained in the RHPA, R.S.O. 1990

"Co-operative" means a rental property that is,

(a)ultimately owned or leased or otherwise held, directly or indirectly, by more than one person where any such person, or a person claiming under such person, has the right to present or future exclusive possession of a unit in the rental property and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a rental property that is owned or leased or otherwise held in trust or that is owned or leased or otherwise held by a partnership or limited partnership as partnership property, where any trustee, beneficiary, partner, general partner, or limited partner, or other person claiming under such trustee, beneficiary, partner, general partner or limited partner, has the right to present or future exclusive possession of a unit in the rental property, or

(b)ultimately owned or leased or otherwise held, directly or indirectly, by a corporation having more than one shareholder or member, where any such shareholder or member, or a person claiming under such shareholder or member, by reason of the ownership of shares in or being a member of the corporation, has the right to present or future exclusive possession of a unit in the rental property,

but does not include a non-profit co-operative housing corporation as defined in the Co-operative Corporations Act;

--------

Appendix F

Letter dated November 11, 1998 addressed to His Worship Mel Lastman

From:Goldlist Properties Inc., Suite 300, 65 Overlea Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario, M4H 1P1

Re: Proposed Official Plan Policies, Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing

Dear Mayor Lastman and Members of Council:

I am writing to advise you of a presentation made on behalf of Goldlist Properties by Ms Jane Pepino, Q.C., to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 2, 1998. Ms. Pepino was responding to a set of recommendations put forward by staff in the Urban Planning and Development Services Department relating to the conversion and demolition of rental housing in Toronto.

We clearly recognize that the issue of affordable rental housing is a serious concern to many people in the City of Toronto. Goldlist Properties has a solid record of working cooperatively with all stakeholders to address important issues, and we are committed to continuing that work in the future.

As you may know, Goldlist Properties has applied to amend the Official Plan for the former City of York planning area and Zoning By-law 1-83 to permit the construction of two new 25 storey condominium buildings of 125 units each and 36 townhouses for a total of 286 units. The development would entail the demolition of two existing high rise rental buildings containing a total of 148 rental units and 98 Hotel Suites. We took the opportunity to address members of the Urban Environment and Development Committee in order to participate in the development of a sound policy that will address the interests and needs of all concerned.

The Urban Planning and Development Services Department has recommended that Council adopt new policies to regulate the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing in response to the recent repeal of previous restrictions on conversion and demolition by the Province's new Tenant Protection Act. However, it is our view that the recommendations are counterproductive, and although delaying the demolition or conversion in the short to medium term, will not lead to enhancements in the quality or supply of Toronto's rental housing stock.

We strongly encourage Council to reject the recommendations to regulate the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental units because they do not provide any incentives to add new rental units to the existing housing stock in Toronto. Instead, they put disincentives in the way of renewed and increased housing supply, and they do not address serious issues facing the housing industry. While we understand the attempt to avoid further reductions in the number of rental units available in Toronto, we feel there are better policy options available to Council that will encourage the construction of rental units to replace those that have outlived their useful life.

It is a well-know fact that investors are not attracted to rental housing because the high costs of construction (e.g. permits, development charges, PST and GST taxes, recently increased CMHC mortgage insurance fees) cannot be recovered through the collection of average rents acceptable to tenants. Recognizing that rental regulations have seriously constricted investment in the sector over the last twenty years, the Province responded with the Tenant Protection Act. The provincial legislation provided a set of tools that were badly needed, and although they do not provide the entire answer, they should not be overridden or reversed by municipal action.

Just five months after the new legislation was proclaimed, we are already seeing recommendations to Council that will, if adopted, add new barriers at the municipal level in the form of policies that may temporarily preserve but do not renew the aging rental housing stock. We believe the recommendations under consideration have the wrong orientation and the wrong objective because they ignore the need for coordinated, constructive and forward-looking solutions to address this issue. More importantly, they will send a negative message to the housing industry at the time when it is poised to begin working constructively within a new regulatory environment, taking advantage of a positive business cycle.

In order to stimulate the development of more rental housing in Toronto, additional tools are needed. During her presentation to Committee members, Ms. Pepino advocated for a number of initiatives that will help to encourage investment in this sector.

Specifically, we recommend that the City of Toronto:

(1)Establish an administrative structure to actively encourage partnerships to combine affordable (often municipally owned) real estate with investment capital to produce private sector market units.

(2)Pass resolutions and implement an action plan to press the provincial and federal governments to acknowledge the rental housing problem and contribute to a solution by allowing PST and GST exemptions on building materials and other development expenses (especially services) that are dedicated to production of rental units.

(3)Establish a task force to initiate dialogue with industry representatives about municipal assurances and incentives that will encourage them to build new units.

(4)Provide exemptions in any relevant municipal policy respecting buildings that require structural repairs and improvements that are not economically feasible.

(5)Take action that will capitalize on low interest rates and the development of a new regulatory climate that has returned Ontario's rental housing industry to the brink of viability.

There is an urgent need for coordinated action among all levels of government to address issues facing our industry.

We are very much encouraged by Council's recent decision to allow substantially lower property tax rates for new apartment buildings. This decision represents a progressive step toward a solution to low vacancy rates and decaying rental properties. We encourage you to reject new policies that do not provide tools and incentives, and to support better options that will encourage new construction and provide an obvious boost to the local economy.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments and please accept this as our formal request to be notified of any notices of decisions or future meetings or reports concerning this initiative.

Sincerely,

Richard Kuchynski

Director of Planning and Development

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 2, 1998, considered the attached report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, entitled "Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws Regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing", and took the following action:

(A)endorsed Recommendations Nos. (1), (9), (10) and (11) embodied in the aforementioned report, viz:

"It is recommended 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);

(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 in the Toronto Star.";

(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";

so that Recommendation No. (2)(a) shall now read as follows:

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

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

Section 3.2.3Conversion and Demolition of Rental Housing:

It is the policy of Council:

135.1to preserve, maintain and 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 prohibiting the conversion of rental units to equity co-operative;

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

135.5(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 Nos. (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.).

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend Official Plan Policies, Council guidelines and by-laws that will enable the City to actively preserve the existing rental housing stock by restricting the conversion and demolition of rental housing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Adoption of the recommended policies will mean that the appropriate Community Council will hear deputations on applications for condominium approval involving the conversion of rental housing, and applications to demolish residential units where the City's special legislation applies. As directed by Council, staff will request applicants to pay for notice of the Community Council meeting, but in the event the costs are not recovered, they will be borne by the Clerk's Department.

The one-time cost of printing and advertising the notice regarding the extension of the special legislation on demolition control to all of the new City is estimated to be approximately $6,000.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Urban Environment and Development Committee schedule a statutory public meeting for November 30, 1998 to consider proposed official plan amendments in respect to the conversion of rental housing to condominium and 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 sections 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.

135.3despite 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(i)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

(ii)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, Section 1.4.4 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:

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

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;

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

section 6.18 in the Toronto Official Plan; and

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:

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

section 2.2.15 in the Etobicoke Official Plan;

section 9.8 in the York Official Plan;

section 6.19 in the City of Toronto Official Plan; and

sections 4.10 and 4.10.1 in the East York Official Plan;

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

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

section 2.2.16 in the Etobicoke Official Plan; and

(f)making any related technical amendments to the Official plans listed in (b), (c), (d) and (e) to reflect the amendment and deletion of the sections.

(3)upon adoption of the Official Plan policies outlined in (2), 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 UEDC on June 3, 4 and 5, 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 (2)(a)) the factor of 1.5 times the City's average rent (by bedroom size) as detailed in Appendix B 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 Committee on harmonizing the by-laws;

(7)as an interim measure, Council enact a by-law in the form of the attached draft Bill (AppendixC) 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 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 in 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.

Executive Summary:

Toronto has one of the lowest private rental apartment vacancy rates in the country. Rental demand, particularly from low and moderate income households, is very strong and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. On the supply side, there has been negligible production of rental housing in recent years, and with the repeal of the RHPA the existing private rental stock is in serious jeopardy.

The need for housing and the growing demands being placed on the existing stock are evidenced by the work of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force and the Council Strategy Committee for People without Homes. In its interim report, the Mayor's Task Force identified several disturbing facts including:

(a) more than 80,000 people in Toronto today are at risk of becoming homeless, as many spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent or are living in precarious housing situations;

(b) the percentage of tenants with affordability problems is increasing;

(c)the number of low-cost conventional apartment units in Toronto has decreased since 1990; and

(d)there is a shortfall of between 2,000 and 4,000 low cost housing units a year which are required to meet the new demand.

Complicating this situation, is the recent enactment of the Tenant Protection Act (TPA), and the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act (RHPA). Without the RHPA, municipalities must now make use of other less effective tools at their disposal to minimize the loss of rental housing. Unfortunately, given this legislative change, with the exception of conversion to condominium, there is little that local governments can do to limit the conversion of rental units to other uses, or to restrict the severance, or renovation of rental properties. Demolition control powers have also been substantially curtailed by the repeal of the RHPA.

The approach taken in this report is two-pronged. It first examines the tools available to the City to address condominium conversions, and second, the mechanisms that may be used to limit demolitions. With respect to condominium conversions, the City can rely on the Planning Act, and official plan policies to control conversions. OMB cases have upheld municipal conversion policies in the past, even prior to the enactment of the RHPA in 1986. All but one of the former area municipalities have condominium conversion policies in their respective official plans. This report proposes a harmonized set of conversion policies for inclusion in the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan. The intent of these policies will later be incorporated into the City's new Official Plan.

Unlike condominium conversions, the tools available to restrict demolitions are less than adequate. Under Section 33 of the Planning Act, municipalities can delay the demolition of residential buildings in areas of demolition control, but only until a building permit for a new structure has been obtained. This report recommends that a demolition control by-law be enacted in the former City of Scarborough, as an interim measure, so that Section 33 is applied to all former municipalities in the new City. As well, the report directs staff to harmonize all demolition control by-laws throughout the City.

The former City of Toronto also has special legislation which has allowed it, under certain circumstances, to go beyond Section 33, and refuse the issuance of a demolition permit for up to one year after the building permit has been issued. The main benefit of this legislation is that it provides the municipality with additional time to develop approaches to redressing the potential loss of rental units. Therefore, it is recommended that Council seek the Province's approval to extend this legislation and its benefits to all parts of the new City.

While the use of Section 33 and the former City of Toronto's legislation help the City to buy time when a residential building is proposed to be demolished, these tools alone will not be enough to effectively deter the loss of dwelling units. There is a concern that since the City is in a position to exercise condominium conversion powers but not effectively control demolition, the current policy framework may provide an incentive, in some instances, to consider demolition and redevelopment of the property. This could lead to an unhealthy dynamic across the City where increased demolition activity may well take place.

In this regulatory environment, it is important that Council address this possible trend and provide a policy framework through its Official Plan and other mechanisms, to encourage new rental housing generally and replacement rental housing in particular in those instances where redevelopment is proposed to demolish affordable rental housing. This report recommends a policy be included in the Official Plan to deal with situations where residential units are demolished (within the constraints of Section 33 and other special legislation) and the property is proposed to be redeveloped. The intent of the policy is to ensure that the City makes use of available legislation and other appropriate incentives, to maximize the number of rental units that will be replaced, whether on site, off site, or through an appropriate contribution to enable its replacement by the City or another housing provider on the City's behalf.

This policy would be one of the tools that Council will need to utilize in an effort to bring new affordable housing stock onto the market. Other approaches are being considered as part of the Affordable Housing Strategy which is now being developed by City staff, as follow-up to the work of Housing Stakeholders' Panel, for the Council Strategy Committee for People without Homes.

(1)Background:

On June 17, 1998 the Province proclaimed the TPA. This legislation repealed a number of other provincial statutes including the RHPA, the Rent Control Act and parts of the Landlord and Tenant Act. As all larger municipalities in Ontario were required to implement the provisions of the RHPA, its elimination directly affects the City's ability to control changes to rental housing.

The RHPA required larger municipalities to receive and consider applications involving the:

(a) conversion of rental housing to condominium, equity co-operative, commercial or other uses;

(b) demolition of rental housing;

(d) the severance of rental properties.

The TPA does not require municipalities to consider proposed changes to rental properties. However, municipalities can apply official plan policies and procedures to restrict the loss of some rental units.

The City currently has tools which may be used to regulate conversions to condominium and postpone demolitions. However, there appears to be no clear authority (outside of zoning or property standards by-laws), for the City to restrict renovations/repairs, severances or the conversion of rental properties to other uses such as commercial.

Interim policies dealing with condominium conversions and demolitions were adopted by Council at its meeting of June 3, 4 and 5, 1998 (Clause No. 4 in Report No. 7 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee entitled "City Powers, Policies and Procedures regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing before and after the Proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act" is attached as Appendix F). At this meeting, Council specifically:

(a)requested that Community Councils hear deputations on conversion applications and established notice requirements for such Community Council meetings;

(b) amended the delegation by-law to provide Council with the decision-making authority on conversions;

(c) requested the City solicitor to report on extending the former City of Toronto's special legislation on demolitions to the entire new City;

(d) specified additional information requirements for conversion applicants;

(e) requested that the new Official Plan conversion policy consider forbidding a conversion unless an established vacancy rate has been achieved; and

(f) directed planning staff to report back by early fall of 1998 on appropriate policies and procedures for condominium conversions and the demolition of rental housing.

(2) Current Rental Housing Needs:

Rental housing is a significant feature of the City's housing market, constituting half of all housing units. There are approximately 475,000 tenant households in the City (1996 Census, Statistics Canada). This number constitutes three quarters of all tenants in the GTA.

The demand for rental housing is not being met by the increases in supply in the traditional high-rise or social housing stock. The inability of the development industry and non-profit producers to supply this rising demand for rental units is resulting in an increase in the number of privately rented houses, and the creation of second suites in private houses.

The stress on the existing rental stock and the pressure on privately owned units has been partly caused by the halt in rental apartment construction. There is no new supply of rental apartments being created. The social housing programs which addressed much of the need for low rent housing for the past 25 years have been suspended. The building of new rental housing is not an attractive investment for the private sector at current costs and potential returns. This is evidenced in that, in 1997, there were only 179 rental housing starts in the City, as compared to 1,419 units in 1995.

In contrast to rental housing construction, the market for condominium apartments has improved and condominium construction is on the rise. The increase in overall apartment unit supply, (rental apartments plus condominium units), has not benefitted those in search of rental apartments, since very few of these new units find their way into the rental market. While many condominium apartments had previously been rented because there were no buyers in the market, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) has identified a decrease in the supply of rental condominium apartments since 1996 and attributes this to an increased tendency to owner-occupancy. Confidence in an improved economy has resulted in the absorption of unsold units and the stimulation of the condominium resale market, further reducing the numbers of rental condominium units available.

While supply is being squeezed, demand for rental housing is escalating. The level of demand, or need, is illustrated by the following key indicators. At 0.8 percent, (October 1997), Toronto has one of the lowest private rental apartment vacancy rates in the country; the incidence of crowding (households not meeting National Occupancy Standards) increased by an estimated 7 percent between 1991 and 1996, (Homelessness Action Task Force); and there are increasing numbers of households spending a disproportionate share of income on housing (see graph below). The number of families living below Statistics Canada's Low Income Cut-off has increased by 5 percent since 1991; these 150,000 families represent 24 percent of all economic families in the City.

Tenants at the lowest incomes are least able to cope in such a constrained rental market. Not only is there a generalized shortage of rental units, there is a severe shortfall in affordable rental units. The interplay between competition for few units and reduced income levels at the lower end has resulted in a steep increase in households with incomes below CMHC's "Core Need" threshold (see graph below).

Indications are that tenants are devoting increasing shares of income to shelter costs, moving into non-traditional rentals such as accessory units, and living in larger households to meet rent costs.

Rental demand is currently very strong and will remain so, given the lack of new construction and the shift of condominium units from rental to owner occupancy. The need for rental housing is strongest from those households with low and moderate incomes. Any further reduction of affordable rental housing supply at low and moderate rent levels will exacerbate an already severe housing shortage in these categories.

The proposed policy objective to preserve the supply of rental housing is not new, but is a continuation of previous municipal and Provincial commitments. Most of the former municipalities in the City have had condominium conversion policies since the early 1970's. Preserving rental housing is also consistent with the Provincial Housing Policy Statement which encourages housing forms and densities designed to be affordable to moderate and lower income households. As well, when considering condominium applications under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, the legislation states that regard shall be had to various matters including: the health, convenience and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality; the effect of the proposal on matters of provincial interest such as the adequate provision of a full range of housing; and whether it is premature or in the public interest.

(3)Current Municipal Tools and Possible Changes:

(3.1)(a)Condominium Conversion Official Plan Policies:

The previous planning report to UEDC (Clause No. 4, Report No. 7, 1998) emphasized the City's ability in the interim to use the existing condominium conversion and demolition control policies of the former municipalities, and highlighted the relevant enabling sections of the Planning Act. This section describes the specific components of the proposed conversion and demolition policies for the new City.

(3.1)(b)Criteria to be Applied to Conversion Applications:

(3.1)(b)(i)Vacancy Rate:

The vacancy rate is the standard measure of supply of the rental market. It serves as a strong indicator of whether a conversion application would adversely affect the supply of rental housing in the City. It also provides clarity in determining the requirements of the Planning Act with respect to "public interest" and directly addresses the consideration of the welfare of present and future inhabitants.

While there has been some discussion as to what is an appropriate rate, CMHC and the Province have both recently stated that a 3.0 percent vacancy rate is indicative of a healthy and balanced rental housing market. A vacancy rate of 3.0 percent has not been attained in the Toronto CMA since 1972 (3.3 percent), and it currently sits at 0.8 percent.

Only one former area municipality used a 3.0 percent vacancy rate (East York). The former City of Toronto and North York specified a rate of 2.5 percent, while Etobicoke used 2.0percent. Although York's policy refers to consideration being given to the current vacancy rates, no explicit rate has been stipulated. Scarborough does not currently have a condominium conversion policy in place. There are no compelling reasons to continue with different rates based on former political boundaries. The average rate of 2.5 percent used by the former municipalities with an explicit policy on conversion would represent a reasonable benchmark for restricting conversions.

In addition to private rental apartment buildings, the policy should apply to private rental townhouse developments. Townhouses make up a very important part of the rental housing market as these larger, ground-related units are often the most suitable and desirable form of accommodation for families with children.

(3.1)(b)(ii)Number of Rental Units in the Property:

When dealing with conversion applications, the RHPA exempted rental properties with four or fewer units from the mandatory approval criteria. Between 1986 and 1996 only 21 units in smaller buildings in the City were converted in accordance with this partial exemption. Applications involving a few units (conversion and otherwise) were generally labour intensive to administer, yet yielded marginal gains. It is recommended that the proposed policy continue to provide an exemption for properties containing a small number of rental units.

Several policies and by-laws of the former municipalities (e.g., the former City of Toronto's special legislation on demolition control) have been applied to buildings containing six or more units. These exempt smaller buildings such as duplexes, triplexes, and double duplexes, however cover most apartment buildings. It is suggested that the proposed policy apply to any building, or related group of buildings, such as townhouse developments, with six or more rental units. A related group of buildings would refer to buildings that are under the same ownership and on the same parcel of land as defined in the Planning Act.

(3.1)(b)(iii) High-End Units:

In some of the former municipalities planning staff have dealt with inquiries around the conversion of high-end and luxury rental units. Proponents have often argued that the tenants of these units are not in the traditional "rental" market, but have selected the unit based on location, short-term tenancy, or the additional services offered. This report recommends that Council's primary concern in implementing its condominium conversion policy should be the protection of the majority of the rental stock. The conversion of the high-end units could displace higher-income tenants which in turn may compete with moderate and lower-income tenants for the remaining available units. However, the impact of the high-end conversions on the lower-income tenants and lower-priced stock, could be minimized by restricting the rent level of units that may be converted to the limited stock at the very high-end of the range.

It is suggested that a guideline based on rent levels be adopted by Council to consider a limited conversion of units at the very high-end of the market. This guideline could be re-evaluated by staff and Council on a periodic basis. An initial guideline (of 1.5 times the City's average rent by bedroom size) is being recommended as the indicator of high rent housing, above which conversion could be considered. The effect of this guideline will be monitored and adjusted as needed.

Using 1997 rents (the latest data available) this equates to monthly rents of $833.00, $1,025.00, $1,232.00 and $1,503.00, for bachelor, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three bedroom units, respectively. Using this criteria there are approximately 9,000 apartment units that would be considered high rent units and candidates for conversion, representing 1.9percent of the current rental stock (see Appendix B), however, it should be recognized that not all of these units would be eligible for conversion as the policy requires that "each unit in the building" has a rent that exceeds the average by 1.5 times.

(3.1)(c) Information, Notification and Meeting Requirements:

The Tenant Protection, Planning and Condominium Acts do not require that tenants be notified of a condominium application or that a public meeting be held to consider the application. As condominium conversions are clearly a matter of public interest, given their effect on both the local housing market as well as the sitting tenants, it is appropriate to provide an opportunity for public input on plans of condominium that involve the conversion of rental housing. The names and addresses of the affected tenants who may wish to attend a meeting on a proposed conversion, will be provided in the application materials submitted by the proponent.

In addition, the applicant should be required to provide further detail on the condition of the building and the needed improvements. This information would identify deficiencies in property standards and building codes that would assist Council and prospective buyers in making informed decisions. This requirement for a technical report on a building's condition is consistent with the approach taken by the former area municipalities of East York and Etobicoke.

The application, notice and meeting requirements for condominium conversion and demolition applications recommended for Council's adoption are detailed in Appendix A.

The requirements include the applicant being requested to pay for the cost of providing notice of the Community Council meeting to hear deputations on conversion proposals. The Solicitor has advised that "as there is no legal requirement to notify tenants, ... the statute would not justify the imposition of a fee for the notice." Therefore, Council may request the applicant to pay for notifying the tenants, but the applicant is not legally required to do so. If the applicant does not pay for the notice, payment would be at the City's expense.

(3.2)Demolition of Rental Housing:

While the City can rely on Official Plan policies to limit conversion of the private rental stock to condominium, its powers to prevent losses through demolition are very limited. In fact, Council's demolition powers are confined to delaying the issuance of a demolition permit. This imbalance in Council's ability to regulate could have important consequences for the rental housing stock, including a possible trend toward increased demolition activity. It is possible that the more restrictive conversion policies could have the unintended consequence of encouraging landowners to look to demolition.

Since Council ultimately is not able to prevent demolition, in developing a policy context to address this dynamic, Council will need to ensure that encouragement is given to the replacement of rental units through new development. Broadly speaking, encouragement must be given for the production of private rental housing in general. To help achieve its objective of maintaining and augmenting the supply of rental housing, Council will need to consider the use of a variety of incentives such as tax relief for new rental housing (this matter is currently under consideration by the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force), development charge and fee relief, the strategic use of municipally-owned land, etc., to assist in the development of new rental housing. These kinds of incentives will be discussed further in the context of a staff report to the Council Strategy Committee for People without Homes, however, in the context of the Official Plan and particularly with respect to redevelopment applications involving the proposed demolition of rental housing, it is important that Council signal its intention to seek the replacement of rental housing when approving development applications.

A fuller discussion of Council's current demolition authority and a proposed policy to address this matter are discussed further below.

(3.2)(a)Section 33 of the Planning Act:

With the repeal of the RHPA, a municipality is limited in what it can do to prevent the demolition of rental housing, especially where an applicant obtains a building permit for new development on a property. Council will have to rely on powers under Section 33 of the Planning Act (respecting demolition permits), and in the case of the former City of Toronto, other special legislation when dealing with demolition applications.

When all or part of a municipality is designated as an area of demolition control under Section33, no person can demolish a residential building, unless Council issues a demolition permit. Council, however, is required to issue a demolition permit where a building permit has already been issued for the property. At present, all of the former municipalities, with the exception of Scarborough, have made use of section 33 of the Planning Act to designate demolition control areas. In the past, the use of this tool has helped to ensure that consideration is given to the proper and timely redevelopment of the site following demolition.

It is recommended that Section 33 be available throughout the new City, and that Council enact a by-law (draft attached as Appendix C) which designates the former City of Scarborough as an area of demolition control, requires Council to authorize demolition permits for residential development containing six or more units, and authorizes the Chief Building Official to issue demolition permits for residential development containing five (5) or fewer units. The harmonization of the different demolition by-laws (powers delegated to the Chief Building Official) will be considered at a later date by UEDC, following the submission of a staff report.

(3.2)(b)Special Legislation:

In addition to Section 33, the former City of Toronto has special legislation which was approved by the Province in 1984, and applies to buildings containing six or more units. These powers extend beyond the Section 33 provision by permitting the former City to refuse to issue a demolition permit for up to one year, even where a building permit has been issued. The ultimate effect is that it provides Council more time to consider other ways of preserving the property, or relocating the tenants. Under this special legislation, Council also has the ability to acquire and maintain the property for residential use.

In response to Council's request, the City Solicitor reviewed and reported on the potential extension of the former City of Toronto's special demolition control legislation. The Solicitor's report (dated June 10, 1998) to the UEDC recommended that if the Committee approved such an extension, authority be granted to apply for special legislation substantially in the form of the draft Private Bill attached (see Appendix D). The draft Private Bill extends the application of the 1984 Act to the whole of the urban area of the new City. The UEDC received the report at its July 13 meeting.

The notice requirements described for condominium approvals involving conversions could also apply to demolitions subject to the City's special legislation, where the number of residential units in the building is fewer than six.

It should also be mentioned that the 1984 demolition control legislation is but one type of special legislation governing demolitions and heritage concerns in the former City of Toronto. However, it is the most important and relevant piece with respect to addressing the loss of residential housing, and the potential acquisition of property in jeopardy of being demolished. The possible extension of other related legislation will be the subject of future discussions between City staff.

(3.2)(c)Demolition Official Plan Policies:

In addition to the use of the above tools, under Section 33 and the special legislation, it is recommended that policies relating to the replacement of rental housing be incorporated in the Official Plan. Where redevelopment involves the demolition of rental housing, Council should seek the replacement of affordable rental housing, making use of available general or special legislation, in conjunction with its other official plan policies (for example, dealing with density incentives) to encourage the replacement of the maximum number of rental units, of similar type, size, and affordability. The replacement of these units would ideally, but not necessarily take place on the redevelopment site. Council could, for example, consider contributions that would assist in off-setting the loss of rental units, such as cash, land or units in other developments. Although Council's primary objective in approving an application involving demolition of rental housing must be the replacement of affordable rental housing, this objective would need to be considered and balanced with other municipal objectives which arise from the specific site's context.

The proposed replacement policy should refer explicitly to the specific tool that Council can utilize to secure replacement or alternative arrangements, namely Section 37 of the Planning Act, in those instances where an increase in height and/or density is sought. This will give clear direction to Council, particularly where there are not currently parent Section 37 policies in the existing local plans of the former municipalities.

(4)Equity Co-operatives and Co-ownerships:

The term "co-operatives" was broadly defined in the RHPA to include: equity co-operatives, co-ownerships or co-tenancies, and limited partnership co-operatives. Non-profit co-operatives were not considered "co-operatives". While these arrangements vary, they generally involve individuals having a share in the corporation or a percentage interest in the property, and exclusive occupancy rights to a particular unit. There are about 5,000 co-operative units in the City. In 1989 the RHPA was amended to make it unlawful to convert rental housing to the various forms of co-operatives. However, the TPA is silent on the issue.

Like condominiums, co-operative units are often rented. However, unlike condominiums and non-profit co-operatives, the establishment or operation of co-operatives are not governed by any statute. In most cases they are simply registered with the Province under the Co-operative Corporations Act. Prices of equity co-operative units are usually considerably less than condominium units, but financing of these units has been extremely difficult to obtain. An informal survey undertaken by planning staff indicated that only a few financial institutions in the Toronto area are prepared to extend financing to equity co-operatives. This financing problem is often used by the shareholders as a reason to convert to condominium.

While co-operatives may provide relatively affordable housing for some, the vast majority of them in the Toronto area were created through conversions which reduced the supply of rental housing. Many such co-operatives were created as a means of by-passing other statutory requirements (i.e., the 1986 RHPA, municipal conversion policies) which focussed mainly on restricting the conversion of rental buildings to other tenure forms, such as condominium. In some cases, the conversion to equity co-operative was seen as the first in a two step process to converting to condominium.

As there is no municipal legislation available to effectively prohibit their creation, City Council may wish to ask the Province for special powers to deal with this tenure form in the future. As an initial course of action, the proposed official plan policy objective confirms Council's interest in restricting the conversion of co-operatives to condominium.

(5)Conclusion:

This report has demonstrated that there is a substantial need for rental housing in the City of Toronto, and that the existing rental stock is under considerable pressure. The rental vacancy rate is very low, at a time when virtually no new units are being constructed. In addition, many existing rental units may be in jeopardy, given the recent repeal of the RHPA.

Municipalities across the Province now have fewer tools with which to protect their rental stock. A two-pronged approach has been suggested to deal with the preservation, maintenance and where possible, the replacement of rental housing. First, the report proposes new condominium conversion policies to be incorporated into the Metro Plan and applied to the entire amalgamated City. Second, several approaches for addressing the demolition of rental housing are put forward, including: the enactment of a demolition control by-law for former Scarborough, the extension of the former City of Toronto's special legislation on demolition control to the new City, and the insertion of two policies on demolition and replacement into the Metro Official Plan. As municipal demolition control powers have been substantially curtailed by the change in Provincial legislation, it is suggested that the City's focus should be placed not only on restricting the demolition of rental housing, but also, where appropriate, on the replacement of rental units in redevelopment projects.

To facilitate the objective of replacement, Council will need to apply existing legislation, and in some cases, municipal incentives.

Contact:

Ms. Barbara Leonhardt, Director, Policy and Research, 392-8148.

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

Recommendation:

The East York Community Council advised the Urban Environment and Development Committee that the East York Community Council endorses the report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services embodied in the report (November3,1998) from the City Clerk, subject to amending Section 135.4 by deleting the words "and to consider acquiring or leasing the property where such units are at risk of being demolished" after the word "units" so that such Section shall now read as follows:

"135.4to seek the retention of rented residential units":

Background:

The East York Community Council, at its meeting on November 12, 1998, had before it the following communication (November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, regarding Official Plan Policies and related By-laws regarding the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing and requesting that their comments be made available for the consideration of the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998.

Mr. Joseph Colussi, President, Victoria & York, Toronto, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 13, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Etobicoke Community Council on November 12, 1998, received the following report:

(November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee from its meeting on November 2, 1998, in response to a report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, recommending Official Plan Policies, Council guidelines and by-laws that will enable the City to actively preserve the existing rental housing stock by restricting the conversion and demolition of rental housing.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 17, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The North York Community Council on November 16, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and Council, that:

(1)the motion moved by Councillor Moscoe at the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting held on November 2, 1998, be adopted subject to the deletion of the amendments to 135.1 and 135.5 and that the recommendations of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with respect to these two sections be adopted; and

(2)any buildings with two or more major work orders on them be included in the restrictions.

The North York Community Council also reports having referred the following motions to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for a report to the November 30th meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

A.Moved by Councillor Feldman:

That a further clause 135.6 be added as follows:

135.6Council may consider exempting specific sites or areas from the restrictions imposed by policies 135.2 135.3, 135.4 and 135.5, if the following conditions exist:

(i)the building is functionally obsolete;

(ii)it is no longer economically feasible to retrofit the building for the purposes of preserving the stock;

(iii)the existing building is a blight on the neighbourhood characteristic; and

(iv)the in-situ tenants want to buy the building.; and

B.Moved by Councillor Flint:

Background:

The North York Community Council had before it a report (November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 2, 1998, endorsed Recommendation No. (9) of the report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, regarding Official Plan policies and related by-laws regarding conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing, and requested that any comments from Community Councils be forwarded to the November 30, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

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

Recommendation:

The Scarborough Community Council, on November 12, 1998, referred this matter back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee without recommendation.

Background:

The Scarborough Community Council had before it a communication (November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that The Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting held on November 2, 1998, directed that 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.

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

Recommendation:

The York Community Council on November 12, 1998, having considered the motions moved by Councillor Moscoe at the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 2, 1998 regarding the report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that :

(1)Recommendation No. 2(a), Section 3.2.3 Conversion and Demolition of Rental Housing, with its amendments to paragraphs 135.1, 135.3, 135.4 and 135.5, be endorsed;

(2)paragraph 135.2 be amended by:

-deleting the words "including" and substituting the words "exclusive of" in lieu thereof; and

-deleting the words "containing six or more rented residential units" and by substituting the words "where 33 percent or more of the units are tenanted" in lieu thereof;

so that Recommendation No. (2)(a), paragraph 135.2 shall now read as follows:

"135.2to restrict the conversion to condominium of any building, or any related group of buildings, exclusive of equity co-operatives, where 33 percent or more of the units are tenanted, 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 2.5 percent for the preceding two-year reporting period;" and

(3)the addition of the following new Recommendations (12) and (13), be endorsed:

"(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

Background:

The York Community Council had before it the following communications:

(i)(November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 2, 1998 considered a report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and referring the motions of Councillor Moscoe 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; and

(ii)(November 12, 1998) from Mr. Richard Kuchynski, Director of Planning and Development, Goldlist Properties, Toronto, advising of their concerns regarding the issue of affordable rental housing; that Goldlist has a solid record of working cooperatively with all stakeholders to address important issues; that application has been made to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 1-83 of the former City of York, to permit the construction of two new 25-storey condominium buildings of 125 units each, and 36 townhouses for a total of 286 units; the development would entail the demolition of two existing high rise rental buildings containing a total of 148 rental units and 98 hotel suites; that the Urban Planning and Development Services Department has recommended that Council adopt new official plan polices to regulate the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing in response to the recent repeal of previous restrictions on conversion and demolition by the Province's new Tenant Protection Act; that the recommendations tabled by City staff are counterproductive and will not lead to enhancements in the quality or supply of Toronto's rental housing stock; urging the Community Council to reject staff's recommendations; and that in order to stimulate the development of more rental housing in Toronto, additional tools and initiatives are needed, and recommending that the City of Toronto:

(1)Establish an administrative structure to actively encourage partnerships to combine affordable (often municipally owned) real estate with investment capital to produce private sector market units.

(3)Establish a task force to initiate dialogue with industry representatives about municipal assurances and incentives that will encourage them to build new units.

(4)Provide exemptions in any relevant municipal policy respecting buildings that require structural repairs and improvements that are not economically feasible; and

(5)Take action that will capitalize on low interest rates and the development of a new regulatory climate that has returned Ontario's rental housing industry to the brink of viability.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 23, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council:

(1)recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to provide monthly reports to the Council Strategy Committee for People without Homes, and to all Members of Council on:

(a)units affected by condominium conversion applications, and the cumulative total of those units; and

(b)units affected by potential demolition applications, including units subject to rezoning applications and/or building permit applications, and the cumulative total of those units.

In addition to the foregoing recommendation, the Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Urban Environment and Development Committee having endorsed the recommendations contained in the communication (November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, Urban Environment and Development Committee forwarding the Committee's actions of November 3, 1998 respecting Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, on November 12, 1998 had before it a communication

(November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, Urban Environment and Development Committee forwarding the Committee's actions of November 3, 1998 respecting Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing and requesting Toronto Community Council's comments to be made available for the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee to be held on November 30, 1998.

--------

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

(i)(November 11, 1998) from Mr. Richard Kuchynski, Director of Planning and Development, Goldlist Properties Inc., recommending that the City of Toronto:

(1)establish an administrative structure to actively encourage partnerships to combine affordable (often municipally owned) real estate with investment capital to produce private sector market units;

(2)pass resolutions and implement an action plan to press the Provincial and Federal Governments to acknowledge the rental housing problem and contribute to a solution by allowing PST and GST exemptions on building materials and other development expenses (especially services) that are dedicated to production of rental units;

(3)establish a task force to initiate dialogue with industry representatives about municipal assurances and incentives that will encourage them to build new units;

(4)provide exemptions in any relevant municipal policy respecting buildings that require structural repairs and improvements that are not economically feasible; and

(5)take action that will capitalize on low interest rates and the development of a new regulatory climate that has returned Ontario's rental housing industry to the brink of viability;

(ii)(November 11, 1998) from Mr. Robert L. Burton, Burton-Lesbury Holdings Limited, Burton-Lesbury Partners; advising that optimum conditions require that Toronto have flexibility to exempt specific sites or areas from rental housing protection; that there are far too many very old properties and deteriorating areas that need revitalization and redevelopment for a healthy community; and requesting the Committee to consider only the public interest and the future of Toronto, and support the flexibility that is necessary;

(iii)(November 19, 1998) from Mr. Robert L. Burton, Burton-Lesbury Holdings Limited, Burton Lesbury Partners, submitting an additional argument for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee: that the proposed Official Plan Amendment with respect to the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing is contrary to law, and should, therefore, be rejected in its entirety;

(iv)(November 20, 1998) from Ms. Peggy Moulder, Property Manager, Gloucester Gate Inc., urging the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and City Council, to be aware of the interests of all residents of the City of Toronto when reviewing the proposed changes to the Official Plan with respect to the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing, and to realize that perpetuating the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act as they relate to existing co-ownerships serves the interests of no-one;

(v)(November 25, 1998) from Mr. Lawrence H. Zucker, Zagan Zucker Feldbloom Shastri, Barristers and Solicitors, advising that they are the solicitors for 1212763 Ontario Ltd., an owner of apartment buildings in the City of Toronto; expressing concerns with the proposed Official Plan policies and their impact on an owner's ability to convert rental residential units to condominium tenure which, in their view, is inconsistent and incompatible with the Provincial Government's repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act;

(vi)(November 26, 1998) from Ms. Phyllis Dutchak, Strathcona Mews Limited, advising that Strathcona Mews (Strathcona) is totally opposed to the proposal not to permit equity co-operatives, such as Strathcona, to convert to a condominium; and setting out the reasons therefor;

(vii)(November 27, 1998) from Ms. Jane Pepino, Q.C., Aird and Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Goldlist Properties Inc., requesting, pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, to be notified of the adoption of any Official Plan Amendments by the City of Toronto for the Official Plans of each of the former municipalities with respect to this matter;

(viii)(November 30, 1998) from Ms. Anne Golden, Chair, Homelessness Action Task Force, advising that the upcoming report of the Task Force will emphasize that:

(1)the shortage of affordable housing is a primary cause of homelessness in Toronto;

(2)preserving existing housing is a key strategy to ensure affordable housing supply;

(3)preserving private rental apartments is the easiest and cheapest way to address affordability, as rental apartments constitute the largest segment of the moderate-priced rental market;

(4)the City should use the tools available to help both preserve and create affordable housing, including Official Plan policies, zoning by-laws, development approvals, etc.;

(5)conversion to condominiums is a potential threat to the goal of preserving private rental apartments, and therefore needs to be addressed; and

(6)any approval of conversion of existing rental properties to condo in effect confers "windfall gains" to the current owner, and it is therefore reasonable for the City to attach conditions to such approval, for example, by ensuring the replacement of lost low-cost units;

(ix)(November 30, 1998) from Ms. Helen Rollerson, President, 1901 Bayview Avenue, EastYork, advising that the proposed amendments regarding conversion of equity co-op buildings to condominiums will compound what is already a very painful problem in her building; that because banks will no longer finance equity co-ops, it is difficult to sell their units; and requesting that equity co-ops converted before the second version of the Rental Act was passed, be exempted from the proposed amendments; and

(x)(November 30, 1998) from Ms. Cynthia A. MacDougall, McCarthy Tetrault, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Greatwise Developments Corporation; advising that in their view, the policies proposed are too restrictive with respect to the demolition and conversion of rental housing, that there are public benefits associated with redevelopment, particularly with under-developed sites in strategic locations; and suggesting that further consideration be given to the policies, in order to provide for reasonable balance between the objectives of maintaining rental housing stock and redeveloping under-utilised sites.

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

-Mr. Bill Solomn, resident of the City of Toronto, expressing concerns with the lack of affordable housing in the City of Toronto;

-Mr. David Alexander, Q.C., Alexander and Associates, legal Counsel for 10 buildings containing 450 units of co-ownership housing, expressing his clients' wish to convert their units to condominiums to allow them to attain mortgage financing at reasonable rates of interest; and filed a written submission with respect thereto;

-Ms. Kimberly L. Beckman, Davies Howe Partners - representing clients who have co-ownership in buildings where, due to legislative changes that have occurred, the financial assistance that had been available is now no longer available, with the result that some co-owners lost their units, and stating that the only solution to this problem is to covert to condominiums;

-Ms. Peggy Moulder, Property Manager, representative for Gloucester Gate Residences Inc., expressing concerns regarding the financing of the units as co-ownership of a property is relatively unknown therefore owners have been tied into high interest, closed mortgages which would change if converted to condominiums;

-Mr. Hugh Wilkins, Morris Rose Ledgett, advising that he has a number of clients who have co-ownership apartments whose ability to finance the units is becoming increasingly difficult; noting that converting these units to condominiums will not affect rental housing in the City;

-Ms. Paulette Sander, Toronto, advising that tenants purchased their own units in the building but due to the fact that the banks do not recognize co-ownership as being a legally owned apartment, they are having difficulty re-financing their units and requested the City to allow conversion into condominiums;

-Ms. Phylis Dutchar, Toronto, requesting that the City allow condominium conversion so people who have co-ownership units can get their life in order as the banks will only deal with them if their units are converted to condominiums;

-Ms. Jane Pepino, Aird and Berlis, requesting that the City ensure that all policies that are placed in the Official Plan reflect the interest of tenants but do not regulate the conversion to condominium of co-ownership apartments because they do not provide any incentives to add new rental units to the existing housing stock in Toronto; requesting that a Task Force be established to initiate dialogue with industry representatives about municipal assurances and incentives that will encourage the building industry to build new rental units;

-Mr. Larry Chilton, Toronto, informing of three recent situations respecting rooming houses in the City and suggesting that further research is needed; there not being enough knowledge on the subject matter to make a decision; and filed a written submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. Kenneth Hale, on behalf of South Etobicoke Community Legal Service, which provides a broad range of legal services to low-income residents; advocating the preservation of affordable housing in the City and requesting that all rental units, regardless of market rent, be given the protection of the Official Plan provisions; and filed a written submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. George Goldlist, Goldlist Properties Inc., advising that Rent Control and the Rental Protection Act introduced by previous governments stopped the building industry from building rental housing and requesting the Committee to send a message that this City desperately needs affordable housing and not put obstacles in front of the building industry in that regard;

-Mr. John Morielli, Property Manager, expressing the need for co-ownership units being converted to condominium status to allow for alternative ownership, noting that it would not affect rental housing in the City;

-Mr. Arthur Birnbaum, Toronto, expressing his desire to have his unit converted into condominium;

-Mr. Howard Tessler, Metro Tenants Association, urging the City to do everything within its legal and political powers to preserve the existing stock of residential rental housing to ensure that tenants currently at risk of losing their housing to the condo wrecking ball are spared; and filed a written submission with respect thereto;

-Ms. Elinor Mahoney, Parkdale Community Legal Service, stating that allowing equity conversion will affect rental housing and jeopardize thousands of tenants and requesting additional controls with respect to demolition of rental buildings; and filed a written submission with respect thereto;

-Mr. Ken Johnston, Toronto, expressing his desire for conversion to enable co-ownership units to acquire mortgages at reasonable rates; noting that under the present system some banks require up to a 50 percent down payment prior to granting a mortgage;

-Mr. Steven Keyser, President, Urban Development Institute, stating that the subject matter was a very complicated issue and requesting that the Committee defer the matter and engage the action of people within the building industry to help find a solution that would be beneficial to tenants and the industry; and

-Mr. Gary Griesdorf, Executive Director, Greater Toronto Apartment Association, requesting that the City reconsider its position on condominium conversion to stimulate the economy.

Councillor J. Layton, Don River (Ward 25) also appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications with respect to the proposed official plan policies, conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing as it relates to 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue:

(i)(December 14, 1998) from Mr. Bill Solomon, Toronto; and

(ii)(December 16, 1998) from Ms. Cynthia A. MacDougall, McCarthy Tetrault, on behalf of Greatwise Developments Corporation.)

Access to the City Centre Airport

(Ward: Downtown)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, amended this Clause by:

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

(a)deleting from the preamble the words "in principle";

(b)adding to Part (a) thereof, the words "and City Council";

(c)deleting from Part (c) thereof, the words "that gives" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "recommending that City Council give"; and

(d)adding thereto the following additional condition:

"(g)approval being conditional upon a legally binding commitment that not one penny of City tax dollars will be spent on the bridge or on Airport losses which result from the bridge financing;",

so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(1)the adoption of a fixed link to the City Centre Airport being built in the form of a bridge, subject to:

(a)the approval of the design of the bridge by the Fire Chief, the General Manager, Ambulance Services, and City Council;

(b)the final design of the bridge being submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for review and approval for consistency with established urban design objectives along the waterfront;

(c)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer being requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommending that City Council give approval to the bridge's business plan;

(d)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services being requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, prior to authorization of the alteration of Bathurst Street, on the cost of such alteration and the source of funding;

(e)the Toronto Harbour Commission and the Port Authority being required to monitor and report annually to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the effects of the bridge operation, as requested by the City;

(f)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services being requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the impact of the Fixed Link on traffic patterns along the waterfront and what concrete traffic calming options exist, such report to seek the input of local residents and be the subject of a public meeting; and

(g)approval being conditional upon a legally binding commitment that not one penny of City tax dollars will be spent on the bridge or on Airport losses which result from the bridge financing;"; and

(2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a)the Canadian Coast Guard and/or the Federal Fisheries Ministry be requested to submit to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, their report on the impact of the fixed link (bridge) to the City Centre Airport;

(b)the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), as a courtesy, be requested to make available to the City of Toronto, through the Office of the Mayor and the Chairs of the Economic Development Committee and the Urban Environment and Development Committee, its analysis and conclusions as to the City Centre Airport forecasted passenger volumes and financial implications, and further, that Mayor Lastman be requested to expeditiously forward this request to the GTAA verbatim and in writing; and

(c)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the facts of the flight paths of commuter aircraft which use the City Centre Airport, at present and as projected for the future.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:

(1)the adoption, in principle, of a fixed link to the City Centre Airport being built in the form of a bridge, subject to:

(a)the approval of the design of the bridge by the Fire Chief and the General Manager, Ambulance Services;

(b)the final design of the bridge being submitted to Urban Environment and Development Committee for review and approval for consistency with established urban design objectives along the waterfront;

(c)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer being requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that gives approval to the bridge's business plan;

(2)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the appropriate City officials, be requested to submit a further report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the amendments to the Tripartite Agreement to give effect thereto, as well as any further amendments in the form of restrictions to the airport operation; and

(3)the adoption of report (November 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, wherein it is recommended that:

(a)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with appropriate staff, be directed to continue discussion and consultation on the appropriate role of the City Centre Airport and its relationship to other uses and activities in the waterfront, and the impacts that these matters might have on the terms of both the Tripartite and the Subsidy Agreements to which the City is a party;

(b)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report on an assessment of the emergency response capability of the bridge, tunnel and ferry including suggested improvements to the operation of each option; and

(c)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation appropriate staff, continue to compile technical information on the bridge and tunnel options but the decision on the type of fixed link required be deferred until the matters raised in Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) have been further resolved.

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

(a)the City Clerk to notify interested parties in advance of the meeting of Council scheduled to be held on December 16, 1998, that the foregoing matter will be considered at such meeting of Council;

(b)the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to City Council on any additional financial information City Council should be aware of prior to final approval;

(c)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with appropriate staff, to meet with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (G.T.A.A.) and the Toronto Harbour Commission to discuss opportunities for the involvement of the G.T.A.A. in the operation of the City Centre Airport and provide the Urban Environment and Development Committee with a progress report on the said discussions no later than the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee scheduled to be held in March, 1999; and

(d)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report on the future role of the City Centre Airport and how it can be balanced with the other activities and uses in the waterfront area and report back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in that regard.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (November 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide a response on the actions of the special joint meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Economic Development Committee held on September 29^th, 1998 regarding the proposal to build either a bridge or a tunnel to the City Centre Airport.

Source of Funds and Implications:

There are no immediate funding requirements arising from the recommendations of this report. However, this report puts forward suggestions for addressing some of the safety concerns at the City Centre Airport the assessment of which will require further reporting.

Recommendations:

(1)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with appropriate staff, be directed to continue discussion and consultation on the appropriate role of the City Centre Airport and its relationship to other uses and activities in the waterfront, and the impacts that these matters might have on the terms of both the Tripartite and the Subsidy Agreements to which the City is a party.

(2)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report on an assessment of the emergency response capability of the bridge, tunnel and ferry including suggested improvements to the operation of each option.

(3)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation appropriate staff, continue to compile technical information on the bridge and tunnel options but the decision on the type of fixed link required be deferred until the matters raised in Recommendations 1 and 2 have been further resolved.

Executive Summary:

As a result of a special joint meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Economic Development Committee held on September 29, 1998, numerous requests for further staff reporting on the issue of access to the City Centre Airport were made. Most of these requests were for more information about the bridge and tunnel options to the airport and how these two alternatives compared. Staff is continuing to compile this information.

The Special Joint Committee also adopted the recommendations of my September 18^th, 1998 report on the fixed link which called for a fuller assessment of the future role of the City Centre Airport and the means by which airport activities can be balanced with the other activities and uses in the waterfront area. The question of determining the appropriate form of access to the City Centre Airport involves matters that go beyond conventional land use planning considerations and is enmeshed in a number of wider issues including those related to organizational and financial aspects of the airport's operation. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners' plans or vision for the future of the City Centre Airport are quite different from those that would apply if the GTAA were to have control of the airport. The City requires more time to assess the relative merits of these competing visions, including the impacts that different operating strategies might have on both the Subsidy and the Tripartite Agreements to which the City is a cosignatory. This assessment is an unavoidably complex task and there is an inherently political component attached to it. It is my view that these broader, strategic questions relating to the "role and compatibility" of the airport need to be addressed. City staff are continuing to discuss and consult on these broader issues regarding the "role and compatibility" of the City Centre Airport and further time is required to achieve closure on these matters. It is only after these wider issues have been resolved that the specific operational decision on the form of a link required can be properly made.

In addition, the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, at its meeting dated October 6, 1998, requested the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief and the General Manager, Toronto Ambulance, to report jointly to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on whether the City Centre Airport should be immediately closed down and remain closed until a fixed link is in operation because of unacceptable safety concerns. A joint letter from the Fire Chief and the General Manager of Ambulance Services (appended to this report) concludes that the emergency response to the City Centre Airport and the Toronto Islands could benefit from a fixed link of appropriate design although the ferry option was not declared as inadequate or unsafe. This is important from the standpoint of the City's current responsibility with providing secondary response in the event of an emergency. The joint letter also indicates that the adequacy of the existing specialized crash rescue trucks and staffing at the airport should be reviewed. Also noted is the potential role of the Ministry of Health two ambulance helicopters in the event of an emergency. While the tunnel is preferred, the proposed bridge option could be considered acceptable if altered in accordance with the criteria listed above. In light of the City's responsibility to provide secondary response in the event of an emergency and given the concern of both the Fire Chief and the General Manager of Ambulance Services with respect to the adequacy of crash rescue equipment and staff at the airport, it is recommended that the emergency response capability of the bridge, tunnel and ferry should be reassessed.

1.The Issues of Role and Compatibility

1.1The Existing Situation

Before looking at alternative future roles for the City Centre Airport, it is useful to briefly review where matters currently stand.

The City Centre Airport is operated by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners on its own behalf in accordance with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act 1985. Currently, the airport provides general aviation services which include private planes, corporate aircraft, training and some recreational activity as well as limited scheduled air-passenger services. The scheduled air service includes flights to Ottawa, Montreal and London and, in 1997, some 115,000 passengers flew into and out of the airport. The maximum annual volume of passengers handled at the airport was achieved in 1987 at around the 400,000 level.

It must be remembered too, that the operation of the airport is subject to certain limiting conditions spelled out in the 1983 Tripartite Agreement. The Tripartite Agreement is, essentially, a 50-year lease agreed upon by the three owners of the airport lands, namely the City, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the Federal Government. The Agreement contains some key conditions including the imposition of strict noise controls on flights to and from the airport, including a ban on jet aircraft, and the acknowledgment that runways are not to be extended nor a fixed link built to connect the airport and the mainland. Since the time of the signing of the Tripartite Agreement, the former City of Toronto has agreed, in principle, to relaxing some of these restrictions. As a result of technological advances that have led to improvements in aircraft noise performance, the City has agreed to broaden the definition of Type III turbo-prop aircraft that can use the airport. Several years ago a review of the emergency response needs of the airport resulted in the City's conditional approval to consider a fixed link and the recently completed Environmental Assessment Study concluded that a bridge would be the best means by which to improve emergency access. The terms of the Tripartite Agreement are expected to apply to the Toronto Port Authority when it comes into being and any changes to the Agreement will require the concurrence of all three parties.

In 1994, the former City of Toronto entered into the Subsidy Agreement with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners which followed from the transfer of approximately 400 acres of land in the eastern harbour from the Harbour Commissioners to the newly created Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO) and 200 acres to the City. As a result, the City pays the Toronto Harbour Commissioners an operating subsidy of $2.8 million annually. Of this total subsidy, $2.4 million is funded by TEDCO through its operating budget, which does not rely on taxes, and the remaining $0.4million comes from the City's tax-supported operating budget. The Subsidy Agreement further specifies that up until the year 2000 capital expenditures will be funded from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners' reserves but, thereafter, additional capital expenditures could be funded by the City if required.

In 1998, the City Centre Airport, which is only one component of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners' operations, is expected to operate at a loss of $624,000. The majority of this airport operating deficit is attributable to the ferry service which operates at a loss of about $500,000 a year after the revenues from the charges on passengers and vehicles are deducted. Consequently, the City and TEDCO, through the Subsidy Agreement, subsidize the operating costs of providing ferry access to the Airport. Clearly, the City has a direct financial interest in any proposals to alter the access arrangements to the airport since any such change could impact on both the City's operating and possibly capital budgets. Even if the money to build the bridge were borrowed privately, paying the carrying costs is largely dependent on increased passenger use of the airport. If the expected passenger volumes do not materialize, the airport will be in a deficit position once again. The City would then in effect be paying for the carrying costs of the bridge.

With the recent passage of the Canada Marine Act, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners are soon to become the new Toronto Port Authority although the letters patent that are required to effect this transfer of control have yet to be finalized. The Toronto Port Authority comprises seven directors, only one of whom will be appointed by the City. It is expected that the City's financial obligations, as defined in the Subsidy Agreement, will carry over to the new Toronto Port Authority.

The Toronto Harbour Commissioners would like to terminate the Subsidy Agreement relationship with the City provided they are fairly compensated since the Subsidy Agreement resulted from the transfer of certain lands in the port area, previously owned by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners to TEDCO and the City. At its meeting held on July 29 and 30, 1998, City Council adopted a motion requesting the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and other staff as necessary to meet with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and TEDCO to discuss options for eliminating the City's obligation to provide an annual subsidy. Subsequently, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, in camera, has recommended that discussions continue and that progress reports be brought forward as needed.

The letters patent will describe the mandate of the new Port Authority. The letters patent will:

-define the port's jurisdictional boundaries;

-define the federal property to be managed;

-describe the property the port authority will hold or occupy;

-set out the board of directors;

-describe the extent of the activities of the port authority and any wholly-owned subsidiary;

-describe the limits of the port authority to borrow money; and

-any other provision the Minister considers appropriate.

City Council has passed several motions related to its interest in being involved in the preparation of the letters patent. The Canada Marine Act does not allow for any involvement by municipalities in the development of the letters patent other than to nominate a member to the board of directors. The negotiations over the elimination of the Subsidy Agreement requirements offer City Council an opportunity to ensure its participation in the process of drafting the letters patent. Any resolution to the obligation under the Subsidy Agreement should include a guarantee that City Council will have been permitted to review and consent to the letters patent of the new Port Authority. Similarly, City Council should ensure that any amendments to the Tripartite Agreement permitting a fixed link should not occur until letters patent have been reviewed and the Subsidy Agreement discussions concluded.

1.2The Toronto Harbour Commissioners' Vision

The Toronto Harbour Commissioners clearly view the City Centre Airport as a potential profit centre that could not only help improve their own financial position but also strengthen the downtown economy and bolster the City's Olympic bid. Right now, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners see the airport as "a lost economic opportunity." Presently, only one airline, Air Ontario (a subsidiary of Air Canada), operates scheduled passenger service from the airport. It is through significantly expanding passenger use that the airport can achieve financial profitability. A number of other passenger airlines are said to be prepared to begin operations at the airport once the necessary upgrades have been made. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners see the building of the bridge as one of the key improvements to attracting more airport passengers. With the new bridge in place and a 400-space garage at the airport to park cars, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners believe that within a few years the break-even level of 400,000 passengers a year would be achieved.

The Toronto Harbour Commissioners prefer the bridge option mainly because it is cheaper than a tunnel. The lift bridge is estimated to cost $16.0 million, while a tunnel might cost upwards of $50.0million. Further, the Environmental Assessment study, which the Toronto Harbour Commissioners funded, is completed and recommends the bridge solution. Past experience indicates that the airport can cope with up to 400,000 passengers a year, even with just the ferry service, but beyond this level community disruption may become a more significant factor and the higher-cost of a tunnel might become justifiable as a means of addressing neighbourhood concerns. The Environmental Assessment study notes that when passenger volumes reach 600,000 a year vehicle congestion on the Bathurst Street approach to the bridge will become problematic and City staff recommended that at this level of use an off-site (remote) terminal building is required. Expanding the airport beyond the 600,000 level will require a further round of substantial capital investments.

The Toronto Harbour Commissioners see the City Centre Airport as in direct competition with Pearson International Airport for the patronage of the lucrative business traveller. Consequently, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners wish to see the bridge built as soon as possible and the City Centre Airport aggressively marketed to beyond the 400,000 passengers a year level as there is ".... a significant potential for profit with higher utilization." In their Business Plan for the City Centre Airport, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners put forward estimates of passenger growth that envisage volumes of around 575,000 passengers in the year 2002, a five-fold increase over today's levels. It is through passenger user fees that the Toronto Harbour Commissioners expect to produce the revenues to cover expenses, generate profits and, perhaps, eventually expand the airport to an ultimate level of around 900,000 passengers a year.

1.3The Greater Toronto Airports Authority's (GTAA) Vision

The GTAA views the City Centre Airport as a part of an integrated and coordinated regional airport system under the control of a single operator. Each airport in this regional system would have a distinct role that complements that of the others and, in this way, full advantage can be taken of the economies of scale and operational efficiencies that such an integrated airport system offers. In particular, strategic cross-subsidization of facilities in the system can eliminate counter-productive and wasteful competition between airports in the region.

Like the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, the GTAA regards the City Centre Airport as primarily serving short-haul passenger routes catering to the business and leisure traveller in selected corridors in the Canada and U.S. markets. However, the GTAA feels that, although the City Centre Airport should become financially self-sufficient, it should be operated on a not-for-profit basis. The GTAA claims that its aim would be to phase-out the need for any subsidy from the City and that, eventually, it would be prepared to share any excess revenues that might arise from City Centre Airport operations with the Toronto Port Authority. In this context, the GTAA considers that 400,000 passengers a year would be likely the maximum level of use by commercial airlines operating at the City Centre Airport and is prepared to recognize this as the figure to take for future planning purposes.

However, even at the more limited target figure of 400,000 passengers a year, the GTAA feels that a fixed link would be an asset both in terms of increasing the attractiveness of the airport for passenger use and addressing the need for emergency access by fire, ambulance and police services. The GTAA's position is that the fixed link, in either a bridge or tunnel form, should provide only limited or controlled access to the airport. In this regard, the GTAA feels that there should be no public parking provided at the airport and that an inter-modal passenger terminal and transfer point should be established off-site at Union Station. The fixed link itself should be designed to reduce the impacts of the airport on other uses and activities in the surrounding community and to be compatible with the level and type of access demanded by the airport in its planned or mature state. However, while the GTAA has indicated a preference for the tunnel as the best option in terms of minimizing community disruption, further review of the financial viability of the tunnel must be undertaken. With the resources at its disposal, the GTAA is able to take a more flexible approach to the access issue than the Toronto Harbour Commissioners are.

1.4The Question of Compatibility

The City Centre Airport represents something of a mixed blessing in the waterfront area. Clearly, the airport has the potential to be a key economic generator but its unbridled expansion would create stress among a number of the other legitimate uses and activities that share this waterfront location. There needs to be a generally acceptable balance struck between the expansionary ambitions of the airport's proponents and the concerns of those sectors of the surrounding community negatively impacted by increased airport activity.

As noted in David Crombie's letter of September 11, 1998:

"The Waterfront Regeneration Trust has always sought to promote a balance between increased investment in the waterfront and the natural attributes of the waterfront environment. Our 1997 study, Development Activity on the Waterfront, commissioned from Hemson Consultants, identifies over $2.5 billion in new investment planned or underway in the next 5-7 years. The investment is primarily in residential, recreation, entertainment and cultural uses.

We continue to support the airport's historic role of serving general aviation and a limited amount of the air commuter market. In this way, the scale of airport operations would remain compatible with adjacent waterfront development and the all important balance among waterfront uses would be maintained".

Also, as pointed out in my previous report of September 18^th, 1998, the former City of Toronto endorsed the construction of a fixed link based on the understanding that the airport operations would remain compatible with other waterfront uses. It was envisioned that, through negotiation, specific restrictions on airport operations would be developed at the same time the Environmental Assessment for the fixed link was being prepared.

Other reports have noted the various existing uses and activities in the waterfront area that are sensitive to the impacts of expanded airport operations. Among there are the nearby residential developments; the local school and adjacent park; recreational and commercial boating activities, and the use of the islands as an area of natural parkland for the enjoyment of people throughout the region. As noted above, many of these activities and uses will be continuing to expand over time in the waterfront and, in this sense, the airport threatens to become an increasingly incompatible activity with this outcome being further compounded by any expansion that the airport itself might undergo.

The long-term role of the City Centre Airport must remain compatible with the overall planning strategy for the area. Existing and proposed developments along the central waterfront have been developed in accordance with a land use plan that accounts for the existing role of the airport. Changes to the role of the airport must be carefully considered with respect to the impact on the current land use policies for the central waterfront.

2.Emergency Response Requirements:

The General Manager of Toronto Ambulance and the Chief of Toronto Fire Service, in a joint, letter dated November 16, 1998 and addressed to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, provide an up-dated assessment of the City Centre Airport's emergency response requirements (see Appendix A). Access is identified as one of three key requirements, the other two being staffing and equipment.

In comparing the access options, the review found that existing ferry (supported by the fire boat , if necessary) to be problematic mainly because it operates until 11 p.m. only. A tunnel was preferred choice of access owing to its reliability of access at all times. The bridge proposal was not considered acceptable in its current design. However, the bridge proposal could be considered acceptable if the 12 criteria outlined below could be incorporated into the design. Also, there would remain the need for a back-up system, presumably a ferry, in the event the bridge is not available as a result of some type of mechanical failure, maintenance work or accident repair.

In examining the equipment and staffing requirements, Toronto Fire and Ambulance staffs concluded that the most effective way of coping with such a major emergency, under current conditions, is to establish a "command and control" centre at the scene to implement the orderly deployment of equipment and manpower from a staging area on the mainland to give support, as required, to the first response. Such protocol would apply no matter which access option is chosen.

Nevertheless, the review finds that, overall, there are inadequacies today in terms of access, equipment and staffing levels with respect to fire, crash-rescue and emergency medical response to the City Centre Airport. Improving access alone, by either a bridge or tunnel, will not remedy the situation. Indeed, it is important that adequate equipment and staffing needs are provided. With respect to equipment needs, the review observed:

"What is actually required, then, at the Toronto City Centre Airport, is a sufficient number of aircraft crash rescue trucks, staffed by dedicated firefighters. This resource should then be "backed-up" with conventional fire apparatus from the Toronto Fire Service, such as a rescue truck and a command officer who will determine whether any additional response is required".

The staffing concerns appear twofold. First, there is the concern that there is not a sufficient number of dedicated fire-fighting staff at the airport and, secondly, neither the airport fire service or the ferry are operational during all the periods of the day that an emergency situation might arise.

The ferry already handles an average of ten medivac cases a day and, in critical situations, the airport-control tower can summon the ferry on demand even if this means it has to reverse direction in mid-crossing. This feature of the ferry service is important and sets the standard by which any other access option must meet. While the tunnel appears adequate in this regard owing to its uninterrupted flow of traffic , the bridge was considered inferior because of the length of time it might take to close the bridge if it is in the open position during an emergency. However, if the airport expands its activities in the future as contemplated by the THC vision outlined above, the emergency response capability of the ferry service will become increasingly less effective.

The joint letter also notes that the Ministry of Health has two ambulance helicopters stationed at the City Centre Airport. While only one is normally staffed, the second be place in service rather quickly. These aircraft are capable of transporting 2 to 4 of the most critical patients from the site to the heliport on top of the Hospital for Sick Children.

The letter from the General Manager of Toronto Ambulance and the Fire Chief concludes with the following criteria that must be met in order for the bridge to receive their support:

(1)The opening and closing of the lift or swing bridge mechanism should take no more time than a crossing on the existing ferry service (3 minutes).

(2)Any lift or swing bridge mechanism must be reversible in mid cycle.

(3)Traffic flow onto the bridge must be controlled to eliminate any queuing on the bridge.

(4)Any lift or swing bridge be staffed by an operator twenty four hours per day.

(5)Direct telephone line access from the Toronto Ambulance Communications Centre and Toronto Fire Service Communications Centre to the operator must be provided.

(6)The bridge operator must monitor Marine Channel 16 continuously, in order to be aware of any emergencies occurring on the water, so that the bridge position can be adjusted accordingly.

(7)The airport's crash alarm system should be extended to the bridge operator's booth and the operator instructed that on activation of the crash alarm, the bridge is to be place in the down position and left there until advised that it is no longer required.

(8)Vehicular traffic to Toronto City Centre Airport is to be actively discouraged.

(9)Both Fire and Ambulance divisions should be consulted prior to any construction activity which will alter or impede our access to the Toronto City Centre Airport.

(10)Both Fire and ambulance divisions will receive at least two weeks advance notice prior to the implementation of any changes to airport access which are contemplated.

(11)Alternatively, both Fire and Ambulance divisions would favour a conventional bridge which is high enough to permit the unrestricted passage of both pleasure craft and the fireboat and the permanent rerouting of all commercial traffic though the Eastern Gap.

(12)The approaches to either a bridge or a tunnel must not exceed the 8% required to accommodate the operation of large emergency vehicles.

The joint letter from Fire and Ambulance Services concludes that the emergency response to the City Centre Airport and the Toronto Islands could benefit from a fixed link of appropriate design although there the ferry option was not declared as inadequate or unsafe. This is important from the standpoint of the City's current responsibility with providing secondary response in the event of an emergency. The joint letter also indicates that the adequacy of the existing specialized crash rescue trucks and staffing at the airport should be reviewed. Also noted is the potential role of the Ministry of Health two ambulance helicopters in the event of an emergency. While the tunnel is preferred, the proposed bridge option could considered acceptable if altered in accordance with the criteria listed above.

In light of the City's responsibility provide secondary response in the event of an emergency and given the concern of both the Fire Chief and the General Manager of Ambulance Services with respect to the adequacy of crash rescue equipment and staff at the airport, it is recommended that the emergency response capability of the bridge, tunnel and ferry should be reassessed.

Contact Name:

Mr. Joe D'Abramo, Senior Advisor on Harbour Lands Issues, 397-5260.

Mr. Greg Stewart, 392-0070.

--------

Appendix 'A'

Joint letter from Toronto Ambulance and Toronto Fire Service, November 16, 1998 to Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services:

"Re:Emergency Response Implications, Fixed Link Proposal

At the joint meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Economic Development Committee on September 29, a motion was passed, requesting that you prepare a report on the implications of emergency response to the Toronto City Centre Airport, with respect to their consideration of the proposal to construct a fixed link, in either bridge or tunnel form, to the Toronto City Centre Airport. In considering the implications of this fixed link, it is not enough to merely consider the crash-rescue response; all types of emergencies must be considered. In the spirit of our closer strategic alliance, our two Divisions have jointly prepared this report for your consideration.

There is no doubt that the construction of a fixed link between the Toronto City Centre Airport and the mainland has the potential to improve access, but, depending on the design of the option selected, it also has the potential to create problems. These problems have the potential to impact significantly on the operations of both Toronto Ambulance and the Toronto Fire Service. Both agencies are concerned with the impact of a fixed link on the timing of reaching the City Centre Airport. In an emergency, seconds can be critical, and any time wasted trying to gain access can be disastrous. In addressing this issue one must look at the key elements of emergency response; access, manpower, and equipment.

The first element, access, is problematic under the current system. Under normal circumstances, the vehicle ferry from the bottom of Bathurst Street only operates until 11 p.m. The Toronto Fire Service keeps an extra pumper and aerial, unstaffed, at the Island Fire Hall, because transporting firefighters to the islands in Police vessels has proven more effective than waiting for a ferry to be brought back into service to transport fire apparatus, in an emergency. The creation of a fixed link could eliminate this access problem. A lift or swing type bridge, could pose problems from an emergency response perspective.

The Toronto Harbour Commission declared its' intention to permit private vehicles to access the airport directly, via this bridge. This plan would include the creation of a 400 space parking garage immediately east of the terminal building. Any queue of cars could block the passage of fire apparatus or ambulances across the bridge in an emergency. Both Divisions share concerns about the logistics of unrestricted vehicle access to the Toronto City Centre Airport. Airports are notorious sources of traffic congestion. Traffic 'jams' may occur, particularly when regional commuter flights are arriving and departing. unless vehicular access is strictly controlled, the potential will exist for delays in ambulance response, every time a medevac flight and a commuter flight coincide. Nor would this be the only issue of concern with a bridge. In the down position the Toronto Fire Service fireboat, the Wm. Lyon Mackenzie, would be unable to pass through the Western Gap to respond to a call. At a minimum, the fireboat would be delayed while the bridge was raised, but any queued cars would prevent the raising of the bridge, and the fireboat might have to be rerouted, delaying its' response to an emergency.

The Outer Harbour area sees heavy recreational usage by pleasure craft, particularly during the months of April-October. At most times there are a large number of people in boats on the water. It is not uncommon for the Toronto Police Service Marine Unit to have to respond quickly to boaters in distress. Any obstacle to the speed of that response has the potential to be disastrous. When boaters develop an on board emergency, such as a heart attach in one of the passengers, there has been a long standing tradition of proceeding to the Toronto Police Service Marine Unit docks with all speed for assistance. There, they are generally met by an ambulance for transport to hospital. Any delay while waiting for a bridge to open so that the vessel can pass safely constitutes a delay in the victim receiving medical aid.

At the moment, the Toronto Fire Service also provides first response for medical emergencies in the island communities. Patients are then transferred to either the fireboat or Toronto Police Marine Unit vessels, for transport to the mainland. There they are met by Toronto Ambulance paramedics and taken to hospital. Medical treatment would begin sooner if, as in the rest of the city, an ambulance could meet the Fire Service crew at the patient's side, and transport the patient to the hospital lin a more controlled environment. A fixed link could make this possible.

Additionally, both Divisions have concerns with respect to the mechanical reliability of the bridge option. Presumably, such a bridge system would require repairs from time to time. The Harbour Commission advised during the September 29 Committee meeting that they had no intention of retaining either of the ferries; the vessels are to be sold and the crews retrained for other jobs. The Harbour Commission has indicated that, if the bridge were to be disabled, they would maintain the ferry service using a barge and tug. The result is potential 'windows' between the failure of the bridge and staffing of the ferry, during which access to the Toronto City Centre Airport would be impossible, even in an emergency.

The aircraft currently in use typically seat between thirty and forty passengers, with a current maximum of fifty. From an Emergency Medical Service perspective, this translates as a potential for thirty to fifty victims in the event of an emergency. Technology which is about to be released into the marketplace (ie. DeHavilland Dash 8-400) would result in a fifty percent increase in these capacities. Such an emergency would require a substantial commitment of resources. Firefighting resources at this airport are quite limited, and there is no ambulance dedicated to that location. In the event of any major emergency, such as an aircraft crash, the emergency resources responding must come from the mainland. The survival of the victims of a survivable plane crash is directly related to the speed of the response of emergency services. Any obstacle to that response can potentially have a direct impact on the survival of victims.

The fighting of aircraft fires is a completely separate discipline. In order to guarantee the survival of victims, what is needed is an adequate supply of specialized crash rescue trucks, such as those used at Pearson International Airport. Aircraft fires are by nature very hot and intense, and are extinguished using special fire retardant foam generators, which deploy their chemicals from a safe distance. Conventional fire trucks are not particularly effective with this type of fire, and the necessity of fire crews to work 'close in' with conventional equipment provides a level of risk to firefighters which is inappropriate.

What is actually required, then, at Toronto City Centre Airport, is a sufficient number of aircraft crash rescue trucks, staffed by dedicated firefighters. This resource should then be 'backed up' with conventional fire apparatus from the Toronto Fire Service, such as a rescue truck and a command officer, who will determine whether any additional response is required. Any additional firefighting resources would then be deployed from a staging area on the mainland side, based upon the command officers' assessment.

The Ministry of Health has two ambulance helicopters at Toronto City Centre Airport. It was suggested at the Committee meeting that these constituted the medical first response capability of the airport. What was overlooked was the fact that the aircraft and their crews are away on calls a great deal of the time. Even if they are present, the use of this staff for on scene triage and treatment of patients would represent a waste of a rapid transport resource. While only one is normally staff, the second could potentially be placed in service very quickly, using Toronto Ambulance paramedics as attendants. It is anticipated that these aircraft would transport 2-4 of the most critical patients from the site.

From a fire suppression perspective, the island communities would benefit from a fixed link, because Toronto Fire Service would not be dependant on the ferry system to transport additional firefighting resources, such as a rescue truck or aerial ladder truck to the islands, in the event of a major fire. It would also improve our ability to staff the island Fire Hall in a cost effective manner, while being able to deploy additional personnel resources rapidly, in an emergency. Other response capabilities would also be improved, as the need to 'stage' responding ambulances and fire apparatus on the mainland side would be eliminated.

Toronto Ambulance also has some concerns which solely impact on their operation, primarily revolving around the issue of medevac flights. For many years now, within the province of Ontario, medical teaching and specialty training have been concentrated in only four centres (Toronto, Hamilton, Kingston, Ottawa). As a result, the majority of high-tech health care, as well as certain medical specialties, such as trauma care, have been concentrated in the City of Toronto. This trend was driven by population size, and occurred primarily as a result of a desire for cost-efficiency. What this has meant for the residents of Northern Ontario, as well as other rural locations, is that to receive trauma care, advanced cardiac care, pediatric and neonatal intensive care, or even oncology, one had to travel to Toronto by air, and usually on an emergency basis. Throughout this period, Toronto Ambulance, and its' predecessor, Metro Ambulance, has served as the final link on the journey from smaller communities to the medical teaching centres of our city. Most days, Toronto Ambulance meets approximately ten medevac flights at the Toronto City Centre Airport, and transports these patients to the City's hospitals for the care which they require. In many cases, these patients are in critical condition; they have already endured an extended journey in a poorly controllable environment, and they need to be back in a hospital as quickly as possible. At the moment, when an ambulance needs to get to Toronto City Centre Airport for an emergency, the dispatcher contacts the airport Control Tower, which contacts the ferry captain, and asks him to wait for the ambulance before making the crossing from the mainland. In the event that the time necessary to assess and load the patient is short, the ferry will simply wait for the ambulance before making the return trip. Even in a worse case scenario, where the ferry is already returning to the mainland when the paramedics discover that the patient is in worse condition than anticipated, the ferry has been known to simply reverse to the island side, so that the patient can be removed without undue delay. In an emergency, the crossing time takes approximately three minutes.

The Toronto Harbour Commission has suggested that they would attempt to attract more medevac flights. It can be safely suggested that this is unnecessary. Since almost all medevac patients are transported to downtown hospitals, it is almost certain that the creation of a fixed link would result in all medevac traffic shifting to the Toronto City Centre Airport. With the landing restrictions of the heliport license at the Hospital for Sick Children, it is reasonable to assume that many Transport Team calls would also be taken to the Toronto City Centre Airport, with the rooftop heliport reserved for only truly critical patients. This would result in an almost immediate doubling of the existing medevac load.

There have been some inaccurate statements made, with respect to the tunnel option which relate to our operations. it was stated, at the September 29 Committee meeting, that fire apparatus would be unable to negotiate a tunnel because of turning radii, and this is untrue. Since we operate in a predominantly urban environment, with many narrow residential streets and tight corners, Toronto Fire Service is fully aware of the performance characteristics of each piece of apparatus which we operate, including turning radius, and it would be a simple matter of not assigning the vehicles in question to a response through the tunnel.

There have also been statements made with respect to the severity of grade, and the impacts on fire apparatus. There is some validity to this. The maximum grade which a fire truck may safely traverse is 8 percent, and this is written into the Ontario Building Code. Because of the angle of departure on the back of fire trucks, and indeed, ambulance buses, any steeper grade would result in an impact by the back of the fire truck with the road surface, at some point on the grade. But it must be pointed out that the same restriction is true for bridges, and that to construct a bridge from the foot of Bathurst Street, this restriction would certainly be a consideration.

In summary, both Divisions have concerns regarding the process of construction of the fixed link. Any construction process which impeded or significantly altered the existing access to the Toronto City Centre Airport would constitute a concern for both the Ambulance and Fire Services. The Divisions would require, at minimum, prior consultation with the contractor and the Superintendent of Ferries, prior to initiation of any change. They would also require a minimum of two weeks advance notice, prior to any change in access occurring, so that staff can be notified.

In order for the bridge option to receive our support, the following criteria must be met:

(1)The opening and closing of the lift or swing bridge mechanism should take no more time than a crossing on the existing ferry service (three minutes).

(2)Any lift or swing bridge mechanism must be reversible in mid-cycle.

(3)Traffic flow onto the bridge must be controlled to eliminate any queuing on the bridge.

(4)Any lift or swing bridge be staffed by an operator twenty four hours per day.

(5)Direct telephone line access from the Toronto Ambulance Communications Centre and Toronto Fire Service Communications Centre to the operator must be provided.

(6)The bridge operator must monitor Marine Channel 16 continuously, in order to be aware of any emergencies occurring on the water, so that the bridge position can be adjusted accordingly.

(7)The airport's crash alarm system should be extended to the bridge operator's booth, and the operator instructed that an activation of the crash alarm, the bridge is to be placed in the down position, and left there until advised that it is no longer required.

(8)Vehicular traffic to Toronto City Centre Airport is to be actively discouraged.

(9)Both Divisions should be consulted prior to any construction activity which will alter or impede our access to the Toronto City Centre Airport.

(10)Both Divisions will receive at least two weeks advance notice, prior to the implementation of any changes to airport access which are contemplated.

(11)Alternatively, both Divisions would favour a conventional bridge which is high enough to permit the unrestricted passage of both pleasure craft and the fireboat, and the permanent re-routing of all commercial traffic through the Eastern Gap.

(12)In any case, the approaches to either a bridge or a tunnel must not exceed the 8% required to accommodate the operation of large emergency vehicles.

In conclusion, both Toronto Fire Service and Toronto Ambulance believe that the current emergency response capability to the Toronto City Centre Airport, and to the island communities could be improved with a fixed link of the appropriate design. It is our position that a fixed link to the Toronto Islands, via the Toronto City Centre Airport, would benefit the community through improved airport safety and better emergency response."

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (May6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To inform City Council of the findings of the Federal Environmental Assessment concerning the fixed link (bridge) to the City Centre Airport (airport) and recommend, provided the Environmental Assessment is approved by federal authorities, design and operational requirements for both the bridge and Bathurst Street, new terms and conditions which should be added to the Tripartite Agreement as a condition of City Council agreeing to the construction of the bridge and to an exchange of land between the City and the federal government which will result in additional park space.

Source of Funds:

There are no funding requirements arising from the recommendations of this report.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council authorize amendments to the Tripartite Agreement, including those set out in Recommendation No. (2), to permit a bridge to the airport, subject to the approval of the Environmental Assessment and subject to TheToronto Harbour Commissioners completing the following to ensure that they are included in the design and construction program of the bridge:

(a)the bridge contain only two lanes of vehicular traffic each having a width of no more than 3.5 metres;

(b)sidewalks, having a width of 2.0 metres, be provided on both sides of the bridge structure and on the approaches to the bridge;

(c)the design of the bridge permit free and clear continuity of the water's edge promenade below the bridge in a safe and accessible manner, having a minimum width of seven metres and a clearance of not less than 2.5 metres;

(d)the slope of the grade of the Bathurst Street approach to the bridge structure be designed to minimize its overall length and height above the existing grade of Bathurst Quay at the water's edge and to ensure that it does not exceed an eight percent grade in order to accommodate emergency vehicles;

(e)the change in grade associated with the approach to the bridge on the east side be designed to permit access to the Canada Malting site at both current driveway locations, and on the west side be designed to accommodate contemplated park space design and improvements;

(f)the filling-in of the ferry slips on either side of the Western Channel and the construction of the concrete dockwalls be completed in connection with the construction of the bridge;

(g)consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to ensure that fireboat access requirements through the Western Gap are maintained during construction of the bridge and after the bridge is operational;

(h)public input into the design of the bridge by holding public meetings and/or workshops; and

(i)the final design of the bridge be submitted to City Council for review for consistency with established urban design objectives along the waterfront;

(2)that the amendments to the Tripartite Agreement include the following as new terms and conditions:

(a)that The Toronto Harbour Commissioners develop a strategy for encouraging the use of public transit to access the City Centre Airport including:

(i)the operation of a shuttle bus service operating between Union Station and the major hotels in the downtown area and the airport until such time as the off-site terminal is operational; and

(ii)discouraging passenger pick-ups by private automobile and taxis;

(b) that the total number of parking spaces on the airport lands be limited to 400 spaces and that building and landscaping plans associated with the construction of a parking facility, at grade or in a structure, be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to any construction;

(c)that the Toronto Harbour Commissioners agree to construct and operate an off-site (remote) terminal building:

(i)once a sustained annual passenger volume of 600,000 passengers per annum, or less if the City determines it is necessary before this level of passenger traffic, is reached; and

(ii)when airport-bound vehicular traffic reaches a peak volume of 100 vehicles per hour as measured along Bathurst Street south of Queen's Quay;

(d)that The Toronto Harbour Commissioners be required to monitor the effects of the bridge operation, as requested by the City, on:

-traffic volumes inbound and outbound on the bridge;

-use of the parking facility;

-extent of the queues on Bathurst Street;

-traffic operations at the Bathurst Street/Queen's Quay intersection;

-access to the abutting properties;

-the effectiveness of any traffic-calming measures implemented; and

-conflicts between airport-related traffic and other vehicular and pedestrian activity on Bathurst; and

(e)that, as a result of the monitoring exercise, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, after advising the City, make appropriate changes to the bridge operations or access control to mitigate the impact of this facility on traffic operations;

(3)that City Council authorize the alteration of Bathurst Street in connection with the construction of a bridge to the airport, subject to The Toronto Harbour Commissioners completing the following:

(a)seeking the input of the community and staff on the various design options to the Bathurst Street alterations;

(b)consideration of traffic-calming measures in the detailed design of Bathurst Street;

(c)provision of landscaping and streetscaping within the Bathurst Street road allowance and along the perimeter of the parking facility at the airport satisfactory to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(d)ensuring that the final design includes public art;

(e)submission of the detailed design of the altered Bathurst Street, including road pavement design, sidewalks, traffic-calming measures, and landscaping, to the City for approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to any construction;

(f)conveyance, at no cost to the City, of the land south of the existing Bathurst Street road allowance, required for the bridge to the City, to be dedicated as a public highway;

(4)that the City be released and discharged from any obligations to The Toronto Harbour Commissioners to provide parking facilities in relation to airport parking on Bathurst Quay, as required by the agreements entered into between the City and The Toronto Harbour Commissioners and any license agreement arising out of same, including the interim parking arrangements on Bathurst Quay 5;

(5)that all rights to land held by the Federal Government, and currently used for public parking at the end of Bathurst Street and the ferry slip and access road leading to it, be conveyed to the City at nominal cost for public park and public highway purposes;

(6)that the 100 foot wide access easement located immediately adjacent to the Bathurst Street road allowance, granted in favour of the Federal Government for the purposes of ensuring future access to the airport, be released from title at the time the Tripartite Agreement is amended to permit the use of the bridge; and

(7)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, together with other appropriate City officials, report on other measures which should be included as conditions in the Tripartite Agreement that address the cumulative impacts resulting from the introduction of a bridge and all Stage 3 turbo-prop aircraft at the airport, when appropriate.

1. Introduction and Background

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting held on October 16 and 17, 1995, endorsed building a fixed link to the City Centre Airport subject to the completion of an Environmental Assessment. At its meeting held on August 21, 1997, City Council requested the Minister of Transport to undertake a full Environmental Assessment for the fixed link proposal to the City Centre Airport because of public concerns and significant adverse environmental effects despite proposed mitigation measures. In addition, City Council requested a report on the then Draft Environmental Assessment document.

In two previous reports dated February 27, 1997 and June 12, 1997, it was recommended that, further to the former City Council's October 15 and 16, 1995 motion to support a fixed link, Council support a moveable, two lane bridge option subject to several conditions which ensure the design takes into account City objectives for this part of the waterfront. In addition, staff recommended that other related matters such as selecting a new parking location, limiting the amount of parking, encouraging the use of public transit, regulating vehicle access to the City Centre Airport, and studying and constructing a remote (off-site) terminal concept, be secured through amendments to the Tripartite Agreement as a condition of City Council's acceptance of the bridge. The Tripartite Agreement is a lease agreement between the City, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the federal government, entered into 1983, whereby the City has agreed to lease a finger-shaped portion of land in the middle of the airport for airport purposes subject to certain terms and conditions governing the operation of the airport.

Recently, the Environmental Assessment of the fixed link proposal was submitted to federal authorities. The EA report concludes that it is unlikely that the proposed construction and operation of a moveable bridge at the foot of Bathurst Street will cause any significant adverse environmental effects. Copies of the document were place in the Toronto Harbour Commissioners archives and at the Harbourfront Community Centre. Notifications indicating the availability of the document went to all individuals and organizations on the mailing list.

If members of the public are of the view that the proposed project will cause significant adverse environmental effects despite the mitigation measures proposed by the EA document, they may request the Minister of Transport to refer the matter to Panel Review which involves a second and usually more arduous examination of the proposal.

This report is not recommending such action because for a bridge to be constructed to the airport will require an amendment to the Tripartite Agreement. In amending the Tripartite Agreement to permit the proposed bridge, the City can secure provisions which would mitigate the concerns resulting from the construction of the bridge.

The Environmental Assessment report was circulated for comments to appropriate staff in Works and Emergency Services, Corporate Services, including the City Solicitor, and Community Services.

2.The Environmental Assessment Report

2.1Content of Report

The conclusions found in the Fixed Link to the City Centre Airport Environmental Assessment report remain the same as have been presented to the former City Council in previous reports with the exception of Appendix A. Appendix A, titled Additional Matters, discusses the potential impacts associated with an increase in air traffic. The Additional Matters contained in Appendix A do not form part of the Environmental Assessment and consequently are not subject to review through that process. However, the City can recommend the addition of new terms and conditions to the Tripartite Agreement to the City's concerns related to overall impact of any increased air traffic resulting from the construction of the bridge. For this reason, it recommended that staff report further on possible measures for mitigating potential impacts resulting from increased air traffic.

The remainder of this section examines the key issues arising from the conclusions of the Environmental Assessment report and outlines the requirements of City Council related to bridge design, road improvements and other matters should the Environmental Assessment for the Fixed Link be approved.

2.2Project Definition

Previous reports and documents had not specified the scope of the project insofar as construction activities were concerned. The draft Environmental Assessment report lists the activities associated with the construction of the bridge as including:

-constructing the piers and control tower (if needed);

-assembling the bridge superstructure;

-demolishing two hangars (1 and 2) at the airport;

-constructing the roadway approaches to the bridge including alterations to Bathurst Street;

-constructing the parking lot at the airport;

-filling in the ferry slips; and

-landscaping along all edges of the project area.

The construction of the parking facility is a significant feature of the project. The Environmental Assessment report indicates that 173 surface parking spaces are proposed on the airport site in the location of hangars 1 and 2. This is a prominent location along the City's waterfront and appropriate landscaping is important. The detailed landscaping plans should be reviewed by City staff prior to implementation.

2.3Bridge Design

The Environmental Assessment report describes the project as a double bascule (draw) bridge at the foot of Bathurst Street. The underside of the bridge would be 5 metres above the average high water level and the moveable spans of the bridge would provide an opening of 50 metres in width located in the centre of the Western Channel. There are two options proposed for the bridge deck. One alternative proposes at 13 metre wide structure providing for two lanes of traffic at 3.75 metres in width, two shoulders 0.5 metres wide and two sidewalks each 2.25 metres wide. The second alternative design proposes a deck 14.5 metres wide consisting of two vehicular lanes 3.5 metres wide, two bike lanes at 1.5 metres in width and two sidewalks at 2.25 metres in width each. At previous Committee meetings of the former City Council, concerns were raised with respect to the overall size of the structure. In order to minimize the width of the bridge deck, staff are recommending that the maximum vehicular lanes widths be 3.5 metres. However, two sidewalks should be provided for safety reasons at a minimum 2.0 metres. It also recommended that the Toronto Harbour Commissioners seek the input of the community and staff on various optional designs prior to selecting a final design.

In a report dated June 12, 1997, staff recommended that bicycle lanes be introduced along Bathurst Street and over the bridge. At the Executive Committee meeting of the former City, held on August15, 1997, comments from Committee members and the public questioned the need for bicycle lanes to the airport, especially in relation to another objective which is to reduce the width of the road pavement south of Queens Quay given the predominance of park and recreation uses in the area. The Environmental Assessment report proposed the bicycle lanes as an option which can be accommodated into the design. However, given the concern with the road pavement width, bicycle lanes should not be required.

The width of the water's edge promenade running beneath the bridge is proposed at a width of 6metres. However, the current width of the water's edge promenade throughout Harbourfront is 7 metres. A consistent width of 7 metres should be maintained.

The Canada Malting site has two existing driveways. However, the most southerly driveway has been the historical main entrance to the site and should be retained. City Works staff believe it is possible to retain access at this location although the vertical alignment of the driveway would have to modified as a result of the grade or bridge approaches. The Environmental Assessment document does indicate two entrances can be accommodated.

2.4Bridge Operating Procedures

The Environmental Assessment report proposes a fixed operating schedule whereby the bridge would open twice an hour. The length of time the bridge would remain open will be entirely dependent on the time of day. Consequently, the bridge may remain open as long as 16 minutes during airport non peak hours and during peak periods the bridge would remain open for 7 minutes. According to the report, peak periods would occur for a two and a half hour period in the morning, a two hour period at noon, and a two and a half hour period in the evening. The bridge cycle time would consist of:

traffic control0.75 minutes

bridge unlocking0.5 minutes

bridge opening1.0 minutes

boat passage 7.0 minutes - 16 minutes

bridge closure1.0 minutes

locking 0.5 minutes

traffic control0.25 minutes

Total11.0 minutes - 20 minutes

The effect of the operation of the bridge in terms of its cycles of opening and closing on traffic along Bathurst Street has been studied by the consultant. A Transportation Evaluation is included in Appendix B of the Environmental Assessment report. Works and Emergency Services staff have reviewed the evaluation and concur with the consultant's conclusion that the traffic generated by this proposal can be safely and effectively accommodated on Bathurst Street and the abutting intersections with the proposed modifications to the facilities. However, when airport bound traffic reaches a level of more than 100 vehicles an hour and the bridge is opened, the Environmental Assessment report indicates that "either a southbound queuing lane will need to be constructed, or passengers will have to be handled through a remote terminal." This level of traffic is expected to occur in the late afternoon rush hour during the busiest of weekdays. Bathurst Street can accommodate approximately 20 queued vehicles without hindering other traffic.

Initially, it was suggested that an additional southbound lane be added to Bathurst Street to permit the queuing of vehicles during peak periods. However, in an earlier report dated June 12, 1997, it was recommended that the queuing lane be eliminated in favour of strategies to reduce the number of vehicles travelling to the airport (discussed further in Section 3 of this report). These strategies might include more shuttle bus service or public transit use and the development of a remote (off-site) terminal sooner. It is recommended that the development of these strategies be incorporated as requirements within the Tripartite Agreement.

Works and Emergency Services staff indicate that, given the importance of the bridge operation on traffic in the area, a key component of impact assessment is ongoing monitoring of bridge operation. Once the bridge is operational, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners should be required to monitor:

-traffic volumes inbound and outbound on the bridge;

-use of the parking facility;

-extent of the queues on Bathurst Street;

-operations at the Bathurst Street/Queens Quay intersection;

-impact on access to the abutting properties;

-effectiveness of any traffic calming measures implemented; and

-conflicts between airport-related traffic and other vehicular and pedestrian activity on Bathurst Street.

The results of the monitoring exercise should be reviewed to determine the need for change to the timing of the bridge operations or the access control.

It is recommended that the requirements for monitoring and review of the results be secured through conditions in the Tripartite Agreement.

2.5Bathurst Street Alterations

The Environmental Assessment report illustrates possible alterations to Bathurst Street in the form of pavement widening, the construction of sidewalks, line painting, the installation of gates and signals and the installation of "traffic calming" devices form part of the project work. In Figure 2.1 of the Environmental Assessment report, Bathurst Street is depicted as a two lane road, each lane being 3.5 metres wide, and centre turn lane also 3.5 metres wide. Two bicycle lanes, each 1.5 metres in width, are shown together with two sidewalks each 1.5 metres wide. The total width of the road pavement under this proposal would be 13.5 metres.

As mentioned above, comments made at the Executive Committee meeting of the former City, held on August 15, 1997 questioned the need for bicycle lanes along Bathurst Street to the airport especially when considering the objective of reducing the overall pavement proposed for the altered Bathurst Street. As a result, alternative designs should be presented by the Toronto Harbour Commissioners that would reduce pavement width of Bathurst Street.

In addition, the west side of Bathurst, the sidewalk should be 3 metres wide, in keeping with Harbourfront sidewalk widths, and a landscape zone 2 metres wide. On the east side of Bathurst Street a 2 metre wide sidewalk is under construction and should be extended together with a 2.5metre landscape zone. The detailed design of Bathurst Street, as altered, together with road pavement layout, sidewalks, landscaping, and traffic calming measures should be submitted to the City prior to any construction.

In addition to physical improvements to Bathurst Street, the City Solicitor indicates that the area of land south of the existing Bathurst Street road allowance would have to be dedicated as a public highway. Currently the road allowance ends at the entrance to the ferry area.

3.Amendments to the Tripartite Agreement

City Council's endorsement of the construction of the fixed link proposal in October 1995 was conditional upon amendments to the Tripartite Agreement being enacted to ensure that any adverse effects arising from introduction of a fixed link in combination with the introduction of Stage 3 turbo-prop aircraft could be controlled to a level acceptable to the City. Below are described the mitigating measures which could be introduced as conditions in the Tripartite Agreement. The Tripartite Agreement is used in this manner because airports are regulated by federal legislation and the City has no control over matters of federal jurisdiction. The City of Toronto is the only city in Canada with such an agreement.

(a)Develop strategies encouraging public transit access to the airport:

With increased use of the airport by passenger aircraft, vehicle movements to the airport would likely also increase. The Environmental Assessment consultant predicts that when the airport reaches 600,000 passengers per annum there will be a need for an additional traffic lane to accommodate vehicles forming a queue when the bridge is raised during peak hour, likely sometime between the hours of 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on Thursday or Friday afternoons in the summer months. Encouraging the use of a regular shuttle bus service between the downtown (Union Station) and the airport would assist in reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport. Private automobiles pick-ups should also be discouraged at all times, especially since a shuttle bus service could connect passengers with the City's transit system and taxi service and major hotels in the downtown area.

(b)Remove all parking spaces associated with the airport on Bathurst Quay:

By moving the existing parking found on Bathurst Quay to the airport lands, approximately one and half acres could be made available for park purposes on Bathurst Quay.

(c)Limit the total number of parking spaces on the airport lands to 400 spaces:

There currently exists 208 parking spaces associated with the airport on Bathurst Quay. There are an additional 100 spaces located on the airport lands. The Harbourfront Official Plan and Zoning By-law permits 400 spaces to be located on Bathurst Quay, south of Queens Quay. It is recommended that the 400 parking spaces permitted by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be transferred to the airport lands. This amount of 400 spaces is 92 spaces more than currently exists. This is a reasonable figure given that there will likely be an increase in use by air passengers. However, since the long term objective is to construct a remote terminal somewhere in the downtown area, the demand for parking at the airport could decrease. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners should also develop a strategy to encourage public transit use. In addition, building and landscaping plans associated with the construction of a parking facility, at grade or in a structure, should be submitted to the City for review prior to any construction.

(d)Require the construction of a remote terminal:

Construction of a remote (off-site) terminal will likely only occur when passenger loads warrant the cost involved. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners should study this concept now and construct such a terminal when sustained passenger loads warrant. The Tripartite Agreement should be amended to require that a remote terminal must be operational at a sustained annual passenger volume to be agreed upon with the City but at no greater an amount than 600,000 annual passengers or if airport bound traffic begins to exceed a rate of 100 vehicles an hour.

4.Transfer of Lands on Bathurst Quay to the City:

There are several parcels of land on Bathurst Quay which are associated with airport use (see Map1). The existing parking lot at the end of Bathurst Street and the access area around the ferry slip is owned by the federal government. This land should be transferred to the City. The "orange lands", located on the east side of Bathurst Street, are owned by the City but are referenced in certain agreements as a potential permanent parking site for the airport. These arrangements should also be rescinded. To the west of the Bathurst Street road allowance is a one hundred foot wide right-of-way in favour of the Crown held for the purposes of securing a access route to the airport should Bathurst Street be closed. This federal easement should be released once the Tripartite Agreement has been approved.

Contact Name:

Mr. Joe D'Abramo, 392-7616, Fax 416 392-1330, e-mail: jdabramo@city.toronto.on.ca.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee on May 19, 1998, during consideration of various reports and communications regarding the Environmental Assessment for the proposed fixed link to the City Centre Airport, among other things, deferred consideration of the following motions:

'Moved by Councillor McConnell:

"That no amendments to the Tripartite Agreement be considered until the design phase is completed, all the environmental concerns are addressed, and the cost implications are known.";

Moved by Councillor Moscoe, on behalf of Councillor Chow:

"(a)That Recommendation No. (1)(i) be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:

'(1)(i)the final design of the bridge be submitted to City Council for review and approval for consistency with established urban design objectives along the waterfront; and, further, in accordance with the former Metro policy, an artist be included in the design team at the beginning stage;'

(b)that Recommendation No. (2) (c)(i) be amended by striking out the word "and" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "or"; so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

'(2)(c)(i)once a sustained annual passenger volume of 600,000 passengers per annum, or less if the City determines it is necessary before this level of passenger traffic, is reached; or';

(c)that Recommendation No. (2)(d) be amended by adding the words "and report annually to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on" after the words "to monitor"; so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

'(2)(d)that the Toronto Harbour Commissioners be required to monitor, and report annually to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on, the effects of the bridge operation, as requested by the City on ....';

(d)that Recommendation No. (3) be amended to provide that prior to the authorization of the alteration of Bathurst Street, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report on the cost of such alteration and the source of the funding;

(e)that Recommendation No. (5) be amended by adding the words "prior to the amendments to the Tripartite Agreement," after the word "that"; so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

'(5)that, prior to the amendments to the Tripartite Agreement, all rights to land held by the Federal Government, and currently used for public parking at the end of Bathurst Street and the ferry slip and access road leading to it, be conveyed to the City at nominal cost for public park and public highway purposes;';

(f)that no amendment to the Tripartite Agreement be made until:

(i)the role of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) regarding the management and operation of the Toronto City Centre Airport (TCCA) is clarified. In the event that the Canada Marine Act, Bill C-9, becomes law, no amendments to the Tripartite Agreement should occur before the new Port Authority issues its letters patent; and

(ii)a private sector proponent provides a comprehensive business plan to operate the Fixed Link without public subsidy;

(g)that City Council request the Federal Minister of the Environment to require that a full panel Environmental Review of the Fixed Link (especially as relates to safety of boaters) be undertaken prior to the proposed amendments to the Tripartite Agreements;

(h)that, as part of the new Official Plan, City Council form a Work Group to develop a comprehensive Waterfront Policy; such Work Group to be composed of representatives of all the stakeholders on the Waterfront including area residents, the Federal and Provincial Governments, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority; and, further, that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the terms of reference and composition of such Work Group;

(i)that any agreement by the new Port Authority, the Federal Government or the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) be structured in such a way that the City of Toronto would be refunded for subsidies (if any) provided, directly or indirectly, by the City to the Port Authority for the functioning and the programming (bothoperating and capital cost) associated with the Toronto City Centre Airport; and

(j)that the City Solicitor be requested to ensure that all conditions placed on TheToronto Harbour Commissioners regarding the Fixed Link and the Tripartite Agreement are applied to the new Port Authority, the Federal Government or the Greater Toronto Airports Authority."; and

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

"That the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommend that Council not support the construction of a bridge to the Toronto Islands and, further, agree that the existing ferry service adequately serves the present and future needs of the Toronto Island Airport." '

The Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Economic Development Committee, at their joint meeting on September 29, 1998, deferred consideration of the following motions by Councillor Kelly to the November 30, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

"(2)that the concept of a fixed link be forwarded to Council for approval at its meeting scheduled to be held on October 28, 1998; and

(3)that the concept of a "signature" bridge be referred to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with a request that she consult with relevant stakeholders and submit a report thereon to a joint meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Economic Development Committee to be convened in November, 1998."

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (November 26, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Ambulance Service, the Fire Chief and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request for information from Councillor Blake Kinahan, Lakeshore-Queensway regarding issues of liability for Council members.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no known financial implications at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background History:

Toronto Fire Services plays a key role in emergency response to the harbour area. While fire suppression and rescue are the primary role, Toronto Fire Services works closely with Toronto Ambulance and Toronto Police Services in providing medical first response and marine transportation of the sick and injured from the harbour and the Toronto Islands. Procedures have been enacted to deliver their services to the area (Appendices A and B) and these guidelines work with current transportation realities in the harbour.

Toronto Ambulance provides Paramedic coverage to the Island and harbour area from an Island-side seasonal ambulance station, the City Centre Airport and from land-side stations. Off season Island coverage is assisted by a partnership with the Ministry of Health helicopter/paramedic base at the airport, which is also equipped with a land ambulance.

Patients receive first response care from Firefighters at the Island station, prior to the arrival of an ambulance. In 1997, only six stretcher patients out of more than 100 did not receive "on Island" Paramedic care. In these cases Toronto Ambulance intervened on the mainland, when patients arrived by fire and police boat.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

While the emergency access to Toronto City Centre Airport is less than ideal, neither Toronto Ambulance nor Toronto Fire Service would describe it as dangerous. The airport does meet the safety standards set down by Transport Canada. The fire apparatus which would provide first response to the airport is currently located at the airport fire station. Additional apparatus is readily available from the Toronto Island Fire Station, and the fireboat provides additional response capability. If needed, fire apparatus and ambulances can be moved from the mainland to the island using the ferries Ongiara and Maple City. This provides an acceptable level of response for the airport's current operations.

In addition, Fire Services is constructing a new Harbourfront Fire Station which will create a combined land and marine based fire station. This will provide additional fire fighting resources in close vicinity to the Toronto City Centre Airport.

Toronto Police Services, in conjunction with the Fire Services and Ambulance Services, through the Marine Unit, provide emergency response to the Islands and the Island Airport.

Conclusions:

There is no evidence to support any statement that an unsafe situation currently exists, regarding emergency response to Toronto City Centre Airport. This is not, however, to say that emergency response could not be substantially improved. In the meantime, we see no reason why Toronto City Centre Airport operations should not continue. Toronto Police has concurred with the conclusion drawn in this report.

Contact Names:

Mr. Ron Kelusky, 397-9240, Fax: 392-2002.

Mr. Alan Speed, 397-4300, Fax: 397-4325.

--------

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

-(September 21, 1998) from Ms. Charlotte Sam, Child Care Manager, Harbourfront and St.Stephen's Waterfront Child Care Centres, advising that they have some concerns regarding the proposed fixed link to the Island Airport, particularly with respect to the amount of traffic that will be brought into the area; that there is a pressing need for more effective transit service to the area of Bathurst and Queen's Quay; and stating that if a bridge is built, then there should be an offsite passenger terminal with a shuttle bus for all passengers in order to prevent idling vehicular traffic along Bathurst Street, south of Lake Shore Boulevard.

-(September 29, 1998) from Mr. Peter Murphy, Marine Operations Manager, Waterways Transportation Services Corporation, expressing concern that the proposed fixed link to the City Centre Airport will affect his firm by deny it the fast access to the open lake which is currently available for its high speed ferry service between Toronto and the Niagara region.

-(October 5, 1998) from Mr. Marc Willoughby, Toronto, expressing concern regarding the proposed increase in the facilities and use of the City Centre Airport.

-(November 20, 1998) from Mr. B. R. Holmes, President, City Centre Aviation Ltd. (CCAL), advising that CCAL is fully supportive of the Dillon Environmental Impact Study for the proposed fixed Link to the Toronto City Centre Airport; and stating that, specifically, CCAL is in full agreement with the report's conclusion that a bridge should be built, and that the location of that bridge should be at the foot of Bathurst Street.

-(November 25, 1998) from Mr. Wayne Canning, Chair, South East Area Industrial Advisory Committee (SEAIAC), advising that SEAIAC is a strong supporter of the City Centre Airport and believes that it should be supported with a fixed link in order to allow more convenient, speedier and safer access for travellers.

-(November 27, 1998) from Mr. Barry MacKinnon, Director, Airline Analysis - Americas, Bombardier Aerospace, submitting printed material for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding the Toronto City Centre Airport (TCCA); such material stating that the Dash8 aeroplane is key to the present and future of the TCCA; and that Dash 8 operations at the TCCA create significant spin-off benefits for the Toronto economy.

-(November 19, 1998) from Mr. David Lane, President, Local 1869, International Longshoremen's Association (ILA), registering the support of ILA 1869 for a fixed link from the Island Airport to the mainland.

-(November 24, 1998) from Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough-Wexford, submitting a brief entitled "Decision Points the Toronto City Centre Airport".

-(September 28, 1998) from Mr. Steve Koslewski, Executive Board Member, Toronto Civic Employees Union, Local 416, expressing concern that Local 416 is pleased to advise that they support the proposal for a fixed link to the Toronto City Centre Airport.

-(undated) Mr. William Brogan, Airport Manager, Merrill C. Meigs Field, submitting the history of Merrill C. Meigs Field, an airfield operation Chicago, Illinois.

-(November 30, 1998) from the Toronto Harbour Commissioners submitting the response to City of Toronto Reports and Directions to City Centre Airport.

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

-Mr. Gary Reid, General Manager, Toronto Harbour Commission; and also filed a written submission;

-Mr. Manfred Humphries, City Centre Airport Association;

-Mr. Fareed Khan, Toronto Real Estate Board;

-Mr. Andrew Pascoe, Vice-Chair, Air Services Committee, Toronto Board of Trade;

-Mr. Randy J. Butcher, President, D & R Aviation Inc.;

-Ms. Debra Williams, Air Ontario;

-Mr. Brian Holmes, Shell Aerocentre;

-Mr. D. Sinclair, Legal Counsel, Vaughan;

-Mr. Lonnie Sweet, Commutair;

-Mr. Eric McConachie, Air Capital;

-Ms. May Hay, Toronto Waterfront Coalition; and also filed a written submission;

-Ms. Elizabeth Quance, Niagara Neighbourhood Association;

-Mr. Roger D. Wilson, Toronto;

-Mr. John Bessai, Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association;

-Mr. Brent Rutherford, Professor, Environmental Studies, York University;

-Mr. Bill Freeman, Toronto;

-Mr. Peter Leiss, Executive Vice-President, CUPE Local 416;

-Ms. Adriana Collins, Airline Training Resources;

-Mr. Wilfred Walker, Transport 2000 Ontario;

-Councillor N. Kelly, Scarborough Wexford; and

-Councillor S. Bussin, East Toronto.

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (December 15, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to respond to the request from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting of December 1, 1998, that:

"The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to City Council on any additional financial information City Council should be aware of prior to final approval".

At this stage, we are not in a position to provide City Council with any additional information, as meetings and discussions are continuing with the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC). This report provides a status update on the further meetings and discussions with the THC.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications in this report.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

In the report from Chief Administrative Officer to the joint meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and Economic Development Committee on September 29, 1998, the review of the business plan included the following recommendations, which were adopted:

Market Research and Analysis:

(a)identify and provide pertinent information on airport operations similar in scope and scale envisaged by the TCCA's business plan, and benchmark the proposals in the business plans against these existing operations;

(b)additional information on the market analysis and study done, to support the demand and market share in the new routes that TCCA intends to operate;

(c)provide the rationale for the projected growth rate in forecast passenger levels over the five year period of the plan; and

(d)indicate the likelihood of allocating all "unallocated slots" to existing and/or new airlines during the five year period of the plan, and the impact that this would have on the profitability of the plan.

Passenger Levels and Surplus/(Deficit) Forecasts:

The plan should include a five year forecast based on a range of passenger levels that would simulate optimistic, most likely, conservative, and worst case scenarios, with appropriate adjustments for other key revenues items and expenditures under each scenario. Expenditure item as suggested under (a) below ie. contribution to reserve, should be included in all scenarios.

Expenditure Estimates:

(a)in order to capture all significant costs, include an annual contribution to an asset maintenance and replacement reserve. This could be based on normal depreciation rates for specific assets;

(b)because of the level of risk and uncertainty identified in the forecasts, the plan should include options and strategies to minimize deficits over the initial five year period, and over the longer-term, such as:

(i)direct fee for use of the bridge;

(ii)further research and market analysis to determine whether a greater share of the General Aviation business (corporate and commercial travel, charter flights, flying training schools, military and medical services) could be achieved, to boost revenues;

(iii)alternative financing options that would be less costly; and

(iv)mechanism to monitor forecast passenger levels, and an operational contingency plan to contain operating and capital expenditures, if forecast passenger levels do not materialize.

Availability of Funds:

In order to assess the financing required, the plan should provide details of THC's reserve balances at the beginning and end of 1998, and indicate whether these reserves will be used as part of the financing necessary for the business plan.

The foregoing recommendations reflected the need to address the level of risk and uncertainty inherent in the estimates (e.g. passenger levels and the resultant revenues such as Passenger User Fees, and expenditures).

Discussion:

At its meeting of December 1, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested:

"The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report directly to City Council on any additional financial information City Council should be aware of prior to final approval".

Meetings are continuing between the City and Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC) staff, in order for staff to report back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, as requested at its meeting of December 1, 1998.

The meetings and discussions focus on the recommendations and issues raised above concerning the Toronto City Centre Airport (TCCA) Business Plan 1998. To date, they have provided an opportunity to examine additional information relating to the business plan, and in particular, passenger level forecasts. Further meetings are planned in 1998. As such, we are not in a position to provide City Council with any additional information at this stage.

It should be noted that, in the meantime, the THC's 1999-2003 Capital Works Program was before the Budget Committee, as part of the 1999 Capital Budget process. The Capital Works Program includes $1.8 million for capital works relating to the City Centre Airport (building and equipment). Recommendations are proposed for these expenditures to be subject to City Council's consideration and endorsement of the TCCA's Business Plan 1998. This budget will be brought before Council in due course, as part of the 1999 capital budget process.

Conclusion:

This report provides an update only on the meetings and discussions in progress with the THC. It is therefore recommended that this report be received for information, pending a further report to Urban Environment and Development Committee in 1999, on the TCCA's Business Plan 1998.

Contact Names:

Josie LaVita 397-4229

Nizam Bacchus 397-4217

Shekhar Prasad 392-8095.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in support of the construction of a bridge to the City Centre Airport:

(i)(December 7, 1998) from Mr. John Rendle, Toronto;

(ii)(December 10, 1998) from Mr. Ross A. McLeod, President, Intelligarde; and

(iii)(December 10, 1998) from Ms. Lisa Gordon, Toronto.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in opposition to the construction of a bridge to the City Centre Airport:

(i)(December 3, 1998) from Mr. Harve Sokoloff, Toronto;

(ii)(December 4, 1998) from Ms. Paula O'Connor, Toronto;

(iii)(December 7, 1998) from Ms. Jean Walker, Toronto;

(iv)(December 9, 1998) from Mr. Bruce A. Brown, Toronto;

(v)(December 10, 1998) from Mr. Jack Taylor, Maple, Ontario;

(vi)(December 10, 1998) from Mr. Colin Andrews, Plasma Environmental Technologies Inc.;

(vii)(December11,1998) from Ms. Susan Costigane, President, Domicity Ltd.;

(viii )(December 13, 1998) from Dr. Atilla Turgay, Clinical Director, Scarborough General Hospital;

(ix)(December 13, 1998) from Ms. Paula Kelly, Toronto;

(x)(December 13, 1998) from Ms. Peggie Sampson, Toronto;

(xi)(December 14, 1998) from Mr. Murray Geddes, Geddes and Rubin Management Inc.;

(xii)(December 14, 1998) from Mr. Dennis I. Bryant, Bryant Renovations and Fine Carpentry;

(xiii)(December 14, 1998) from Mr. Richard MacLean, Toronto;

(xiv )(December 14, 1998) from Mr. Burton Kramer, Kramer Design Associates Ltd.;

(xv )(December 14, 1998) from Mr. Peter Harper, Toronto;

(xvi )(December 14, 1998) from Mr. John Harper and Ms. Gaby Harper, Toronto;

(xvii )(December 15, 1998) from Ms. Shirley Bush, Toronto; and

(xviii)Petition signed by eight residents within the area of the City Centre Airport.)

F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project,

Railway Relocation Along Lake Shore Boulevard

from Don Roadway to Leslie Street,

Contract No. T-54-98, Tender No. 62-1998

(Ward: Don River)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 17, 1998) from the Executive Director, Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services Department:

Purpose:

To request that Contract No. T-54-98 for the railway relocation component of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project not be awarded.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Contract No. T-54-98, Tender No. 62-1998, for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project railway relocation along Lake Shore Boulevard from Don Roadway to Leslie Street not be awarded and that Recommendation No. 1 of the joint report (July8, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services entitled "F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project - Railway Relocation along Lake Shore Boulevard from Don Roadway to Leslie Street - Contract No.T-54-98, Tender No. 62-1998" be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on July 13, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it a joint report (July 8, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, entitled "F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project - Railway Relocation along Lake Shore Boulevard from Don Roadway to Leslie Street - Contract No. T-54-98, Tender No. 62-1998". Upon hearing deputations on this and other associated reports, the Urban Environment and Development Committee deferred consideration of this report until its meeting scheduled to be held on October 5, 1998.

Due to scheduling conflicts and the need for additional time to meet with members of the public, the Chair deferred consideration of this report until the November 30, 1998, meeting.

Discussion:

Since the July 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, meetings have been held with community and business representatives who had concerns regarding the design of the railway relocation that forms the basis for Contract No. T-54-98. To address these concerns, we have developed a modified design for the railway relocation. Separate reports about planning issues and their impacts on the detailed design of the rail relocations, ramps, road and streetscape are also on the agenda.

Conclusions:

Due to a recent modification in the railway relocation design, Contract No. T-54-98 is no longer appropriate and should not be awarded.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathleen Llewellyn-Thomas, Director of Engineering Services, Districts 1 and 2, 392-8590.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following joint report (July8, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise the results of the tender issued for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, railway relocation along Lake Shore Boulevard from DonRoadway to Leslie Street, in accordance with specifications as required by the Works and Emergency Services Department and to request the authority to issue a contract to the recommended bidder.

Funding Source:

Funds are available in the appropriate accounts for this project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that, subject to Council approving the dismantling option which requires rail relocation:

(1)Contract No. T-54-98, Tender No. 62-1998, for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, railway relocation along Lake Shore Boulevard from the Don Roadway to Leslie Street, be awarded to Dufferin Construction Co., a Division of St. Lawrence Cement Inc., in the total amount of $3,990,759.74 including all taxes and charges, being the lowest tender; and

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

Council Reference/Background History:

The Bid Committee at its meeting held on July 8, 1998, opened the following tenders for Contract No. T-54-98, Tender No. 62-1998, for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, railway relocation along Lake Shore Boulevard from Don Roadway to Leslie Street:

Price Complete

Including All

TendererCharges & Taxes

Dufferin Construction Co., a division of St. Lawrence Cement Inc.$3,990,759.74

Grascan Construction Ltd,/Torbridge Construction Ltd.$4,066,000.00

Dagmar Construction Inc.$4,463,054.94

Gazzola Paving Limited$4,594,465.51

The tender submitted by Dagmar Construction Inc. contained a minor error in the addition of the unit prices. The revised figure is shown above.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The tender document 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.

Conclusions:

This report requests authority to issue a contract for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, railway relocation along Lake Shore Boulevard from Don Roadway to Leslie Street in accordance with specifications to Dufferin Construction Co., a Division of St. Lawrence Cement Inc., as the tender price quoted being the lowest tender received.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

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

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

Proposed Amendments to By-law No. 60-1998

"The Carbon Monoxide Detector By-law"

(All Wards)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 16, 1998) from the Fire Chief, subject to:

(1)deleting all wording after the words "should be" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "monitored by some responsible agency" in Recommendation No. (1)(e), so that such recommendation shall now read:

"multi-unit residential buildings with fuel-fired appliance in rooms that are part of the building should have carbon monoxide alarms located in the room containing the fuel-fired appliance. The alarm should be monitored by some responsible agency."; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Fire Chief, being requested to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting on December 16, 1998, on the following:

(a)further information respecting Recommendation No. (1)(e); and

(b)appropriate wording for Recommendation No. (1)(d):

Purpose:

To evaluate amendments to the above by-law that have been proposed by the Greater Toronto Apartment Association (GTAA), and to propose other amendments that are considered to be necessary.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding requirements associated with this report.

The financial implications to the City of adoption of the amendments to the By-Law that are proposed in this report are nil. The financial impact on the members of the GTAA of complying with the By-law will be significantly reduced since the number of carbon monoxide detectors required in multi-unit residential buildings by the amended By-Law will be greatly reduced.

Adoption of the proposed amendments to the By-Law will make compliance with the By-Law far less onerous to the members of the GTAA while providing no reduction in the level of protection provided to the citizens of Toronto from the hazards of carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the following proposed amendments to the Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law (By-Law 60-1998) be approved:

(1)Multi-unit residential buildings should be exempted from the requirements for carbon monoxide (CO) alarms with the following exceptions:

(a)Multi-unit residential buildings with common fuel-fired forced air heating systems - all dwelling units within such buildings that are heated by a common fuel-fired central system should be required to have CO alarms.

(b)Multi-unit residential buildings with fuel-fired appliances in some or all of the suites - all dwelling units within such buildings that have any fuel-fired fireplaces, ranges, heating equipment, etc. should be required to have CO alarms.

(c)Multi-unit residential buildings where fuel-fired appliance rooms share common walls with dwelling units or are located directly above or below dwelling units, such dwelling units should be required to have CO alarms.

(d)Multi-unit residential buildings with attached garages - dwelling units sharing common walls with garages or that are located directly above garages should be required to have CO alarms.

(e)Multi-unit residential buildings with fuel-fired appliance in rooms that are part of the building should have carbon monoxide alarms located in the room containing the fuel-fired appliance. The alarm should be connected in such a way that building supervisory staff are notified when the alarm is actuated.

(2)Maintenance requirements for all fuel-fired equipment (heating, cooking, etc.) should be made a part of the By-Law requirements. Appropriate maintenance standards as recommended by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority should be referenced in the By-Law.

(3)In the "Definitions" section, the term "Boarding or Lodging House" should be revised to read "Boarding, Lodging or Rooming House" to match the terminology used in both the Fire and Building Codes.

(4)In the definition of "Boarding or Lodging House", the criteria that determines whether a particular building is affected should be changed. The phrase "for gain" should be changed to the Fire Code criteria "in return for remuneration or the provision of services or both".

(5)The term "electrically powered" in the definition of "Carbon Monoxide Detector" should be changed. A phrase such as "connected to the primary electrical supply for the building" is more accurate.

(6)The term "multiple occupancies" in Item 4 should be changed to "multiple dwelling units".

Council Reference/Background/History:

The GTAA submitted an "engineering report" on October 19, 1998, in response to discussions with Mr. Yaman Uzumeri, P.Eng., Executive Director/Chief Building Official - Building Department. The "engineering report" proposes several amendments to By-Law 60-1998 "The Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law" that reflect the GTAA's concerns that the By-Law imposes requirements on their members that they feel are unwarranted due to "all the existing life safety regulations already governing apartments".

The position of the GTAA is that By-Law 60-1998 should not apply to apartment buildings.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

(1)Analysis of GTAA "Engineering Report" by Nadine International:

The "engineering report" submitted by the GTAA contains recommended amendments to By-Law 60-1998 that are not adequately supported by the information in the report:

(A)The Introduction states that Nadine reviewed 88,000 documents on the Internet regarding carbon monoxide. This is highly unlikely, especially on the basis of the samples of the "supporting" documentation from the Internet and Ontario Coroner's office that are included in Appendix B of Nadine's report (see below)

(B)The results of the Internet document review were not provided in detail. That is, recommendations for By-Law amendments have been made without specific reference to which Internet document supported the proposed amendment (see below).

(C)The "COMMENTS/DISCUSSION/JUSTIFICATION" section contains unsupported claims, misleading statements, omissions and contradictions:

(i)Paragraph 3 states that CO is lethal at concentrations of 400 parts per million (ppm) in 1-2 hours. Paragraph 4 then states that "for death to occur... about 12800 ppm... must be sustained or exceeded for 1-3 minutes". The next paragraph infers that it is only the extremely high concentration, short duration exposures that must be protected against. This is clearly misleading.

If 400 ppm of CO are present during the night, then those levels will be just as lethal as the high concentration for a short time period. Even very low CO levels (much less than 400 ppm) are a hazard to the elderly and the very young, as well as others with common health problems.

(ii)"Eextremely poor ventilation" is not necessarily required to allow dangerous concentrations of CO to accumulate. The amount of CO that the source is producing also plays a critical role. A furnace that is churning out huge amounts of CO may still create hazardous CO levels even in a fairly well-ventilated building.

No supporting documentation is provided that indicates that dwelling units in apartment buildings are any better ventilated than single family dwellings (SFDs).

(iii)Fire rated assemblies are not gas-tight assemblies. The condition of the rated assemblies in the fuel-fired appliance rooms of existing apartments is almost without exception poor. Experience from residential Retrofit and regular inspectors confirm that the vast majority of fuel-fired appliance room fire separations have been breached to some degree. Any breach regardless of size renders a fire separation non-gas-tight.

(iv)The reference to fire separations is repetition of the point about rated assemblies. They are synonymous terms. (See comments above).

(v)The report does not elaborate on how "life safety requirements" mitigates the risk of CO accumulation in multi-unit residential buildings. That is, which "life safety requirements" are being referred to and exactly how do they reduce the CO accumulation risk?

(vi)Stack effect ventilation may worsen a CO problem depending on building characteristics and weather conditions. Stack effect dictates that on a cold day, the neutral plane may be low enough that CO would be drawn out of a fuel-fired appliance room and actually blown into all spaces above that level, including every dwelling unit.

(vii)The report states that the 1993 NFPA CO report is the only one available in North America, Europe and Asia that provides CO death statistics. While this is hard to believe, insufficient time was available to search and find other CO death statistics.

(viii)The 1993 NFPA report is not included in the report's appendices so that it could be verified that the conclusions drawn were accurate. No reliable bibliographic reference was given for this report.

(ix)The statistics provided at the top of page 5 state that 60 percent of CO deaths are vehicle-related. Since these are more than likely vehicles in attached garages, that indicates that any dwelling units that have an attached garage are at risk of dangerous CO accumulation.

(x)The statistics provided at the top of page 5 state that 60 percent of CO deaths are vehicle-related are contradicted by the statement further down on page 5 that "The most frequent contributors of CO production are fireplaces, gas water heaters, wood stoves, space and portable heaters (non-electric)".

This paragraph also goes on to state that CO alarms should be provided where any of these devices are located, but no recommended By-Law amendment is made to address these hazards that may be present in some dwelling units in multi-unit residential buildings.

(xi)The comments regarding "background" CO conditions are a red herring. They have nothing to do with whether the risk of CO accumulation in dwelling units in multi-unit residential buildings is high enough to warrant mandating CO alarms in such dwelling units.

(xii)The arguments regarding false alarms and evacuations of multi-unit residential buildings also has nothing to do with the risk of CO accumulation in such buildings. The issue there is whether the manufacturing standards that govern when CO alarms sound require amendment. Also, the criteria under which evacuation is mandatory requires review. THAT is why the Chicago CO alarm by-law is allegedly being amended (no evidence that the proposed amendments have been adopted has been provided).

No data regarding background CO levels in Toronto have been provided.

(D)Appendix B of the "engineering report" is stated to contain documents supporting the GTAA's proposed amendments. A review of the information in Appendix B yielded the following:

(i)There are approximately fifty documents in the Appendix comprising about 300 pages. Approximately 30 percent of the documents provide general information about CO that do not address or support the By-Law amendments proposed by the GTAA submission.

(ii)Approximately 100 pages of the Appendix are Coroner's Inquest reports that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of accidental CO poisoning from non-fire sources. They deal with three fires in which a total of eight people died. CO poisoning was determined as the cause of the deaths, which is the case in a large percentage of fatal fires.

(iii)Approximately 30 percent of the documents mention CO, but are not in any way pertinent to the proposed By-Law amendments.

(iv)Four documents are pertinent. They include three copies of the amendments to the City of Chicago CO by-law. Some aspects of these amendments have been considered in the proposed amendments to the City of Toronto By-Law No.60-1998. The other document is an article from an apartment trade publication that contains numerous false and misleading statements.

(2)The justification for the proposed amendments are as follows (numbered in accordance with the list provided in the "Recommendations" section above):

(1A)A multi-unit residential building that has a single common forced air, fuel-fired heating system is no different than a single family dwelling in terms of the risk of CO poisoning. A faulty fuel-fired appliance or ventilation system can provide sufficient CO through the duct system identical to that found in a single family dwelling to injure or kill the occupants. Many of these types of buildings are not any larger than some three storey single family dwellings to which the By-Law already applies. Accordingly, all dwelling units in such multi-unit residential buildings should be required to be protected by CO detectors.

(1B)Since in-suite fuel-fired appliances have been shown to be a major sources of CO that pose a threat to apartment occupants, all dwelling units with any type of in-suite fuel-fired appliance should be protected by CO detectors.

(1C)The room in which a fuel-fired appliance is located in a multi-unit residential building must be gas-tight, otherwise CO from a faulty fuel-fired appliance or ventilation system will infiltrate adjacent apartments in exactly the same way it would in a single family dwelling. This is because the CO will readily mix with air by the natural movement of air in the appliance room. Fire separations that have been breached will allow the contaminated CO/air mixture to move into any adjacent dwelling units, again by natural air movement.

Even though the Ontario Fire Code requires all fire separations to be maintained intact, experience has shown that a significant majority of fire separations around fuel-fired appliance rooms have been breached to one degree or another. Since these fire separations are not a reliable barrier between fuel-fired appliance rooms and adjacent dwelling units, CO detectors should be required in all such dwelling units in multi-unit residential buildings.

(1D)CO detectors should also be provided in dwelling units in multi-unit residential buildings with attached garages where the volume of the garage is insufficient to provide adequate dilution of CO. Such small garages are common in smaller multi-unit residential buildings where single- or two-car garages are provided directly beneath dwelling units. This arrangement is no different than is commonly found in most single family dwellings, and therefore presents a similar degree of risk of CO infiltration into the occupied portions of the building.

(1E)Since most fuel-fired appliance rooms are unattended, the possibility exists for a malfunctioning fuel-fired appliance to produce hazardous levels of CO undetected for a significant period of time. A detector sounding an alarm in an unattended room could go unnoticed.

No notification of such a situation would occur until the CO detectors in any adjacent dwelling units actuate, if there are such adjacent units. It would be preferable to notify building supervisory staff sooner than later that fuel-fired appliances are malfunctioning. Remote annunciation of the alarm signal from a CO detector in a fuel-fired appliance room would help prevent CO levels from reaching concentrations in the room that would be considered to be immediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH).

Commercial type CO detectors would be required for this application since most models intended for use in single family dwellings are not to be installed in close proximity to potential CO sources. Also, models intended for single family dwelling are not capable of providing remote annunciation of alarm signals.

(2)Making adequate maintenance of fuel-fired appliances mandatory helps eliminate the source of CO before it presents a hazard. It makes more sense to prevent the hazard from occurring than notifying people that the hazard now exists.

(3)Using terminology that is already in use in established documents such as the Fire and Building Codes will reduce confusion and facilitate enforcement.

(3)Investigators with the By-Law Enforcement Section of the former City of North York have expressed frustration with the term "for gain" that is used in their zoning by-law because it is difficult to prove in court that accommodations have been provided "for gain". Also, using terminology similar to the existing Codes will reduce confusion and facilitate enforcement.

(4)The term "electrically powered" in the definition of "Carbon Monoxide Detector" should be changed since even battery operated devices are electrically powered. CSA does require battery operated devices to conform to its standards. The recommended phrase ("connected to the primary electrical supply for the building") also covers the plug-in type of detector, so that this type of device must comply with CSA electrical safety standards.

(5)The term "electrically powered" in the definition of "Carbon Monoxide Detector" should be changed since even battery operated devices are electrically powered. CSA does require battery operated devices to conform to its standards. The recommended phrase ("connected to the primary electrical supply for the building") also covers the plug-in type of detector, so that this type of device must comply with CSA electrical safety standards.

(6)The term "multiple occupancies" in Item 4 may lead to confusion or dispute since both the OFC and OBC application of "occupancy" is usually understood to mean type of use. That is, the by-law's use of "multiple occupancies" might be taken to mean that there must be commercial or mercantile uses in the same building as the residential occupancy in order for CO detection to be required.

Conclusion:

While the objective of the GTAA is valid, the information provided to support their position is inadequate. The amendments to the By-Law listed in the "Recommendations" section above should be considered on the basis of the reasoning provided in the "Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification" section above.

Contact Name:

Terry Boyko, Deputy Chief, 397-4302.

Mr. Gary Griesdorf, Executive Director, Greater Toronto Apartment Association appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with this matter.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (October 19, 1998) from Mr. Gary Griesdorf, Executive Director, Greater Toronto Apartment Association, submitting an Engineering Report for City of Toronto By-law No. 60-1998, prepared by Nadine International Inc.; advising that the study clearly indicates that there is no evidence whatsover that carbon monoxide is a danger to residents in multi-residential dwelling units in which there is no fuel-burning appliance in the particular suite; that the Greater Toronto Apartment Association (GTAA) concurs with the study's recommendation that a carbon monoxide detector should be installed in any dwelling unit that contains such a fuel-burning appliance, and in other rooms where fuel-burning appliances are present (e.g.,boiler rooms, and laundry rooms containing gas dryers; and requesting that the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and the appropriate officials, review the foregoing engineering report and with a view to reopening the original by-law for amendment.

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

(All Wards)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (November 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee further reports having directed the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to review the former City of Etobicoke Group Home By-law, with the objective to bring it into conformity with the rest of the City, as part of the Official Plan review.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (November 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To respond to the Scarborough Community Council's motion respecting the separation distance for group homes and recommend that Scarborough By-law 25225 which increases the separation distance between group homes from 300 metres to 800 metres be repealed.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are financial implications if Council does not approve the recommendations in this report. An OMB hearing could involve legal costs being awarded against the City and costs to engage planning consultants (which would require Council approval) to give evidence in support of the By-law as City planning staff cannot defend the By-law.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Solicitor be instructed to request the Ontario Municipal Board to repeal Zoning By-law No. 25225 of the former City of Scarborough.

Background:

At its meeting on November 2, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) had before it a staff report dated October 15, 1998 (see Appendix A) respecting Scarborough Group Homes Zoning By-law 25225. The report recommended that Council repeal Scarborough Zoning By-law 25225 which increases the separation distance between group homes from 300 metres to 800metres..

The UEDC referred the matter to the Scarborough Community Council and requested it forward its comments with respect thereto to the Committee for consideration at its meeting scheduled for November30, 1998.

At its meeting on November 12, 1998, Scarborough Community Council considered the matter and adopted the following motion:

"Be it resolved that the Urban Environment and Development Committee be advised that the Scarborough Community Council confirms its support for the former City of Scarborough position with respect to separation distance for Group Homes, given that the former cities of Etobicoke and North York by-laws are very similar to the former City of Scarborough's, as are their demographics and neighbourhood characteristics"

The City of Scarborough position referred to in the motion pertains to Scarborough City Council's passage of By-law 25225 in September 1997 which increases the separation distance between group homes in Scarborough from 300 metres to 800 metres. The separation distance for group homes is 300 metres in North York and 800 metres in Etobicoke. Therefore, prior to the passage of By-law 25225, North York and Scarborough had the same separation distance requirement of 300metres. The separation distance in the former City of Toronto is 245 metres.

While Etobicoke's by-law contains an 800 metre separation provision, it is important to understand the context and analysis that led to that standard. In Etobicoke, staff recommended an 800 metre separation distance after the locations of group homes were mapped, their spatial relationship examined and opportunities identified for allowing additional group homes in the future.

In contrast, the 800 metre figure that the former Scarborough City Council directed staff to implement was arbitrary and unsupported by any analysis of Scarborough's context, and solely based on the fact that 800 metres was used by another Area Municipality in Metropolitan Toronto. Scarborough City Council enacted the by-law notwithstanding a staff report which advised that:

-the existing 300 metre separation had been effective and had achieved the Metro Plan policy for an equitable distribution of facilities throughout Metro (Scarborough has 23 percent of the City's population and 24 percent of the City's group homes);

-there was no apparent need for increasing the separation distance;

-Buildings Standards staff had not received any complaints in recent years about group homes;

-up to 52 of the 72 group homes in Scarborough would become legal non-conforming uses; and

-opportunities for new group homes would be further limited.

The selection by the former Scarborough City Council of the 800 metre distancing requirement was done in isolation of the analysis that was used to justify the Etobicoke approach. It is clear that 800metres is not an appropriate separation distance in the context of the distribution of Scarborough group homes; given the fact that 72 percent of the existing facilities would become legal non-conforming use.

The subject of harmonizing group home policies and regulations was raised in an earlier staff report and at the November 16, 1998 Scarborough Community Council meeting. The Scarborough situation ( up to 52 group homes would become legal non-conforming uses) highlights the problem of attempting to standardize the separation distance in the absence of a consistent analytical framework. This issue will have to be addressed in conjunction with the preparation of the new Official Plan and City-wide implementation policies as proposed in the October 15, 1998 staff report. It is far more appropriate to resolve this issue as part of a comprehensive review to ensure that City-wide interests are considered and which would allow for input from appropriate stakeholders. An Ontario Municipal Board hearing in which staff cannot provide a substantive defence and where the focus may be limited to whether the separation distance should be 300 or 800 metres in Scarborough is not an appropriate forum for new City policy. In addition to examining the implications of increasing separation distances, the City-wide review of group home policies and regulations will determine if it is appropriate to decrease separation distances such as the 800 metres used in Etobicoke.

Therefore, as separation distances will be reviewed in the future, it is recommended that Council resolve the dilemma of being both the respondent and appellant by requesting the Ontario Municipal Board to repeal Scarborough Zoning By-law No. 25225. The recommendations of the October 15, 1998 report were based on Council repealing the Scarborough Zoning By-law No. 25225. However, the City Solicitor has advised that as the By-law is on appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board, only the Board can repeal it. Accordingly, this report proposes a new recommendation whereby the City Solicitor is instructed to request the Ontario Municipal Board to repeal the By-law. The new recommendation replaces the recommendations in the October 15, 1998 report.

Contact Name:

Ms. Barbara Leonhardt, Director of Policy and Research, City Planning Division, Metro Hall, 22nd Floor, 392-8148.

Councillor B. Ashton, Scarborough Bluffs and Councillor C. Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with this matter.

--------

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

-(November 16, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Scarborough Community Council, on November 12, 1998, adopted the following motion:

"BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Urban Environment and Development Committee be advised that the Scarborough Community Council confirms its support for the former City of Scarborough position with respect to separation distance for Group Homes, given that the former cities of Etobicoke and North York by-laws are very similar to the former City of Scarborough's, as are their demographics and neighbourhood characteristics."

-(October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services expressing the 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.

-(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.

(A copy of the Appendix A, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 30, 1998 and December 1, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Proposed Conversion of Temporary Traffic Control

Signals at Park Home Avenue and Beecroft Road,

and Park Home Avenue and Senlac Road

(Ward: North York Centre)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 10, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To propose the conversion of the temporary traffic control signal installations at Park Home Avenue and Beecroft Road and at Park Home Avenue and Senlac Road to permanent installation standards.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic control signal installations are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Capital Program under project No. C-TR031. In 1998, $1.6 million has been allocated for new traffic control signal installations. These funds have been fully committed already through approvals of 21 new signal installations. Therefore, unless additional funding is identified in 1998, new signal approvals for the balance of 1998 will be placed on a priority list for 1999 and await approval of the appropriate budget item in the 1999 Capital Budget.

The estimated cost to upgrade from a temporary to permanent installation at the Park Home Avenue and Beecroft Road intersection is $61,000.00. At the Park Home Avenue and Senlac Road intersection, the cost is $62,000.00. Included in these amounts is $67,000.00 to be refunded to the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) for the value of equipment recovered from the temporary installations which they funded.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the temporary traffic control signals at Park Home Avenue and Beecroft Road be converted to a permanent installation; and

(2)the temporary traffic control signals at Park Home Avenue and Senlac Road be converted to a permanent installation.

Background:

Temporary traffic control signals were installed at the intersections of Park Home Avenue and Beecroft Road and at Park Home Avenue and Senlac Road in 1995 as part of the traffic management plan associated with the Sheppard Subway Tailtrack Project. The traffic control signals were required to accommodate diverted traffic resulting from lane reductions on Sheppard Avenue East.

All cost associated with these two temporary traffic control signal installations were incurred by the TTC on the basis that they would be reimbursed for any equipment that could be recovered when the subject installation was no longer needed.

Discussion:

TTC staff have advised that the Sheppard Avenue East lane closures related to the Tailtrack Project have been completed and the temporary traffic control signals at the two subject intersections are no longer required as traffic control measures for this project.

To determine whether the devices should be removed or retained traffic signal warrant studies were recently conducted. The results indicate that the minimum technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are satisfied at the intersections of Park Home Avenue and Beecroft Road, and at Park Home Avenue and Senlac Road. The specific warrant values are as follows:

WarrantPark Home Avenue/Park Home Avenue/

Beecroft RoadSenlac Road

(1)Minimum Vehicular Volume100 percent88 percent

(2)Delay to Cross Traffic 69 percent80 percent

(3)Collision Hazard 20 percent20 percent

Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 should be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants should be 80 percent satisfied to meet the minimum technical requirements for the installation of traffic control signals. Based on the above-noted results, the minimum technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are satisfied at each of the subject intersections. Therefore it is appropriate to retain the existing devices and convert them to permanent installations.

Both Councillors agree with the recommendations of this report.

Conclusion:

Traffic control signals are warranted at the two intersections of Park Home Avenue and Beecroft Road and at Park Home Avenue and Senlac Road, and the temporary installations should be upgraded to permanent standards. TTC should be reimbursed for recoverable material from the two temporary installations according to the original agreement.

Contact Name:

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

(A copy of the location map, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the November 30, 1998 and December 1, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals

Bloor Street West and Forestview Road/Mapledawn Road

(Ward: Markland Centennial)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 10, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To propose the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Bloor Street West and Forestview Road/Mapledawn Road, coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover (PXO) located on the west side of the intersection.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Transportation Departments's Capital Budget Projections under Project No. C-TR031. In 1998, $1.6 million has been allocated for new traffic control signal installations. These funds have been fully committed already through approvals of 21 new signal installations. Therefore, unless additional funding is identified in 1998, new signal approvals for the balance of 1998 will be placed on a priority list for 1999 and await approval of the appropriate budget item in the 1999 Capital Budget.

The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals on Bloor Street West and Forestview Road/Mapledawn Road is $82,000.00 including the removal of the existing PXO.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)traffic control signals be installed at the intersection of Bloor Street West and ForestviewRoad/Mapledawn Road;

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

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

Background:

At the request of St. Clement Catholic School, our Department investigated the feasibility of replacing the existing pedestrian crossover with traffic control signals because of concerns that some motorists do not react appropriately to pedestrians at the PXO.

Discussion:

Bloor Street West in the vicinity of Forestview Road/Mapledawn Road is a four-lane arterial road. The posted speed limit is 50 kilometres per hour. A PXO is presently located on the west side of the intersection. The Toronto Transit Commission (T.T.C.) has an eastbound far side and a westbound near side bus stop at this location. The area is residential with single family homes backing onto Bloor Street West. St. Clement Catholic School is located on the southwest corner of the intersection. Adjacent traffic control signals on Bloor Street West are located approximately 226metres to the east of the PXO, at Markland Drive East, and 166 metres to the west at MillStreet. Bloor Street West curves vertically and horizontally between Mill Road and MarklandDrive East. This roadway alignment can restrict motorists view of pedestrians on the southwest corner of the existing PXO.

There are approximately 156 pedestrians crossing Bloor Street West at the subject PXO during an eight-hour period of a typical weekday.

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

Standards or Criteria to be met for Physical Suitability of a PXO	Met/Not Met	Comment
Vehicle operating speed less than 60kilometres per hour	Not met	85th percentile speed isgreater than 60kilometres per hour
Traffic volume less than 35,000 vehicles per day	Met	24,477 vehicles per day
No driveways or entrances nearby	Met	No driveways in the immediate vicinity
No significant volume of turning movements which interfere with the PXO	Met	low volume of turns in the immediate area
No visibility problems exist for either pedestrians or vehicles	Not Met	Moderate curve and downgrade create limited visibility especially for pedestrians on the south side of Bloor Street West
No loading zones (including TTC) in the immediate vicinity	Not met	eastbound and westbound TTC stops
Not less than 215 metres to another PXO or traffic control device	Not Met	Traffic control signals are located 166 metres to the west at Mill Street and 226 metres to the east at Markland Drive East

This location does not meet four of the criteria listed above, specifically the operating speed, visibility, loading zone locations and spacing between devices.

Transportation Division staff reviewed the collision records provided by the Toronto Police Service for the three-year period ending December 31, 1997. During this period no collisions have occurred involving pedestrians crossing Bloor Street West in the PXO.

Both Councillors agree with the recommendations of this report.

Conclusion:

The existing PXO on Bloor Street at Forestview Road/Mapledawn Road is no longer operating in a satisfactory manner. Traffic control signals should be installed at the intersection to improve pedestrian safety at this location.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

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

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Brimley Road and Golden Gate Court/Omni Drive

(Ward: Scarborough City Centre)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (November 4, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Brimley Road and Golden Gate Court/Omni Drive.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Capital Program under Project No C-TR031. In 1998, $1.6 million has been allocated for new traffic control signal installations. These funds have been fully committed already through the approvals of 21 new signal installations. Therefore, unless additional funding is identified in 1998, new signal approvals for the balance of 1998 will be placed on a priority list for 1999 and await approval of the appropriate budget item in the 1999 Capital Budget. The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals at this location is $67,500.00.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that traffic control signals be approved on Brimley Road at Golden Gate Court/Omni Drive.

Background:

This location was investigated to determine the need for a more positive form of traffic control.

Discussion:

Brimley Road in this vicinity is a four-lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour and a two-way 24 hour volume of approximately 37,700 vehicles. Golden Gate Court and Omni Drive are both local roads that intersect with Brimley Road to form a full intersection with four approaches. Golden Gate Court is on the west side of Brimley Road and provides access to several industrial buildings. Omni Drive is directly opposite on the east side and serves as one of three access points from Brimley Road to the Scarborough Town Centre/Scarborough Civic Centre complex. At Golden Gate Court/Omni Drive, there is a southbound left-turn lane and near-side bus bay, and a northbound left-turn lane and far-side bus stop. Adjacent traffic control signals are located approximately 170 metres to the north at Triton Gate and 210 metres to the south at Ellesmere Road.

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

Warrant	Compliance
Minimum Vehicular Volume	95 percent
Delay to Cross Traffic	100 percent
Collision Hazard	33 percent

For the traffic control signal warrants to be satisfied, one of the "Minimum Vehicular Volume" or "Delay to Cross Traffic" warrants must be 100 per cent. satisfied or any two of the three warrants must be at least 80 per cent. satisfied. The "Collision Hazard" warrant is based on the number of collisions that occurred at the intersection in a three-year period which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Collision statistics provided by the Toronto Police Service indicate five collisions occurred over a three-year period from January 1, 1995 to December31, 1997 which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Based on the above information, the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are met.

Network performance analysis has confirmed that the installation of traffic control signals would not have a significant impact on the effectiveness of this arterial road within the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the traffic control signals would provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.

Staff have contacted the ward Councillors and they have both indicated support for the proposed installation of traffic control signals at this location.

Conclusions:

The installation of traffic control signals on Brimley Road at Golden Gate Court/Omni Drive is technically warranted and would provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area. In 1998, $1.6 million has been allocated for new traffic control signal installation. Twenty-one traffic control signals have been approved so far in 1998, which fully commits all these funds. Therefore, the installation of traffic control signals will have to await approval of the appropriate budget item in the 1999 Capital Budget.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

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

Rescission of the Eastbound Left-turn Prohibition at

Eglinton Avenue West and Avenue Road; and Amendment to the

Existing Parking Regulations on the East Side of Avenue Road,

Between Roselawn Avenue and Elwood Boulevard

(Ward: North Toronto)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To rescind the eastbound left-turn prohibition at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Avenue Road, which is currently in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, and to amend the existing No Parking Anytime regulations on the east side of Avenue Road, between Roselawn Avenue and Elwood Boulevard.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the proposed rescission of the eastbound left-turn prohibition and the amendment of the parking regulations are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost of this work is $1,300.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the eastbound left-turn prohibition at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Avenue Road, currently in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays be rescinded;

(2)the existing No Parking Anytime regulation on the east side of Avenue Road between Roselawn Avenue and Elwood Boulevard be modified to be in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00p.m., Monday to Friday; and

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

Background:

At the request of the Avenue Road & Eglinton Community Association (ARECA), our Division assessed the feasibility of rescinding the eastbound left-turn prohibition on Eglinton Avenue West at Avenue Road in order to reduce non-resident traffic on local roadways in the vicinity of the subject intersection. Also, ARECA requested our Division to assess the feasibility of relaxing the current parking prohibition on the east side of Avenue Road between Roselawn Avenue and Elwood Boulevard to apply from 7:00a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

Discussion:

The intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Avenue Road is controlled by traffic signals. EglintonAvenue West in this vicinity is comprised of two westbound lanes and two eastbound lanes plus an eastbound H.O.V. lane. Eastbound left turns are prohibited during the 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. period, except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays, and westbound left turns are prohibited at all times.

It is estimated that approximately 130 vehicles would make the eastbound left turn from EglintonAvenue to Avenue Road during the morning peak period. Based on the results of our field observations and intersection capacity analysis, it is possible to accommodate this eastbound left turn movement during the morning peak period. With minor modifications to the signal timings at this intersection, there will be very little impact on the competing traffic movements and overall intersection delay. If the eastbound left turns are allowed during this time period, non-resident traffic may not need to use Latimer Avenue, Castlewood Avenue, Heddington Avenue or Castle Knock Road to access Avenue Road northbound.

The section of Avenue Road between Roselawn Avenue and Elwood Boulevard is currently governed by a No Parking Anytime prohibition. Based on the results of our field observations and capacity analysis it is possible to accommodate parking between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on this section of Avenue Road. There will be no impact on existing traffic patterns during this time period and approximately 10 additional spaces will be available for evening parking adjacent to the Marshall McLuhan Secondary School.

We have consulted with Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker and they have expressed no concern with this proposal.

Conclusion:

Rescinding the eastbound left-turn prohibition at the intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Avenue Road will have a minimal impact on the intersection operation, while it may decrease non-resident traffic on local roadways near this intersection.

Amending the existing No Parking Anytime regulation on the east side of Avenue Road between Roselawn Avenue and Elwood Boulevard to No Parking 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday will have no impact on existing traffic patterns and will result in additional evening parking capacity in this vicinity.

Contact Name:

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

Other Items Considered by the Committee.

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)1999-2003 Capital Budget Review.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having considered matters relating to the 1999-2003 Capital Budget, and recommended to the Budget Committee:

(1)that the 1999-2003 Capital Budgets for the Toronto Transit Commission; Toronto Parking Authority; Toronto Conservation Authority; Transportation; and Urban Planning and Development be adopted, as presented;

(2)that the approximately $10.3 million savings from the delay of the F.G.Gardiner Expressway dismantling project be reallocated as follows:

$4 million-previously cut programs such as bicycle lanes and traffic calming

$3.9 million-Dufferin Street Jog Elimination Program

$600,000.00-Bicycle Lane Improvements (to be identified by staff)

$500,000.00-Infiltration Barriers within the Gardiner dismantling program

$500,000.00-Long Branch Main Station

$450,000.00-Enhanced SCOOT program

$350,000.00-Urban Design throughout the City;

(3)that the Budget Committee and City Council be requested to approve the allocation of $700,000.00 to allow the appropriate process of the City's Official Plan;

(4)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Budget Committee for its meeting on December 11, 1998, on:

(a)the various comments raised by the deputants at the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting on November 30, 1998; and

(b)road reconstruction throughout the City, taking into consideration the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services' comments at the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting on November30, 1998;

(i)(November 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer respecting the 1999-2003 Capital Budget;

(ii)(November 11, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer respecting the 1999-2003 preliminary Capital Budget for consideration with the 1999 Operating Budget;

(iii)(October 8, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, forwarding the action taken by the Toronto Transit Commission on October 7, 1998, respecting the 1999-2003 Capital Program;

(iv)(November 13, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, respecting Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS);

(v)(November 6, 1998) from the City Clerk submitting the action taken by the Seniors' Task Force on November4, 1998; and

(vi)(November 23, 1998) from the City Clerk submitting the action taken by the the Toronto Pedestrian Committee on November 19, 1998.

--------

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

-Mr. Garnett Martin, Chairman, Advisory Group on Audible Pedestrian Signals regarding the Audible Pedestrian Signals Program;

-Ms.Edna Beange, East York, regarding the Installation of Oversized Street Name Signs, as a project for the International Year of Older Persons in 1999;

-Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, regarding the Missing Sidewalk on Dundas Street West, between Old Oak Road and Donnybrook Lane, as a project for the International Year of Older Persons in 1999;

-Mr. Ron Hart, North York Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, regarding the budgetary cuts to the traffic-calming program;

-Mr. Allan Burk, representing the Toronto City Cycling Committee; and

- Mr. Hamish Wilson, regarding the City's capital budget.

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee that:

(1)the F.G. Gardiner Expressway Dismantling Project be deferred until mid-1999;

(2)the following joint report (November 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, the Executive Director, City Planning and the Medical Officer of Health be adopted, subject to:

(i)Recommendation No. (4) being amended to read as follows:

"(4)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, develop and conduct an ambient air quality monitoring program, to include any mitigation strategies, for the area bounded by Queen Street West, the DonRoadway, Commissioners Street and Leslie Street, and report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee no later than May 1999";

(ii)Recommendation No. (5) being amended to read as follows:

"(5)the 1999 Transportation Capital Works Program submission for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (Don Valley Parkway to Leslie Street), (C-TR-026), be revised from $13.32 million to $3.0 million; and that of the approximate $10.3 million deferred, $4 million be for previously cut programs such as bicycle lanes, traffic calming; $3.9million for Dufferin Street Jog Elimination Program; $600,000.00 for bicycle lane improvements (to be identified by staff); $500,000.00 for Infiltration Barriers within the Gardiner dismantling program; $500,000.00 for Long Branch Main Station; $450,000.00 for the Enhanced SCOOT program; and $350,000.00 for Urban Design throughout the City";

and further reports having requested:

(a)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i)to report to City Council through the Urban Environment and Development Committee, before May 1999, with a detailed plan for the prevention of traffic infiltration in residential neighbourhoods during construction as a result of either dismantling or rehabilitation of the Gardiner Expressway East, and a second detailed plan for the prevention of traffic infiltration in residential neighbourhoods as a result of closures of Lakeshore Boulevard for whatever reason after dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway East, should City Council decide to proceed;

(ii)provide a consolidated report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee addressing all relevant issues, i.e., traffic studies, impact on neighbourhoods, including the communities from Leslie Street to Coxwell Avenue, the feasibility of a light rail system or street car route along the Lakeshore; and further that the Chair of Committee ensure that Toronto Transit Commission staff are involved in discussions respecting the design and right-of-ways in this regard; and

(iii)develop a noise mitigation and monitoring protocol in partnership with the Film Industry representatives, and report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and further that the Film Office consult with the film industry to develop and implement a public relations plan; and

(b)the Toronto Transit Commission to participate in the planning process relating to the F.G. Gardiner Expressway dismantling project to ensure appropriate measures are taken to facilitate the future introduction of mass transit on the Lakeshore, and the rerouting of express buses off Eastern Avenue and onto Lakeshore Boulevard; and

(c)Mayor Mel Lastman to meet with the Film Studio representatives to tour the facilities:

(i)(November 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, the Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning, and the Medical Officer of Health proposing the deferral of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project until mid-1999; and outlining recommendations in regard thereto;

(ii)(July 7, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services recommending that the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project proceed as originally approved by the former Metropolitan Toronto and City of Toronto Councils; providing additional information related to the Dismantling Project as requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee and City Council; advising that many of the concerns raised about the Gardiner East Dismantling Project have already been addressed through previous planning and design work or can be addressed with appropriate mitigating measures; that those concerns which cannot be addressed relate to a desire to maintain the existing Expressway structure; expressing the opinion that the approved plan for the dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East continues to provide the best combination of transportation service, urban character improvements and cost savings over the long term;

(iii)(July 9, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services providing a summary of the differences between the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project (the Current Plan) and an alternative plan developed to by-pass the LakeShore Boulevard East and CarlawAvenue intersection (theAlternative Plan); and recommending that this report be received for information;

(iv)(July 13, 1998) from Councillors Sandra Bussin and Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, requesting that the Urban Environment and Development Committee support and recommend to City Council the "Alternative Plan" for the dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East and the renovation of Lake Shore Boulevard East; expressing the belief that the "Alternative Plan" will better accommodate the transportation needs of their constituents while, at the same time, improving accessibility to the harbour lands; that the "Alternative Plan" will also achieve the very desirable objective of refurbishing the streetscape and the environment along the LakeShore corridor in this area; and further recommending that staff be requested to meet with the area studio and other business property owners to seek their input on the "Alternative Plan";

(v)(June 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lakeshore Corridor, inter alia, reaffirmed that it prefers the option selected as part of the environmental assessment process with the ramps coming down at Bouchette Street;

(vi)(November 24, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor on November16, 1998, requested Urban Planning and Development Services staff to continue investigating and resolving problems related to the Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, and suggested that ancillary improvements such as bicycle lanes and pedestrian improvement projects be proceeded with where possible to enhance the LakeShore Corridor;

(vii)(June 8, 1998) from the Chair, South East Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee, advising that the City of Toronto's South East Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee on May26, 1998, discussed issues respecting the Gardiner East Dismantling Project, had before it in regard thereto;

(viii)(October 27, 1998) from Mr. James Alcock, Chair, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway (CREGE), advising that the CREGE remains committed to its opposition to the demolition of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway; however, the group has had an opportunity to review the existing plans and has decided that although it prefers the ramps east of Leslie Street, it is willing to compromise in order to bring this issue to an end; stating that the CREGE would like to see an end to this issue with some type of recommendation made to City Council in December 1998; and urging the Urban Environment and Development Committee to recommend that the Alternative Plan, with the ramps east of Carlaw Avenue, be adopted;

(ix)(November 25, 1998) from Mr. James Alcock, Chairman, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway (CREGE), advising that CREGE remains adamantly opposed to the demolition of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway; that there is now enough evidence to cancel this project; urging the Urban Environment and Development Committee to recommend to City Council that no further deferrals or delays be imposed; that the Expressway structure be completely rehabilitated and that new double ramps be placed over the Leslie Street intersection, that the urban design improvements be carried out alongside the cleaned-up Gardiner Expressway;

(x)(November 24, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer recommending that should Council decide to proceed with the extension of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway over Leslie Street, the additional funding will need to be included in the Transportation Division's 2000-2004 Capital Works Program;

(xi)(November 29, 1998) from Mr. Eric Cages, Toronto, in opposition to the dismantling of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway, and noting the high volumes of traffic in this area;

(xii)(November 29, 1998) from Mr. D. Clouthier, Toronto, advising that any decision with respect to the Gardiner Expressway should made carefully, once more information is available on the impacts which would result from the dismantling;

(xiii)(November 27, 1998) from Ms. D. Paradis, Toronto, in opposition to the dismantling of any portion of the Gardiner Expressway as it will result in increased traffic congestion in this area, and expressing concern for the safety of the many children who walk to the schools in this area;

(xiv)(December 1, 1998) from Mr. D. Z. Yazici, President, D.Z.Y. Drafting & Design Services, Toronto, stating that any demolition and reconfiguration of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway will result in devastating consequences to area business and will cause traffic problems; and expressing support for a one month trial closure of the east expressway;

(xv)(December 1, 1998) from Mr. W. Walker, Transport 2000 Ontario, recommending that a larger overview of the future land uses in the area presently transversed by the easterly extension of the Gardiner Expressway be undertaken prior to any conclusions leading to more detailed design of future transportation facilities, and supporting the community improvement plan and air quality monitoring program which are proposed in current staff reports;

(xvi)(December 1, 1998) from Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, expressing opposition to the complete dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway extension into Toronto's east-end, and in support of experiments with closures and re-routings in order to determine possible solutions;

(xvii)(undated) from Mr. R. Chandler, Toronto, expressing opposition to the dismantling of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway, and outlining concerns with respect to the increased air and noise pollution which would result;

(xviii)(undated) from Mrs. K. Chandler, Toronto, expressing concern with respect to the negative impact on air quality which would result from the dismantling of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway; and

(xix)(December 1, 1998) from Mr. Bruce H. Bryer, Secretary, Citizens for the Retention and Extension of the East Gardiner Expressway (CREGE), advising unanimously oppose the demolition of the Eastern F.G. Gardiner Expressway; and outlining concerns with respect to the increased air and noise pollution which would result.

(xx)(December 1, 1998) from Mr. David Crombie, Chair, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, expressing support based on their position that the Gardiner East Dismantling Project offers the potential for the City to achieve several important objectives.

--------

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

-Ms. Elizabeth Borek, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association; and also filed a written submission;

-Mr. Jim Egan, Toronto;

-Mr. Peter Lukas, Showline Limited; and also filed a written submission;

-Mr. Ken Ferguson, Vice-President, Toronto Film Studios; and also filed a written submission;

-Mr. Michael Hough, Toronto; and also filed a written submission;

-Mr. Robert Wright, Associate Dean, University of Toronto;

- Mr. James Alcock, Chairman, Citizens for the Retention of the Gardiner Expressway;

-Mr. Kevin Walters, Toronto;

-Ms. Linda Lynch, Environment Watch Inc.; and also filed a written submission;

-Mr. Peter Smith, Toronto; and also filed a written submission;

-Mr. David Hanna, Toronto; and

-Mr. David Leonhardt, C.A.A., Ontario;

-Councillor S. Bussin, East Toronto; and

-Councillor T. Jakobek, East Toronto.

(c)A Rapid Transit Connection Between Pearson

International Airport and Union Station.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following report and communication to the January 11, 1999 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(i)(November 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that consideration of this matter be deferred until the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting in January 1999 in order to allow additional time for responses from the Provincial and Federal Governments.

(ii)(October 9, 1998) from the City Clerk addressed to the Minister of Transport enclosing a copy of Clause No.1 of Report No.10 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "A Rapid Transit Connection Between Pearson International Airport and Union Station", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on October1and2, 1998; and drawing the Minister's attention to the amendment by Council found at the beginning of the Clause, viz:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the federal Minister of Transportation be invited to make a presentation respecting this matter to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee to be held on November2, 1998; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to Council in November 1998, if possible, or in December 1998, with an update on whether there has been any movement from the provincial or federal governments with respect to the foregoing matter, so that Council can be informed on the progress of this project."

(d)Toronto Transit Commission: Comstock Bus Garage Conceptual Layout Approval.

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

(November 5, 1998) from the General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Toronto Transit Commission on November 4, 1998, considered Report No.(7), entitled "Comstock Bus Garage Conceptual Layout Approval"; that the Commission approved, in principle, the conceptual layout for the Comstock Bus Garage as detailed in the report, and requested staff to submit a further report on any alterations that may arise if a longer-sized bus is introduced to the fleet at some time in the future; and stating that the foregoing is forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for information.

(e)Building Activity Report: January to September 1998.

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

(November 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services providing information on building permit activity within the first nine months of 1998; advising that due to steady growth and strong construction activity in the City of Toronto, it is expected that the year-end revenue targets will be exceeded; and recommending that this report be received as information.

Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE,

Chair

Toronto, November 30, 1998 and December 1, 1998

(Report No. 14 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998.)

Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links

� City of Toronto 1998-2001