1 Alteration of Queens Quay West and Bathurst Street (Trinity-Niagara and Downtown - Wards 20 & 24)

2 Results of Condition Survey of Toronto's High-rise Apartment Buildings

3 Reinvesting in Toronto: What the Competition is Doing

4 F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project (Don River and East Toronto - Wards 25 & 26)

5 Review of Urban Environment and Development Committee's Accomplishments

6 Amendment to By-law No. 28-1998, "A By-law respecting the Toronto Parking Authority"

7 Various Amendments to Former Metropolitan Traffic By-laws

8 Road Modifications Required for Private Sector - Various Locations (Black Creek, North York Spadina, Seneca Heights & Scarborough Agincourt - Wards 7, 8, 12 and 17)

9 Modifications Required for Private Sector Developments - Various Locations (Lakeshore-Queensway, Rexdale-Thistletown, Scarborough City Centre and Scarborough Agincourt - Wards 2, 5, 15 and 17)

10 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals - McNicoll Avenue and Eagle Point Road (Scarborough Agincourt - Ward 17)

11 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals on Front Street East at George Street (Ward 24)

12 700 King Street West - Capital Accounts (Trinity-Niagara - Ward 20)

13 Approval Under the Cemeteries Act (Revised) for a Columbarium Conservatory in Mount Pleasant Cemetery, 1250 Bayview Avenue (North York, East York - Wards 1 and 22)

14 Fees for Processing of Minor Variance Applications made in response to an Order to Comply

15 Collection and Disposal of Abandoned Shopping Carts

16 Delegation of Consent Approval Authority to the Committee of Adjustment (Scarborough)

17 Road Salt Environmental Impact Study and Reduction of Road Salt Use

18 Urban Planning and Development Services Department - Staff Resources

19 Moving the Economy Sustainable Transportation Sector Development

20 Consolidated Financial Statements of Toronto Transit Commission for Year ended December 31, 1998

21 Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

• a by-law in the form of the following draft by-law be enacted, and that authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto; and
• the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to work with the deputants who appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee to resolve any outstanding issues.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause No. 3 of Report No. 5 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, titled "Realignment and Widening of the Pavements on Bathurst Street and Queens Quay in connection with the Waterfront West Light Rail Transit Extension (Trinity-Niagara and Downtown - Wards 20 & 24)" which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on April 29, May 3, 10 and 16, 1999, and the following persons addressed the Committee in connection with this matter:

- Charles D. Parmelee, Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 781; and

- Claudio Covelli, Dillon Consulting Limited.

The Committee submits the draft by-law:

Bill No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations.", respecting the alteration of Queens Quay West by the widening and realignment of the pavement from Lower Portland Street to Bathurst Street and the alteration of Bathurst Street by the widening and realignment of the pavement between Queens Quay West and approximately 120 metres north of Lake Shore Boulevard West as part of the Waterfront West Light Rail Transit Extension.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , , and ,1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on May 17, 1999 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration;

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

1. Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1) by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-2" (Pavement Widening) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2 (Column 3 (Column 4 (Column 5 (Column 6

Drawing

Street) Side) Width) From) To) No./Date)

Queens from: 14 m - Lower Bathurst R7-3-G-1A

Quay West 20.5 m to: Portland Street March 15, 1999

20.5m - 22 m Street

Bathurst from: 19.6 m - Queens approx. R7-3-G-1A

Street 20 m to: 20 m Quay 120 m north and

- 23 m West of Lake Shore R7-3-G-1B

Boulevard West dated

March 15, 1999

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits Clause No. 3 embodied in Report No. 5 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee titled, "Realignment and Widening of the Pavements on Bathurst Street and Queens Quay West in connection with the Waterfront West Light Rail Transit Extension (Trinity-Niagara & Downtown - Wards 20 & 24)", as adopted without amendment, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the reports (March 16, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services and (March 24, 1999) from the General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (March 16, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the realignment and widening of portions of the pavements on Queens Quay West and Bathurst Street to facilitate the construction of the Waterfront West LRT extension .

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the pavement widenings and realignments including related adjustments to parks facilities and utilities will be borne by the Toronto Transit Commission, as will costs related to the streetcar line construction.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to widen and realign the pavements on Queens Quay West and Bathurst Street, described as follows:

(a) "The widening and realignment of the pavement on the south side of Queens Quay West, from a width varying from 20.5 metres to 14.0 metres to a width varying from 20.5 metres to 22.0 metres (including track allowance) between Lower Portland Street and Bathurst Street as shown on the attached print of TTC Drawing No. R7-3-G-1A dated March 15, 1999"; and

(b) "The widening and realignment of the pavement on both sides of Bathurst Street, from a width varying from 19.6 metres to 20 metres to a width varying from 20.0 to 23.0 metres (including track allowance) between Queens Quay West and a point approximately 120 metres north of Lake Shore Boulevard West as shown on the attached prints of TTC Drawing Nos. R7-3-G-1A and R7-3-G-1B dated March 15, 1999."

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

The Waterfront West Light Rail Transit project westerly to Exhibition Place received Environmental Assessment (EA) approval from the Ministry of Environment and Energy in August 1995. The approved project contemplated the line on Queens Quay West to Lower Portland Street, then northerly to Lake Shore Boulevard West. TTC staff are securing an amendment to the EA approval to allow the line to extend westerly on Queens Quay West as far as Bathurst Street, before heading north to the existing tracks on Fleet Street. It is anticipated that a report from the Toronto Transit Commission on the amendment will be before your Committee at its March 31, 1999 meeting and considered by City Council at its meeting scheduled for April 13, 14 and 15, 1999.

Construction of the extension is scheduled by the TTC to commence in the Spring of this year. The installation of the track bed involves a number of changes to the pavement alignments on portions of Queens Quay West and Bathurst Street and it is now in order to secure approval of the widenings as described in Recommendation No. (1) above to accommodate the transit work.

The widening of the pavements on Queens Quay West and Bathurst Street constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. This matter is being reported to your Committee at this time in order that the statutory requirements set out in the Act (advertising Council's intent to enact the by-law, public deputation hearing) can commence in the early Spring to permit final approval and construction commencement in accordance with the TTC's current schedule. Any required modifications or issues arising out of the detailed design or public consultation processes as well as associated changes to traffic and parking regulations can be reported to a subsequent meeting of the Toronto Community Council, Urban Environment and Development Committee or City Council, if required.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. John Niedra, Manager

Infrastructure Assets Management and Programming

Transportation Services Division (392-5348)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (March 24, 1999) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting on Tuesday, March 23, 1999, the Commission considered the attached report entitled, "Queens Quay Streetcar Connection - Modification To Environmental Assessment."

Recommendations:

That the City of Toronto:

1) endorse the modification to the Environmental Assessment for the Queens Quay Streetcar Connection (originally prepared for the Waterfront West Light Rail Transit Line), to allow the construction of the streetcar connection via Queens Quay and Bathurst Street, as described in the attached report;

2) request that the Ministry of the Environment allow the modification to the Environmental Assessment for this project, as described in the attached report; and

3) request that the Ministry of the Environment allow a minor extension of Fort York Boulevard, between Fleet Street and Lake Shore Boulevard, in association with this modification, as described in the attached report;

Background:

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

"It is recommended that the Commission:

1. Request the City of Toronto to:

a) endorse the modification to the Environmental Assessment for the Queens Quay Streetcar Connection (originally prepared for the Waterfront West Light Rail Transit Line), to allow the construction of the streetcar connection via Queens Quay and Bathurst Street, as described in the attached report;

b) request that the Ministry of the Environment allow the modification to the Environmental Assessment for this project, as described in the attached report;

c) request that the Ministry of the Environment allow a minor extension of Fort York Boulevard, between Fleet Street and Lake Shore Boulevard, in association with this modification, as described in the attached report;

2. Note that the modification to the Environmental Assessment for the Queens Quay Streetcar Connection is consistent with the alignment which:

a) has been documented in all TTC staff reports on this subject since January 1997;

b) is the best means of making transit service more convenient and attractive to the continually-growing Queens Quay, Bathurst Quay, Exhibition Place, Ontario Place, and Toronto City Centre Airport areas;

c) the Commission has approved during the review process;

d) has been presented to the public at all public and Commission meetings on this subject since January 1997;

e) is supported by the City of Toronto Transportation Services Division, and documentation to that effect, from the General Manager of Transportation Services, is attached;

f) is endorsed by the local City Councillors for the area through which the service will operate;

g) has been approved in principle by the Metro Toronto Planning and Transportation Committee and the Council of the City of Toronto during their previous reviews of the TTC reports on this project; and

3. Forward this report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, Councillors Chow, Rae, Pantalone and Silva, and to the City of Toronto Transportation Services and Planning Divisions."

The foregoing is forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and City of Toronto Council for consideration of the Commission's request as it relates to Recommendation #1 noted above.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commission:

1. Request the City of Toronto to:

a) endorse the modification to the Environmental Assessment for the Queens Quay Streetcar Connection (originally prepared for the Waterfront West Light Rail Transit line), to allow the construction of the streetcar connection via Queens Quay and Bathurst Street, as described in the attached report;

b) request that the Ministry of the Environment allow the modification to the Environmental Assessment for this project, as described in the attached report;

c) request that the Ministry of the Environment allow a minor extension of Fort York Boulevard, between Fleet Street and Lake Shore Boulevard, in association with this modification, as described in the attached report;

2. Note that the modification to the Environmental Assessment for the Queens Quay Streetcar Connection is consistent with the alignment which:

a) has been documented in all TTC staff reports on this subject since January 1997;

b) is the best means of making transit service more convenient and attractive to the continually-growing Queens Quay, Bathurst Quay, Exhibition Place, Ontario Place, and Toronto City Centre Airport areas;

c) the Commission has approved during the review process;

d) has been presented to the public at all public and Commission meetings on this subject since January 1997;

e) is supported by the City of Toronto Transportation Services Division, and documentation to that effect, from the General Manager of Transportation Services, is attached;

f) is endorsed by the local City councillors for the area through which the service will operate;

g) has been approved in principle by the Metro Toronto Planning and Transportation Committee and the Council of the City of Toronto during their previous reviews of the TTC reports on this project; and

3. Forward this report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, Councillors Chow, Rae, Pantalone, and Silva, and to the City of Toronto Transportation Services and Planning Divisions.

Funding:

Sufficient funds for this project are included in the Queens Quay Streetcar Connection project budget, City Project No. 378, as set out on pages 631 to 636 in the TTC 1999-2003 Capital Program, as approved by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting of March 2, 1999.

Background:

At its meeting on June 24, 1997, in considering the report, Analysis of Costs and Benefits of a Streetcar Connection on Queens Quay, between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street, the Commission approved that "staff undertake all the necessary steps, as expeditiously as possible, to construct the streetcar connection on Queens Quay between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street using Alignment 2 [via Queens Quay and Bathurst Street]; and further that this line be built as economically as possible." Later, at its meeting of July 15, 1997, the Commission granted project approval for the streetcar connection. On July 29, 1997, the Planning and Transportation Committee of Metro Toronto approved the streetcar connection. Most recently, on March 2, 1999, as part of its approval of the TTC's 1998-2002 Capital Budget, the Council of the City of Toronto approved the construction and funding of the streetcar connection. These previous actions constitute approval, by the TTC and by the City of Toronto, of the construction and operation of the Queens Quay Streetcar Connection, on Queens Quay and Bathurst Street, between Lower Spadina Avenue and Fleet Street/Lake Shore Boulevard. The only remaining task, prior to final construction, is a modification to the Environmental Assessment for this project.

Discussion:

Part of the proposed alignment differs from the originally-approved Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project, which was originally prepared for the Waterfront West LRT (WWLRT) project in 1995. Before construction of the track on the revised alignment can begin, a modification to the EA, justifying the change in alignment, must be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).

The purpose of this covering report and the attached detailed report is to officially document and convey the proposed EA modification to the MOE, and to request the MOE to allow this modification.

Background:

At its meeting on June 24, 1997, in considering the report, Analysis of Costs and Benefits of a Streetcar Connection on Queens Quay, between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street, the Commission approved that "staff undertake all the necessary steps, as expeditiously as possible, to construct the streetcar connection on Queens Quay between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street using Alignment 2 [via Queens Quay and Bathurst Street]; and further that this line be built as economically as possible." Later, at its meeting of July 15, 1997, the Commission granted project approval for the streetcar connection. On July 29, 1997, the Planning and Transportation Committee of Metro Toronto approved the streetcar connection. Most recently, on March 2, 1999, as part of its approval of the TTC's 1998-2002 Capital Budget, the Council of the City of Toronto approved the construction and funding of the streetcar connection.

These previous actions constitute approval, by the TTC and by the City of Toronto, of the construction and operation of the Queens Quay Streetcar Connection, on Queens Quay and Bathurst Street, between Lower Spadina Avenue and Fleet Street/Lake Shore Boulevard. Part of the proposed alignment differs from the originally-approved Environmental Assessment (EA) for this project, which was originally prepared for the Waterfront West LRT (WWLRT) project in 1995. Before construction of the track on the revised alignment can begin, a modification to the EA, justifying the change in alignment, must be allowed by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). This report discusses and documents the need for the modification, the alternatives considered, the environmental effects, the consultation process which has taken place, and how concerns raised during consultation have been addressed. The main purpose of this report is to officially document and convey the proposed EA modification to the MOE, and to request the MOE to allow this modification.

Discussion:

1.0 A recap of the streetcar connection project

This streetcar connection is intended as a simple, no-frills extension to the existing streetcar network, by constructing approximately 850 metres of new double track on Queens Quay between Lower Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street, and on Bathurst Street between Queens Quay and Fleet Street/Lake Shore Boulevard. Exhibit A (Drawing No. 11375), attached, shows this missing link in the streetcar network. This new track would connect with the existing streetcar network, and once the track is built, a new 509 Harbourfront streetcar route would be operated between Union Station and Exhibition Place, via Queens Quay, Bathurst Street, and Fleet Street. The new track would be built in the centre of the existing roadways, would be reserved for the use of transit vehicles only, and would be separated from the rest of the roadway by small landscaped medians and passenger platforms. The new streetcar route would replace the service to the area which is currently provided by the 121 Front-Esplanade bus route, and the 521 Exhibition East special-event streetcar route. Exhibit B (Drawing No. 11241), attached, shows the route network which would be operated when the streetcar connection is complete.

The project would be the initial phase of the Waterfront West LRT project, a project from the Let's Move/Rapid Transit Expansion Program of the early 1990s. An Environmental Assessment report was prepared for the WWLRT, and was approved by the Ministry of the Environment in August 1995. The present Queens Quay Streetcar Connection project is limited in scope to a connection between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street only, but is consistent with, and does not preclude, the eventual construction of the WWLRT. There are no plans at this time to construct that larger project.

Part of the routing of the Queens Quay Streetcar Connection, on Queens Quay between Lower Spadina Avenue and Portland Street, follows the recommended routing in the approved WWLRT EA. Construction began on this segment in October 1998, and no further approvals are required. The remainder of the recommended routing, on Queens Quay between Portland Street and Bathurst Street, and on Bathurst Street between Queens Quay and Lake Shore Boulevard/Fleet Street, is different than the routing in the originally-approved EA, which was via Queens Quay, Portland Street, and along a consolidated Lake Shore Boulevard and Fleet Street. Exhibit C (Drawing No. 11374), attached, shows an overall view of both the routing in the approved EA and of the now-recommended routing. Exhibit D (Drawing No. R7-3-G-1A and -1B), attached, is a detailed drawing of the recommended Queens Quay/Bathurst alignment, showing the track location, streetcar stop locations, and required roadway modifications.

2.0 Justification for the requested modification

The modification to the routing set out in the originally-approved EA is necessary in order to better serve transit customers, and to reduce the costs of building the streetcar connection.

The recommended routing via Queens Quay and Bathurst Street would better serve transit customers travelling to or from the Bathurst Street and Queens Quay area, including the Bathurst Quay residential area, the Waterfront Public School and Community Centre, the Toronto City Centre Airport, and other recreational and residential developments planned for the Queens Quay/Bathurst area. The recommended routing would bring transit service closer to these areas than the Portland/Lake Shore routing, and would have streetcar stops which would be more-conveniently located for transit customers.

The currently-proposed streetcar alignment along Queens Quay and Bathurst Street would be an integral part of the neighbourhood, would be more-visible to potential transit customers than the Portland/Lake Shore alignment, and would more-closely follow the main roads in the area, and thus better replicate the present travel patterns of people in the neighbourhood, whether they now travel by automobile, bus, bicycle, or as a pedestrian. The Portland/Lake Shore alignment would turn away from Queens Quay, Harbourfront, and the attraction of the lake, to operate in the shadows at the rear of buildings, and in the centre of Lake Shore Boulevard. By building the streetcar connection along Queens Quay and Bathurst, transit customers would be carried through the heart of the community, closer to the attractions in the neighbourhood. A prominent, visible presence for an important transit service is compatible with the city's goals for linking and drawing together the waterfront community, and to re-establish the importance of the city's waterfront.

The improved transit service to the neighbourhood as a result of the Queens Quay/Bathurst routing would result in higher ridership on the new streetcar service, compared to the Portland/Lake Shore routing. Many of the customer-trips which are projected to be made on the new streetcar line between Portland Street and Fleet Street are destined to or from the area west of Bathurst Street and south of Lake Shore Boulevard. These customer-trips would be better served by the Queens Quay/Bathurst routing, because of the proximity of the streetcar service. If the streetcar line were to be built on the Portland/Lake Shore routing, the service would be less-convenient and attractive, because of the longer walking distance to the nearest streetcar stops, and the disincentive to customers of having to walk to, and wait for, a streetcar in the middle of the heavily-travelled Lake Shore Boulevard.

The recommended Queens Quay/Bathurst routing would cost substantially less to construct than the Portland/Lake Shore routing. The estimated cost to the TTC of constructing the Bathurst/Queens Quay routing is 35 percent lower than the estimated cost of constructing the Portland/Lake Shore routing. The cost difference is principally because of the shorter distance of new track which needs to be built for the Queens Quay/Bathurst routing. The Portland/Lake Shore routing would include a realignment of existing tracks on Fleet Street for some 350 metres west of Bathurst Street, as a result of the required consolidation of the Fleet Street and Lake Shore Boulevard roadways. The WWLRT EA study recommended that roadway consolidation, which would further increase the cost of the Portland/Lake Shore alignment, in order to support the City's urban design objectives and to allow streetcars to satisfactorily operate from Portland Street to Fleet Street through the complex Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore intersection.

The budgeted amount for the Queens Quay Streetcar Connection project in the TTC's 1999-2003 Capital Budget includes sufficient funds to build only the lower-cost Queens Quay/Bathurst routing.

3.0 Alternatives to the requested modification

Two alternatives to the requested routing modification were considered:

1) do nothing; do not introduce new streetcar service between Union Station and Exhibition Place, and continue service on the 121 Front-Esplanade bus route; or

2) construct the streetcar connection on the originally-approved routing via Portland and Lake Shore.

The first alternative, to do nothing and continue the operation of the existing bus route, would provide fewer benefits for transit customers, and would attract fewer people to transit than if the streetcar connection were built. The present bus route provides slower and less-reliable service than would the new streetcar route. Travel time for customers over the route would be faster on the proposed streetcar route, compared to the existing bus route, largely because of the reserved right-of-way for streetcars. The streetcar service would also operate more reliably, because bus operation in mixed traffic is slower and subject to delays from auto and truck traffic, especially along the present bus route, which travels through some of the most-congested areas of downtown Toronto. Reductions in travel time, and increases in service reliability, have been consistently shown to increase transit ridership, and this would be the case in this area if this streetcar route is built.

In addition to the increase in customers because of the improvement in the speed and reliability of the service, more customers would use transit in the Queens Quay/Bathurst area if there were a new direct streetcar service, compared to an equivalent bus service. This ridership increase would occur because, all else being equal, customers prefer streetcars to buses. Streetcars offer a more-visible and permanent service, and one that is strongly woven into the fabric of the neighbourhood. Streetcar stops are more noticeable and identifiable than bus stops, thus giving public transit a more prominent place in the streetscape. This streetcar service would provide a better connection to the subway, with an easier, weather-protected, and prepaid transfer connection at Union Station, compared to the present outdoor on-street bus connection. Ridership increases have been seen before in this area as a result of the replacement of bus service with streetcar service, as in 1990 when the Harbourfront streetcar replaced the previous bus service, and in 1997, when the 510 Spadina streetcar replaced the 77 Spadina bus route on Spadina Avenue.

Because the do-nothing alternative would provide fewer benefits to transit customers and attract fewer new people to transit, it is not recommended.

The second alternative, to construct the new streetcar connection on the Portland/Lake Shore alignment, was discussed earlier in this report, in Section 2.0. This alternative would provide fewer benefits for transit customers than the recommended routing, because of the longer walk to the nearest streetcar stops, would attract fewer people to transit, would be less-visible, less-attractive, and less-convenient, would be more difficult and awkward to access, and would cost substantially more to construct. For these reasons, this alternative is not recommended.

4.0 Effects of the requested modification

In general terms, improving transit service has a beneficial environmental effect, through lower per-person energy use, and a reduction in automobile trips. A streetcar service is especially beneficial, because the vehicles emit no pollutants, and are generally quieter than vehicles powered with internal-combustion engines. The associated track and infrastructure, including the landscaped medians planned for this project, would add greenery in place of asphalt, would enhance the local streetscape, and would reduce the effective width of the roads, which would improve pedestrian access. Because the Queens Quay/Bathurst alignment would attract more customers to transit, and would serve a more-pedestrian-oriented area, than the Portland/Lake Shore route, the improvements it would make to the environment are greater.

Both alignment options, via Queens Quay/Bathurst and via Portland/Lake Shore, would be built through an urbanised, redeveloping, high-traffic area, within the right-of-way of existing roadways. The recommended alignment option, via Queens Quay/Bathurst, differs from the Portland/Lake Shore EA-approved alignment in the way in which the new streetcar service and infrastructure would affect other road users and nearby property owners.

TTC staff have worked closely with City of Toronto Transportation Services Division staff and traffic consultants to carefully analyse the effects that the Queens Quay/Bathurst streetcar alignment would have on motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. A plan has been developed which would allow the streetcar service to operate along the Queens Quay/Bathurst alignment. With this plan, streetcars would operate satisfactorily through the Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore intersection. However, some of the current east-to-north left-turning motorists at this intersection would have to divert to other roads to make this turn. This reduction in turning capacity would be replaced when the City of Toronto constructs a nearby new road, Fort York Boulevard, from Bathurst Street to Lake Shore Boulevard. Staff from the City of Toronto Transportation Services Division support these conclusions, as noted in Exhibit E, attached.

The resolution of the Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore intersection issue, and the recommendation to proceed with the Bathurst/Queens Quay alignment, marks the satisfactory culmination of a major co-operative effort between TTC and City of Toronto staff. The previous WWLRT Environmental Assessment report recommended in favour of the Portland/Lake Shore alignment to support the City's urban design objectives, and because the Bathurst/Queens Quay streetcar alignment was judged to have unacceptably negative effects on other road users at the Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore intersection. However, the Portland/Lake Shore alignment was less-favourable to transit customers, and more-favourable to motorists. The recent reevaluation of the intersection design issues, and the resulting solutions to both transit and automotive capacity concerns, means that the new recommendation to proceed with the Bathurst/Queens Quay alignment is the best for transit customers, is acceptable to other road users, and can be built at the lowest possible cost.

4.1 Traffic effects Queens Quay/Bathurst alignment

The Queens Quay/Bathurst alignment would affect the operation of the Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore, Bathurst/Queens Quay, and Queens Quay/Portland intersections. The proposed streetcar alignment would eliminate the need for a new traffic signal on Lake Shore Boulevard at Portland Street, as would have been necessary with the Portland/Lake Shore alignment.

The consulting firm of Marshall Macklin Monaghan was retained to identify and evaluate design alternatives for the Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore intersection. An extensive analysis, based upon all future traffic volumes predicted for this area in the year 2011, resulted in the consensus design described below. Their report, entitled, Queens Quay Streetcar Project, Bathurst/Lake Shore/Fleet Traffic Assessment, is available on file at the TTC's General Secretary's office.

4.1.1 Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore intersection traffic effects

Streetcars on the new 509 Harbourfront route would travel through the intersection via a north-to-west left turn from Bathurst Street to Fleet Street, and an east-to-south right turn from Fleet Street to Bathurst Street. All other traffic is now, and would continue to be, prohibited from making either of these turns.

The consultants evaluated thirteen alternative designs for this intersection. The selected final design is illustrated in Exhibit D. Streetcar turns would be incorporated into the intersection by making the following modifications:

- 509 Harbourfront streetcars would proceed on an exclusive transit-only signal phase, similar to the signal phases for streetcars currently used on Queens Quay, east of Spadina Avenue;

- The number of east-to-north left turn lanes for motorists on Fleet Street at Bathurst would be reduced from two to one in order to provide one lane for streetcars and one lane for automobiles on the eastbound approach; and

- The number of southbound lanes on Bathurst Street, approaching the intersection, would increase from two to three, with one lane for left-turning automobiles, one lane for right-turning streetcars and through automobiles, and one lane for right-turning automobiles, instead of the current shared-lane arrangement between through and left-turning automobiles and right-turning streetcars.

The first two changes would result in the Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore intersection being unable to accommodate all of the morning peak east-to-north left-turning automobiles, both for opening day of the streetcar service and at the future scenario date, 2011. On opening day, approximately 300 of the 1200 automobiles which make this turn during the busiest hour of the morning peak period would have to use an alternative routing. By 2011, this would increase to over 500 automobiles in the morning peak hour which would have to use an alternative routing. This left-turning capacity issue is addressed in the following section of this report.

The technical evaluation included a variation on the selected final design which would maintain two eastbound left-turn lanes for motorists on Fleet Street, in addition to the streetcar lane, and would provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the present and future left turns from Fleet Street onto Bathurst Street. However, this would be more costly to build, would require three left-turn lanes from Fleet onto Bathurst, and would not be desirable in an area that is becoming much more pedestrian-oriented as a result of the extensive residential developments which are both planned and under construction.

4.1.2 Mitigation of capacity constraints at the Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore intersection

Additional left-turn capacity for eastbound motorists on Lake Shore Boulevard who now turn north on Bathurst Street from Fleet Street would be available when a new road, Fort York Boulevard, is constructed west of Bathurst Street, through to Lake Shore Boulevard. This proposed road is shown in Exhibit F. The first section of this new road, from Bathurst Street to Fleet Street, has been approved, subject to the necessary funding approvals. A 90-metre extension of this road, from Fleet Street to Lake Shore Boulevard, has been proposed by the City of Toronto. An Official Plan Amendment for this extension is now in process at the City of Toronto.

The Fort York Boulevard connection to Lake Shore Boulevard, when completed by the City, will provide the most-convenient alternative route for those east-to-north turning motorists who would no longer be accommodated at the Fleet/Bathurst intersection. Because the new roadway will eliminate the identified capacity reduction for left-turning motorists resulting from the construction of the streetcar connection, it is recommended that the Ministry of the Environment be requested to allow this minor extension of Fort York Boulevard, between Fleet Street and Lake Shore Boulevard, in association with the modification to the Environmental Assessment for the Queens Quay Streetcar Connection.

4.1.3 Bathurst/Queens Quay intersection traffic effects

The proposed 509 Harbourfront streetcar service would travel through this intersection via a south-to-east left turn from Bathurst Street to Queens Quay, and a west-to-north right turn from Queens Quay to Bathurst Street.

Streetcars would proceed during the existing southbound flashing advanced green phase. At those times when the signal cycle lengths are relatively long, a second signal opportunity would be given to streetcars during an exclusive transit-only signal phase. During peak periods, the transit-only phase would be provided between five and ten times per hour.

This intersection operates well below capacity today. The streetcar operation would result in minor delay increases to some motorists, when the transit-only phase is provided but, overall, would have negligible effects on this intersection.

4.1.4 Queens Quay/Portland intersection traffic effects

This intersection would be signalised as part of this initiative, as was also planned for the originally-approved streetcar alignment via Portland Street and Lake Shore Boulevard. Therefore, there would be no change to the operation of the intersection for motorists as a result of the construction of the Queens Quay/Bathurst alignment, compared to the Portland/Lake Shore alignment. The 509 Harbourfront streetcars would proceed east and west through the intersection during an exclusive transit-only phase, identical to those on Queens Quay east of Spadina Avenue.

4.2 Effects on cyclists

The current roadway configuration on Queens Quay from Portland Street to Bathurst Street includes eastbound and westbound bicycle lanes. These lanes would be retained in the new roadway design.

Southbound cyclists through the Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore intersection would be required to cross an additional set of streetcar tracks at a skewed angle. City of Toronto staff are considering various ways of designating the curb lane as a shared right-turn/bicycle lane to enable cyclists to cross the tracks at a better angle.

East-to-north left-turning cyclists from Fleet Street to Bathurst Street would be required to cross two sets of streetcar tracks at a skewed angle.

Cyclists travelling westbound or northbound through the Bathurst/Queens Quay intersection would be required to cross two sets of streetcar tracks at a skewed angle. This manoeuvre is similar to one currently required westbound at the Spadina/Queens Quay intersection.

At these locations, as elsewhere in the city, bicyclists would have to exercise extra caution when crossing the streetcar tracks, to avoid having their wheels getting stuck in the groove formed by the track.

4.3 Effects on pedestrians

Due to the road widening across the east leg of the Bathurst/Queens Quay intersection, the time that it takes a pedestrian to walk across the street would increase by five seconds at this location. However, pedestrians would be able to use the streetcar loading platform as a mid-point "refuge", if they wish to take more time to cross Queens Quay.

There would be no change for pedestrians as a result of the signalisation of the Queens Quay/Portland intersection, as this intersection would also have been signalised as part of the originally-approved Portland/Lake Shore streetcar alignment.

5.0 Capital costs

The TTC approved funding for the construction of the Queens Quay Streetcar Connection, as City Project No. 378, in the total estimated amount of $12.95 million. The estimate reflects a low-cost transit system based on a simplified track and right-of-way design which would meet the TTC's basic minimum requirements for quick, efficient streetcar operations along the line. The Council of the City of Toronto has also approved this capital expenditure, and recognise it as the most cost-effective design for this transit improvement.

6.0 Public consultation

The revised streetcar alignment was first discussed publicly at the Commission meeting on January 21, 1997, when the Commission considered the staff report, Opportunities for New Streetcar Routes, which identified the Queens Quay/Bathurst routing as a possible candidate for a no-frills Queens Quay streetcar connection. The Commission asked for further information on the Queens Quay/Bathurst routing, and at its meeting of April 1, 1997, the staff report, Time Required to Construct Streetcar Tracks on Queens Quay between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street was considered. As a result of that report, the Commission directed that an analysis of the costs and benefits of the streetcar connection be prepared, and that was presented to the Commission at its public meeting on June 24, 1997. The issue was further addressed at the Commission meeting on July 15, 1997. Public reports were prepared and presented at all four of these meetings, and members of the public were present. Further public consideration of the revised streetcar connection took place at the meeting of the Metro Toronto Planning and Transportation Committee on July 29, 1997. At the Planning and Transportation Committee meeting, members of the public spoke about their desire to see the originally-proposed landscape and streetscape design carried forward as part of the current project.

The streetcar connection project, and the revised alignment, have received coverage in the newspapers on a number of occasions, particularly after the initial Commission approval, in June, 1997, and after City of Toronto approval of the Capital Budget funding for the line, initially in April, 1998. The streetcar connection has also been mentioned in ward newsletters mailed to constituents by the councillors for the area.

In 1998, a further public consultation process was developed to obtain feedback regarding the revised alignment, and input into the design process. A public meeting was conducted in the Bathurst/Queens Quay neighbourhood on December 15, 1998, and was attended by approximately 40 people. Over 1500 notices were issued by several Canada Post postal walks to all residents and businesses in the area.

The public meeting was divided into two distinct parts. The first was an open-house format with staff from TTC and the local councillor's office available for discussion. The one-on-one contact allowed concerned citizens to get answers to specific questions they might have. The second part of the meeting was a presentation by TTC staff outlining the history of the project and the alignments which were considered in the approved WWLRT EA. The presentation also outlined the benefits and disadvantages of the Queens Quay/Bathurst and Portland/Lake Shore alignments. Comment sheets were available at the meeting for those in attendance to make written comments, and the comment sheets which were returned after the meeting are attached to this report. The main topics of discussion were:

- Design, alignment, and service details of the new streetcar service

- Effects of the streetcar relative to:

- Reduced traffic capacity along Queens Quay

- Access/egress to/from residential properties

- Pedestrian and child safety

- Noise and vibration

- General comments relating to ridership projections, the fixed link to the Toronto City Centre Airport, and design details of the streetcar line and roadway.

The majority of opinions expressed at the meeting were supportive of the revised alignment and the streetcar service in general. All of the written comments returned at the meeting (copies attached, in Appendix A) were in favour of the streetcar line. Opposing comments to the proposal, particularly about the perceived reduction in capacity for motorists, were stated by one attendee, and related follow-up correspondence on that issue, including responses to the concerns which were raised, are attached in Appendix A.

In addition to the public meeting, several presentations were made to various working committees and public agencies to provide them the opportunity to comment on the revised alignment and design details. TTC staff met with the principal of the Waterfront Public School, and with staff from the Toronto Harbour Commission (THC) and the Toronto City Centre Airport (TCCA). At the meeting between TTC and THC staff, it was determined that the streetcar connection and the airport fixed link project are compatible with each other, that there are no outstanding issues regarding the inter-relation of the two projects, and that the proximity of a direct streetcar connection to the downtown could be a significant attraction for airport travellers.

A record of all comments, minutes of meetings, and correspondence, including TTC responses to specific concerns, is included in Appendix A

7.0 Mitigation of noise and vibration effects

Noise from streetcar operations includes squeal resulting from wheel/rail contact, noise caused by streetcars operating over switches and crossings in the rail, and noise from streetcar acceleration, deceleration, idling and coasting.

An environmental noise and vibration assessment was conducted by S.S. Wilson Associates, Consulting Engineers, in October, 1998 to assess potential noise and vibration effects of streetcar operations in this area. The report, entitled, Vibration Assessment - Queens Quay Streetcar Connection, is available on file at the TTC's General Secretary's office. The assessment covered the part of the approved EA alignment from Lower Spadina Avenue to Portland Street, and the proposed revised alignment west of Portland Street, along Queens Quay to the Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore intersection. The assessment was carried out in accordance with the sound level criteria adopted in the approved MOE/TTC Protocol for Noise and Vibration Assessment for the proposed Waterfront West Light Rapid Transit Line.

The environmental noise and vibration assessment was filed with the MOE on October 26, 1998. Confirmation, dated November 9, 1998, was received from the Ministry stating that the assessment satisfied the requirements of the terms and conditions of the approval of the EA for the Queens Quay part of the Waterfront West LRT.

Based on the analysis of the environmental noise and vibration assessment, the study concluded that the overall acoustic energy due to streetcar operations in the Queens Quay/Bathurst area would be considerably lower than the existing ambient sound levels in that area. The assessment also reported that ground-borne vibration levels would be well within the recommended criteria.

Although the projected noise and vibration levels from this streetcar operation would be well within acceptable levels, the TTC would take the following noise and vibration attenuation measures to further reduce these effects:

- Continuous welded rail would be used, thereby eliminating noise due to streetcars passing over joints in the rail.

- Curved track sections would be designed with the maximum possible radii, to minimise wheel/rail squeal.

- Provision would be included for water lubrication systems to be used along curved track sections through intersections, to further reduce noise.

- The rails would be encased in a special rubber "boot", which will isolate the rail from the crossties and surrounding concrete. This rubber boot system would be used on all track sections except in the track switch areas, where it is not feasible due to the geometry of the track switches.

- Steel crossties would be used, embedded in concrete and isolated with neoprene bearing pads, to further reduce any ground-borne vibration.

These measures have been used successfully elsewhere by the TTC and have been found to significantly reduce noise and vibration. The rubber boot and steel crossties, in particular, result in significant reductions in ground-borne vibration levels, when compared to older track designs with wood crossties, jointed rail, and rock ballast.

8.0 Road widening

In order to accommodate a dedicated streetcar right-of-way in the centre of Queens Quay, it is necessary to widen the south side of Queens Quay, east of the Queens Quay/Bathurst intersection, by six metres. Minor road adjustments are also required at the Queens Quay/Bathurst intersection to maintain a bicycle lane, and to improve traffic flow through the intersection. Minor road re-alignment is required on the south leg of Bathurst Street to minimise the amount of curved track, and for the necessary lane configurations. An additional southbound lane is required on Bathurst Street, north of Lake Shore Boulevard, to allow the Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore intersection to operate efficiently, and to minimise delays to both automobiles and streetcars. This road widening was also recommended as part of the secondary plan for re-development of this area.

The road widening on Queens Quay would eliminate on-street parking on the south side of the road, adjacent to the school and community centre.

8.1 Streetscape mitigation

The TTC has retained a landscape architect to address streetscape issues along those sections of Queens Quay which are being widened. As a result of this process, compatible streetscape design and measures will be applied at any such affected areas.

9.0 Residential/commercial access

The dedicated streetcar right-of-way in the centre of Queens Quay and Bathurst Street would restrict access into, and exits from, driveways fronting on Queens Quay and Bathurst Street. The medians would allow only right-in and right-out movements. Approximately four driveways would be affected in this way.

Lane configurations at intersections along Queens Quay would allow for U-turns. The road network configuration in the immediate area allows for convenient right-in/right-out access to properties.

10.0 Approvals and construction schedule

Construction of the trackbed has commenced for the approved part of the alignment, between Lower Spadina Avenue and Portland Street. Construction of the balance of the revised alignment would commence immediately after MOE approval. The streetcar service is scheduled to open on July 23, 2000.

11.0 Conclusion

The Queens Quay Streetcar Connection recommended routing via Queens Quay and Bathurst Street is the routing which best serves transit customers and reduces construction costs. The recommended routing includes features which mitigate against negative effects for others. The discussion documented in this report is intended to provide the Ministry of the Environment with the information it needs in order to assess allowing a modification to the approved Environmental Assessment for the Waterfront West LRT.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it Exhibits A to F and Appendix A (Record of comments, minutes of meetings and correspondence) appended to Report No. 25 dated March 23, 1999 from the Toronto Transit Commission,which were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting of March 31, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (May 14, 1999) from Charles D. Parmelee, President, obo Board of Directors, MTCC No. 781 requesting that the Committee defer consideration of the proposed by-law and refer this matter back for fruitful community discussion, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications expressing concerns regarding the Queens Quay West LRT pavement widening and other issues presented to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(i) (June 8, 1999) from Mr. Charles D. Parmelee, President, on behalf of the Board of Directors of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 781, King's Landing; and

(ii) (June 9, 1999) from Ms. Valerie Wilder, Executive Director, The National Ballet of Canada.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (April 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services subject to:

• amending Recommendation (2) by inserting the words "and enhanced enforcement mechanisms and penalties", so as to read:

"(2) the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division report back this year on options for proactive inspections, use of technical consultants and enhanced enforcement mechanisms and penalties to ensure that needed capital repairs are done in apartment buildings in poor condition; and"

• adding the additional Recommendation (4):

"(4) the Provincial Government be requested to enact legislation to require rental buildings to establish a capital reserve fund, similar to that required for condominiums."

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the report (April 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report reviews the findings of research, recently completed for the City and for Canada Mortgage and Housing, that surveyed the condition of high-rise apartment buildings in the former Cities of Toronto and York. This report also discusses policy and service implications for the City.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No short-term implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council urge the federal government to fund the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program at levels sufficient to preserve affordability in the small minority of high-rise buildings where needed repair work cannot be done without significant rent increases;

(2) the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division report back this year on options for proactive inspections and use of technical consultants to ensure that needed capital repairs are done in apartment buildings in poor condition; and

(3) staff collaborate with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to distribute the Condition Survey of High-rise Rental Stock to landlord and tenant organizations and other interested parties, and to identify further research needed.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The condition of high-rise apartments is a matter of public interest, relating to housing affordability, rent regulation, and the quality of housing and neighbourhoods.

High-rise residential rental buildings comprise 188,000 of the city's 475,000 rental units, including a large share of the affordable private stock. About three-quarters of high-rise units are 25 to 40 years old (built in the 1960's and early 70's); many need significant repair or replacement of building components nearing the end of their normal life; some require upgrading to meet today's codes.

If maintained well within owners' current income, such buildings can provide affordable housing for many years. If allowed to fall into disrepair, they may require major renovation down the road, leading to higher rents or to investor interest in redevelopment. Repairing older buildings is usually far less costly than new development to replace them, and will often require less public assistance.

Apartment maintenance and repair has been a major issue in the in recurring debates about rent control. The successive statutes governing residential rents have had various provisions for pass-through of capital repair costs, amortization of repair investment, penalties for disrepair, and so forth. The Tenant Protection Act has changed the financial incentives for capital repair.

The condition of rental housing affects the living conditions of tenants, many of whom are not in a position to enforce adequate maintenance by the landlord. Large-scale disrepair can spill over to affect neighbourhood quality, values of nearby property, and ultimately the tax base. The City has had to deal with a few "problem" buildings where chronic disrepair lead to political controversy and to the City taking possession of the property, entailing large demands on various departments.

In 1995 the former City of Toronto formed an Interdepartmental Task Force which, among other things, identified a need to study how widespread were such repair issues. CMHC was highly interested and it was undertaken jointly (funded 75/25 CMHC/City, including 2 percent from York).

This study will inform current work by City departments, noted here under "Next Steps".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

1.0 Summary

The Condition Survey of High-Rise Rental Stock in the City of Toronto, undertaken jointly with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), examined a sample of 63 buildings in the City, stratified by age, to provide estimates of overall repair needs and costs in the high-rise stock over the next 10-year period. All main building elements were inspected by a team of experts.

Results of the study should not be misconstrued. It is not an analysis of property standards infractions. Estimated costs include work needed in 5 to 10 years in buildings now in good condition. Repair costs can be translated to rent increases only with due regard to applicable legislation. Results vary greatly from one building to another; overall results will not apply to any one building.

- Estimated cost of needed capital repairs ranged considerably: from typically $500.00-$3,500.00 per unit over 10 years for buildings built in the 1980s and 90s, to typically $4,000.00-$17,000.00 per unit over 10 years for those built before the 1960's. Older and smaller buildings tend to have higher costs per unit. (Costs are expressed in per-unit terms but most work is not in-suite).

- Unusually high repair costs of about $15,000.00 to $20,000.00 per suite were found for approximately 10 percent of the buildings.

- Extrapolating the costs by age of building, the global costs for needed capital repairs are estimated at just over $400 million over 10 years for the former Cities of Toronto and York (the study area) and $1.2 billion over 10 years for the entire new City.

- The majority of buildings have repair needs with costs that are quite manageable at just above guideline rent increases. Scenarios developed by staff show that median 10-year repair costs yield annual capital cost pass-through between 0.2 and 1.3 percent annually on average rents (on top of rent control guideline increases), reaching only 2.5 percent annually for highest per-unit capital repair costs in the study. Nevertheless, cumulative rent increases for capital work could undermine affordability in particular buildings.

The results of the study do not imply any need for a new regulatory system to ensure good repair and preservation of the affordable high-rise stock. Property standards enforcement should nevertheless incorporate proactive approaches to ensure that buildings in poor condition get adequate attention. Given potential impacts on affordability in a minority of cases, there may continue to be a need for public rehabilitation assistance, to permit repairs to be done while preserving affordability. Additional work will be required to determine the number of units and cost involved in such cases.

2.0 Purpose of the Study:

Earlier studies by the Province and the City examined high-rise "conservation" and ideas for proactively ensuring good repair of the high-rise stock. These studies involved typical or anecdotal information rather than a sample, or they focused on particular problems such as parking garages.

The objective of this study was to provide, based on a selected sample, a comprehensive assessment of the physical condition and capital repair needs of high-rise apartment buildings in Toronto, and of the costs for such capital repairs over the next 10 years. A secondary objective was to develop a protocol, whereby a standard set of data collected at any building can be input to a data analysis system which generates a profile of multi-year repair needs and costs.

"Capital repair" refers to major work that is beyond regular weekly or monthly "maintenance", and will be needed regardless of how well regular maintenance is carried out. High-rises (defined as those greater than 5 stories) warrant particular attention as they typically have more complex structure, and systems (plumbing, ventilation, elevators, etc.), and are exposed to greater weathering.

The study examined a sample of 63 buildings in the former Cities of Toronto and York. Its results, adjusted for different age profiles of buildings, can be generalized to the whole new City of Toronto.

3.0 Research Method and Process

The study was undertaken by Gerald Genge of GRG Building Consultants, and three firms as building review subconsultants, all experts with experience in judging conditions and repair cost.

The sample of 63 buildings was taken from the 542 high-rise buildings identified in City databases. The sample was stratified by age of building (pre-1960s, 1960s, 1970s, post-1970s). A typology based on age permits repair needs to be linked to particular building technologies resulting in distinct repair needs (for example, 1970's buildings with multi-level garages and 1960's buildings with floor slabs exposed at their edges to weather), and to the occurrence of certain repair needs at certain ages.

The condition of each building was assessed within seven "building systems":

(1) Site: pavement and walkways, structures (e.g. retaining walls);

(2) Structure: garages, balconies, building framing;

(3) Building Envelope: exterior walls/cladding, windows and exterior doors, and roofs;

(4) Mechanical: heating, cooling, ventilation, water, drainage, plumbing fixtures;

(5) Electrical: power supply/distribution, lighting, auxiliary systems (e.g. building entry);

(6) Life Safety: fire suppression, fire alarm and voice communication, emergency power;

(7) Elevators: equipment, cars and controls.

Costs of repair and replacement were generated based on expert knowledge and industry norms for the life of building components and the costs of each element. A "building rating" was also developed, which ranks the condition of the building. The rating system corrects for the high per-unit costs in small buildings, and gives more emphasis to urgent repair needs.

The procedure developed in the study is (with variations) based on that used by consultants to condominium corporations and social housing providers, undertaking "technical audits" or reserve fund studies. Both the Toronto Housing Company and MTHA have commissioned similar studies on many of their buildings, as a basis for planning multi-year capital repair programs.

Further details on the research method are provided in the accompanying executive summary.

The survey was managed by a steering committee comprising City staff (Shelter/Housing, City Planning, Municipal Standards, Legal), CMHC staff, landlord and tenant representatives, and staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as well as Peel Region. The landlord organizations (Fair Rental Policy Organization and later Greater Toronto Apartment Association) were vital in securing landlords to participate in the study. Work in progress was discussed in steering committee meetings, with overall results discussed in December 1998 and March 1999 meetings having active participation by landlord and tenant representatives, who were able to help interpret issues and information in this study, from their experience.

Additional follow-up with stakeholders is noted below under "next steps".

4.0 Key Findings of the Study

4.1 What the Study Does and Does Not Tell Us

The study is NOT an analysis of infractions of property standards by-laws. This study estimates future capital work to keep buildings in good condition, whereas the City's property standards powers deal mainly with current problems. For example, an original furnace in a 1960's building will, within the 10-year period, reach the end of its lifespan and need to be replaced even if it is now in good condition. Further, the study did not deal with certain items, such as condition of interior walls, which are important for tenants. The study methodology required that where an urgent safety matter was identified and owner did not immediately address it, the City would be notified; no such notification proved necessary.

The estimated cost of capital repairs needed over a 10-year period is not a measure of current disrepair. High future costs do not necessarily mean poor condition today, although in particular cases they may.

The capital repair costs are not a measure of potential rent increases. The effect of capital repair investment on rents will depend on market conditions, capital cost pass-through permitted by legislation, and the owner's cash flow situation and financing arrangements. But capital repair requirements may have effects on rents, as discussed in this staff report. Likewise, estimated future capital repair costs are in no way a measure of potential public costs for rehabilitation, although assistance may be warranted in some cases.

The overall results cannot be applied to any one specific building or portfolio. The requirements vary considerably from one building to another, depending on the age, size, maintenance and capital repair history, and other factors. The value of this study is in providing an overall profile. The study does not present data on any specific building or identify specific addresses (these are known to the consultant but not to staff); this was a condition agreed to with participating owners, to protect their commercial interests and proprietary information.

4.2 Summary of Findings

An executive summary of the research report, emphasizing the findings, accompanies this report.

The study did not find any large share of buildings having extreme or pressing repair needs, but it found a large need for investment in capital repairs over the next 10 years. Overall results are best understood in terms of typical 10-year costs by age group of building. The following table provides a summary. "Typical" cost is here defined as that between the 25th and 75th percentile of buildings distributed by cost --in other words, the middle half of the buildings, excluding those with unusually high or unusually low costs per unit. This gives a better sense of typical cost than citing a median or average.

Buildings that are in good condition today may appear as having high costs because of potential capital replacements which may be required in year 7 or 10. In some cases, costs include replacement even though ongoing repairs and maintenance may be sufficient (for example, older elevators for which it is now difficult to get parts).

Percent Building Profile Typical Range of Extreme Maximum

Building of (Average) Repair Costs per Repair Costs/Suite

Age Sample Suite over 10 Years* over 10 Years

pre-1960s 25% 55-77 units, 6-7 storeys $4,000.00-$17,000.00 $21,000.00

1960s 44% 125 units, 11 storeys $5,000.00-$9,500.00 $17,500.00

1970s 13% 250 units, 17 storeys $1,500.00-$4,500.00 $6,000.00

post-1970s 17% 128 units, 10 storeys $500.00-$3,500.00 $7,000.00

* range of 25th to 75th percentile of buildings in each age group -- see text.

Property standards staff, housing staff, owner representatives participating in the steering committee have confirmed that the study results are consistent with their experience and knowledge. The results are similar in magnitude to earlier, approximate estimates by knowledgeable consultants.

The range of conditions and of repair needs varied greatly from building to building, in both older and younger age groups. The median cost over 10 years was $6,864.00 per suite.

Older buildings tend to have higher repair costs per suite both because their older age means a need to repair or replace more elements, and also because they tend to have fewer units. Major repairs such as elevators or mechanical/electrical systems (plumbing and ventilation, etc.) can be similar in magnitude in a small building as in a large one, resulting in high cost per unit in smaller buildings.

The majority of repair costs was projected in years 3 to 5 (33 percent of costs, mainly mechanical and elevators) and years 6 to 10 (38 percent of costs, mainly mechanical and electrical). Only 4 percent of costs related to "immediate" items involving structural and life safety deficiencies.

Costs were factored up by age group (building typology), to generate estimated global repair costs for all high-rise apartment stock. For the former Cities of Toronto and York, global costs over 10 years are projected at just over $400 million, while for the entire new City of Toronto costs are projected at $1.2 billion. This should be put in perspective: for example, home-owner spending on renovation in Ontario is in the range of $30 to $40 billion over a decade, while residential rent revenues in Toronto are in the range of $40 to $50 billion over a decade (based on current levels).

Unusually high repair requirements (costs) per suite were found for approximately 10 percent of the buildings -- mostly older and smaller ones. The seven such buildings in the sample had 10-year costs per suite of about $15,000.00 to $20,000.00, or 2 to 3 times the median cost. Four of them were pre-war buildings with 40 or fewer units, while three were built 1956-67 and had 60 to 120 units. The reasons for the higher estimated repair costs in the seven buildings are mechanical systems repair costs and building envelope/structural repairs. Only a few buildings had severe deterioration.

5.0 Implications

5.1 Implications for Property Standards Enforcement

The study results do not imply any need for a new and different regulatory system to ensure good repair and preservation of the affordable high-rise stock. Property standards enforcement should nevertheless include proactive approaches to ensure that buildings in poor condition get adequate, timely attention.

Only about 10 percent of buildings in the study require so much work over the next 10 years that the cost may not be manageable at average rents (see below). This suggests that, to protect their investment, the majority of building owners will likely continue to do the work that is needed without any increased enforcement efforts by the City. The study showed that for the majority of older buildings (1960's and earlier) a lot of work has already been done, notably roof and window replacements. A new and more onerous regulatory system would be out of line with the benefits for most properties.

The City will need to direct its enforcement efforts and resources on the approximately 1 in 10 buildings experiencing some degree of ongoing disrepair. Incentive and support programs for some of these buildings may also need to be considered.

A proactive property standards inspection program could be a tool for identifying buildings with some degree of ongoing disrepair, requiring action on particular repairs, and (when warranted) requiring use of technical consultants to identify underlying problems. A proactive inspection program would cover all apartment buildings, but would ensure that high-rise and other apartment buildings with greater problems were inspected with greater frequency.

There are limits to the extent that standards enforcement can ensure ongoing investment and proactive programs of repair. Most of the work and costs identified in the condition survey are for future work that is not associated with current outstanding property standards violations. The City is empowered to require owners to remedy property standards violations, but cannot legally require them to undertake multi-year repair programs to ensure the long life of the buildings. Neither can it prescribe a specific solution to a violation identified by an inspector. However, the City can require owners to get advice from technical consultants to identify underlying problems and needed repairs; such an approach was used effectively for garage repairs in particular by some of the former municipalities.

The Licensing and Standards Division is in the process of developing a harmonized approach to property standards enforcement. Varying systems were used by the former municipalities for property standards inspections and compliance. Proactive inspection programs have been in place in the former municipalities of North York, Scarborough, and East York. These proactive programs differed in the size of buildings to which they are applied, and the scope and frequency of the inspections undertaken. There was a varying degree of coordination of such inspections with those of other agencies such as the Fire Department and public-sector housing providers. The most comprehensive was that of the former North York where approximately 1,200 apartment buildings have been covered by an audit program over the last six years. That program is presently staffed by eight of the 16 inspection staff currently posted to the District. Overall staffing levels in other districts would need to be reviewed to provide proactive inspections as well as response to complaints and urgent violations.

Assessing the resources available to the Division to devote to proactive inspections is part of the current review and harmonization process ensuing from amalgamation. A process is now under way to develop a consolidated, harmonized Property Standards By-law to replace those of the six former municipalities and a corresponding set of uniform practices. Decisions on allocating resources to proactive inspections are part of this process of evaluating how to assign resources to meet the various objectives on a consistent city-wide basis. Approaches to proactive inspections in other jurisdictions may also be reviewed. Staff will report further on the harmonized Property Standards By-law and associated practices including the capacity for proactive inspections.

5.2 Implications for Affordability

The costs of projected capital work are manageable for a large majority of buildings. Rent revenues should in general be sufficient to cover the costs, although the means by which owners will pay these costs will vary depending upon the specific cash flow and market conditions of each building.

Scenarios were developed by staff showing the impact of median capital repair costs on average market rents, given the rules applying to capital cost pass-through under legislation governing rent increases. This is detailed in Appendix "A", which also sets out the assumptions made about average permitted amortization periods, interest rates, relation to other capital work, and so forth. It should be noted that the Tenant Protection Act permits pass-through of costs of additional types of capital and maintenance work the condition survey was not concerned with, such as appliances, carpeting, and repainting. The exact impact on rents in a given building will vary up or down, depending on rent levels, repair costs, and on how far each building varies from the assumptions. In brief, the results are:

In sum, the impact on average rents of the median repair costs identified in the condition survey would result in capital cost pass-through and rent increases well within the maximum allowed under the Tenant Protection Act.

Even in the seven high-cost-per-unit cases in the condition survey, the rent increases resulting from the needed capital work would be within the allowable capital cost pass-through allowed under the legislation. The worst case, with $21,000.00 per unit of work required, would result in annual increases of 2.5 percent on average market rents, using the assumptions in Appendix "A".

Such increases may still result in affordability problems in some buildings. An annual increase of 1 to 3 percent on top of the current guideline increase would mean a 42 to 69 percent rent increase over a decade. As noted, there may be additional capital costs for interior items the condition survey was not concerned with. Average tenant incomes are not rising. There may therefore continue to be a need for public rehabilitation assistance, to permit needed repairs to be done while limiting the impact on rents and affordability.

5.3 Implications for the Public Role in Housing Rehabilitation Assistance

Most buildings, as noted above, will be easily able to carry the costs of needed capital work within the capital cost pass-through and maximum rent increases permitted under the Tenant Protection Act. In some cases, however, with high per-unit costs, the choice will be maintaining affordability versus doing the repairs, unless public assistance is provided. It is likely that the more deteriorated buildings have a disproportionate presence of lower-income tenants. They are also more likely to be ones housing a population greater than the building was originally designed for, resulting in accelerated wear and tear. Public assistance in such cases is a way of avoiding other public costs resulting either from physical deterioration of neighbourhoods or from rising numbers of tenants with affordability problems that put them at risk of arrears and homelessness.

Public assistance is currently provided on a limited scale to rental housing through the federal Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) delivered by the City. A report to the March meeting of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee described the modest $1 million or less allocated to RRAP for rental properties in the City's boundaries in most recent years, and the use made of the special $6.5 million funding in fiscal 1998/99. A report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee this month deals with the future of the City's housing rehabilitation function.

RRAP and the former Ontario rehabilitation programs have mainly funded repairs to rooming houses or to low-rise walk-up apartment buildings. The need for assistance for high-rise rehabilitation has been realized in broad terms by housing policy-makers but never directly tackled. The approximately 10 percent of buildings with high per-unit capital repair needs --typically smaller than average-- could represent up to 5 percent of high-rise units in the City, or up to 10,000 units. (A more specific estimate should not be attempted from the small number of such buildings in the condition survey sample.)

Eventual loss of such affordable units to disrepair or to the large rent increases associated with upgrading would be a major problem for affordable housing in Toronto. This study can be taken as evidence supporting a limited but clear public role, at the City and senior government levels, in ensuring assistance to rehabilitation where the long-term liveability or affordability of the buildings would otherwise be in doubt.

Additional work is required to determine the magnitude of high-rise stock where capital repairs may undermine affordability, and the potential need for public assistance for such buildings.

6.0 Next Steps

Related Work by City Departments:

The study, with implications for City approaches to proactive enforcement, comes while the Licensing and Standards Division is developing a harmonized property standards by-law for the new City. Implications of the study for proactive enforcement are identified briefly in this report, and will be dealt with in more detail when the new property standards by-law is brought forward.

The study has implications for work by the City Planning Division on housing policies of the Official Plan, including rental housing conversion and demolition policies. A February report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the latter subject made note of this study's findings.

The Shelter, Housing and Support Division has been delivering an expanded Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) with federal funding and will be reporting further on the city's ongoing role in RRAP.

Next Steps with and by Stakeholders:

Follow-up work has been identified by the steering committee in three areas: information and education, proactive approaches to property standards enforcement (noted above), and further research. The study will be widely distributed by the City and CMHC.

Landlords and tenants, each as a group, have an interest in property standards and in how the City enforces them. Both landlords and tenants want to be at the table when the City is taking positions, making policy, or undertaking research on property standards and repair.

Landlord organizations and property management firms are interested in having members access good technical information on maintenance and capital repair needs, and in disseminating such information. Landlord representatives on the steering committee will be distributing it to building owners and property managers, as good systematic information on the kinds of capital repair programs needed. Discussion at the steering committee also identified the value of disseminating information on "best practices" in buildings with low repair requirements, as a guide and encouragement to others.

Tenant organizations have concerns about understanding the City's overall policies and practices in property standards and are very concerned about preservation of the affordable housing stock. Specific issues include the City's ability to ensure that immediate problems such as heat, pests, interior walls, power and elevators are addressed; dealing with gaps and unevenness in the City's service and standards; and ensuring adequate penalties and remedies for cases or poor condition or lack of compliance with City orders.

Results were discussed at a focus group meeting with tenant representatives in October 1998. Tenant opinions given about the condition of buildings, in general, were very much in line with findings of the study. Tenants were primarily concerned about property standards --particularly how they could find out what the "rules" are, gaps in service (such as around air quality), unequal practices throughout the new City (including access to historical information about their buildings), and insufficient staff for evening emergency call-outs and general enforcement. They proposed that the City consider a more proactive approach to inspections, with building reviews on a regular basis, as has been the practice in North York.

Each participating owner has been provided with the results for its property or properties.

Other Follow-up:

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has taken note of this study as it assumes the role of monitoring compliance to the new Condominium Act, particularly reserve fund requirements.

Staff have initiated discussions with CMHC who are interested in funding follow-up research. A more detailed assessment of buildings with high per-unit repair costs would be valuable, as would a follow-up study in about five years. The main area for potential funding in the near future appears to be in "best practices" for bringing building with higher repair needs up to standards, or best practices in general.

Conclusion:

Summary and conclusions are set out at the beginning of this report.

Contact Name:

Joanne Campbell Harold Bratten

Tel: (416) 392-7885 Tel: (416) 392-8768

Fax: (416) 392-0548 Fax: (416) 392-3196

The Condition Survey of High-Rise Rental Stock in the City of Toronto found that the median cost of capital work for all age buildings would be $6,864.00 per unit over ten years:

The potential impact on rents of doing the capital work depends on the cashflow and financing arrangements of the owner as well as on the applicable legislation.

When determining the capital expenditure allowance permitted on a landlord application for a rent increase above the guideline, the costs are spread over the useful life of the capital item. Depending upon the work done, costs are amortized over 5, 10, 15, 20, or 25 years or more. The interest rate applied is based on the rate for a five year conventional mortgage plus 1%, as established by regulations under the Tenant Protection Act.

For example, the useful life of a hot air heating system is 25 years (useful lives are also established by regulation). Assuming a per unit cost of $1,000.00 and an interest rate of 8%, the potential capital expenditure allowance is approximately $7.80 per month. It is necessary to know the base rent to establish what the allowance is as a percent rent increase. Assuming a base rent of $815 (the CMHC average market rent for all unit types October 1998), the percent rent increase would be just under 1%.

To do this analysis, a number of assumptions have been made:

(1) Annual capital costs of $686.00 are permitted each year for 10 years (i.e. median of $6,864.00/10 years). Usually the timing of capital work and costs will vary depending upon what work is done and when it is done. Inflation may also have an impact on the cost, depending upon when the work is done.

(2) The useful life of all work required is assumed at a conservative 15 years. If broken down into the various systems, the average useful life may be longer than 15 years, meaning the capital expenditure allowance would be lower than illustrated.

(3) The interest rate used is 8%. Rates normally vary.

(4) The base rent is $815.00 (1998 CMHC average market rent for all unit types). If actual rents are higher or lower, the percentage allowance will vary. If the rent is very low relative to costs, the capital expenditure allowance may not be passed through entirely in one year. The impact of vacancy decontrol is not considered - when units are rented to a new tenant, the rent can be set at any level regardless of the past rent for the unit.

(5) The guideline percentage is the maximum amount by which the rent can be increased for a sitting tenants, and is set annually. The guideline is based on a three year moving average of weighted operating costs plus 2% (generally thought to apply to the cost of capital work as the operating costs considered in establishing the guideline include an amount for maintenance but not for capital repair and replacement). The 2% built in for capital work is not deducted from allowances otherwise permitted for capital work, as was the case under prior rent control legislation.

The scenario assumes the guideline remains at 3% over the full 10 year period illustrated.

(6) Operating savings in energy costs resulting from capital work which improves energy efficiency does not result in a rent reduction (these are not considered under the TPA).

Under this scenario, the capital expenditure allowance passed into the rent each year would be $6.50/month (an additional $6.50 is added to the rent every year for 10 years; there are no provisions for removing the allowance from the rent once the amortization period for the capital expenditure expires). For year 1, assuming a base rent of $815.00, this is an increase of 0.8% + the rent control guideline.

Using the same base assumptions, the allowances and percentages based on building age are:

The impact on rents of doing required repairs would therefore, on average and under these assumptions, be well below the maximum amount permitted under the Tenant Protection Act.

For 7 buildings surveyed (11%) the costs are extraordinarily high, ranging from $16,000.00 to $21,000.00 per unit over 10 years, primarily due to mechanical system repairs needed. Five of the seven were built before 1960.

In the worst case ($21,000.00), and using the same base scenarios, the capital expenditure allowance would be about $19.19, or a 2.5% rent increase which is still within the 4% maximum allowance.

Gerald R. Genge, Building Consultant Inc., appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the Executive Summary appended to the foregoing report.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to provide to the City Clerk, for distribution with Mr. Joe Berridge's report, entitled 'Reinvesting in Toronto: What the Competition is Doing', cost estimates of the infrastructure and social services required in the City of Toronto.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 10, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

On May 17, 1999 Joe Berridge of Urban Strategies Inc. will give a presentation originally delivered at the Official Plan Forum, "Shaping Toronto's Future", on April 7, entitled "Reinvesting in Toronto: What the Competition is Doing". This report sets the scene for this presentation in the context of the emerging Official Plan work program.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Clerk distribute copies of Mr. Berridge's report to all Federal and Provincial Members of Parliament for ridings in the Greater Toronto Area, and to the Councils for York, Halton, Peel, Durham, and Hamilton-Wentworth Regions.

Synopsis:

The Berridge presentation will outline the degree to which American cities are investing in their downtowns, waterfronts and in public transit. Substantial funding for reinvestment in cities is available from the Federal Government in the U.S., as well as in Great Britain and elsewhere in Europe, but funding also is generated from a number of other sources. Examples in the U.S. include tax credits granted to corporations for contributions to affordable housing equity funds, or property tax abatement schemes. In addition, major corporations and foundations play a big role in local planning initiatives in American cities (eg. H.J. Heinz in Pittsburgh and Eli Lilly in Indianapolis).

For his study, 14 major U.S. cities were looked at by Mr. Berridge. On average, these cities saw approximately $263 million (U.S.) per year spent on their downtowns and waterfronts through the '90s, with public contributions amounting to about one-half of the total. By comparison, Toronto's downtown and central waterfront saw approximately $54 million spent annually during the same period, including the Convention Centre expansion, the National Trade Centre, CBC Headquarters, Spadina LRT and expansions at the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Royal Ontario Museum.

In the U.S., the Federal Government is directly involved in urban reinvestment through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century (a six-year program of $217 billion ) and through a number of other community and housing programs (Community Development Block Grants, Home Investment Partnership Program and the Revitalization of Severely Depressed Public Housing Program). These programs all reflect a strong commitment to preserving and enhancing the existing urban structure through anti-sprawl / pro-intensification initiatives that advocate mixed-use developments along with densities that support public transit and produce a more sustainable urban environment.

Mr. Berridge points out that an urban area the size of the Greater Toronto Area in the U.S. could expect to receive considerable support for urban reinvestment through Federal Government programs for a total of $243.5 million (U.S.), as follows:

- $42 million annually under the TEA-21 program;

- $155 million annually in Community Development Block Grant funding; and

- $46.5 million annually under the Home Investment Partnership Program, a mixed-income housing program.

What does this mean for Toronto?

Toronto can no longer rest on its laurels as the heart of the Canadian economy and the primary engine of national economic growth. Ontario is a dynamic export based economy, with exports to foreign countries (primarily the U.S.) outpacing exports to the rest of Canada by a factor of 2.5 and rising. With the advent of free trade the GTA economy has increasingly become a North American economy. The fact that our recovery from the recession has been fuelled largely by the growth in the U.S. economy is illustrative of the GTA's dependence on its neighbour to the south.

As a place to live and do business, Toronto is now, more than ever before, in competition with the major U.S. cities that have embarked on significant reinvestment. The benefits of trade are greatest amongst equals and the GTA cannot afford to lose its competitive edge. The findings of this study support the current direction of our work on the Official Plan, that is the preparation of a strategic reinvestment plan for the City to maintain its competitive position among world cities of similar size. Other speakers at the Official Plan Forum echoed some of the themes found in Mr. Berridge's research, but also pointed to other considerations for our further work on the Official Plan. Some of the other messages delivered by the panel of speakers that day include:

- social change goes hand in hand with economic renewal: any renewal plan must incorporate "inclusion strategies" which work towards the active engagement of residents in the management and development of their communities (Howard Bernstein, Manchester);

- enlightened social and environmental policies are part and parcel of our ability to prosper economically: social investment decisions should not be positioned in opposition to fiscal considerations (Dr. Anne Golden);

- amalgamation offers an opportunity to work toward more transit-supportive densities (Dr. Carl Amrhein), and to encourage more of a match of private investment with public investment (eg. examine potential for intensification around the 68 subway stations in the City) (Alan Leibel).

In the final analysis, great cities have great visions. ... But what is essential is that private citizens, corporations and public officials all share the vision of what makes a city great. For a city to be a great international city, it must learn from and respect its heritage, it must build on and favour its economic strengths, it must provide vibrant civic spaces, it must value civility, it must celebrate beauty, it must value great cultural and educational institutions and it must prize architecture of the highest order of excellence. This I believe is the destiny of Toronto." (Allan Gotlieb, "The Challenge of Being an International City", Shaping Toronto's Future, April 7, 1999)

Some of the lessons applicable to planning Toronto's future that emerged from this Forum include:

- Great cities have the ability to astonish! A commitment to good urban design and quality architecture is needed.

- It is important to balance flexibility and certainty. We have to look at the strategic use of planning resources and tools.

- We are destined for gridlock throughout the GTA if we don't invest in transit priorities. New funding sources must be made available (eg. share of the gasoline tax).

- There is a total lack of programs supporting cities on the agendas of the Federal and Provincial governments. We need to advocate for housing and transit funding and programs.

Members of Council received copies of the papers presented at the Official Plan Forum in their Official Plan Information Kits. These papers are also accessible to the public through the public library system and from the City's Official Plan website: www.city.toronto.on.ca/torontoplan. The next Official Plan newsletter will summarize the key messages from the Forum.

Contact Name:

Kerri A. Voumvakis, Manager, Official Plan

Metro Hall, 22nd Floor, Tel: 392-8126

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

- Joe Berridge, Urban Strategies Inc.;

- Susan Deryk, CAA Central Ontario;

- Kevin Walters, CREGE;

- Linda Lynch, obo Peter Lucas, Showline Limited;

- Elizabeth Borek, LANA; and

- Karen Buck.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having had before it the following reports/communications, which were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting of May 17, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (March 1999), titled "Urban Futures: The First in an Occasional Series" prepared by Urban Strategies Inc.

- (Undated) from Elizabeth Borek, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Associations commenting on the impact of the film industry in Toronto;

- (Undated) from Linda Lynch for Peter Lucas, President, Showline Limited stating that by dismantling the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway, the City is not re-investing in Toronto but is mortgaging Toronto's future.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause:

(1) in accordance with the report dated June 7, 1999, from the City Solicitor, subject to striking out Recommendation No. (6)(a) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new Recommendation No. (6)(a):

"(6)(a) direct that reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard include sufficient sound barriers on the north and south sides of Lake Shore Boulevard in the vicinity of Toronto Film Studios, the Showline Limited property located at 915 Lake Shore Boulevard East, and other film studios in the area, to prevent additional traffic noise from affecting film productions;",

so the recommendations embodied in such report shall now read as follows:

"The amendments proposed by Mr. Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock & Blackwell, in his communication (May 17, 1999) which were adopted by the Urban Environment and Development Committee be deleted and replaced with the following recommendations which have been developed in consultation with Mr. Makuch:

(1) that Recommendation No. (3) be amended by adding the words 'such expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film Industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services', so as to read:

'(3) direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to hold $100,000.00 in reserve for a Film Industry awareness campaign to address the concerns raised by the Film Industry, such expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film Industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative and with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;';

(2) adding the following Recommendations Nos. (4), (5) and (6):

'(4) direct appropriate City officials, to include in all contracts for all phases of the demolition of the Expressway and the reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard, the performance-based noise and vibration specifications and the working protocol for the demolition and construction as contained in a report prepared by S. S. Wilson Associates, Consulting Engineers, being Report No. W96-10-(97) entitled "Special Provision for the control of construction noise-specifications; F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling; the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto" and dated June 25, 1998, amended as follows:

(i) add a requirement to section 3.c., for the Contractor to provide fax numbers in addition to telephone numbers;

(ii) revise the last sentence of the last paragraph in section 5, located at the top of page 4, to read as follows:

"The Contractor shall immediately cease use of all equipment within 200 metres of the location identified by the complainant as the likely source of the noise, and shall cooperate by allowing inspection and testing of any equipment likely to have caused the noise. Work shall not commence until the Contract Administrator is certain that the work will conform with the Special Provisions for the Control of the Construction Noise - Specifications and all other relevant contract provisions.";

(iii) revise the first sentence in section 7, at the top of page 5, as follows:

"The Contractor agrees that in the event of noise complaints being filed (either verbally or in writing) with any person employed by the Contractor and referred to in section 3.c. above, by occupants of the nearby buildings, the work shall be stopped immediately until such time as noise control measures are implemented to the satisfaction of the Contract Administrator."; and

(iv) revise the last sentence on page 5 to read as follows:

"These Schedules form part of this Contract and are not to be exceeded without the express consent of the respective TV/Film Studios.";

Further, additional specifications upon which contracts will be tendered shall take into account the concerns of the Film Industry and the site-specific concerns of Toronto Film Studios and shall include:

(v) requirements that Contractors limit all noise related to the construction of Lake Shore Boulevard and the demolition of the Expressway to levels no greater than the existing peak period ambient noise levels as identified in the report prepared by S. S. Wilson Associates, Consulting Engineers, or as otherwise agreed to by City officials and by Toronto Film Studios Acoustical Consultants;

(vi) a provision that contractors cease work within fifteen minutes of being notified by a designated City official that the designated Toronto Film Studios official has advised that the work significantly interferes with filming at the Toronto Film Studios, and providing that the City official will notify the contractor immediately upon being notified by Toronto Film Studios and that the parties will then meet immediately to resolve the complaint;

(vii) demolition within 200 metres of Toronto Film Studios will only occur during the months of December to March inclusive;

(viii) reasonable contract specifications to ensure that the demolition or reconstruction does not interfere with the Toronto Film Industry's ability to obtain bonding for production deadlines;

(ix) a provision that the storage of equipment and materials cannot occur on either side of Lake Shore Boulevard within 200 metres of a film studio;

(x) reasonable contract specifications respecting dust control, as determined by appropriate City officials in consultation with the Toronto Film Industry and Toronto Film Studios in particular;

(xi) a provision that truck access from Lake Shore Boulevard to the Toronto Film Studios property will not be obstructed except at times approved by a designated Toronto Film Studios representative, unless an alternate access to the south access point of the Toronto Film Studios property is provided that is satisfactory to Toronto Film Studios; and

(xii) a provision whereby the contractor and the City acknowledge that Toronto Film Studios is relying reasonably on all noise provisions in all contracts relating to the construction or demolition in order to ensure its uninterrupted and continued operation, and furthermore acknowledge that Toronto Film Studios is entitled to any legal remedy for breach of such provisions including injunctive relief and damages based on such reasonable reliance;

(5) respecting existing railway lines,

(a) direct that the reconstruction not allow the existing railway line owned by TEDCO to be relocated to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard east of Carlaw and provide that all railway crossings to be reconstructed be controlled by signal lights and bells;

(b) City officials be instructed to take all necessary actions to negotiate and enter into no-whistle-blowing agreements with the railways in respect of all reconstructed rail crossings; and

(c) in the event there is a significant increase in rail traffic to the Port Lands in the future, the City shall undertake a study to determine the feasibility of alternative railway routes to serve the port area, and the Toronto Film Industry will be consulted in this regard;

(6) (a) direct that reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard include sufficient sound barriers on the north and south sides of Lake Shore Boulevard in the vicinity of Toronto Film Studios, the Showline Limited property located at 915 Lake Shore Boulevard East, and other film studios in the area, to prevent additional traffic noise from affecting film productions;

(b) that, subject to any relevant provisions of the Municipal Act, surplus lands adjacent to Lake Shore Boulevard in the vicinity of the demolition and construction, be offered to adjacent property owners for purchase after taking into account planting, pedestrian/bicycle routes, sound barriers and any other municipal requirements; and

(c) direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and all other City officials to make reasonable efforts to consult with the Toronto Film Industry and Toronto Film Studios in particular, and to protect the film industry in general, and Toronto Film Studios in particular, from any and all adverse effects resulting from the demolition and reconstruction."; and

(2) by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to:

(i) direct the Transportation Services Division to:

(1) enter into further discussions with the Toronto Port Authority, the Toronto Economic Development Corporation, railway companies and railway company clients on the feasibility of relocating the rail lines currently running along Lake Shore Boulevard East to the Don Roadway route as detailed in the Clause, and report on the progress of these discussions to Council, through the Planning and Transportation Committee; and

(2) include the development of a light rapid transit line, unanimously endorsed by City Council during the debate on the Olympic bid early last year, as part of the transportation improvement planning for the East End of Toronto; and

(ii) submit a report to Council, through the Planning and Transportation Committee, on the feasibility of installing an alternate entry/exit route via Knox Avenue or Woodfield Road; and

(b) the Executive Director and Chief Planner be requested to re-examine the proposal put forward by Mr. John Sewell respecting decking over the Gardiner Expressway in the Parkdale area and submit a report thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee, as quickly as possible.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the joint report (May 5, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning subject to inclusion of the following amendments proposed by Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock and Blackwell in his communication (May 17, 1999):

(1) that Recommendation (3) be amended by adding the words "such expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film Industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services", so as to read:

"(3) request the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to hold $100,000.00 in reserve for a Film Industry awareness campaign to address the concerns raised by the Film Industry, such expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film Industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;"

(2) adding the following additional Recommendations (4), (5) and (6)

"(4) direct the City Solicitor, in co-operation with appropriate City officials, representatives of the Toronto film industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative, and appropriate officials from companies that provide bonding for film studios, to prepare performance based noise and vibration specifications for inclusion in all contracts for all phases of the demolition of the Expressway and the reconstruction of Lakeshore Blvd. in addition to a working protocol. Such specifications and protocol to be to the satisfaction of Toronto Film Studios prior to awarding the contract.

The specifications are to include:

(a) requirements that contractors limit all noise related to the construction or demolition of the Expressway to levels no greater than the existing peak period ambient noise levels as specified by Toronto Film Studios acoustical consultants;

(b) a provision that all contractors cease work within 15 minutes of a designated City official being notified by a designated Toronto Film Studio official that the work significantly interferes with filming at the Toronto Film Studios and that the parties will meet immediately to resolve the complaint;

(c) demolition in the vicinity (within 200 metres) of Toronto Film Studios will occur only in the months from December to March inclusive; and

(d) reasonable contract specifications to ensure that Toronto Film Industry will be able to continue to obtain bonding for production deadlines in spite of the demolition and reconstruction;

(5) no railway line be relocated to the north side of Lakeshore Boulevard east of Carlaw Street, and all crossings be controlled by signals bells and not by train whistles. Further, that if there is any significant increase in rail traffic to the Port Lands, that the requirement for a new rail line to the Port will be studied further; and

(6) (a) direct that reconstruction of Lakeshore Boulevard include a sufficient sound barrier on the north side to prevent additional traffic noise from affecting film productions;

(b) directs subject to any relevant provisions of the Municipal Act, that any surplus lands on the north side of the Lakeshore Boulevard be offered to adjacent property owners for purchase after taking into account planting, pedestrian/bicycle routes and sound barrier requirements;

(c) direct that all contracts specify that no construction staging can occur on the north side of Lakeshore Boulevard for demolition or reconstruction purposes within 200 metres of a film studios;

(d) direct that all contracts for demolition and construction specify dust control requirements to the satisfaction of Toronto Film Studios consultants;

(e) direct that all contracts for demolition and construction specify that truck access from Lakeshore Boulevard to the Toronto Film Studios property will not be obstructed except at times approved by a designated Toronto Film Studios representative; and

(f) direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and all other City officials to make reasonable efforts to co-operate with the film industry in general and Toronto Film Studios in particular and to protect the film industry in general, and Toronto Film Studios in particular from any and all adverse affects resulting from the demolition and reconstruction."

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor to review the proposed amendments and wording submitted by Cassels Brock & Blackwell and report directly to City Council for its meeting on June 9, 1999 on the implications of Council adopting these amendments.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (May 5, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services and Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to request the Urban Environment and Development Committee to make a final decision on whether or not the City should proceed with the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project as endorsed by the former City of Toronto and Metro Toronto Councils in December, 1996. An assessment carried out in April, 1999 indicates that the structural condition of the Expressway has reached a point where it is essential that either dismantling take place or the full rehabilitation program be initiated. We cannot predict a time or date at which a structural failure could occur. However, the risk to public safety increases every day that work is deferred.

This report also presents the results of four studies authorized at the December 1, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee: the Alternative Rail Service Delivery Study, the Community Improvement Plan, the Air Quality Study - Phase III, and the Area Traffic Management Study; and responds to various requests made at the same meeting.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program for the Transportation Services Division includes $3 million for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project in 1999 (C-TR-026).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1) endorse the Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project, as originally approved by the former City of Toronto and Metro Toronto Councils, and direct staff to reinitiate the project immediately;

(2) (a) instruct the City Solicitor to take the necessary actions to complete City Council's consideration of the Community Improvement Plan contained in Appendix 3 of this report;

(b) allocate $1.25 million, from the Gardiner East Dismantling Project budget, to the implementation of the Community Improvement Projects, listed in Sections 3.1 and 3.4 of the Community Improvement Plan contained in Appendix 3 of this report, whose completion is to coincide with the overall project;

(c) allocate $250,000.00 from the Gardiner East Dismantling Project as a contribution towards completing additional Community Improvement Projects listed in the Community Improvement Plan contained in Appendix 3 of this report;

(d) request the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to investigate and report back on the potential for improvements, to Leslie Grove Park as outlined in Section 4.1 of Appendix 3 of this report;

(e) request the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i) to review street lighting conditions on Queen Street East, Eastern Avenue, and on public lanes within the Community Improvement Plan area and report back;

(ii) to install, monitor, and report back on the effectiveness of traffic management measures on Logan Avenue described in Section 5.1 of Appendix 3 of this report; and

(iii) coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover on Eastern Avenue at Caroline Avenue, to install a pedestrian activated traffic control signal on Eastern Avenue at Larchmount Avenue described in Section 5.2 of Appendix 3 of this report;

(f) the Parking Authority of Toronto be requested to investigate and report on the feasibility of creating a commercial lot to service businesses on Queen Street East between Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street; and

(3) request the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to hold $100,000.00 in reserve for a Film Industry awareness campaign to address the concerns raised by the Film Industry.

Conclusions:

City staff, area residents and area businesses have worked for over 3 years on the issue of what to do with the east end of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway. The following conclusions have been drawn based upon the work completed:

Structural Concerns:

- the structural condition of the Gardiner Expressway East has reached a point where we must either proceed with dismantling or the full rehabilitation program;

- long-term public safety can no longer be guaranteed with a further deferral or delay of work.

Dismantling vs. Rehabilitation:

- the Dismantling Project offers many benefits over rehabilitation: $14 million (net present value, 1996 dollars) in life-cycle cost savings, "city-building" opportunities, and the "greening" and humanizing of the Gardiner - Lake Shore corridor.

Approved Plan vs. Alternative Plan:

- the Approved Plan provides the best package of benefits in terms of traffic conditions; improved urban design; enhanced environmental conditions; greater opportunities for community improvement projects and long-term cost savings to the taxpayer;

- although the Alternative Plan (described in Appendix No. 1) is physically feasible and would provide a satisfactory operation, its benefits in vehicular delay reduction are minimal when traded-off against the lower cost, better urban design and other advantages of the Approved Plan.

Rail:

- currently there are no regularly scheduled daytime rail crossings of Lake Shore Boulevard, all scheduled rail crossings of Lake Shore Boulevard occur at night;

- staff recommend proceeding with the rail relocation design proposed as part of the Dismantling Project;

- modifications required to remove rail traffic from Lake Shore Boulevard are estimated at $16.6 million, not including property costs, compared to $3.2 million for rail modifications as proposed in the Dismantling Project;

- rail removal can be protected as a long-term option, if justified by future increases in rail traffic.

Air Quality:

- the Medical Officer of Health's review of the Air Quality Study indicates that dismantling is slightly favoured over rehabilitation because it best protects air quality in the residential community.

Traffic Infiltration:

- the most recent assessment of traffic infiltration confirms the earlier findings of the Environmental Assessment:

- no significant east-west traffic diversions are expected either during or after construction of the Dismantling Project;

- the most significant diversion of traffic occurs on Carlaw Avenue with the transfer of north-south traffic flows from Leslie Street.

Community Improvement Plan:

- Community Improvement Projects recommended to be implemented in conjunction with the Dismantling Project provide additional "greening" of the area, improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists and provide additional amenities for the community

Noise and the Film Studios:

- a protocol has been developed to minimize construction noise impacts on the film studios, including a $100,000.00 reserve fund to cover the cost of an industry awareness campaign, if required.

Due to the advanced deteriorated state of the existing structure a decision must be made now to either dismantle the east end of the Gardiner Expressway or to rehabilitate it. Staff recommend that City Council proceed with the dismantling option because of the long-term cost savings, the urban design and city-building benefits and the potential for community improvements compared to rehabilitating the existing structure.

Council Reference:

At its meeting held on November 30, 1998 and December 1, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it the following reports and communications:

(i) (November 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, the Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning, and the Medical Officer of Health, entitled F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project;

(ii) (July 7 and 9, 1998) from the General Manger, Transportation Services, both entitled F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project;

(iii) (July 13, 1998) from Councillors Sandra Bussin and Tom Jakobek, East Toronto; and

(iv) (June 18, 1998) from the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor.

Upon hearing a presentation and deputations on the foregoing, the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1) adopted the November 23, 1998 report from the General Manager, Transportation Services, the Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning, and the Medical Officer of Health entitled F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project thereby directing staff to conduct three studies: an Alternative Rail Service Delivery Study, a Community Improvement Plan, and an Air Quality Study;

(2) deferred consideration of the remaining reports (i.e. July 7 and 9, 1998, July 13, 1998, June 18, 1998) pending the results of the studies;

(3) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(a) to report to 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 Lake Shore Boulevard for whatever reason after dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway East, should City Council decide to proceed;

(b) 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

(c) 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;

(4) requested 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 and onto Lake Shore Boulevard; and

(5) requested Mayor Mel Lastman to meet with the Film Studio representatives to tour the facilities.

History:

Since the history of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project spans a number of years, this section provides a brief overview of the project and its rationale. The F.G. Gardiner Expressway between the Don Valley Parkway and Leslie Street was built in 1964 and 1965 through the eastern waterfront area, which generally consisted of industrial and port uses. Originally planned as the first portion of the Scarborough Expressway, it was to link the Gardiner Expressway to Highway 401 and via the East Metro Freeway to connect to Highway 407. In 1971, a citizens group successfully lobbied the Ontario Municipal Board to order all work on the Scarborough Expressway stopped. As a result, the ultimate construction of the Scarborough Expressway was never realized.

Over the years, the traffic usage combined with the age of the facility and its rate of deterioration have created the need to undertake extensive rehabilitation of the Gardiner Expressway. Major repairs to the elevated portion of the Expressway west of the Don Valley Parkway have been ongoing since 1979. To date, little rehabilitation work has been carried out on the section of the Expressway east of the Don Valley Parkway.

In January 1996, during consideration of the former Metro Transportation Department's 1996-2000 Capital Works Program, the former Metro Planning and Transportation Committee requested a report on whether the rehabilitation of the Gardiner Expressway east of the Don Valley Parkway should continue or whether dismantling should be considered. A quick review was undertaken and based on the results of this quick review, staff were authorized to undertake an Environmental Assessment to assess all possible alternatives in greater detail and to consult with stakeholders. The F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design Study (Class EA Study) was initiated in April 1996 and completed in November 1996. The results of the Study indicated that the construction of new access ramps on the east side of the Don River and the dismantling of the existing structure from the new ramps to Leslie Street was the preferred option. On the basis of the urban design benefits, impacts on transportation service in the Gardiner Expressway-Lake Shore Boulevard corridor, and a $14 million life-cycle cost savings, both the former City of Toronto and Metro Toronto Councils endorsed the Dismantling Project in December 1996. Thus, the preferred option became the "Approved Plan". Final EA approval was confirmed in April 1997 and detailed design of the project began in May 1997.

On April 16, 1998, City Council adopted Clause 1 of Report No. 3 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee. By doing so, Council passed 14 motions directing staff to undertake a number of analyses and respond to questions. One of the requests was to examine the feasibility of dismantling the Gardiner Expressway in such a way that the traffic signal at Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard is by-passed. A number of options were explored to develop what is now referred to as the "Alternative Plan". The "Alternative Plan" involves leaving a longer section of the Gardiner in place, and locating the entrance and exit ramps so that they merge with Lake Shore Boulevard east of Carlaw. Although implementation of the Alternative Plan would require a new Environmental Assessment, to ensure consistency with previous work this Plan was evaluated using the same three factors as was the "Approved Plan" during the original Environmental Assessment Study: urban character; transportation service; and 50-year life-cycle cost. The assessment of the "Alternative Plan" concluded that although it is physically feasible and would provide satisfactory operation, its benefits in vehicular delay reduction are minimal when traded-off against its higher cost and poorer urban design characteristics as compared to the "Approved Plan" for the Dismantling Project. As a result, staff recommended that the project continue according to the "Approved Plan". The detailed evaluation of the "Approved Plan" versus the "Alternative Plan" can be found in Appendix 1.

The staff report dealing with the analysis of the"Alternative Plan" and other matters raised by Council was deferred at both the July and December, 1998 meetings of the Urban Environment and Development Committee pending the completion of four studies: a community improvement plan, a study to explore alternative rail service delivery options for the Port Area, an air quality monitoring program and a request to develop an area traffic management plan. These studies are now complete and their findings presented below in this report.

Discussion:

(1) Why dismantle...

The F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project has developed into much more than just a transportation maintenance project. In developing the dismantling alternative it has become clear that there are many benefits to this project over and above the approximately $14 million (net present value, 1996 dollars) in cost savings - the "city-building" possibilities, the "greening" and the overall improvements to the community.

From a city planning perspective, the most striking feature of the Gardiner East Dismantling Project is the inclusion of urban design, and "green" elements as part of the proposal to transform Lake Shore Boulevard into a new urban boulevard. This "greening" includes the addition of:

- a landscaped "green" space having a maximum width of 30 metres along the north side of the new road;

- a new trail for cyclists and pedestrians within the green space on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard;

- a pedestrian path and landscaping on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard;

- a landscaped median; and

- public art, to be developed in consultation with the community.

Overall, these design elements have a significant impact on humanizing the physical environment of the Lake Shore/Gardiner East and improving the physical amenity of the area.

(2) Why the decision must be made NOW....

The Environmental Assessment Study that led to the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project was initiated because of the poor structural condition of the Gardiner east of the Don Valley Parkway and the immediate need to begin rehabilitative efforts. Since then, the structural condition of the Gardiner East has continued to deteriorate. The emergency measures that have been implemented, lane reductions and localized emergency repairs, have done little to prolong the life of this structure. Our most recent assessment, carried out in April 1999, has indicated that a decision on whether to dismantle or rehabilitate is required immediately. The condition of the structure is such that emergency repairs will do little to keep this portion of the Expressway in operation over the long term. We must either proceed with the dismantling project or initiate the full rehabilitation program to ensure that public safety is protected. Therefore, it is crucial that a FINAL decision be made at the May 17, 1999 Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting.

(3) Results of Studies and Responses to Various Motions:

The results of the four studies: the Alternative Rail Service Delivery Study, the Community Improvement Plan, the Air Quality Study and the Area Traffic Management Study, are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs. Full reports on the findings of each of these four studies can be found in Appendices 2 through 5. In addition, at the December 1, 1998 Urban Environment and Development Committee a number of motions were made requesting additional information. The responses to these motions can be found in Appendix 6.

(a) Alternative Rail Service Delivery Study (Appendix No. 2):

The current plan for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project proposes to relocate the Q200 lead, which is the rail line that is located in the median of Lake Shore Boulevard, between Booth Avenue and Leslie Street, to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard. In order to address the concerns of Logan Avenue residents and the motorists that travel through the area, the Alternative Rail Service Delivery Study was carried out to examine if the Q200 lead could be removed from Lake Shore Boulevard altogether.

The Q200 lead performs two functions:

(i) As far as Carlaw Avenue it is a switching lead for the Keating Yard ( the switching yard is used by the railways to sort rail cars going to and from the Port Area); and

(ii) It provides rail service to the eastern and southern Port areas through an alignment that parallels Leslie Street and Unwin Avenue to access the Port of Toronto Piers 51 & 52. En route it serves CanRoof Corporation, the City of Toronto Main Sewage Treatment Plant and Intermetco via a network of spur lines.

In order to eliminate the portion of the Q200 lead along Lake Shore Boulevard there must be an alternative for both of these functions.

Four alternative schemes were developed to modify or replace the Keating Yard and thereby minimize or eliminate shunting activity east of Booth Avenue. Of the four alternatives, Alternative 1 - Shortening of the Keating Yard, is the most desirable.

Four route alternatives that would provide an alternate link to the Port Area in addition to providing connections to all existing industries currently served were developed and evaluated. Route Alternative 4 - Don Roadway was seen as the least problematic of the four alternatives. Although this alternative has the highest construction cost, it provides the best compromise between maintaining existing rail service and promoting future rail service growth while minimizing impacts on road operations.

Based on the assessment carried out the following conclusions have been reached:

- as long as CanRoof Corporation continues to be the main customer on the Q200 Lead, the Don Roadway route alternative is not desirable from an operational perspective and therefore the significant capital costs associated with this option cannot be justified. If the Port of Toronto is successful in the future in significantly increasing its use of rail service, the Don Roadway route alternative will become more operationally feasible; and

- while a shortening of the Keating Yard may be feasible with the Q200 Lead in its current position on Lake Shore Boulevard, the full benefits of this yard alternative cannot be realized until the Q200 Lead is removed from Lake Shore Boulevard.

As a result, we recommend that the shortening of the Keating Yard and the Don Roadway route alternative be considered longer term options. If the Port of Toronto significantly increases its rail usage, at that time cost sharing arrangements between the City, TEDCO and THC could be explored.

In the interim, the rail relocation design proposed as part of the Dismantling Project could be implemented without precluding either of these potential future modifications to the Port Area rail network.

Full details of the process followed in conducting the Alternative Rail Service Delivery Study, the alternatives developed and evaluated, and the businesses and members of the public that were consulted can be found in Appendix 2.

(b) Community Improvement Plan (Appendix No. 3):

A proposed Community Improvement Plan is included as Appendix 3 of this report. Preparation of the Community Improvement Plan included extensive public consultation by City staff with a wide variety of local interest groups. As well two public open houses held on the project gave the public additional opportunities to comment and make suggestions regarding the community improvement projects comprising the Plan. The types of projects included in the Community Improvement Plan are diverse, but fall into three broad categories:

- projects which add further value to a redesigned Lake Shore Boulevard as an urban boulevard containing a substantial "green" corridor;

- traffic management related improvements; and

- projects which are independent of the Gardiner East Dismantling Project.

Appendix 3 of this report contains a detailed discussion of the individual Community Improvement Projects. Overall, the Community Improvement Plan provides a framework for future public reinvestment within South Riverdale in order to improve its amenity and livability. The Community Improvement Plan proposed is best achieved in conjunction with the Gardiner East Dismantling Project as recommended by City staff. Should City Council not implement the Gardiner East Dismantling Project, the Community Improvement Plan as proposed in Appendix 3 will have to be substantially reduced in scope. In addition, it is not clear how a reduced Community Improvement Plan could be funded.

(c) Air Quality Study - Phase III (Appendix No. 4):

An ambient air quality monitoring study was conducted to allow for an assessment of the current ambient situation and for the refinement of modelling prediction of the impact of either the rehabilitation or dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East. The objectives of this study were to:

- measure background levels of certain air pollutants in the study area;

- identify and characterize the range of pollutant sources in the study area;

- predict the dispersion potential of the pollutants monitored for both options - rehabilitation and dismantling; and

- identify measures that will mitigate negative air quality impacts associated with the rehabilitation or dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East.

The study concluded that the overall assessment of air quality impacts associated with either option of the Gardiner East slightly favours dismantling because it best protects air quality in the residential community.

(d) Area Traffic Management Study (Appendix No. 5):

An Area Traffic Management Study was undertaken for the area in the vicinity of the Gardiner East Dismantling Project as defined by Coxwell Avenue, Commissioners Street and Lake Shore Boulevard East, Booth Avenue and Queen Street. The objectives of the study were to:

- Evaluate existing and future traffic conditions in the study area;

- Predict potential changes in traffic patterns that could occur during and after the Gardiner East Dismantling Project; and

- Identify measures to improve existing traffic conditions as well as measures which would address any future traffic-related problems, with or without the dismantling project.

The major findings and conclusions of the Area Traffic Management Study can be summarized as follows:

- there is an existing capacity problem for the eastbound left-turn movement at Lake Shore Boulevard and Coxwell Avenue during the p.m. peak period. This capacity problem could be addressed by a double eastbound left turn under existing conditions, or by providing an alternative route via Knox Avenue or Woodfield Road after the dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway East;

- similar to the findings of the Environmental Assessment Study for the Dismantling Project, the travel times on parallel east-west routes in the area are currently balanced and will be balanced both during and after construction, with the Gardiner Expressway always being the fastest route. As a result, no significant east-west traffic diversions are expected either during or after construction of the Dismantling Project;

- also similar to the findings of the Environmental Assessment Study, the most significant increase in traffic volumes on north-south streets after dismantling will occur on Carlaw Avenue. This is as a result of motorists with local origins or destinations diverting from Leslie Street where they currently access or exit the Gardiner Expressway and ; and

- mitigating measures can be implemented to address community concerns regarding existing incidences of traffic infiltration and speeding that have been identified through this study.

Contact Name:

John P. Kelly

Manager, Infrastructure Planning

Phone: 392-8340

Fax: 392-4426

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (May 17, 1999) from Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock & Blackwell, Barristers and Solicitors:

We represent Toronto Film Studios located at 629 Eastern Avenue. Our clients production film studios are the largest in Toronto and have been home to such productions as "Goodwill Hunting", "Long Kiss Goodnight", "Road to Avonlea" and "Lazarus and the Hurricane" (starring Denzel Washington) and "The City", a new hit series on CTV. It consists of 15 stages and has a gross floor area of approximately 235,000 sq. ft. and employs up to 500 people at any given time.

The dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway puts Toronto Film Studios in serious jeopardy because the studios are retro fitted industrial buildings which were not constructed to address the sound and vibration problems caused by the dismantling of an expressway.

In addition, the adverse impact on Toronto Film Studios from the demolition will badly hurt the film production industry in Toronto. That industry provides/employs 28,000 skilled professionals and infuses 3/4 of a billion dollars into the Toronto economy annually.

Our clients are opposed to the dismantling of the Expressway unless they and the industry are clearly protected from the adverse impacts of the demolition. Therefore, they cannot support Recommendation 1 in the above report which endorses the Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project as originally approved unless the following recommendations are also approved at the same time, or prior to approval of Recommendation 1:

a. That Recommendation 3 be deleted and changed to the following:

Direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to hold $100,000.00 in reserve for a Film Industry awareness campaign to address the concerns raised by the Film Industry, such expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

b. That Condition 4 is added as follows:

Direct the City Solicitor, in co-operation with appropriate City officials, representatives of the Toronto film industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative, and appropriate officials from companies that provide bonding for film studios, to prepare performance based noise and vibration specifications for inclusion in all contracts for all phases of the demolition of the Expressway and the reconstruction of Lakeshore Blvd. in addition to a working protocol. Such specifications and protocol to be to the satisfaction of Toronto Film Studios prior to awarding the contract.

The specifications are to include:

(i) Requirements that contractors limit all noise related to the construction or demolition of the Expressway to levels no greater than the existing peak period ambient noise levels as specified by Toronto Film Studios acoustical consultants;

(ii) A provision that all contractors cease work within 15 minutes of a designated City official being notified by a designated Toronto Film Studio official that the work significantly interferes with filming at the Toronto Film Studios and that the parties will meet immediately to resolve the complaint;

(iii) Demolition in the vicinity (within 200 metres) of Toronto Film Studios will occur only in the months from December to March inclusive; and

(iv) Reasonable contract specifications to ensure that Toronto Film Industry will be able to continue to obtain bonding for production deadlines in spite of the demolition and reconstruction.

c. That Condition 5 is added as follows:

No railway line be relocated to the north side of Lakeshore Blvd. east of Carlaw, and all crossings be controlled by signals bells and not by train whistles.

Further, that if there is any significant increase in rail traffic to the Port Lands, that the requirement for a new rail line to the Port will be studied further.

d. That Condition 6 be added as follows:

(a) Direct that reconstruction of Lakeshore Blvd. include a sufficient sound barrier on the north side to prevent additional traffic noise from affecting film productions;

(b) Directs subject to any relevant provisions of the Municipal Act, that any surplus lands on the north side of the Lakeshore Blvd. be offered to adjacent property owners for purchase after taking into account planting, pedestrian/bicycle routes and sound barrier requirements;

(c) Direct that all contracts specify that no construction staging can occur on the north side of Lakeshore Blvd. for demolition or reconstruction purposes within 200 metres of a film studios;

(d) Direct that all contracts for demolition and construction specify dust control requirements to the satisfaction of Toronto Film Studios consultants;

(e) Direct that all contracts for demolition and construction specify that truck access from Lakeshore Blvd. to the Toronto Film Studios property will not be obstructed except at times approved by a designated Toronto Film Studios representative; and

(f) Direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and all other City officials to make reasonable efforts to co-operate with the film industry in general and Toronto Film Studios in particular and to protect the film industry in general, and Toronto Film Studios in particular from any and all adverse affects resulting from the demolition and reconstruction.

It is only through the adoption of the above recommendations that Council can ensure that Toronto Film Studios in particular, and the film industry, in general in Toronto is protected. There is no dispute as to the importance of this industry and there is no doubt, given the highly competitive nature of the industry, that without the above protection the industry will be lost in Toronto. The Report includes provisions for Community Improvements, street lighting on Queen Street and other street improvements. The Report must address in detail, the need to protect the film industry in our City. Without approval of these recommendations, we cannot support the Report.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (May 5, 1999) from the Medical Officer of Health:

Purpose:

To report on Phase III of the air quality impact assessment that included ambient air pollutant monitoring, and dispersion modelling which predicts the potential air quality impacts under the two options for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East.

Source of Funds:

There are no direct financial implications related to this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the General Manager of Transportation Services and the Chief Planner ensure that the greening plan proposed in the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project proceed including the examination of alternate bicycle routes, irrespective of the option chosen, in order to minimize the potential impact on cyclists due to poor air quality along the Lakeshore Blvd./Gardiner Expressway corridor;

(2) the Executive Director/Chief Planner of City Planning ensure that the process for developing the new Official Plan for the City of Toronto considers air quality impacts from transportation corridors as a priority in long-term landuse and transportation planning; and

(3) the Medical Officer of Health monitor the work of the federal government under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) review process regarding the examination of cyanide in road salt and its impact on air quality.

Background:

At the December 1, 1998 meeting, the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) considered a report from the Medical Officer of Health (November 23,1998) on the air quality impacts of dismantling the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East. The MOH recommended that an ambient air quality monitoring study be conducted because the Phase II air quality impact assessment predicted exceedances in the F.G.Gardiner/Lakshore corridor of the provincial ambient air quality criteria for particulate matter under worst-case conditions for both options under consideration for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East. Monitoring specific to this area allows an assessment of the current ambient situation and allows for refinement of the dispersion model predictions of the impact of either rehabilitating or dismantling the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East.

In addition, the Commissioner of Works & Emergency Services, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, were to identify and investigate the feasibility of implementing measures that will mitigate the negative air quality impacts.

Comments:

Senes Consultants Limited, who has experience in air monitoring and modelling were retained by Transportation Services to conduct the Phase III Air Quality Impact study in the area bounded by Queen Street to the north, the Don Roadway to the west, Commissioners Street to the south and Leslie Street to the east. The study objectives were to:

- measure background levels of criteria air pollutants in the study area (ambient air monitoring);

- identify and characterize the range of pollutant sources in the study area;

- predict the dispersion potential of the pollutants monitored for both options - rehabilitation and dismantling (models were consistent with those used in Phase II);

- identify effective and feasible measures that will mitigate negative air quality impacts associated with the rehabilitation or dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East.

Ambient Air Monitoring - Winter 1999.

From February 16, 1999 to March 29, 1999 ambient air monitoring was conducted at two locations in the study area: Bruce Public School (57 Larchmount Ave) and South Riverdale Community Health Centre (955 Queen St E.). The pollutants monitored were carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM₁₀, PM_{2.5, -} sulphates and nitrates), nitrogen oxides (NO_x) and sulphur dioxide (SO₂). The pollutants selected for analysis are those criteria pollutants for which transportation sources are the largest contributor. Sensitive receptors/facilities (i.e. residential areas, schools, parks, health care centres) and their proximity to existing stationary, area and point sources were considered in siting the monitoring locations. In addition, the Ontario Ministry of Environment (OMOE) agreed to deploy its mobile air monitoring bus such that the additional data could be used to calibrate the dispersion models and result in more accurate predictions.

Table 1 and 2 are a summary of the ambient monitoring data collected at Bruce Public School and South Riverdale Community Health Centre, respectively. Approximately 14 days of sampling occurred at each location. Consistent with the averaging times for the respective MOE AAQCs, hourly measurements are reported for No_x, CO, and SO₂ and daily measurements for PM₁₀ and PM_2.5. There were no exceedances of the OMOE ambient air quality criteria (AAQC) observed at Bruce Public School. At South Riverdale Community Health Centre most of the measurements were within the standards. However, there was one exceedance of NO_x and PM₁₀ (NO_x = 518 µg/m³ and PM₁₀ = 66 µg/m³).

Table 1 Range of Maximum Concentrations Recorded at Bruce Public School (µg/m³)

*there is currently no MOE AAQC for PM_2.5. The U.S.EPA 24-hour standard is 65 µg/m³

Table 2 Range of Maximum Concentrations Recorded at South Riverdale Community Health Centre (µg/m³)

NOTE: shaded cells denote AAQC exceedances for NO_x and PM₁₀. The NO_x and PM₁₀ AAQCs are 400 µg/m³ and 50 µg/m³, respectively.

*there is currently no AAQC for PM_2.5. The U.S.EPA 24-hour standard is 65 µg/m³

Table 3 illustrates that the maximum NO_x levels (converted to ppb) measured in this community during February and March, 1999 are lower than the maximum levels recorded at other Toronto locations where the OMOE monitors for NO_x (OMOE, 1999). It should be noted that over a one year period maximum levels are expected to occur in the summer months. Therefore, the levels of NO_x observed in the study area are expected to be higher in the summer months. However, this situation applies to both the dismantling and rehabilitation option.

In general, the NO_x levels experienced at several Toronto monitoring stations are higher than other parts of Ontario. The only other two Ontario locations with comparable levels are Cornwall (454 ppb) and Hamilton (427 ppb). While levels are a concern throughout Toronto due to the large volumes of vehicular traffic the ambient NO_x exceedances noted at the South Riverdale Community Health Centre are not as great as those at other monitoring sites in Toronto (Table 3). According to the OMOEs most recent air quality report (1996 data), across the province approximately 67 percent of NO_x comes from the transportation sector (OMOE, 1999). This source allocation will vary among local communities depending on the mix of sources (i.e. transportation vs industrial). The following section on dispersion modelling estimates the source allocation for the pollutants monitored in this study. The provincial average ambient NO_x levels have remained relatively constant throughout the 1990s (OMOE, 1999).

Table 3 Comparison of maximum NO_x concentrations with other Toronto locations

¹OMOE, 1999

²Senes Consultants Limited, 1999

With respect to PM₁₀ levels, the highest ambient 24-hour level recorded (remote from an industrial point source) in Ontario was at a downtown Hamilton site (91µg/m³). Table 4 compares the maximum levels recorded at three Toronto locations with the two locations monitored in this study and illustrates that the maximum PM₁₀ levels recorded in this study are comparable to maximum levels recorded at other Toronto locations where the OMOE monitors for PM₁₀ (OMOE, 1999).

Table 4 Comparison of maximum PM₁₀ concentrations with other Toronto locations

¹OMOE, 1999

²Senes Consultants Limited, 1999

In addition to the transportation related pollutants monitored, community members have raised questions regarding other pollutants such as lead, ground level ozone, cyanide, manganese and hexavalent chromium. As part of their provincial ambient air monitoring network, the OMOE monitors for lead and manganese in the study area. In 1996, the limits for manganese and lead were not exceeded at these locations (OMOE, 1999).

Hexavalent chromium, although present in Toronto's air at trace levels, is largely associated with industrial sources (TPH, 1993). The OMOE has informed Toronto Public Health that no routine monitoring of hexavalent chromium in ambient air is conducted in Toronto (personal communication OMOE, 1999).

Cyanide has been identified because of its presence in road salt as an anti-caking agent. There has not been an analysis of the exposure to airborne cyanide that may be re-entrained from transportation sources. The federal government is conducting an ecological risk assessment of road salt. Toronto Public Health will monitor the work of the federal government.

Ground level ozone is secondary pollutant that forms downwind of emission sources of NO_x and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. This is illustrated by the monitoring data collected by the OMOE at six locations in Toronto. In 1996, the greatest number of exceedances, 48, were observed at the York location compared with no exceedances at the Toronto downtown location (OMOE, 1999). The regional nature of ground level ozone also results in a significant percentage (approx. 50 percent) being transported into Ontario on hot summer days from sources located in the United States.

In summary, the ambient air monitoring exercise was useful in demonstrating that there were few exceedances of environmental exposure limits during late winter. Although pollutant levels are known to vary seasonally and possibly result in a greater number of exceedances in summer, the ambient monitoring data are especially useful for application of dispersion models to this study area to predict how pollutants will travel and what levels they may reach under certain meteorological conditions.

Predicted Air Quality Impacts under Rehabilitation or Dismantling.

Atmospheric dispersion modelling was used to compare the existing atmospheric concentrations of criteria pollutants with predicted future concentrations for the two options for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East. The models used in this study are regulatory models that will predict atmospheric concentrations of pollutants from industrial sources and vehicular sources. The ambient monitoring data collected was used to refine the models for the study area. Because weather conditions play a significant role in how air pollutants travel across an area, the dispersion models consider area-specific meteorological observations, specifically wind speed, direction and stability.

Since pollutants are emitted from several different sources (e.g. particulates are emitted by both vehicles and local industrial sources) the consultants were requested to distinguish between transportation sources and industrial sources in the study area. The Main Treatment Plant, although technically outside of the defined study area, was considered a special case and was therefore included in the analysis.

Dispersion modelling was conducted for NO_x, CO, SO₂, PM₁₀, and PM_2.5. Given that only NO_x and PM₁₀ levels are predicted to exceed the AAQC under certain meterological conditions, the following discussion is limited to NO_x and PM₁₀. The predicted NO_x and PM₁₀ concentrations for either rehabilitation or dismantling vary amongst the 17 sensitive receptors locations selected for study. In general, the closer the roadway is to grade, the greater the pollutant levels will be at receptor locations closest to the road. When the roadway is elevated pollutants will disperse further thereby having a greater impact on remote locations and a lesser impact on receptor locations closest to the source.

The predictions for the dismantling scenario were calculated by Senes Consultants Limited by assuming an increase in traffic volumes due to increased development and general traffic growth, whereas the rehabilitation scenario was done assuming the present day traffic volumes. The predicted difference in the 24-hour concentration averaged for all receptors when comparing dismantling to rehabilitation is 3 percent for NO_x and 1 percent for PM₁₀, indicative of slightly superior air quality with dismantling. These estimates are considered to be conservative and a larger difference is anticipated between the two options, whereby a greater number of exceedances are expected to occur under the rehabilitation option when increases in traffic volumes due to future development are considered. Senes Consultants Limited anticipates that the overall pollutant concentrations in the study area will be lower under the dismantling option than the rehabilitation option.

Mitigative Measures

The consultant was also requested to assess the range of possible measures that can mitigate negative air quality impacts associated with the options for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East. The two basic approaches that can be undertaken to reduce the air quality impacts resulting from emissions of gaseous and particulate pollutants are emission reduction and control.

In the context of transportation sources, emission reduction or pollution prevention, requires the reduction of traffic volume. Although, the dispersion modelling did not explicitly model a reduction in air pollutant concentrations that would result from a decrease in traffic, the relationship is approximately linear (personal communication, Senes Consultants Limited). For example, for every percent reduction in traffic volume there would be an equivalent reduction in air pollutant levels. This relationship underscores the need for integrating air quality protection measures into landuse and transportation planning processes.

Emission control for roadways includes greening and engineering options. With respect to the greening options, there is increasing evidence that plant canopies are a sink for airborne pollutants. Trees can have a major impact of the environment in residential neighbourhoods by influencing local wind speeds, air temperature, humidity, etc. and gaseous airborne pollutants can be absorbed through the same process that plants absorb nutrients.

Pollutant removal by plants is highly dependent on: the physical form or phase of the pollutant; meteorological conditions above and within the canopy; the properties of the leaf surface and interior and; the structure of the leaf canopy.

Pollutant uptake is highly variable amongst plant species and the potential of pollutants to cause plant injury needs to be considered within the context of long-term pollutant removal efficiency. In general, species with high leaf surface areas are more effective at removing atmospheric pollutants. It has been observed that large trees can remove more pollution than small trees, however, the experimental evidence shows that the removal efficiency of leaf canopies depends on the nature of the leaf surface (i.e. smooth leaves will remove less particulate than leaves with fine hairs). Various species have been identified as efficient in pollutant removal, as well as resistant to the negative effects of certain pollutants. This information should be considered in any landscaping plan for transportation corridors.

In their review of the greening mitigative options, Senes Consultant Limited concluded it was difficult to accurately quantify the amount of pollution removed by greening options. However, planting trees along the transportation corridor would not be harmful and quantifying the benefits of pollutant removal by evaluating the effectiveness of a greening intervention is something to be considered in the future. In addition, trees indirectly benefit air quality by providing shade which can reduce the amount of electricity required for air conditioning during summer months. This results in reduced emissions from coal-fired generating stations.

With respect to engineering options, PM₁₀ emissions from vehicles is, in large part, generated by the resuspension of road dust as tires pass over the road surface. Urban roadways contain a certain amount of accumulated dust and silt. In general high speed roadways tend to accumulate less material than lower speed roadways and therefore, less dust is available for resuspension.

The efficiency of engineering controls depends on the frequency with which the control is applied. The two most common controls are street washing and street vacuuming. Control efficiencies of up to 80 percent can be achieved with a rigorous cleaning cycle, depending on the nature of the roadway and the number of days since the last rainfall. Unfortunately, this option would be ineffective for a major traffic corridor such the Gardiner/Lakeshore corridor under either the rehabilitation or the dismantling option due to the volume of cars travelling on the roadway. In order to achieve any measurable control, the corridor would need to be watered several times per hour during peak time, which would require significant amounts of water (thereby having negative safety implications) and would interfere with traffic flow.

Street vacuuming would have similar operational issues as street watering and would tend to be noisy which may preclude nighttime operation.

Health Implications.

The effects of air pollution on health can range from severe (aggravation of respiratory disease, death) to moderate (reduced lung function with or without symptoms) to minor (eye, nose and throat symptoms). Some researchers have suggested that there is a logical "cascade" of these effects whereby the total burden of illness increases along the spectrum of health effect from most severe to minor (Bates, 1992).

Exposure to NO_x at levels normally experienced in urban environments have been linked to a range adverse health effects. The levels typical to Toronto can be associated with irritant effects such as breathing fatigue eye irritation, increased bronchial reactivity in asthmatics, and increased airway resistance in healthy persons. At very high concentrations nitrogen dioxide can produce pulmonary edema (TPH, 1993; TPH, 1996). It is important to note a reduction in NO_x levels will also result in reduced formation of ground level ozone which has also be linked to adverse health effects. The effects include decreases in lung function in children and adults and increases in respiratory symptoms in healthy exercising individuals (TPH, 1996).

There are a wide variety of health effects associated with inhalation of particulate matter. PM₁₀, particles less than 10 µm in diameter, pose a health concern because they can be inhaled deeper into the respiratory system than larger particulates. Adverse health effects include increased incidence of respiratory symptoms, decreased pulmonary function resulting in increased hospitalization and other health care visits for cardiopulmonary diseases and increased cardiopulmonary disease mortality. Other types of adverse respiratory health effects may be associated with suspended particles which have gaseous pollutants or toxic substances adsorbed to the surface such as acid aerosols. Of greatest health concern are particulates less than 2.5 µm in diameter because they can reach deepest into lung tissue. Acid aerosols are generally less than 2.5 µm in diameter and are typically composed of sulphate and nitrate compounds. Sulphates are considered a crude indicator of acid aerosols. Acid aerosols are known to damage surface of lung tissue where oxygen exchange occurs.

The overall assessment of air quality impacts associated with either option slightly favours dismantling because adverse impacts are anticipated to be lower in the surrounding residential community including sensitive receptors such as schools. Notwithstanding the slight area-wide decrease in pollutant concentrations predicted with dismantling the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East, a significant number of exceedances of the AAQC for PM₁₀ and NO_x are anticipated at a number of the receptor locations under either option. Given that the source allocation for the modelled pollutants attributed approximately 98 percent to transportation sources, longer term landuse and transportation planning solutions need to be considered to reduce the impact of vehicular traffic in this community and other Toronto communities similarly impacted by vehicular traffic.

Under the dismantling option, pollutant concentrations are expected to be somewhat elevated along the Lakeshore corridor. Therefore, particular attention is required to minimize the impact on cyclists that may result from exposure to elevated pollutant levels. The greening plan developed for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East project, should be implemented, irrespective of which option is selected. In addition, alternative bicycling routes should be explored.

Conclusions:

The overall assessment of air quality impacts associated with either option for F.G. Gardiner Expressway East slightly favours dismantling because it best protects air quality in the residential community. This conclusion is based on the predicted number of exceedances for PM₁₀ and NO_x at a number of the sensitive receptor locations such as schools.

Given that the source allocation for the modelled pollutants attributed approximately 98 percent to transportation sources, longer term landuse and transportation planning solutions need to be considered to reduce the impact of vehicular traffic in this community and other Toronto communities similarly impacted by vehicular traffic

Irrespective of which option is selected for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East, mitigative measures need to be implemented to reduce pollutant exposures to cyclists using the Lakeshore Blvd. These measures are particularly important for the dismantling option.

Contact Names:

Franca Ursitti

Research Consultant, Health Promotion & Environmental Protection, Toronto Public Health

Tel: 416-392-6788, Fax: 416-392-7418, email: fursitti@toronto.ca

Monica Campbell

Manager, Health Promotion & Environmental Protection, Toronto Public Health

Tel: 416-392-6788, Fax: 416-392-7418, email: mcampbe2@toronto.ca

References

Bates DV (1992) Health Indices of the Adverse Effects of Air Pollution: The Question of Coherence. Environmental Research; 59:336-349.

Toronto Public Health (1993) Outdoor Air Quality in Toronto: Issues and Concerns.

Toronto Public Health (1996) Outdoor Air Quality in Toronto and Respiratory Health.

Ontario Ministry of Environment (1999a) Air Quality in Ontario - 1996: A concise report on the state of air quality in the province of Ontario. 47pp.

Ontario Ministry of Environment (1999b) Air Quality in Ontario - 1996: Appendix.

Personal Communication (1999) Gary DeBrou, Ontario Ministry of Environment

Senes Consultants Limited (1999) Air Quality Assessment of Various Options for the Future of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East - Phase III (draft).

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (July 7, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To provide additional information related to the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project as requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee and City Council.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The 1998-2002 Capital Works Program for the Transportation Services Division includes $7.9 million for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project in 1998 (C-TR026). The Treasurer has previously certified that financing for the estimated project expenditure in 1998 can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and that it falls within the updated debt guidelines approved by City of Toronto Council.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project proceed as originally approved by the former Metropolitan Toronto and City of Toronto Councils.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of April 16, 1998, City Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project". In so doing, City Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation to report back on a number of issues. These issues are described and discussed below.

Discussion:

Council passed 14 motions on April 16, 1998 which directed staff to undertake a number of analyses and respond to questions. Each motion is described and a detailed response is provided in Appendix No. 1 to this report. The discussion below summarizes Council's directions and staff's findings over the last 10 weeks.

Summary of Findings:

The 14 motions of Council can be summarized into two basic directions or questions. First, consultation should be held with stakeholders, particularly those opposed to the approved dismantling plan, and second, an alternative plan that by-passes the traffic signal at Carlaw Avenue should be developed and evaluated against the approved plan.

(1) Consultation With Stakeholders and Objectors:

In response to Council's request, meetings have been held with the following groups and individuals:

(a) Design and Construction Liaison Group (The DCLG is comprised of a Business and Industry Forum and a Public Forum);

(b) Beaches Triangle Residents Association;

(c) Bruce Public School representatives;

(d) Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway;

(e) Film Industry representatives (co-ordinated through Toronto Film Studios);

(f) Logan Avenue Residents;

(g) Mr. Marshall Golden;

(h) The City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO);

(i) Mr. Kevin Walters; and

(j) Public Meetings with area Councillors.

Staff of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC), which was one of the organizations named as objecting to the dismantling project, have indicated that THC does not have a position on this issue, and therefore a meeting is unwarranted. A copy of the correspondence from THC dated June 8, 1998 is included in Appendix No. 2. THC staff continue to actively participate in the Design and Construction Liaison Group.

A detailed listing of the issues raised by the stakeholders is provided in Appendix No. 2. The main issues raised by the stakeholders are as follows:

Issue (i):

Access to the Port Area should be improved to support long-term development of the Port Area.

Response (i):

Intersection modifications to improve north-south movements to access the Port Area are included in the approved dismantling plan at Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard and at Leslie Street and Lake Shore Boulevard.

Issue (ii):

Traffic volumes will probably increase over time and dismantling the expressway will lead to more spillover traffic in local neighbourhoods and neighbourhoods to the east. To address this issue, an independent study funded by the City and led by a community group should be undertaken and be used to determine the future of the expressway.

Response (ii):

A major transportation planning study of this corridor was undertaken in 1994 by the former Metro Planning Department called the "East Metro Waterfront Corridor Transportation Study". The study concluded that improvements to TTC and GO Transit service and better integration of the two services should form the basis of serving travel growth from the east and northeast. As a result, the former Metropolitan Council decided that no additional roads were required in the corridor and Council removed the Scarborough Transportation Corridor from the Official Plan and the lands for the future extension of the expressway are now being sold.

The issue of existing traffic infiltration into local neighbourhoods needs to be addressed whether or not the Gardiner dismantling proceeds. Analysis is now underway by City staff for the South Riverdale/Eastern Avenue area to determine what measures can alleviate their problems. Similar work can be undertaken in any of the affected communities.

The approved plan for dismantling the expressway provides almost the same level of service in the Corridor as exists today, so after construction there will be little additional pressure to use the local road network as an alternate route as a result of the dismantling.

Issue (iii):

The relocation of the railway lines will cause traffic delays, noise and vibration during and after construction.

Response (iii):

The issue of noise and vibration impacts from trains on the film industry located north of Lake Shore Boulevard East is being reviewed with an independent noise and vibration consultant retained by Toronto Film Studios. This review will provide the basis for the identification of mitigation measures that will be provided to address the film industry's concerns.

Traffic delays due to rail crossing activity must be addressed in two parts: delays due to shunting activity; and delays due to through rail movements.

Shunting:

During shunting operations within the Keating Rail Yard, which is located on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard East between the Don Roadway and Booth Avenue, rail cars located on various tracks are connected to form a single train. To accomplish this, the train must pull out of the rail yard in order to switch between tracks within the yard. Currently, when a train pulls out of the yard, vehicular traffic on Booth Avenue and on westbound Lake Shore Boulevard East is blocked by the train. Motorists originating from Logan Avenue and Morse Street would also be impacted by these shunting operations if their intention is to travel westbound on Lake Shore Boulevard. Staff of the St. Lawrence and Hudson Railway (a division of CP) have indicated that a Board-Order from the Canadian Transportation Agency prohibits shunting activities during the morning and afternoon peak periods. However, during off-peak periods the impact of shunting activities on Lake Shore Boulevard westbound traffic can be significant.

Under the dismantling design, these shunting operations would take place on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard East and, therefore, shunting trains would no longer stop westbound Lake Shore Boulevard East traffic. Depending on the length of trains performing the shunting, Booth Avenue, Logan Avenue and Morse Street could be blocked by shunting operations. However, as indicated above, motorists originating from these streets are already impacted by the existing shunting operations and the relocation results in no change from this current situation.

Through Train Movements:

Regarding through train movements, the main area of concern is the three rail spur lines located between Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street. Two of these lines serve a single property occupied by CanRoof Corporation. The third rail lead extends south of Lake Shore Boulevard East, serving the Main Sewage Treatment Plant and the lower Port Area. These rail lines presently cross eastbound Lake Shore Boulevard East, east of Carlaw Avenue. Under the approved dismantling plan, these rail lines will cross both eastbound and westbound Lake Shore Boulevard East and motorists destined to or originating from the Gardiner Expressway will be required to cross them. This will translate into additional delays for westbound Lake Shore Boulevard traffic as described below.

Number of Train Movements:

At the time of the environmental assessment study, our information on train usage by the major users of rail transport in the eastern Port accounted for 4 train movements per week across Lake Shore Boulevard East between Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street. Since that time, we have received updated information on the number of train movements across these 3 lines. On most weekdays, there are 2 train movements during the midday (1 train on a return trip) and 2 train movements in the late evening (between 8 p.m. and 2 a.m.). On some weekdays there are an additional 2 to 4 train movements to CanRoof Corporation between 8 p.m. and 2 a.m.. Therefore, on average, there are 6 movements per weekday across Lake Shore Boulevard East between Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street.

Timing of Train Movements:

Each of these movements across Lake Shore Boulevard takes approximately 2 minutes due to the slow speed of the trains. Therefore, using the figure of 6 train movements per weekday, Lake Shore Boulevard and Gardiner Expressway traffic would be stopped by through train movements for a total of 12 minutes per 24 hours on an average weekday, and all of that time would occur outside of the peak traffic periods.

Issue (iv):

Air pollution will increase as a result of the dismantling and the barrier effect of Lake Shore Boulevard will be as great as the barrier effect of the Gardiner Expressway.

Response (iv):

Our air quality analysis indicates that for the dismantling project, air quality measures such as nitrogen oxides, total suspended particulates, and carbon monoxide will not change significantly (+1%).

It is true that Lake Shore Boulevard provides a challenge for designers with respect to pedestrian crossings. However, the new configuration presents a number of opportunities to improve the overall pedestrian environment which are not possible with the existing elevated structure. For example, sidewalks, trees, a bicycle/pedestrian trail and improved pedestrian crossings can be provided as part of the Approved Plan which mitigate the barrier effect of Lake Shore Boulevard.

(2) Evaluation of Alternative Dismantling Plan:

Council directed staff to develop options for dismantling the expressway which would remove or bypass the traffic signal at Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard. In order to achieve this objective both at-grade and grade-separated alternatives were developed and evaluated.

Evaluation of At-Grade Alternatives:

Within the at-grade category two alternatives were considered:

(a) remove the traffic signal at the Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East intersection; and

(b) restrict all left turns and north-south through movements at the Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East intersection.

Both alternatives would have similar impacts in that they would require closing the intersection to north-south traffic.

The Port Area has four main access points: Cherry Street, Don Roadway, Carlaw Avenue and Leslie Street. On several occasions over the course of this project, TEDCO has noted the importance of multiple access points for the Port Area to attract and serve future development. Prohibiting north-south traffic at the Carlaw Avenue intersection would result in significant out of way travel for traffic moving to and from the Port Area. North-south access for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists to and from the Port would be limited to Leslie Street, the Don Roadway (which is a connection to the Don Valley Parkway only) and Cherry Street. Traffic that currently turns left or proceeds north-south at Carlaw Avenue would most likely be diverted to the Leslie Street intersection which is the closest alternative access to the Port Area. As a result, the Leslie Street and Lake shore Boulevard East intersection would operate with significantly lower levels of service during peak periods.

The closure of the Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East intersection would reduce access capacity to the Port Area and thereby reduce the attractiveness of the Port Area for future development as well as its ability to accommodate it. In addition, Carlaw Avenue is one of the few intersections in the South Riverdale area which provides north-south access for pedestrians and cyclists across Lake Shore Boulevard East. As a result of all of these impacts, removing the traffic light or restricting the movements at Carlaw Avenue, was not considered a viable option.

Evaluation of Grade-Separated Alternatives:

We considered the following two physical alternatives to bypass the traffic signal at Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East:

(i) grade separation of Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard; and

(ii) an alternative dismantling plan in which the Expressway ends east of Carlaw Avenue.

The first alternative would require either Carlaw Avenue or Lake Shore Boulevard East to be raised or lowered to physically separate the two roads. None of these options is considered feasible for the following reasons:

(aa) the narrow right-of-way along Carlaw Avenue is insufficient to accommodate a structure, while maintaining access to Lake Shore Boulevard;

(bb) presence of buildings immediately adjacent to the streetline prohibits widening of the right-of-way on Carlaw;

(cc) the presence of a number of private entrances along Carlaw Avenue both north and south of Lake Shore Boulevard results in severe access impacts to lands in this area;

(dd) conflicts with utilities, particularly the large (2.2 m by 1.4 m) twin concrete drainage culverts running along Carlaw Avenue, outletting at Commissioners Street. Relocating these utilities is not feasible within the existing right-of-way;

(ee) the existing Lake Shore Boulevard right-of-way is not sufficiently wide to accommodate the grade separation; this option would result in property impacts to Buchman Lumber and Mayfair Racquet Club; and

(ff) the distance between the end of the Gardiner Ramps at Bouchette Street and the ramps to the structure on Lake Shore over Carlaw Avenue is insufficient to permit a proper connection between Carlaw Avenue and the Gardiner.

On this basis these alternatives were not developed into full detailed plans and were not considered further.

The other alternative for bypassing the signal at Carlaw Avenue is to leave a longer section of the Gardiner in place, and locate the entrance and exit ramps so that they merge with Lake Shore Boulevard east of Carlaw Avenue. The scheme developed for this option is shown in Exhibits Nos. 2A and 2B and is from here on referred to as the Alternative Plan. (The Approved Plan is shown in Exhibits 1A and 1B).

It should be noted that, during consultations with the affected Ward Councillors on the Alternative Plan, we were requested to review the feasibility of a design where the new ramps to the Expressway would begin east of the film studios' properties and merge with Lake Shore Boulevard just west of Leslie Street. Although we have not had sufficient time to develop a detailed plan for such a design, a cursory examination indicates that this plan would create significant operational problems and would be quite similar in cost to the rehabilitation option.

The operational problems associated with such a plan would occur where the eastbound off-ramp, east of the film studios' properties, would meet Lake Shore Boulevard less than 200 metres west of the signalized intersection of Leslie Street and Lake Shore Boulevard East. This design would result in eastbound vehicles queuing from the signal at Leslie Street up the off-ramp and onto the Expressway, creating a potential rear-end collision hazard. In addition, this design would not provide sufficient weaving distance to permit eastbound Expressway traffic to turn right onto Leslie Street or for eastbound Lake Shore Boulevard traffic to turn left onto Leslie Street.

Accordingly, due to its higher cost and operational problems this alternative was not considered further.

The Alternative Plan shown on Exhibits Nos. 2A and 2B will enable the Carlaw/Lake Shore intersection to function as it does today, with Gardiner Expressway traffic bypassing the traffic signal at Carlaw Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard East. Other significant differences in design features from the Approved Plan for the dismantling of the Expressway are highlighted in the table below. It should be noted that some elements of the design (in either case) are predicated on a commitment to the public that access to and from the F.G. Gardiner Expressway be maintained at all times during the re-construction effort.

The Alternative Plan was evaluated against the same three factors as was the Approved Plan in the environmental assessment study. These factors are:

- urban character - socio-economic and natural environments;

- transportation service - route travel times and intersection levels-of-service; and

- 50-year life-cycle cost expressed as a present value.

The details of this evaluation are provided in Appendix No. 3. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the Alternative Plan relative to the Approved Plan is provided below:

It is important to consider that the basic differences between the Approved Plan and the Alternative Plan relate to the small benefits in reducing vehicular delay provided by the Alternative Plan compared to the Approved Plan at a cost of approximately $6 million more over the life of the project and significantly reduced urban design benefits. The Executive Director, City Planning Division supports the Approved Plan from an urban design perspective as it provides superior city building opportunities compared to the Alternative Plan.

While we believe that the Alternative Plan is physically feasible and would provide a satisfactory operation, its benefits in vehicular delay reduction are minimal when traded off against the lower cost and better urban design of the Approved Plan.

Conclusions:

Many of the concerns raised about the F.G. Gardiner Expressway Dismantling Project have already been addressed through previous planning and design work or can be addressed with appropriate mitigating measures. Those concerns that cannot be addressed relate to a desire to maintain the existing Expressway structure.

We are of the opinion that the approved plan for the dismantling of the Expressway continues to provide the best combination of transportation service, urban character improvements and cost savings over the long term. On this basis, we recommend that the dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway between the Don Roadway and Leslie Street proceed as planned and that the contract for the relocation of the rail lines be awarded as recommended in a supplementary report.

Contact Name:

Kathleen Llewellyn-Thomas

Manager, Project Planning and Design

392-8590

The Urban Environment and Development Committee received a presentation from Paul Bedford and David Kaufman in connection with the foregoing matter.

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

- Sarah Climenhaga, Transportation Options;

- Donna Hinde, Ontario Association of Landscape Architects;

- James Alcock, Chairman, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway;

- Dalton Shipway;

- Susan Deryk, Canadian Automobile Association;

- William Brown, obo South Riverdale Community Health Centre;

- Michael McClelland;

- Peter Smith;

- Tanny Wells, Chair, Task Force to Bring Back the Don;

- Abel Van Wyk;

- Ken Greenberg;

- Kathy Chandler;

- Michael Kirkland;

- Kevin Walters;

- John DeMarco;

- Elizabeth Borek, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association;

- Brian Smith, Woodgreen Community Centre;

- Gloria Martin;

- Joey Schooley obo Jim Egan;

- Boris Mather;

- Ed Clark;

- Barry Munro, P.Eng.

- Catherine Nasmith, Co-Chair, Gardiner Lakeshore Task Force;

- Alex Burke, East Beach;

- Carl Strygg;

- Hamish Wilson;

- Stanley Makuch, obo Toronto Film Studios;

- Wilfred Walter, Transport 2000;

- Crawford Murphy;

- Jeff March, Tango Palace;

- Joan Doiron;

- Rhona Swarbrick, Protect Established Neighbourhoods (PEN);

- Joe Lobko;

- Gail Thompson, Ontario Film Development Corporation;

- Nina Koskenoja;

- Linda Lynch, obo Peter Lucas, Shoreline Ltd.;

- Wayne Olson;

- Jacob Allderdie;

- Jim Neff;

- Andrew Pask;

- David Glassey;

- David Hanna;

- Fred Avery;

- Babak Abbaszadeh;

- Karen Buck;

- Jose F. Reisinger;

- Paula Fletcher; and

- Martin Collier.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it the following material, which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting of May 17, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- Appendices 1-5 appended to the report (May 5, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services and Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning;

- Appendices 1-3 appended to the report (July 7, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services;

- report (July 9, 1998) 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 Lake Shore Boulevard East and Carlaw Avenue intersection (the Alternative Plan); and recommending that this report be received for information;

- reports/communications that the Committee had before it at its meeting on November 30 and December 1, 1998:

(1) (July 13, 1998) from Councillors Sandra Bussin and Tom Jakobek, East Toronto, recommending to Council the adoption of the "Alternative Plan" for the dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East and the renovation of Lake Shore Boulevard East, 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";

(2) (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;

(3) (November 24, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Task Force on the Gardiner/Lake Shore Corridor on November 16, 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 Lake Shore Corridor;

(4) (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 May 26, 1998, discussed issues respecting the Gardiner East Dismantling Project;

(5) (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 and urging the adoption of the Alternative Plan, with the ramps east of Carlaw Avenue;

(6) (November 25, 1998) from Mr. James Alcock, Chairman, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway (CREGE) urging the UEDC to recommend to Council on December 1, 1998 that no further deferrals or delay be imposed and that the expressway structure be completely rehabilitated with new double ramps placed over the Leslie Street intersection;

(7) (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;

(8) (November 29, 1998) from Mr. Eric Cages, Toronto opposing the dismantling of the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway, and noting the high volumes of traffic in this area;

(9) (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;

(10) (November 27, 1998) from Ms. D. Paradis, Toronto, opposing 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;

(11) (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 supporting a one month trial closure of the east expressway;

(12) (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;

(13) (December 1, 1998) from Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, opposing 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;

(14) (undated) from Mr. R. Chandler, Toronto, opposing 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;

(15) (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;

(16) (December 1, 1998) from Mr. Bruce H. Bryer, Secretary, Citizens for the Retention and Extension of the East Gardiner Expressway (CREGE), unanimously opposing the demolition of the Eastern F.G. Gardiner Expressway; and outlining concerns with respect to the increased air and noise pollution which would result; and

(17) (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.

- communication (April 13, 1999) from James Alcock, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway opposing the dismantling of the Gardiner and explaining why this eastern stretch of the expressway must remain and be rehabilitated with a new on-ramp at Leslie Street;

- communication (April 4, 1999) from Keith and Dianne Roberts opposing any plan to demolish the East extension to the Gardiner Expressway;

- communication (April 21, 1999) from Victoria Dinnick expressing the view that the Gardiner Expressway is a key factor in the turn-around that the district has experienced;

- Petition signed by 385 persons filed by Phil Vriend at Urban Environment and Development Committee supporting improvising access to the Gardiner Expressway at Leslie and retaining this valuable existing cross-city route;

- (May 11, 1999) from John Winter, John Winter Associates Limited requesting that the elevated Gardiner Expressway be maintained as it is;

- (May 12, 1999) from Ken Lim opposing the demolition of the elevated eastern Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 11, 1999) from the City Clerk, Toronto Pedestrian Committee forwarding the action of The Toronto Pedestrian Committee, at its meeting on May 10, 1999, and recommending:

(1) that the Toronto Pedestrian Committee supports the dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway; and

(2) that the Toronto Pedestrian Committee be consulted during the detail design stage to achieve the following three principles:

(i) adequate and safe pedestrian crossings;

(ii) separate cycling and pedestrian trails; and

(iii) provision for the safety and enhancement of pedestrian use.

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

- (May 12, 1999) from Charles-Antoine Rouyer supporting the project of dismantling the East Gardiner;

- (May 12, 1999) from Chuck Cunningham supporting the dismantling of the East Gardiner;

- (May 13, 1999) from Clive D. Roy supporting the removal of the Gardiner Expressway east of the DVP and Don Valley;

- (May 17, 1999) from Boris Mather, Citizens for a Lakeshore Greenway supporting the dismantling for the following three main reasons:

(1) Cost Effectiveness: Dismantling is the most economical, cheapest solution to this problem of a decaying, dangerous structure. Thorough continuous heavy maintenance and rehabilitation would be more expensive, and just as noisy and dusty;

(2) Obsolescence: This extension was originally planned to extend the expressway through the Beach into Scarborough . .That Scarborough Expressway plan is defunct now. The absurd and very expensive "fly-over" option favoured by some would open the door to extending the expressway. The "fly-over" would avoid hitting a red-light, 50 percent of the time when heading west only; and

(3) Obstruction: We said last February, "This forbidding eyesore is a barrier to enjoyment of the Lake and the lakeshore. It is time we let the sunshine in.".

- (May 13, 1999) from Christopher Macgowan supporting the idea of converting the east section of the Gardiner to a recreational corridor;

- (May 11, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding the action of the Toronto Cycling Committee at its Special Meeting on May 10, 1999, in which the Toronto Cycling Committee, endorsed:

(1) the dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway from the Don River to Leslie Street; and

(2) the Community Improvement Plan, as recommended by City Planning and Transportation Services staff and, in particular, the construction of a pedestrian/cycling bridge over the Don River, north of Lake Shore Boulevard East, and a commuter bicycle path between Leslie Street and Coxwell Avenue;

and recommended that:

(1) a new commuter bicycle path be extended north to Queen Street from Lake Shore Boulevard East and Coxwell Avenue;

(2) modifications that would improve the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and in-line skaters be made at the intersection of Lake Shore Boulevard East and Cherry Street;

(3) the Toronto Cycling Committee be consulted in the detailed design of the Project; and

(4) the Ward Councillors representing Don River, East Toronto and Scarborough Bluffs be consulted in the final design of cycling and pedestrian facilities and that those Councillors be requested to seek public input through community meetings.

- (May 12, 1999) from Helen Melrose opposing the demolishing of the Gardiner;

- (May 12, 1999) from Sidney C. Rozycki opposing the Gardiner demolition;

- (May 12, 1999) from Helen Cocking opposing the Gardiner Plan to demolish;

- (May 12, 1999) from Linda Winter, Ed.D., C.Psych. Opposed to any action to dismantle the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 12, 1999) from John Bernardi, Linmar Investment Corporation Limited opposing any action to dismantle the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 12, 1999) from Frank Hutchings supporting the complete removal of the Gardiner Expressway, especially the eastern section;

- (Undated)from Bruce Reid supporting the Toronto Cycling Committee's motion for the dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway East Section and the 5 motions from its meeting of May 10, 1999;

- (May 13, 1999) from Jenny Mulkins requesting that the Committee endorse this project and allow work to begin on it as soon as possible;

- (May 13, 1999) from Laura & Adam Smith requesting that the Committee endorse the Gardiner East project, as originally approved by the former Councils;

- (April 6, 1999) from Manny Danelon, Industry Co-Chair, Film Liaison Industry Committee opposing the demolition of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 13, 1999) from Jennifer Clark supporting the Gardiner dismantling and resulting cycling facilities;

- (May 14, 1999) from Helen and Robert Hansen supporting demolition of the Gardiner Expressway East, and the greening plan;

- (May 14, 1999) from Anne Hansen supporting the dismantling of the East Gardiner;

- (May 14, 1999) from Heather Smith and Martin Koob supporting the plan to demolish the east Gardiner and replace it with cycling and recreational paths and facilities;

- (May 14, 1999) from Ronald L. Hart, Co-Chair, North York Cycling & Pedestrian Committee supporting the demolition of the eastbound spur of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 14, 1999) from Martin Collier supporting the dismantling of the Gardiner East section;

- (Undated) from Wilfred Walker obo Transport 2000 Ontario recommending that if studies and plans of the option are put in motion by the Committee or by Council, significant effort should be directed toward designing a more community friendly Lakeshore Boulevard, with specific attention to the inclusion of a right of way for a future light rapid transit or high capacity street railway line within this corridor;

- (May 14, 1999) from Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway (CREGE), Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association (LANA) and Portlands Citizen Action Committee (PCAC) forwarding a complete East Gardiner Fact Sheet set;

- (May 14, 1999) from Marc Kramer supporting the proposed dismantling of the east portion of the Gardiner Expressway and the associated implementation of the bicycle commuter route;

- (May 14, 1999) from Donna Tozzi in support of the current dismantling plan of the Gardiner Expressway east of the DVP and the Don Valley;

- (May 14, 1999) from Marlyn Allicock supporting the removal of the Gardiner's eastern section;

- (May 14, 1999) from Bruce H. Bryer opposing the demolition of The East Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 16, 1999) from Paul V. Connelly endorsing the Approved Plan for the dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway East;

- (May 12, 1999) from Caryn Thompson supporting the proposal that is being considered to remove the East portion of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 11, 1999) from Simeon Stairs and Maya Telek supporting the long-standing proposal to dismantle the eastern portion of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 17, 1999) from Helen Riley urging the Committee to approve the dismantling of the east end of the Gardiner Expressway and replace it with an urban boulevard as approved by the former City of Toronto and Metro Toronto;

- sketch submitted by Elizabeth Borek, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association;

- (May 17, 1999) from Barry Munro, P.Eng. submitting notes on the 4 studies requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee in December, 1998;

- (Undated) from Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto, Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto and Councillor Gerry Altobello, Scarborough Bluffs recommending that:

(1) the Gardiner East not be demolished; and

(2) the elevated expressway be restored and the Leslie Street end be demolished and redesigned in consultation with and the approval of the film studios.

- (May 17, 1999) from Abel Van Wyk supporting the Causeway Concept;

- (Undated) from Allan Reeve supporting the dismantling project;

- (May 17, 1999) from William E. Brown, South Riverdale Community Health Centre supporting the "current plan" to dismantle the east end of the Gardiner and relocate the on-off ramps west of Carlaw Avenue;

- (Undated) from Kevin Walters submitting statistics regarding demolition;

- (Undated) from Donna Hinde, Landscape Architect obo Ontario Association of Landscape Architects endorsing the Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling Project;

- (Undated) from Sarah Climenhaga, Research Director obo Transportation Options recommending that the Committee make a decision on the Gardiner East that will be in keeping with Toronto's status as a world leader in urban planning and design, and that will move us into the 21st century in the right direction;

- (Undated) from Karen Buck submitting a schedule of various timed car trips from her home to Yonge street using the Gardiner Expressway, Lakeshore and Eastern Avenue;

- (Undated) from Michael McClelland, Toronto Society of Architects supporting the removal of this section of the Gardiner;

- (May 17, 1999) from Jim Egan noting that the addition of a ramp to the east of Leslie Street would eliminate the bottleneck and permit the Gardiner East to serve its full potential as a cross city route;

- (May 17, 1999) from Catherine Naismith, Co-Chair, Gardiner Lakeshore Task Force supporting the dismantling of the extension of the Gardiner;

- (May 17, 1999) from Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee supporting the dismantling of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (Undated) from Linda Lynch obo Peter Lucas, President, Showline Ltd. Opposing the proposed demolition of the Gardiner Expressway;

- (May 17, 1999) from Jacob Allderdice, M.Arch.supporting the demolition of the Gardiner Expressway east of the Don;

- (May 17, 1999) from Babak Abbaszadeh, President, Corktown Residents and Business Association, Inc. supporting the dismantling project;

- (May 16, 1999) from Martin Collier supporting the dismantling of the east section of the Gardiner Expressway; and

- (Undated) from James Alcock submitting a sketch and map.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 7, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To report as requested on amendments proposed by Mr. Stanley M. Makuch in his May 17, 1999 communication to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None

Recommendations:

The amendments proposed by Mr. Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock & Blackwell, in his communication (May 17, 1999) which were adopted by the Urban Environment and Development Committee be deleted and replaced with the following recommendations which have been developed in consultation with Mr. Makuch:

(1) That recommendation (3) be amended by adding the words "such expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film Industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services", so as to read:

"(3) Direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to hold $100,000.00 in reserve for a Film Industry awareness campaign to address the concerns raised by the Film Industry, such expenditure to be made upon the direction of the Toronto Film and Television Office in consultation with representatives of the Toronto Film Industry who include a Toronto Film Studios representative and with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;";

(2) Adding the following recommendations: (4), (5) and (6);

"(4) Direct appropriate City officials, to include in all contracts for all phases of the demolition of the Expressway and the reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard, the performance-based noise and vibration specifications and the working protocol for the demolition and construction as contained in a report prepared by S. S. Wilson Associates, Consulting Engineers, being Report No. W96-10-(97) entitled "Special Provision for the control of construction noise-specifications; F.G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling; the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto" and dated June 25, 1998", amended as follows:

(i) add a requirement to section 3.c., for the Contractor to provide fax numbers in addition to telephone numbers;

(ii) revise the last sentence of the last paragraph in section 5, located at the top of page 4, to read as follows:

"The Contractor shall immediately cease use of all equipment within 200 metres of the location identified by the complainant as the likely source of the noise, and shall cooperate by allowing inspection and testing of any equipment likely to have caused the noise. Work shall not commence until the Contract Administrator is certain that the work will conform with the Special Provisions for the Control of the Construction Noise - Specifications and all other relevant contract provisions.";

(iii) revise the first sentence in section 7, at the top of page 5, as follows:

"The Contractor agrees that in the event of noise complaints being filed (either verbally or in writing) with any person employed by the Contractor and referred to in section 3.c. above, by occupants of the nearby buildings, the work shall be stopped immediately until such time as noise control measures are implemented to the satisfaction of the Contract Administrator.";

(iv) revise the last sentence on page 5 to read as follows:

"These Schedules form part of this Contract and are not to be exceeded without the express consent of the respective TV/Film Studios."

Further, additional specifications upon which contracts will be tendered shall take into account the concerns of the Film Industry and the site-specific concerns of Toronto Film Studios and, shall include:

(i) requirements that Contractors limit all noise related to the construction of Lake Shore Boulevard and the demolition of the Expressway to levels no greater than the existing peak period ambient noise levels as identified in the report prepared by S. S. Wilson Associates, Consulting Engineers, or as otherwise agreed to by City officials and by Toronto Film Studios Acoustical Consultants;

(ii) a provision that contractors cease work within fifteen minutes of being notified by a designated City official that the designated Toronto Film Studios official has advised that the work significantly interferes with filming at the Toronto Film Studios, and providing that the City official will notify the contractor immediately upon being notified by Toronto Film Studios and that the parties will then meet immediately to resolve the complaint;

(iii) demolition within 200 metres of Toronto Film Studios will only occur during the months of December to March inclusive;

(iv) reasonable contract specifications to ensure that the demolition or reconstruction does not interfere with the Toronto Film Industry's ability to obtain bonding for production deadlines;

(v) a provision that the storage of equipment and materials cannot occur on either side of Lake Shore Boulevard within 200 metres of a film studio;

(vi) reasonable contract specifications respecting dust control, as determined by appropriate City officials in consultation with the Toronto Film Industry and Toronto Film Studios in particular;

(vii) a provision that truck access from Lake Shore Boulevard to the Toronto Film Studios property will not be obstructed except at times approved by a designated Toronto Film Studios representative, unless an alternate access to the south access point of the Toronto Film Studios property is provided that is satisfactory to Toronto Film Studios; and

(viii) a provision whereby the contractor and the City acknowledge that Toronto Film Studios is relying reasonably on all noise provisions in all contracts relating to the construction or demolition in order to ensure its uninterrupted and continued operation, and furthermore acknowledge that Toronto Film Studios is entitled to any legal remedy for breach of such provisions including injunctive relief and damages based on such reasonable reliance;

(5) respecting existing railway lines:

(a) direct that the reconstruction not allow the existing railway line owned by TEDCO to be relocated to the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard east of Carlaw and provide that all railway crossings to be reconstructed be controlled by signal lights and bells;

(b) City officials be instructed to take all necessary actions to negotiate and enter into no-whistle-blowing agreements with the railways in respect of all reconstructed rail crossings; and

(c) in the event there is a significant increase in rail traffic to the Port Lands in the future, the City shall undertake a study to determine the feasibility of alternative railway routes to serve the port area, and the Toronto Film Industry will be consulted in this regard;

(6) (a) direct that reconstruction of Lake Shore Boulevard include a sufficient sound barrier on the north side in the vicinity of Toronto Film Studios to prevent additional traffic noise from affecting film productions;

(b) that, subject to any relevant provisions of the Municipal Act, surplus lands adjacent to Lake Shore Boulevard in the vicinity of the demolition and construction, be offered to adjacent property owners for purchase after taking into account planting, pedestrian/bicycle routes, sound barriers and any other municipal requirements; and

(c) direct the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and all other City officials to make reasonable efforts to consult with the Toronto Film Industry and Toronto Film Studios in particular, and to protect the film industry in general, and Toronto Film Studios in particular, from any and all adverse effects resulting from the demolition and reconstruction."

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting of May 17, 1999 considered several issues respecting the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East Dismantling project and, in addition to adopting recommendations contained in staff reports, requested that amendments proposed by Stanley Makuch of the law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell on behalf of his client, Toronto Film Studios, be incorporated. The Committee also requested that the City Solicitor review these proposed amendments and wording and report directly to City Council for its meeting on June 9, 1999, on the implications of Council adopting these amendments. In his letter, Mr. Makuch advises that the dismantling of the Expressway puts his client in serious jeopardy because the studios are retrofitted industrial buildings which were not constructed to address the sound and vibration problems caused by the dismantling of an expressway. Mr. Makuch also advises that "the adverse impact on Toronto Film Studios from the demolition will badly hurt the film production industry in Toronto. That industry employs 28,000 skilled professionals and infuses 3/4 of a billion dollars into the Toronto economy annually."

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The purpose of this report is to recommend alternative wording to the recommendations made by Mr. Makuch which were adopted by the Urban Environment and Development Committee. City staff, including staff from Transportation Services and City Planning in particular, have been working closely with the Toronto Film Industry in developing the F. G. Gardiner Expressway dismantling project. The intent of the amendments proposed by Mr. Makuch are acceptable to the general manager, Transportation Services, and the executive director and chief planner of the City. The suggested revisions to these amendments have been prepared in consultation with appropriate City staff and with Mr. Makuch and are intended to address substantial legal concerns arising out of the recommendations adopted by the Urban Environment and Development Committee while retaining the substance of the amendments which staff have agreed to, and which are designed to better ensure the protection of the Toronto Film Industry from any adverse impact as a result of this project. The recommendations contained in this report alleviate legal concerns respecting any unintended delegation of administrative control over the project in recommendation (4) and matters concerning railways which are beyond the City's jurisdiction in recommendation (5) of Mr. Makuch's communication.

Conclusions:

The City Solicitor was requested by the Urban Environment and Development Committee to review the proposed amendments and wording submitted by Cassels Brock & Blackwell and to report directly to City Council on the implications of Council adopting these amendments. The recommendations proposed in this report are intended to replace the proposed amendments submitted by Cassels Brock & Blackwell, and are satisfactory to appropriate City staff and to Mr. Stanley M. Makuch of Cassels Brock & Blackwell and his client, Toronto Film Studios.

Contact Name:

Mary Ellen Bench

Director, Municipal Law

392-7245.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in support of the dismantling of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East:

(i) (May 14, 1999) from Mr. David W. Oleson, Oleson Worland Architects;

(ii) (May 17, 1999) from Ms. Gail Thomson, Director, Location Promotion and Services, Ontario Film Development Corporation;

(iii) (May 25, 1999) from Ms. Kathryn Dean;

(iv) (June 5, 1999) from Ms. Ross Snetsinger, Chair, Rail Ways to the Future;

(v) (June 6, 1999) from Mr. Bruce Budd, Chair, East End Citizens for Democracy;

(vi) (June 7, 1999) from Ms. Anne Hansen, Toronto, in support of the dismantling of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East;

(vii) (June 7, 1999) from Ms. Helen Hansen and Ms. Joan Doiron, Feet on the Street; and

(viii) (undated) from K. Buck.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in opposition to the dismantling of the F. G. Gardiner Expressway East:

(i) (January 7, 1999) from Ms. Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association;

(ii) (June 8, 1999) and (June 10, 1999) from Mr. Peter Lukas, President, Showline Limited;

(iii) (May 25, 1999) from Mrs. Briar de Lange-Riddell, submitted by Councillor Jakobek; and

(iv) (June 4, 1999) from Mr. Barry Munro, Toronto.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following petition filed by Councillor Bussin and signed by concerned residents respecting the dismantling of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway East:

- 328 signatures in support of the "Alternative Plan"; and

- 30 signatures in opposition to the "Alternative Plan".)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the report (May 5, 1999) from Councillor Pantalone and submits it to City Council for its information.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (May 5, 1999) from Councillor Pantalone:

As this is the final meeting of the first Urban Environment and Development Committee, I thought it would be appropriate to extent my congratulations to both the Committee members and the staff for the many accomplishments over the past year and a half.

I, as Chair, am very pleased to have done my share in this regard and would like to take the opportunity to enumerate some of the more complex issues that our committee dealt with and that have been adopted by Toronto Council:

- The Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law. Recognizing the dangers of carbon monoxide and then passing legislation to be the first municipality to enact mandatory installation of Carbon Monoxide Dectors in all at - risk housing units.

- Ward Boundary Changes. For the 2000 elections, successfully proposing changes to Toronto's Ward Boundaries including reverting to the system of one Councillor per ward. This has just cleared a potential legal roadblock and is proceeding on schedule.

- Monitoring of Red-light Violations at Traffic Control Signals. Our committee advocated this much needed safety issue and pilot projects are going to be implemented.

- Prevention of Suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct. Initiated the delicate and complicated process of installing a safety barrier on this bridge.

- City Powers, Policies and Procedures Regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition on Rental Housing Before and After the Proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act. Much needed attempts to safeguard affordable housing in Toronto.

- A Rapid Transit Connection Between Pearson International Airport and Union Station. This is an ongoing issue which we kept on the public agenda.

- Vital Services in Rental Residential Properties in the City of Toronto. Essential legislation, especially in the vulnerable winter months.

- Idling Control By-law. A former City of Toronto environmental by-law which has been extended city-wide.

- School Facility Review City-Wide. Our committee co-ordinated the City's response, this making it easier to win the eventual partial victory.

- Bicycle Lanes in Spadina Avenue and Across the City of Toronto. This is now City policy to be implemented at a quicker pace.

- The Framework for the Official Plan for Toronto. Perhaps the City of Toronto's greatest initiative in terms of future impact. Its launch was very successful.

- Snow Management Plan. Self explanatory.

Once again, I extend my congratulations and thanks for all your hard work and dedication over the past term.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that the recommendations from Maurice J. Anderson, President, Toronto Parking Authority, as contained in his report (May 3, 1999) be adopted subject to:

(1) adding the words "and be a resident of the City of Toronto" after the words "member of Council", so as to read:

"That Clause (1)(a) of By-law No. 28-1998, "a By-law respecting the Toronto Parking Authority", be amended to read:

"(1) (a) The Parking Authority shall consist of 7 members appointed by Council, each of whom shall be a person qualified to be elected as a member of Council and a resident of the City of Toronto. Two members shall be members of Council, one of whom shall be a member of the Planning and Transportation Committee."

(2) adding the following additional Recommendation (2):

"(2) that this by-law amendment be enacted commencing the next term of Council, ie December 1, 2000 and that authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto."

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (May 3, 1999) from the President, Toronto Parking Authority:

Purpose:

To amend By-law No. 28-1998, "a By-law Respecting the Toronto Parking Authority" in response to the change to the structure of the Standing Committees of Council.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council adopt the following amended wording for Clause (1)(a) of By-law No. 28-1998, "a By-law respecting the Toronto Parking Authority".

"1. (a) The Parking Authority shall consist of 7 members appointed by Council, each of whom shall be a person qualified to be elected as a member of Council. Two members shall be members of Council, one of whom shall be a member of the Planning and Transportation Committee."

and direct the City Solicitor to undertake the necessary action to give effect to the amendment.

Council Reference/Background History:

At its meeting of February 2, 3 & 4, 1999, City Council approved changes to the structure of the Standing Committees of Council. These changes included the elimination of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and the transfer of its responsibilities to two new committees, the Planning and Transportation Committee and the Works Committee. By-law No. 28-1998 which created the Toronto Parking Authority includes a statutory requirement that at least one member of the Authority must be a member of the Urban Environment and Development Committee. As that committee will no longer exist it is necessary to amend the By-law. It is being recommended that the requirement for membership on a Standing Committee be transferred to the Planning and Transportation Committee.

It is understood that matters relating to transportation planning and transportation policy will be transferred to the Planning and Transportation Committee while matters relating to traffic and parking regulations will be the jurisdiction of the Works Committee. The requirement for membership on the Urban Environment and Development Committee arose from recommendation contained in the report of the Transition Team entitled "New Cities, New Opportunities" and was intended to ensure that the Authority's practices are consistent with the City's planning and transportation policy. Therefore, it is most appropriate to transfer the membership requirement to the Planning and Transportation Committee. It should be noted that the City's Services Transportation Official is already a non-voting member of the Authority's Board of Directors which ensures that matters under the jurisdiction of the Works Committee are co-ordinated through the Authority.

The amended clause also replaces the phrase, "At least two members shall be members of Council...." with the phrase, "Two members shall be members of Council...". This is consistent with recommendation number 93 of the "New City, New Opportunities" report which read:

"Council shall enact a By-law establishing a Toronto Parking Authority comprised of five citizens and two Councillors."

This is also consistent with the composition of the Authority's Board since January of 1998.

Contact Names:

Ian Maher, Director, Planning & Analysis

Telephone: (416) 393-7291, Facsimile: (416) 393-7352

Maurice J. Anderson, President

Telephone: (416) 393-7276, Facsimile: (416) 393-7352

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause by striking out and referring the following entry in Appendix 1, entitled "Schedule VIII to Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law", to the report dated April 26, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to the North York Community Council for consideration:

"Sheppard Avenue East North Yonge Street and Anytime.")

(M.T. 28) Victoria Park Avenue

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 26, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and that authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto:

Purpose:

To effect amendments to the Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law and other traffic-related Metropolitan by-laws with respect to entries which are incorrect or no longer applicable.

Funding Sources:

Funds associated with this work are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1999 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the changes, additions and deletions to the Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law and other traffic-related Metropolitan by-laws outlined in the attached Appendices be adopted; and

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

Discussion:

At the present time almost all traffic by-laws which were in place prior to 1998 within the seven municipalities are still in effect and require distinct amendments. It will be some time before the consolidation of these by-laws is complete. In the mean time it is necessary to amend the existing by-laws to legalize current conditions and provide for a means of enforcement.

Our semi-annual review of various schedules of the Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law and other traffic-related Metropolitan by-laws revealed a number of entries which are incorrect or no longer applicable and which should be amended or deleted.

In general, the amendments identified in the Appendices to this report are housekeeping in nature and are required in order to correct typographical/clerical errors or to formalize signage and pavement markings which exist on-street. Attached to each Appendix 1 through 7 are explanatory notes describing why the amendments are being introduced.

In order to maintain current and accurate by-law information, it is recommended that the changes, additions and deletions to the Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law and other traffic-related Metropolitan by-laws listed in the attached Appendices 1 through 7 be put into effect.

Conclusions:

The adoption of the by-law amendments identified in the Appendices to this report will improve the accuracy of information contained in the Metropolitan Uniform Traffic By-law and other traffic-related Metropolitan by-laws and, when necessary, allow for proper enforcement and prosecution.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Sandra Burk

Traffic Assistant

416-392-8750

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause :

(1) to provide that the centre median modifications on Keele Street at Pond Road be subject to substantive landscaping treatment on the medians, within the limits of this project, the cost of such landscaping to be borne by the applicant; and

(2) by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to determine the type and design of the landscaping in consultation with the community.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (April 28, 1999) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1) in view of the tight time schedule for construction, authorized the advertising for road improvements to commence the week of May 17, 1999 to allow deputations to be scheduled before the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting on June 14, 1999 and enactment of the By-law at Council's July 6, 1999 meeting; and

(2) noted that the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services would be submitting a status report by August 1999 to the Planning and Transportation Committee regarding discussions with York Region.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is:

(1) to obtain Council authority to construct various development related road modifications on City of Toronto arterial roads; and

(2) to advertise the required construction By-laws.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for these road modifications is the responsibility of the developers.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) to facilitate development of Seneca College at the York University campus, approval be given to proceed with the construction of centre median modifications on Keele Street at Pond Road to provide for an exclusive northbound left-turn lane on Keele Street and widening of south side of Pond Road at Keele Street to provide for an eastbound right turn lane;

(2) to facilitate development of the headquarters for Call-Net/Sprint Canada, approval be given to proceed with

(a) the widening of north and south sides of Steeles Avenue East from Woodbine Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue to provide for one additional eastbound and one additional westbound through lanes, a westbound left-turn lane to a development access named Call-Net Drive and centre lane for left-turns traffic to accesses of the premises on Steeles Avenue East;

(b) the construction of a development access named Call-Net Drive; a new road connection to the south side of Steeles Avenue East and the installation of new traffic control signals approximately 220 m west of Victoria Park Avenue;

(c) the widening of east and west sides of Victoria Park Avenue from Steeles Avenue East to approximately 430 m south to provide for a northbound left-turn and a southbound right-turn lanes to a development access named Sprint Canada Drive; and

(d) the construction of a development access named Sprint Canada Drive; a new road connection to the west side of Victoria Park Avenue and the installation of new traffic control signals approximately 230 m south of Steeles Avenue East;

(3) the appropriate City of Toronto By-law(s) be amended accordingly; and

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

Background and Discussion:

As a condition of approving developments abutting City of Toronto arterial roads and allowing accesses to them, developers are required to fund road modifications to accommodate the traffic generated by their new developments. Funds for the design, construction, supervision and administration of this work have been received from the proponents of both projects. Details of the road modifications required at each location are provided in Table No. 1 and are briefly discussed below. Sketches showing these modifications are appended to this report.

(1) Keele Street at Pond Road - Seneca at York

Seneca College is proposing a campus at the York University site on the north side of Pond Road, west of Keele Street. This proposal was approved by the City as Site Plan Control Application No. SPC-95-74 and is in conformance with the York University Secondary Plan. The developer, York University, will construct and convey Pond Road to the City of Toronto (formerly City of North York) as a public road. In accordance with the York University Secondary Plan and as a condition of site plan approval, the developer is also required to fund the centre median modifications and widening of the south side of Pond Road by 4.5 metres in order to provide for an exclusive northbound lane left-turn on Keele Street and an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane on Pond Road. After the construction, the pavement will be 12 metres wide at the throat of Pond Road at Keele Street. This widening and median modifications will provide bicycle friendly lanes on Pond Road and Keele Street. Since Keele Street is a City arterial road, these road improvements within the Keele Street road allowance require the approval of the City Council.

(2) Steeles Avenue East at Victoria Park Avenue - Telefirma (4000VP) Inc. (Call-Net)

Telefirma (4000 VP) Inc. is proposing a corporate centre for Call-Net, the parent company of Sprint Canada, on its 18.4 ha property located at the southeast corner of Steeles Avenue East and Victoria Park Avenue. This proposal was approved by the City as Site Plan Control Application No. SPC-98-128. As a condition of the site plan approval, the developer, Telefirma (4000 VP) Inc., is required and has agreed to fund the required transportation infrastructure to accommodate the traffic demand associated with the development. Since Steeles Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue are City arterial roads, the road improvements within the road allowances require the approval of the City Council.

(i) Steeles Avenue East

The work will consist of:

construction of development access (Call-Net Drive); installation of new traffic control signals and medians at Call-Net Drive to provide for eastbound and westbound left turn lanes at this intersection; construction of a new continuous eastbound lane from Woodbine Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue; an extension of the westbound right-turn/through lane from Woodbine Avenue eastward, and ending in a taper at Call-Net Drive; construction of a new westbound curb lane from Woodbine Ave. which exits onto the on-ramp of Highway #404; construction of a new eastbound right-turn lane at Victoria Park Avenue.

(ii) Victoria Park Avenue

The work will consist of:

construction of development access (Sprint Canada Drive) ; installation of new traffic control signals and medians to provide for a northbound left-turn lane at this intersection; construction of a new southbound lane commencing 70m north and ending 50m south of Sprint Canada Drive; widening of the east curb lane from 100m north of Sprint Canada Drive to 30m south of the southerly access to the development.

Pedestrian and Cycling Issues:

In any road modifications required to accommodate traffic generated by new developments, pedestrian and cycling issues are always taken into consideration. In cases where road widenings are required, efforts are made to ensure that sufficient pedestrian walking times are provided at all signalized intersections. In addition to providing the required road modifications, developers are also required to improve adjacent boulevards through streetscape improvements such as tree and sod planting and the provision of transit shelters. In the case of the road modifications described in this report, all proposals conform with the Department's guidelines for the accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists.

Scope of Construction:

In view of the tight time schedule for construction, authority is being sought to have this Committee authorize the advertising for the road improvements to commence the week of May 17, 1999 to allow deputations to be scheduled before this Committee at its meeting of June 14, 1999 with the By-law to be enacted at Council on July 6, 1999.

To construct the above modifications the following work will be undertaken:

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

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

(c) construction of concrete medians;

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

(e) installation of underground traffic signal ducts, handwells and pole bases;

(f) alteration and/or addition of traffic control devices;

(g) planting of trees; and

(h) utility relocations.

These modifications have been developed using current department standards for cyclists and pedestrians and no compromises have been made with respect to the space allocated to these users.

Conclusions:

As a condition of approval of development abutting City of Toronto arterial roads, various modifications are required to the road system. All costs will be borne by the developers.

Contact Name and Address:

Dev Tyagi, P. Eng.,

Director, Engineering Services, Districts 3 & 4

Tel. No. 416-395-6243, Fax No. 416-395-6200, E-Mail: dtyagi@city.north-york.on.ca

Raffi Bedrosyan, P. Eng.

Manager, Development Services, District 3

Tel. No. 416-395-6307, Fax No. 416-395-0349, E-Mail: rbedrosy@city.north-york.on.ca

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (April 30, 1999) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having noted that the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services would be submitting a status report by August 1999 to the Planning and Transportation Committee regarding discussions with York Region.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is:

(1) to obtain Council Authority to construct various development related road modifications on City of Toronto arterial roads and to advertise the required construction By-law; and

(2) to obtain approval to amend the appropriate By-laws.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for these road modifications is the responsibility of private sector developers.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) subject to the receipt of funds from the developer:

(a) approval be given to proceed with the construction of development accesses; a new road connection to The Queensway; the installation of new traffic control signals; and the reconstruction of the concrete centre median on The Queensway, approximately 235 metres east of The West Mall to provide eastbound and westbound left turn lanes in the vicinity of the planned Sherway Gardens expansion development at 25 The West Mall;

(b) traffic control signals be approved on The Queensway approximately 235 metres east of The West Mall;

(2) approval be given to proceed with the construction of development accesses at 1983 Kipling Avenue at Bethridge Road; the widening of Kipling Avenue at Bethridge Road to provide a northbound right turn lane into the planned Home Depot at 1983 Kipling Avenue; and construction of concrete centre medians;

(3) (a) approval be given to proceed with the construction of development accesses at 2911 Eglinton Avenue East at Torrance Road; the installation of new traffic control signals; the removal of a pedestrian refuge island; the widening of Eglinton Avenue East at Torrance Road to provide eastbound and westbound left turn lanes into the planned Home Depot at 2911 Eglinton Avenue East and the construction of concrete centre medians;

(b) subject to the completion of the road works described in 3(a);

(i) traffic control signals be approved on Eglinton Avenue East at Torrance Road on the north side and the driveway to 2911 Eglinton Avenue East (Home Depot) on the south side;

(ii) southbound left turns be prohibited at all times at the access to 2944 Eglinton Avenue East, 45 metres east of Torrance Road;

(iii) eastbound left turns be prohibited at all times at the access to 2944 Eglinton Avenue East, 45 metres east of Torrance Road; and

(iv) the appropriate By-law(s) be amended accordingly;

(4) (a) subject to the receipt of funds from the developer, approval be given to proceed with the construction of a new road connection to Steeles Avenue East directly opposite Old Kennedy Road, the construction of an eastbound right turn lane and a westbound left turn lane on Steeles Avenue East at Old Kennedy Road and a development service access located on the southside of Steeles Avenue East, east of Old Kennedy Road; and

(b) subject to the completion of all roadworks described in 4(a);

(i) northbound left turns be prohibited at all times at Steeles Avenue East LaFarge Canada Service Road, approximately 69 metres east of Old Kennedy Road;

(ii) westbound left turns be prohibited at all times at Steeles Avenue and LaFarge Canada Service Road, approximately 69 metres east of Old Kennedy Road;

(5) the appropriate By-law(s) be amended accordingly; and

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

Background:

As a condition of approving developments abutting City of Toronto arterial roads and allowing access to them, developers are required to fund road modifications to accommodate the traffic generated by their new developments. Funds for the design, construction, supervision and administration of this work have been received or are about to be received from the proponents in the form of a letter of credit or certified cheques.

Comments:

Details of the road modifications required at each location are provided in Table No. 1 attached and are briefly discussed below. A sketch of each location is appended to this report.

25 The West Mall (Sherway Gardens)

In order to accommodate the traffic demand associated with the planned Adason Properties Limited expansion of Sherway Gardens, the following road modifications are required.

Construction of development accesses; installation of new traffic control signals-construction of a fourth leg to The Queensway located approximately 235 metres east of The West Mall (Street "B"); and the reconstruction of The Queensway concrete centre median to provide for eastbound and westbound left turn lanes at this intersection.

The Queensway in this vicinity is a six-lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 60 km/h and a two-way 24-hour volume of approximately 35,060 vehicles. Currently eastbound and westbound traffic on The Queensway is separated by a raised concrete centre median. The proposed development entrances will be full movement accesses and will necessitate the reconstruction of the concrete centre median to provide eastbound and westbound left-turn lanes.

In order to provide appropriate right-of-way control on The Queensway and safe access to Sherway Gardens, new traffic control signals are required at The Queensway approximately 235 metres east of The West Mall.

1983 Kipling Avenue (at Bethridge Road)

The developer, Home Depot Limited, applied to develop this property for a home improvement retail warehouse. As a condition of site plan approval, the developer is required to fund the road improvements identified as being necessary to accommodate the new traffic demand. These improvements will provide two 65 metre long exclusive northbound and southbound left-turn lanes and a 50 metre long exclusive northbound right-turn lane on Kipling Avenue at Bethridge Road intersection. A new access to this property, aligned with Bethridge Road and forming the fourth leg of the intersection , will be constructed. The design of the boulevard area on Kipling Avenue will meet the Department's requirements for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics.

2911 Eglinton Avenue East (at Torrance Road)

As a condition of site plan approval for this Home Depot development, the developer, Home Depot Canada is required to fund the following road modifications on Eglinton Avenue East at Torrance Road: widening Eglinton Avenue East to provide for eastbound and westbound left turn lanes; construction of concrete centre medians to accommodate the installation of new traffic control signals; removal of the pedestrian refuge island; and construction of development accesses.

Eglinton Avenue east in the vicinity of 2911 Eglinton Avenue East is a seven-lane urban arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour and a two-way 24 hour volume of approximately 40,400 vehicles.

In order to provide appropriate right-of-way control on Eglinton Avenue East and safe access to the Home Depot store proposed at No. 2911 Eglinton Avenue East, traffic control signals are required at Torrance Road on the north side and the driveway to No. 2911 Eglinton Avenue East (Home Depot) on the south side. In addition, due to the close proximity to the proposed traffic control signals, the access to the Budget Car Rental site at No. 2944 Eglinton Avenue East must be restricted to right-in/right-out movements by design, by-law and signage.

Steeles Avenue East at Future Extension of Silver Star Boulevard

To accommodate the International City Square development in the vicinity of Steeles Avenue East and Old Kennedy Road, a widening of Steeles Avenue East is required to provide for an eastbound right turn lane and a westbound left turn lane at Silver Star Boulevard (Old Kennedy Road). The development also requires the construction of concrete centre traffic islands to accommodate the traffic control signal modifications; a new road connection at the south leg of the intersection; and a service access located at the east limit of the development.

In order to minimize the impact on the arterial road system, the service road access proposed for the south side of Steeles Avenue East, east of Old Kennedy Road is to be restricted to right-in/right-out movements only by design. This condition is to be enforced through enactment of the appropriate By-law(s), design of the access, and sign installations.

Pedestrian and Cycling Issues:

In requiring that road modifications are made in order to accommodate traffic generated by new developments, pedestrian and cycling issues are always taken into consideration. In cases where road widenings are required, sufficient pedestrian walking times are provided at all signalized intersections. In addition to requiring road modifications, developers are also required to improve adjacent boulevards through streetscape improvements such as tree and sod planting and the provision of transit shelters. In the case of the road modifications described in this report, all proposals conform with the Department's guidelines for the accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists.

Scope of Construction:

To construct the above modifications the following work will be undertaken:

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

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

(c) construction of concrete medians;

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

(e) installation of underground traffic signals, ducts, handwells and pole bases;

(f) alteration of traffic control devices;

(g) planting of trees; and

(h) utility relocations.

These modifications have been developed using current department standards for cyclists and pedestrians and no compromises have been made with respect to the space allocated to these users.

Conclusion:

As a condition of approval of development abutting City of Toronto arterial roads, various modifications are required to the road system. All costs will be borne by the developers.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Kathleen Llewellyn-Thomas Dev Tyagi

Director, Engineering Services, Director , Engineering Services,

Districts 1 & 2 Districts 3 & 4

Tel: (416)392-8590 Tel: (416)395-6243

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 3, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services and that authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of McNicoll Avenue and Eagle Point Road coincident with the removal of the pedestrian crossover (PXO) at McNicoll Avenue and Brookshire Boulevard.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with new traffic control signal installations are contained in the Transportation Services Division's Capital Program under Project No C-TR031. Total funding in this program is $1.6 million for 1999. The estimated cost of installing traffic control signals at the intersection of McNicoll Avenue and Eagle Point Road is $55,900.00 including the removal of the existing PXO.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) traffic control signals be approved on McNicoll Avenue at Eagle Point Road;

(2) coincident with the traffic control signal installation, the existing pedestrian crossover at McNicoll Avenue and Brookshire Boulevard be removed; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

This location was investigated as part of the routine examination of District traffic signal needs.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

McNicoll Avenue in this vicinity is a two-lane collector roadway with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h and a two-way 24 hour volume of approximately 11,700 vehicles. Eagle Point Road, a local road, forms a "T" intersection on the north side of McNicoll Avenue. A southbound stop sign on Eagle Point Road currently controls traffic at this intersection. Sir Samuel B. Steele Junior Public School and Sir Ernest MacMillan Senior Public School are located on Huntsmill Road approximately 170 metres north of McNicoll Avenue. Eagle Point Road serves as a connecting link between Huntsmill Road and McNicoll Avenue. Adjacent traffic control devices on McNicoll Avenue include a pedestrian crossover located approximately 66 metres to the west at Brookshire Boulevard and traffic control signals located approximately 415 metres to the east at Warden Avenue.

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

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 that four collisions occurred over a three-year period from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997 which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. None of these collisions involved pedestrians. Based on the above information, the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are met.

The PXO on McNicoll Avenue at Brookshire Boulevard is only 66 metres from Eagle Point Road. Given that the Ontario Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices suggests a minimum spacing between traffic control devices of 215 metres in order to allow motorist to recognize and react to each device, it is proposed that the PXO at Brookshire Boulevard be removed coincident with the installation of traffic control signals at McNicoll Avenue and Eagle Point Road.

The purpose of the existing PXO is to provide pedestrian crossing protection for students attending Sir Ernest MacMillan Senior Public School who live in the residential community south of McNicoll Avenue and are required to cross McNicoll Avenue on their way to and from school. If the PXO is removed and replaced with traffic control signals at Eagle Point Road, the students and other pedestrians who use this crossing will be required to walk on the south side of McNicoll Avenue between Brookshire Boulevard and Eagle Point Road. Therefore, coincident with the installation of traffic control signals, a concrete sidewalk will be constructed along the south side of McNicoll Avenue between Brookshire Boulevard and Eagle Point Road. In addition, it is proposed to relocate the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus stops from Brookshire Boulevard to Eagle Point Road and to construct concrete TTC platforms to accommodate the bus stop relocation.

Neither McNicoll Avenue or Eagle Point Road are arterial roads and the installation of traffic control signals would not have an impact on the effectiveness of the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the traffic control signals would provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area. The estimated cost of installing traffic control signals at the intersection of McNicoll Avenue and Eagle Point Road is $55,900.00 including the removal of the existing PXO.

Staff have contacted the Ward Councillors and both Councillors Mahood and Shaw have voiced support for the proposed installation of traffic control signals at this location.

Conclusions:

The installation of traffic control signals on McNicoll Avenue and Eagle Point Road are technically warranted and would provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter K. Hillier

Manager, Traffic Operations, District 4

(416) 396-7148

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and that authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto:

Purpose:

To install traffic control signals and remove the existing pedestrian crossover at the intersection of Front Street East and George Street.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the new traffic signal installations are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Capital program under Project No. C-TR031. In 1999, $1.6 million has been allocated for new traffic control signal installations. The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals on Front Street East at George Street is $74,000.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) traffic control signals be installed on Front Street East at George Street, coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover; and

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

Discussion:

Our Department reviewed the pedestrian and vehicle traffic operations at this intersection, and specifically evaluated the feasibility of replacing the existing pedestrian crossover with traffic control signals.

Front Street East in the vicinity of George Street is a four-lane arterial roadway. George Street is a two-lane local roadway, which is controlled with "Stop" signs at Front Street East. A pedestrian crossover is located on the east leg of this intersection. Based on pedestrian and vehicle traffic volumes at this intersection, the warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are satisfied to the following extent:

Warrant 1: Minimum Vehicular Volume 68 percent;

Warrant 2: Delay to Cross Traffic 100 percent; and

Warrant 3: Collision Hazard 40 percent.

Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 must be satisfied to 100 percent, or any two of the three warrants must be satisfied to 80 percent for traffic control signals to be technically warranted. Based on the above results, the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are satisfied at this intersection. Therefore, traffic control signals should be installed at this intersection.

We have consulted with Councillors Olivia Chow and Kyle Rae and they support this proposal.

Conclusion:

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

Contact Name:

Danny Budimirovic, P.Eng.

Traffic Engineer, District 1 - Central Area

416-392-5209

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

Purpose:

To seek authority to establish capital accounts for funds received as a result of Official Plan amendments and rezoning of 700 King Street West.

Source of Funds:

None required.

Recommendations:

(1) that separate capital accounts be established with budgets reflecting monies received from the owners of 700 King Street (1997) Limited for public art (gross $146,215.00 net 0), and community service facilities ($250,000.00, net 0), respectively, said monies to be expended in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the legal agreements entered into with the owner;

(2) that monies currently assigned to Finance Department account # 1000-05310-304023 be transferred to the appropriate newly created capital accounts;

(3) that the appropriate City staff be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the foregoing recommendations.

History:

At its meeting held on May 9 and 10, 1994, the former Toronto City Council approved amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law associated with the property located at 700 King Street West, permitting residential uses. In accordance with Official Plan policies regarding the timely provision of community service facilities, public benefits in the form of public art and community service facilities were secured through Section 37 of the Planning Act. These public amenities will serve the residents of the new development, as well as those in the surrounding community.

Background:

The portion of King Street West between Bathurst and Dufferin Streets is undergoing significant residential intensification. A number of former commercial and industrial buildings are being converted or redeveloped for residential uses, including the former Massey Ferguson Lands. Since 1996, applications have been received for an estimated 2,600 additional residential units in the area, excluding the subject site. Additional applications for residential development within the area are anticipated.

This anticipated incremental increase in population is expected to result in additional demand for public services and amenities. As a consequence, public benefits were secured as part of the approval process for 700 King Street West.

(1) Community Service Facility Contribution.

As part of the approvals necessary to allow the proposed residential intensification, and in accordance with Official Plan policies related to the timely provision of community service facilities, space within the development was secured by the City on behalf of the former Toronto Board of Education (TBE) for an alternative secondary school.

Subsequently, the owner approached the TBE asking to be released from the obligation to provide an on-site benefit, and instead proposed a cash contribution of $500,000.00. The TBE consented, and further agreed to accept half of the proposed funds, with the remaining half to be used for the provision of appropriate services within the area of development, at the City's discretion. This proposal was approved by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting held on April 14 and 15, 1997.

(2) Public Art Contribution.

The contribution of public benefits through Section 37 agreements includes a public art provision. While these agreements anticipate that the owner will commission art work for the publicly accessible areas of the development site, there is also the provision that allows the owner the option of donating one percent of the Gross Construction Costs to the City's capital budget for public art. The owner of 700 King Street West chose this option and as a result, the City received $146,295.00 in donated funds for the City's public art program.

It is anticipated that the funds secured from 700 King Street West will be applied to another civic initiative which offers a public art opportunity. The City's public art program integrates public art into the planning process and reinforces, where applicable, the urban design objectives for the public realm. This may range from an artist as a member of a design team to a call for the commissioning of a site specific art work. Urban design staff will work with the local planners to determine the appropriate opportunity to which the public art funds can be applied and report back to Council at a later date.

(3) Establishment of Appropriate Capital Accounts.

The owners of 700 King Street West have made contributions secured through the Section 37 agreements in the amounts of $146,214.90 for public art, and $500,000.00 for community services (half of which has since been allocated to the Toronto District School Board). In the absence of Council authority to establish separate accounts, the funds have been temporarily placed in account # 304-423 (Simcoe Place - Public Art Monies). For clarity, it is preferable to establish two new capital accounts which reflect the purposes and geographic boundaries specified within the legal agreements with the land owners.

Comments:

The funds contributed by the owners of 700 King Street West will provide a basis for the establishment of appropriate facilities and amenities within this area. Any public benefits secured in the future as a result of approvals for increased height and/or density, may be used to augment the amounts secured to date.

My staff will be exploring options for the expenditure of these funds, in consultation with the Ward Councillors and local residents, which will be the subject of a future report. However, the establishment of capital reserves for this area of reinvestment is an important component of successful City-building.

Contact Names:

Paula Prieditis, Planner, Policy and Programs, 392-0400

Robert Glover, Director, Urban Design, 392-1126

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To approve the construction of a one-storey columbarium niche conservatory within the existing Mount Pleasant Cemetery.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve the columbarium niche conservatory and pass the following resolution:

"That the construction of a columbarium enclosed by a glass conservatory at 1250 Bayview Avenue be approved for the following reasons:

- the Zoning By-law permits a columbarium at this location;

- the columbarium is surrounded by a cemetery use and buffered from the adjacent residential community; and

- no urban design issues are required to be addressed."; and

(2) the City Solicitor be requested to prepare a Notice of Decision indicating Council's decision on this matter and submit it to the City Clerk for publication in a local paper.

Background:

On January 19, 1999, an application for an Order in Council to permit the construction of a columbarium within Mount Pleasant Cemetery was submitted to the City for consideration. Prior to applying for the consent of the Registrar required under the Cemeteries Act (Revised), to increase the capacity of the cemetery, the applicant must obtain approval from the municipality. An Order in Council to approve the development is required to register this development with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Cemeteries Regulations Branch.

A public meeting was held in the community on April 12, 1999, to discuss this proposal and future development plans of the cemetery. No objection or issues were raised at the meeting.

Comments:

The proposal involves the construction of a 123 square metre columbarium conservatory enclosed in a glass structure. The proposed structure is centrally located within the cemetery and is situated approximately 200 m from Mount Pleasant Road, 184 m from the residential property line on Merton Street, and 194 m from the residential property line on Moore Avenue.

In considering this request for approval, the principal factor to be considered, as required by the Cemeteries Act, is the public interest. In this case no issues were raised at the public meeting and there appears to be no identified impact. Based on the foregoing, the proposal can be supported.

The applicant has indicated that a building permit in early spring is required to get the footings for the structure in the ground in order to meet the opening scheduled for early August. In view of the fact that the cemetery straddles two Community Council boundaries (both the former City of Toronto and East York), I have forwarded this report to UEDC in order to expedite the matter for the applicant.

Conclusions:

An application has been submitted to the City for approval of the construction of a columbarium niche conservatory in the centre of Mount Pleasant Cemetery between Mount Pleasant Road and Bayview Avenue. It is recommended that this proposal be approved.

Contact Name:

Denise Graham,

Community Planning, South District

Telephone: 392-0871,

Fax: 392-1330,

E-Mail: dgraham1@toronto.ca.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the following report (April 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be received:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend that City Council amend the fee tariff for planning applications to harmonize the fees charged for minor variance applications, whether they are submitted in the normal course or in response to an Order to Comply.

Financial Implications:

The recommendation in this report would effectively halve the fee charged for minor variance applications submitted in response to an Order to Comply, bringing the fee charged in line with a minor variance application submitted in the normal course.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council give authority to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to amend the existing fee schedule for planning applications, in accordance with this report, to harmonize the fees charged for minor variance applications submitted in the normal course and in response to an Order to Comply.

Background:

At its meeting of April 16, 1998, City Council adopted and amended Clause No. 4 of Report No. 4 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, which established the 1998 fee schedule for planning applications, effective May 1, 1998. This schedule establishes the following fees for minor variance applications:

(a) Where no construction work is involved $325.00

(b) Additions and alterations to existing dwellings with 3 units or less $430.00

(c) Additions and alterations to existing dwellings with 3 units or less,

if in response to an Order to Comply $860.00

(d) All other residential, commercial, industrial or institutional $970.00

(e) All other residential, commercial, industrial or institutional

if in response to an Order to Comply $1,940.00

The above fees include a 7.5 percent surcharge for services provided by the Legal Services Division and a surcharge for expenses incurred by the Clerk's Division.

Discussion:

The fee structure was adopted in order to harmonize the fee structures of the former municipalities in the new City of Toronto. Due consideration was given to achieving administrative simplicity, equity for both the citizens and the development community, easy comprehension of the fees and maintenance of the City of Toronto's competitive position in relation to other municipalities.

Subsequent to City Council's adoption of the new development application fees, Urban Planning and Development Services conferred with the City Solicitor on the appropriateness of charging a different fee for minor variance applications submitted in response to an Order to Comply. The conclusion reached is that the City cannot discriminate on the basis of whether a minor variance application is submitted in response to an Order to Comply or in the normal course as the costs of processing each application are equivalent. Accordingly, the fees must be harmonized to remove any difference in the fee level.

Contact Name:

Ted Tyndorf, MCIP, RPP

Director of Community Planning, East District, Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7343, Fax: (416) 396-4265, E-mail: Tyndorf@city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1) the report (April 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; be adopted; and

(2) a meeting be convened to discuss this matter and that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested report to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting on September 13, 1999 on the outcome of these discussions, and that:

(a) representation at this meeting include grocers and retail associations, staff from City Divisions of Parks and Transportation, Toronto Housing Company, Toronto Regional Conservation Authority, Property Standards, CN & CP and interested Councillors; and

(b) all City Councillors be invited to attend.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This report seeks authority to develop and call bids for the collection and disposal of shopping carts that are abandoned in the road allowance.

Source of Funds:

There are no costs associated with this program. The program would be a source of an estimated revenue of $12,500.00 annually for the Transportation Services Division.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that staff be authorized to develop requests for bids for the collection and disposal of shopping carts abandoned on road allowances in accordance with the conditions set forth in this report and with the City's bid process.

Background:

Shopping carts that are abandoned within road allowances can create serious hazards. In many cases, they are a hazard for pedestrians on the sidewalk, to vehicles maneuvering on the roadway and to City staff operating equipment on the pavement, sidewalks or boulevards. Regular staff patrols pick up shopping carts and deliver them to City yards. Some members of the public also pick up some of these carts and deliver them to City yards, where they are generally stored for 30 days and then sold to recycling companies if the owners of the carts do not claim them within this time frame.

No specific policy was established in the previous municipalities and the various processes that were in place were generally ad hoc procedures developed through experience.

Discussion:

In general terms, the number of abandoned shopping carts is significant. Overall, about 2,300 abandoned carts are picked up from the road allowance in the City of Toronto. A small percentage, about 20 percent to 25 percent, are retrieved by their original owners and the remainder are sold. Only the former municipalities of Etobicoke, North York and York charged for each cart sold an amount of $5.00. A modest total revenue of $4,000.00 to $4,500.00 per year was collected. Notwithstanding, this method of disposal is efficient because the greatest proportion of shopping carts are recycled thereby decreasing the visual and waste pollution that they create.

There is now a need to establish a common process that will coordinate the activities in all yards to ensure that the collection and disposition of abandoned shopping carts is common throughout the municipality. However, given that the City does not have facilities to properly recycle the carts themselves for continued use, it is appropriate that their collection and disposition be undertaken by a qualified business.

From an environmental perspective, it would be preferable that the carts be recycled rather than scrapped. Hence, it is important that the successful contractor demonstrate adequate previous experience in the recycling of these carts.

The collected carts create a significant problem in service yards due to the area that has to be allocated for their storage. Any new system should require that carts are securely stored at a location outside City yards. The successful recycling company could then release the carts to their original owners within the specified 30 days or, after that period has expired, initiate the recycling process. This would free up space in the yards which is required for other purposes.

The manner in which the carts are transported from the yards to the recycling plant is also important, as enclosed vehicles should preferably be utilized for public safety.

Finally, the frequency of pick up from the service yards should be a factor of consideration to ensure that the length of time abandoned shopping carts have to be stored at roads or works yards is minimized. One option, for example, would be to have carts picked up at least weekly from two yards in each of the four Transportation Services districts.

Conclusion:

Abandoned shopping carts in the road allowance create a number of significant hazards for pedestrians, drivers, City employees and the public at large. As a result, it is necessary to retrieve these carts and securely store them until their safe disposal is possible. In the past, it has been determined that the most appropriate manner in which to dispose of these carts is to sell them to companies which recycle the carts for re-use. This manner of disposal should be continued, however, there is now an opportunity to improve in the methods of collection, storage and disposal, so that City yards are not cluttered with abandoned shopping carts for extended periods of time.

These factors should be included in the preparation of an invitation to bid for the collection and disposal of shopping carts abandoned on road allowances in the City of Toronto.

Contact:

Roberto Stopnicki John Thomas

Director, Transportation Services Director, Transportation Services

District 3 District 2

Phone: (416) 395-7480 Phone (416) 394-8341

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations of the Scarborough Community Council as contained in the transmittal letter (April 28, 1999) from the City Clerk which recommends the status quo in regard to Consent Approvals, i.e., that the Director of Community Planning, East District, retain approval authority until Council has dealt with the "New Practices" report.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following transmittal letter (April 28, 1999) from the City Clerk, Scarborough Community Council:

Recommendation:

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the status quo in regard to Consent approvals, i.e., that the Director of Community Planning, East District, retain approval authority, until Council has dealt with the "New Practices" report.

Background:

The Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting on April 28, 1999, had before it a communication (April 9, 1999) from the City Clerk, referring a report (March 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, respecting the delegation of Consent approval authority under Section 54 of The Planning Act to the Committee of Adjustment (Scarborough) in order to achieve harmonization of this practice City-wide, with the request that the Community Council comment thereon and report back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (May 6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide additional information supporting the recommendation, that City Council delegate consent approval authority under Section 54 of the Planning Act, to the Committee of Adjustment (Scarborough), as outlined in the report (March 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Financial Implications:

The recommendation in this report has no financial impact.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council amend Clause 2, City of Toronto By-law No. 671-1998 to delegate approval authority for consent applications to the Committee of Adjustment (Scarborough), instead of the Director, Community Planning (East District).

Discussion:

On April 28, 1999, Scarborough Community Council directed that Urban Environment and Development Committee be advised that delegated consent approval authority be retained by the Director, Community Planning, East District. It should be noted that this practice was an interim policy, adopted by the former City of Scarborough in 1997, to accommodate the election and subsequent amalgamation period. In May 1998, Scarborough Community Council endorsed this practice, pending the review and adoption of City-wide procedures.

A preliminary review of consent granting approval authority in the former municipalities has revealed that, except in the former City of Scarborough, approval authority was delegated to the Committee of Adjustment.

The recommendation, contained in the report (March 8, 1999) to Urban Environment and Development Committee, will simply serve to harmonize this practice city-wide, prior to City Council's consideration, later this year, of a report and comprehensive delegation bylaw regarding all development application approvals.

It should be emphasized that, under the current practice in Scarborough, consent applications involving a minor variance application require two separate approval authorities to facilitate a development proposal. This practice minimizes opportunity for public involvement in the consent decision making process. More importantly, however, it challenges the professional capacity of the Director, Community Planning to approve a consent application, in cases where Community Council lodges an appeal to a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding a related minor variance application.

It is therefore recommended that Urban Environment and Development Committee adopt the recommendation contained in the report (March 8, 1999) from the Commissioner, in order to achieve a consistent, City-wide consent practice at this time.

Contact Name:

Ted Tyndorf, MCIP, RPP

Director of Community Planning, East District, Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7343 , Fax: (416) 396-4265, E-mail: Tyndorf@city.scarborough.on.ca

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (March 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, which was referred by the Committee on March 31, 1999 to the Scarborough Community Council for comment:

Purpose:

To recommend that City Council delegate consent approval authority under Section 54 of the Planning Act, to the Committee of Adjustment (Scarborough), in order to achieve harmonization of this practice city-wide.

Financial Implications:

The recommendations in this report have no financial impact.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council amend Clause 2, City of Toronto By-law No. 671-1998 to delegate approval authority for consent applications to the Committee of Adjustment (Scarborough), instead of the Director, Community Planning (East District).

(2) This report be forwarded to Scarborough Community Council for comments, prior to the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council.

Background:

Council of the former City of Scarborough delegated approval authority, under Section 54 of the Planning Act, for consent applications to the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings on June 10, 1997 by confirmatory By-law No. 25148. This approval authority was subsequently transferred and delegated by City Council to the Director, Community Planning (East District), on October 2, 1998 by City of Toronto By-law No. 671-1998.

Discussion:

The delegation of consent granting authority to an appointed officer, as permitted in the Planning Act, was an interim policy and practice of Scarborough, during the amalgamation period. Prior to amalgamation the approval authority was delegated to the Planning and Buildings Committee, (Committee of Council), or during Councils' summer recess or election breaks, to the Committee of Adjustment.

Delegation to an appointed officer may provide a more efficient process for considering consent applications which are generally technical in nature, such as establishing easements and rights-of-way, long term leases or clarifying land titles. This practice however, does not provide opportunity for consideration of community and planning issues in a public forum on consent applications affecting development in a neighbourhood, such as the creation of infill lots through severance. Delegation of consent approval authority to a Committee of Adjustment would provide the applicant and surrounding property owners opportunity for input into the decision making process in an open, public forum.

Consent applications involving an existing or proposed development project will also often require a minor variance application. In these cases, the Committee of Adjustment would be in a position to hear both applications at the same time. This would ensure public consideration of any issues regarding both applications, provide for a single approval authority to facilitate the proposal and provide opportunity for public involvement in the joint decision making process.

Except in the former City of Scarborough, consent approval authority was delegated to the Committee of Adjustment. In order to achieve a consistent, City-wide, consent practice at this time, it is recommended that consent approval authority be delegated to the Committee of Adjustment (Scarborough).

Contact Name:

Ted Tyndorf, MCIP, RPP

Director of Community Planning, East District, Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7343, Fax: (416) 396-4265, E-mail: Tyndforf@city.scarborough.on.ca

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it the report (April 7, 1999) from the City Clerk (Urban Environment and Development Committee), addressed to the Scarborough Community Council, which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting of May 17, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause to the Works Committee for further consideration and the hearing of deputations, in accordance with the recommendation of the Works and Utilities Committee embodied in the communication dated May 19, 1999, from the City Clerk.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (April 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to the request from City Council to consider the road salt motion that was before City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998 and report thereon to Works and Utilities Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds are available in the amount of $5,000 in the recommended 1999 Works and Emergency Services communications budget for production of a brochure on the alternatives to road salting and their potential benefits to the environment.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to your Committee following the publication of the results of the Canadian Federal Government's research programme on the toxicity of road salt; and

(2) Works and Emergency Services staff prepare an information bulletin outlining possible alternatives to road salt, including the costs and benefits, and make this information available to other major users of salt and public-at-large upon request, and that the same information be made available:

(a) on the City's Internet website; and

(b) as part of the annual winter maintenance brochure prepared by Transportation Services.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, received for information, Clause No. 7 from the Works and Utilities Committee Report No. 10 which included the following Motion:

"THAT staff report to the Works and Utilities Committee on a means of conducting a comprehensive road salt environmental impact study; and

THAT the Committee endorse, in principle, that the City of Toronto work towards decreasing the amount of road salt used, and finding new and less environmentally hazardous substances to use in place of road salt; and

THAT the Committee ask staff to advise on a public education campaign aimed at not only residents of Toronto, but also major users of road salt, educating them on potential alternatives."

Discussion:

1. Road Salt Environmental Impact Assessment:

The impacts of road salt (or sodium chloride) on the natural and built environment are well known and have been widely researched by Government, industry, and academia. Over the years, the use of road salt has been linked to damage to vehicles, infrastructure and the environment.

(a) Previous Road Salt Impacts Studies in Toronto

In 1990, the Medical Officer of Health and Commissioner of Public Works for the former City of Toronto, prepared a report on the "Use of Road Salt and Alternative De-Icing Methods" which was adopted and amended by Toronto City Council at its meeting held on October 22, 23, and 24, 1990 (Clause No. 17 of Report No. 14, City Services Committee, 1990). Also in 1990, the Commissioner of Transportation for the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto prepared a report on "De-icing Agents on Metropolitan Roads". Both reports are attached and contain a comprehensive review of studies and findings on the negative impacts of road salt on the environment, particularly water and soil quality, vehicles and infrastructure.

The link between the City's use of road salt and its effect on vegetation and lake water quality is difficult to ascertain. With respect to lake water quality, the Commissioner of Transportation's report cited findings of the National Water Research Institute that chloride levels in Lake Ontario had decreased to the present level of 26 milligrams per litre from a high of 28 milligrams per litre in 1974. The report also stated that the primary sources of chlorides in Lake Ontario are from industry and from natural salt mines under the lower portion of Lake Huron and the Detroit River area. A report prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey indicated that ice control accounted for only 33% of the total salt consumed in the United States in 1996. The chemical industry consumes approximately 42% of the salt produced.

With respect to the City's use of road salt and its impact on vegetation, the former Toronto City Council received a report on February 4, 1991 prepared by the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Department for the City of Toronto on the "Effect of Salt on Trees and Other Vegetation in Toronto" (Clause No. 44 of Report No. 2, City Services Committee, 1991). This report, which is attached, cited numerous negative symptoms observed on Toronto trees but could not attribute these symptoms solely to road salt. The report stated that the impact of road salt on trees in the urban environment is difficult to quantify due to the stress caused by many other factors such as other airborne pollutants, soil compaction, acid rain, lack of absorption area and high temperatures of air and soil.

(b) Update on Road Salt Impacts - Research Carried Out Elsewhere

Since the Toronto reports referred to above were written, several studies have been initiated or completed on assessing the environmental impacts of road salt and alternative de-icing methods.

The most substantial initiative that has been recently introduced is the Canadian Federal Government's inclusion of road salts on the Second Priority Substances List (PSL2) of December 16, 1995. The assessment of the first list of substances was completed in 1994. The substances identified on the (PSL2) will be given priority for assessment to determine if they are "toxic" under Section 11 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).

The scope of the assessment for road salts will be limited to chloride salts: sodium chloride (NaCl), calcium chloride (CaCl₂), magnesium chloride (MgCl₂), potassium chloride (Kcl), and brines used in road de-icing/anti-icing and dust suppression, and the salt portion of abrasive mixtures. The anti-caking agents sodium ferrocyanide (also known as Yellow Prussiate of Soda) and ferric ferrocyanide (also known as Prussian Blue) are also proposed for assessment as common additives to sodium chloride for de-icing. In addition, hazards associated with possible alternatives to road salts will be identified, in order to provide a more comprehensive view in support of risk management decisions.

Under the CEPA, a substance is defined as "toxic" if it enters or may enter the environment in amounts or under conditions that may pose a risk to human health, the environment, or to the environment that supports human life. For substances determined to be "toxic", management strategies, which integrate socio-economic considerations, are developed in consultation with stakeholders and may include voluntary controls, process changes, substitutions, economic measures, regulations, guidelines, codes of practice, or a combination of these measures.

An Environmental Resource Group (ERG), has been established to complete the assessment of road salts under the CEPA. The group is made up of experts in the fields of groundwater, lakes and streams, plant toxicology, geochemistry, biology, microbial processes, geology, roadway maintenance, risk assessment, risk management, and ecotoxicology. Working groups are focussing on the effects of road salts in groundwater, the aquatic ecosystem, vegetation, wildlife and the effects of sodium ferrocyanide. Work is underway to determine where road salts are used, the quantities in which they are applied, and the locations and amounts of road salts in used snow, highway runoff and patrol yards. Two chapters (ground and surface water and benthic sediments) are ready to be sent for scientific peer review. The majority of the supporting document should be completed by May, 1999 and will then proceed to scientific peer review. A draft Assessment Report will be prepared and made available for a 60-day public comment period. Following consideration of comments received, the Assessment Report will be revised as appropriate and published with final conclusions as to whether or not the substance is considered to be "toxic" as defined in CEPA. The legislated deadline for completion of the assessment of all second priority substances is December 2000.

In Europe, a similar initiative to increase the understanding of the impact of de-icing salts and other chemicals on the natural environment began in 1997. The Pollution of Groundwater and Soils by Road and Traffic Pollutants (POLMIT) project, which is funded by the European Commission (EC), brings together the expertise of seven European based research organizations (i.e., Transport Research Laboratory in the UK, Directorate General for Public Works and Water Management in The Netherlands, Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute, Technical Research Centre of Finland, Danish Road Institute, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées in France, and Laboratório Nacional de Engerharia Civil in Portugal). The principal outcome of the POLMIT project, which is slated for completion in 1999, will be comprehensive knowledge, collated and disseminated in the form of a final report encompassing a best practice guide for minimising potential pollution of groundwater and soil when designing, constructing and maintaining roads (which should include winter maintenance).

(c) Reduction of Road Salt Impacts

Efforts have been made at reducing the corrosive and negative environmental impacts of road salting. Epoxy-coated reinforcing bars and air-entrained concrete and/or high density concrete are used in the construction of new deck surfaces to help limit the corrosion of steel reinforcing and deterioration of concrete. Research into the use of polymer and carbon based reinforcing materials is also underway. During the last several years, automobile companies have intensified efforts to protect cars from corrosion by special dipping processes, use of aluminized waxes, zinc-rich primers, galvanized steel and greater use of other non-corrosive metals and plastics. In addition, some give the assembled cars an anti-corrosion treatment.

2. Reduction of the Use of Road Salt:

The issue of reducing road salt application has been researched extensively in Canada, the United States and abroad. Policies and practices that have been researched and implemented either on a full or pilot scale to reduce road salt use are substitution with chemical alternatives or abrasives such as sand, placing less emphasis on salting over snow ploughing and removal, and refinement and modernization of winter maintenance practices and equipment. All of the constituent former municipalities of the City have for several years developed reduced salt application methods, using more advanced salt application systems as this technology has become available. At least 7 other municipalities in Canada (i.e., Hamilton-Wentworth, Ottawa-Carlton, Calgary, Montreal, Quebec City, Sherbrooke, and Vancouver) have also adopted the principle of reduction of road salt use.

(a) Chemical Alternatives to Road Salt

The most popular chemical alternatives to road salt are CMA (calcium magnesium acetate), sodium formate, calcium chloride, magnesium chloride + PCI (a corrosion inhibitor called sulfonated polybenylpropane), and urea. The known or potential effects that these chemical alternatives to road salt have on the environment vary widely and in some cases are not known. The performance of these chemical alternatives vary greatly and may be less effective than salting.

Most of the chemical alternatives are less corrosive than road salt, but still exhibit properties that negatively impact the natural environment or the impact on the natural environment is not fully understood. Urea, for example, has been found to negatively impact aquatic life. Some studies suggest that CMA may impair soil quality and in some cases, water quality. Sodium formate, although considered less corrosive to steel, has similar impacts on the natural environment as road salt. The impacts of magnesium chloride + PCI on the environment and are not fully understood. One alternative, calcium chloride, is less harmful to vegetation but is corrosive.

In recent years, CMA has received the most research attention as an alternative to road salt. One of the more comprehensive studies that compared the costs of rock salt to CMA as a highway de-icer was completed by the United States, Transportation Research Board (TRB) in 1991. The report suggested that the environmental benefits were superior to road salt, however, the effectiveness and cost of CMA were inferior. CMA costs approximately 33 times as much as sodium chloride and requires an application rate of 1.6 times that of salt.

In the 1990 joint report prepared by the City of Toronto's Medical Officer of Health and Commissioner of Public Works, it was concluded that chemical alternatives to salt do exist and have proven to be effective as de-icing agents. It was also concluded that these alternatives are still not economically feasible and questions regarding the environmental effects of these chemical alternatives have not been fully resolved. Development of an alternative de-icer which is biodegradable and eliminates environmental harm is still the focus of much research.

(b) Abrasive Alternatives

Abrasives are often cited as practical alternatives, but they have limitations. Disadvantages of abrasives are that they cannot melt snow and ice, offer only temporary traction, are covered up by new snow, large quantities and frequent applications are necessary and they must be cleaned up at great expense. Sand can obstruct and clog drainage ditches and storm drain systems. Also, it is usually necessary to use some salt with abrasives in order to keep the abrasive stockpile from freezing.

(c) Mechanical Alternatives

Mechanical alternatives, such as snow ploughing or removal, at low snow accumulations are generally more expensive and labour-intensive than salting. As snow accumulations increase, salting becomes less effective and more expensive than ploughing or removal. A policy to plough at lower snow accumulations can result in reduced salt consumption. There are negative environmental impacts associated with increased snow ploughing or removal instead of salting, such as increased vehicle exhaust emissions and a potential for ice build-up on roadways.

(d) Winter Maintenance Practices

Considerable research is being done and programs are being implemented by other jurisdictions, such as the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), the Transportation Association of Canada, the United States Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Salt Institute at improving and modernizing winter maintenance practices and equipment, with emphasis on reducing salt use.

The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth has installed computerized salt spreader controls on winter maintenance vehicles, allowing greater control of salt applications on Regional roads minimizing the use of road salt.

The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario has initiated the Maintenance 2001 Project. The Project is designed to help build an information-based maintenance management system for carrying out winter operations. It will review and demonstrate, at one location (a 30 km test route along Hwy 26, between Barrie and Stayner), promising new winter maintenance technology and practices under Ontario conditions, and then assist with technology transfer activities. The project objectives are to introduce new technology, techniques and practices that will "reduce salt usage and negative impacts on the environment, maintain a more consistent winter maintenance level of service, measure the performance of winter maintenance contractors to ensure safety and standards are met, disseminate information on winter road conditions, and foster opportunities for partnerships (MTO, municipalities, private contractors) to share information." The three categories of technology/practices under investigation are "Advanced Road Weather Information Systems (ARWIS), advanced winter maintenance procedures and equipment, and tools for monitoring maintenance activities and performance."

The Transportation Association of Canada is completing a study on the management of road salt that will produce three documents scheduled for release in the spring of 1999. The first document is a Primer on Winter Maintenance for the general public that provides information on the importance of salt use to maintaining a safe and efficient transportation system that sustains Canada's economy. The second document is a series of eight concise, practical and focused Codes of Practice for Salt Management. The third document is a longer and more comprehensive Salt Management Guide that provides information on the subject of winter maintenance and salt usage.

In June 1996, the U.S. FHWA published a report titled "Manual of Practice for An Effective Anti-Icing Program: A Guide For Highway Winter Maintenance Personnel". This manual provides information for successful implementation of an effective highway anti-icing program. It is written to guide the maintenance manager in developing a systematic and efficient practice for maintaining roads in the best conditions possible during a winter storm. It describes the significant factors that should be understood and must be addressed in an anti-icing program, with the recognition that the development of the program must be based on the specific needs of the site or region within its reach. The manual includes recommendations for anti-icing practices and guidance for conducting anti-icing operations during specific precipitation and weather events.

The Salt Institute has a training program for public works personnel responsible for snowfighting operations that focuses on "Sensible Salting". "Sensible Salting" emphasizes getting the most out of every application of de-icing salt, maintaining the safest roads possible in the most economical way while protecting the environment. According to the Salt Institute, a good "Sensible Salting" program should include personnel training, good equipment, calibration of spreaders, use of automatic controls, adequate covered storage, proper maintenance around storage areas, and an awareness of safeguarding the environment by all who use salt.

The principle of reducing salt usage through implementation of winter maintenance policies and practices should be addressed in a comprehensive winter services report prepared by the Transportation Services Division. In the meantime, Works and Emergency Services staff will continue to monitor the relative successes and acceptance of initiatives at reducing road salt use within other jurisdictions.

Public Awareness:

Although the potential environmental benefits of chemical alternatives to road salt are either limited or not well known, informing the public fosters a greater awareness of the alternatives and their advantages, where applicable. This could be achieved by the publication of an appropriate brochure. In particular, the public should be informed about the potential benefits or misconceptions that exist with chemical alternatives to road salt. The brochure should also discuss mechanical alternatives. The information contained in the brochure should also be displayed on the City's Internet site.

Conclusions:

The issue of the environmental impacts of road salt is a significant one. The Canadian Government has recognized the need to conduct an assessment on the environmental and health impacts of road salts. New initiatives at reducing road salt use are continually being introduced, researched and in some cases implemented. The City of Toronto should continue to take an active role in implementing appropriate strategies for reducing salt use and should publish information on its practises regarding the use of salt in a brochure and on the City's Internet site.

Contact Name:

Jerry Higgins, P.Eng., M.Eng.

Environmental Services Section, Technical Services Division

Tel: 392-7705; Fax: 392-1456, E-Mail: jhiggins@toronto.ca

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it Clause 44 of the City Services Committee Report No. 2, 1991 which was received by the Council of the Corporation of the City of Toronto at its meeting No. 3 on February 4, 1991, which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting of May 17, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (May 19, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Works and Utilities Committee recommends that the report dated April 28, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodied in Clause No. 17 of Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, be struck out and referred to the Works Committee for further consideration.

The Works and Utilities Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to:

(i) include the Toronto Transit Commission, major highrise landowners, schools, malls and any other relevant institutions in the notification process; and

(ii) submit a report to the Works Committee as soon as possible providing further information on mechanical alternatives to the use of road salt, including a cost/benefit analysis.

Background:

The Works and Utilities Committee on May 19, 1999, had before it a report (April 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services responding to the request from City Council to consider the road salt motion that was before City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998; and recommending that:

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Committee following the publication of the results of the Canadian Federal Government's research program on the toxicity of road salt; and

(2) Works and Emergency Services staff prepare an information bulletin outlining possible alternatives to road salt, including the costs and benefits, and make this information available to other major users of salt and public-at-large upon request, and that the same information be made available:

(a) on the City's Internet website; and

(b) as part of the annual winter maintenance brochure prepared by Transportation Services.

The Committee also had before it the following communications:

(i) (undated) from Mr. John Hopkins, Storm Water Group, advising that the matter of salt on roads requires more background; and providing comments and recommendations with respect thereto.

(ii) (undated) from Ms. Karey Shinn, Member, Storm Water Group, requesting, on behalf of the Storm Water Group, that consideration of the report respecting the Road Salt Environmental Impact Study and reduction of road salt use be deferred to the next meeting of the Works Committee; and advising that it is generally felt that the information required to put together a brochure on this subject is incomplete.

(iii) (May 18, 1999) from Leslie Woo, Member, Toronto Bay Initiative Co-ordinating Circle, forwarding correspondence outlining the Toronto Bay Initiative's pilot project to treat stormwater run-off from the Gardiner Expressway, prior to entering Toronto Bay, in support of the request for deferral of the report respecting the Road Salt Environmental Impact Study and Reduction of road salt use.

(iv) (March 9, 1999) from Mr. Dalton Shipway, Storm Water Group, forwarding a submission with respect to the practice of snow dumping and environmental impacts on land, water quality and aquatic life.

The following persons appeared before the Works and Utilities Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Karey Shinn, Member, Storm Water Group;

- Mr. John Hopkins, J.L.H. Services Ltd., and a Member of the Storm Water Group, and submitted material with respect thereto; and

- Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) Recommendation No. (1) of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication dated June 1, 1999, from the City Clerk, be adopted, subject to deleting therefrom the words 'on a contract basis to a maximum of one year', so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

'The Budget Committee on June 1, 1999, recommended to City Council:

(1) the adoption of the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee embodied in the report (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, subject to adding the following:

"(1) that the additional staff be hired; and

(2) that the additional funding be from the contingency account;" '; and

(2) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the appropriate City Departments, be requested to submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee in the fall of 1999 on a streamlined process for the fast-tracking of applications.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1) Recommendations Nos. (1), (2) and (3) of the report (May 11, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to amending Recommendation No. (1) by deleting the figure "7" and substituting the figure "15" and amending the amounts accordingly, so as to read:

"(1) City Council approve an additional amount of $369,000.00 to the 1999 salaries and benefits budget of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department in order to fund the hiring of 15 additional planners by the final four months of the current fiscal year (thereby representing an annualized cost of $1,107,000.00;"

(2) that the past practices of hiring summer planning students be maintained and encouraged.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having forwarded its action in this respect and the report (May 11, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development to all Community Councils for information and to the Budget Committee for consideration and report directly to Council for its meeting on June 9, 1999.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (May 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To respond to Council's concern regarding the sufficiency of staff resources in the Urban Planning and Development Services Department to deliver services within the time frames desired by both City Council and the public.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Should City Council approve the recommendations contained in this report, the effect would be a total increase in the 1999 Operating Budget of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department of $307,500.00 and a commitment to an additional $615,000.00 in the year 2000.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve an additional amount of $172,200.00 to the 1999 salaries and benefits budget of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department in order to fund the hiring of 7 additional planners by the final four months of the current fiscal year (thereby representing an annualized cost of $516,600.00);

(2) City Council approve an additional amount of $135,300.00 to the 1999 salaries and benefits budget of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department in order to fund the hiring of 6 additional zoning/plans examiners by the final four months of the current fiscal year (thereby representing an annualized cost of $405,900.00);

(3) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report to the Planning and Transportation Committee in the fall of 1999 on the status and service impact of the redeployment of enforcement staff and the re-allocation of administrative cost efficiencies within the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division; and

(4) this report and the actions of the Urban Environment and Development Committee be forwarded to the Community Councils for information, and to the Budget Advisory Committee for consideration.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the special meeting of City Council held on April 26 and 27 to consider the 1999 Operating Budget, concern was expressed on the part of some members of Council regarding the adequacy of the size of the Department's staffing complement to ensure efficient service delivery in the following service areas: building permit processing; municipal standards inspections; and community planning activities.

The Commissioner was requested to report to the Planning and Transportation Committee, the Budget Committee and to the Community Councils (the latter for information purposes only) within a time frame that would allow for Council consideration at its June 9, 10, and 11 meeting. However, the Planning and Transportation Committee does not hold its first meeting until June 14, 1999. Accordingly, in order to meet the June Council meeting directive, it is necessary to report to the May 17, 1999 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

1. Department Amalgamation and Downsizing:

In response to the amalgamation and downsizing targets established by the Corporation in 1998, the Urban Planning and Development Services Department created a plan to meet the two-year target by the end of the first year in order to accelerate stabilization and certainty within the organization. City Council, through its approval of the 1998 Operating Budget, accepted the recommended plan to reduce 112 staff from the then existing staffing complement of 884. (It should be noted that all staffing reductions resulted from the amalgamated functions of planning, building and municipal standards and not licensing. The licensing function at that time was not formally part of the department, nor was it an amalgamating function.) The Department's downsizing plan called for 40 percent of the reductions to come from streamlining the management structure; 40 percent from efficiencies resulting from improved business processes (supported by an integrated information technology system, as well as single tier development review); and 20 percent from specific initiatives, including the adoption of statutory standards for building inspections.

Although the planned reductions were a reasonable expectation from amalgamation, and should not have affected the ongoing delivery of service appreciably, other causes resulted in unintended effects.

When the reductions were proposed in early 1998, it was assumed that the collective budgets of the former municipalities included funded vacancies of up to 20 positions. It was later confirmed that the "1997 collective budget" for Urban Planning and Development Services contained no funded vacancies. Therefore, the total 112 positions, rather than 92, had to be deleted in 1998. Moreover, the budget incorporated an unallocated $700,000.00 gapping number which had to be managed in 1998, and assumed in 1999.

As was the experience with the whole Corporation, downsizing efforts which had been undertaken by all seven municipalities prior to amalgamation, had not seen their full impact on service delivery prior to 1998, and were not taken into account during budget preparation.

Finally, a particular factor which was not anticipated, and which has a direct impact on resource needs within this Department, was the upturn in the economy. In 1998, the construction value of building permits issued increased by 24% over 1997. After the first quarter of 1999, the upward trend is being equalled, if not exceeded.

Nevertheless, it had been my opinion that the impacts of the staff reductions could be managed through the 1999 transitional year with incidental service effects, pending complete stabilization of the Department by way of harmonized practices, business process review, and supporting information technology systems.

2. Transitional Initiatives Underway:

Within the Urban Planning and Development Services Department, there are several initiatives underway which, when completed, will assist to stabilize the Department and improve service.

As downsizing was implemented in 1998, the targeted voluntary exit program permitted some flexibility in order to achieve the reduction with minimal forced separations. Once the target was achieved, the exit program was closed. However, a number of resignations and constructive dismissals occurred after the required reductions were achieved which resulted in a substantial funded vacancy envelope. The senior management of the Department reviewed these vacancies as they accumulated and directed the funding to meet direct service priorities. As a result, we have currently under competition 10 additional community planner positions and 3 additional plans examiner positions, which should improve the service capacity for both the City Planning and the Building Divisions from their current resource base.

We are conducting consultations with representatives of the development community (the Urban Development Roundtable) to receive input and advice on improving our approval processes. This will lead to an early adoption of some practice improvements, and the finalization of a report to Council recommending new practices for development approvals.

Early in 1998, staff of the Department identified the need for an integrated business management system which would properly link the data needs of building, planning, licensing and municipal standards. This was proposed and approved as a transition project. In fact, the 40 percent reduction attributed to efficiencies was predicated on this updated technology being in place. The project is on target for implementation by the end of September, including training for staff, and will then provide valuable support particularly for staff reviewing and processing building applications. (This, incidentally, is the Department's comprehensive response to Y2K concerns.)

The merging of Licensing and Municipal Standards presents the opportunity to allocate enforcement staff resources more efficiently across the City. Staff of that Division are reviewing the options and will be implementing the appropriate changes throughout the year.

Each Division within the Urban Planning and Development Services Department has undertaken a review of resource requirements across our four-district structure to identify priorities for the redeployment of existing staff resources to manage workload pressures. To the degree that existing collective agreements permit, redeployments have been effected to meet this objective. For example, the resulting distribution of community planners and plans examiners (both existing and under active recruitment) generally reflects the workload distribution by district:

Community Planners:

West District 15 percent

(former Cities of Etobicoke and York)

East District 20 percent

(former City of Scarborough and Borough of East York)

North District 25 percent

(former City of North York)

South District 40 percent

(former City of Toronto)

Plans Examiners:

West District 20 percent

East District 25 percent

North District 20 percent

South District 35 percent.

The Department is initiating a comprehensive business process review which will examine our administrative processes in particular and recommend changes which will achieve efficiencies and support service delivery most effectively.

Finally, in response to the Chief Administrative Officer's initiative for multi-year planning, the Urban Planning and Development Services Department will commence a business planning process. This will allow us to identify key performance measures and track meaningful service measures. This approach will put the Department in a better position to relate resources to service outcomes and advise Council accordingly.

3. Proposals for Additional Resources:

The front line staff of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department have delivered excellent service with great professionalism and dedication during the past 16 months, despite exceptional change and uncertainty. The management of the Department has also met the extreme challenges of amalgamation by creating an organization and plan which should meet the expectations of Council, the development community and the public once stability is achieved.

The past 16 months have produced some noteworthy accomplishments which have required a significant commitment of staff resources, such as:

- initiation of the Official Plan process;

- development of harmonized building permit by-laws and fees;

- development and implementation of taxicab reforms;

- restructuring of the Licensing function;

- development and implementation of the Integrated Business Management System;

- development of harmonized property standards and other by-laws; and

- strategic response to the homelessness initiative.

These major initiatives, together with others not mentioned, as well as the necessary amalgamation and transition activities, has been assumed by the same staff responding to ongoing service demands. An assumption of a state of relative stability will free staff resources to address those ongoing service priorities.

Nevertheless, it has become apparent that the current resource capacity within the Urban Planning and Development Services Department is inadequate to meet the current expectations of Council and the public. To respond to Council's directives, I have consulted with the senior management of the Department to identify the critical resource needs which, if met, would assist in meeting these expectations.

If Council approves these additional resources, however, it must be noted that there will not be an immediate impact. The time required to recruit additional staff will result in the current deficiency continuing for a few months. Nevertheless, we would move quickly with the recruitment, and staff of the Human Resources Department have agreed to expedite our requirements to the degree possible given their staff resource limitations.

a. City Planning Division. In assessing the current situation facing the City Planning Division, the Directors of that Division were consulted. Based upon their experience to date, they have advised that a reasonable level of service could be provided with 15 additional planners in Community Planning. However, because we do not have in place data or methods to determine existing productivity and to predict the effective outcomes of additional resources, my recommendation is that Council consider adding half of that number of planners this year. With greater experience and better analysis, we can report further on planning resource needs in time for the year 2000 budget deliberations. Therefore, I recommend an additional 7 community planners to be distributed according to current workload demands, as follows:

3 South District

1 East District

1 West District

2 North District.

The total annualized cost of these 7 planners is $516,600.00 (based upon on average cost of $73,800.00 per planner for salary and benefits). Assuming the earliest that the recruitment could be finalized is the end of August, the 1999 cost would be $24,600.00 per planner, or $172,200.00 in total.

b. Building Division. The current complement of building inspectors is adequate to meet the statutory and prudent inspection requirements of the City, even assuming the anticipated increase in building permit applications.

However, in order to meet preferred turnaround times for building permit applications, we recommend an additional 6 plans examiners positions, to be distributed according to current workload demands and to enable a common ability to meet turnaround times. The distribution of the 6 positions would be as follows:

3 South District

1 East District

1 West District

1 North District.

As Council and the public are traditionally advised, the addition of these 6 plans examiners will not guarantee approval of a building permit within a set period of time. The nature of the project, the completeness of the applicant's information, and the quality of response from other reviewing departments and agencies will have the greatest affect on turnaround times.

The total annualized cost of the 6 additional plans examiners is $405,900.00 (based upon an average cost $67,650.00 per plans examiner for salary and benefits). Assuming the earliest that the recruitment could be finalized is the end of August, the 1999 cost would be $22,500.00 per plans examiner, or $135,300.00 in total.

c. Municipal Licensing and Standards Division. The merger of the licensing function and municipal standards is in its very early stages. The Taxi Unit has been established with all management in place and existing staff re-deployed. The recruitment of the additional 10 enforcement officers for the Taxi Unit, as approved by Council, has only been initiated. The licensing issuance function is carrying on as before, subject to review as the Division assumes permitting functions from the Works and Emergency Services Department. The remainder of the licensing enforcement staff have been deployed to each of the four districts only as of March, 1999, and the effective use of those staff with enforcement staff from Municipal Standards is still being explored. The business process review of the administrative functions may identify additional resources which can be directed to frontline service (and which is the subject of a requested report to a fall meeting of City Council.)

Given the amount of work still outstanding to respond to the initial direction for the merger and staffing of these two activities, and given the high priority to implement successfully the taxi reform package by the end of the year, it is unrealistic to expect senior management to prudently manage the addition of more staff to this organization in this year. Moreover, until the merger is complete, it is difficult to advise on where the greater need for additional resources will be, or indeed, if they will be necessary. I recommend that staff be given the opportunity to implement the outstanding changes and then report to Council on the outcomes and impact on service.

Conclusions:

The amalgamation and downsizing undertaken by the Urban Planning and Development Services Department have successfully met the stated goals and targets of Council. However, for a variety of reasons, the current impact on service is undesirable. Although the completion of a number of initiatives during this transitional year will result in significant improvement in service response ability by the end of the year, it appears that the interim deficiency is intolerable. Therefore, this report recommends a modest increase in resources to deal with the current situation and to accelerate our longer term ability to meet service expectations.

Contact Name:

Virginia M. West

Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services,

397-4154

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

- Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber;

- Councillor Joe Mihevc, York Eglinton;

- Councillor Michael Walker, North Toronto; and

- Councillor John Adams, Midtown.

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

- (May 14, 1999) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber expressing concern with respect to depleted staff resources at York Civic Centre;

- (May 13, 1999) from Patrick Bernes, President, DeBerardinis Building and Development Ltd. expressing concern over the loss of experience planning staff, particulary in the former Cities of Etobicoke and North York, which has resulted in a delay with general processing of planning and building matters within the amalgamated City of Toronto.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 1, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Scarborough Community Council recommends to City Council that:

(1) this matter be referred to the Policy and Finance Committee to review the financial implications; and

(2) the distribution of Urban Planning and Development Services Department staff resources across the City be reviewed to ensure that such distribution is fair.

Background:

The Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting on May 26, 1999, had before it a communication (May 19, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendations of the Urban Planning and Development Committee respecting a report (May 11, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development, which will be presented to City Council at its meeting on June 9, 1999, and requesting that Community Council forward any comment thereon directly to City Council.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 1, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on June 1, 1999, recommended to City Council:

(1) the adoption of the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee embodied in the report (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, subject to adding the following:

"(1) that the additional staff be hired on a contract basis to a maximum of one year; and

(2) that the additional funding be from the contingency account."; and

(2) the reports (May 27, 1999) from the City Clerk and (May 28, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be received.

The Budget Committee reports, for the information of City Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to:

(a) review the staff complement of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department along with the volume of work and backlog, if any, and provide such information to the Budget Advisory Committee during the Year 2000 budget process; and

(b) report back to the June 14, 1999 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee providing a standard that takes into account the relevant variables that will demonstrate to Council the staff level required to satisfactorily address the issuance of building permits, etc.

The following Members of Council appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Councillor Joseph Pantalone, Trinity Niagara; and

- Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown.

Background:

The Budget Committee had before it a report (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on May 17, 1999, adopted, as amended, the report (May 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development, directed that the report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for consideration of the financial implications and requested the Budget Committee to report thereon directly to City Council at its meeting to be held on June 9, 1999.

The Budget Committee also had before it the following reports:

(i) (May 27, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the East York Community Council on May 26 and 27, 1999:

(1) directed that the Budget Committee, and Council, be advised that East York Community Council supports the Recommendations embodied in the report (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk subject to confirmation of the backlog of work; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Budget Committee at its meeting on June 1, 1999, providing statistics with respect to the backlog of work; and

(ii) (May 28, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services providing information to the Budget Committee on the backlog of work being experienced by Urban Planning and Development Services Department staff.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 2, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council unanimously endorsed the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee respecting the Urban Planning and Development Services Department - Staff Resources.

The above endorsement was carried unanimously as follows:

Yeas - Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow, Bossons, Disero, Fotinos, Jakobek, Johnston, Layton, Miller, Pantalone, Silva and Walker

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, on May 26 and 27, 1999, had before it a report (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, Urban Planning and Development Committee respecting Urban Planning and Development Services Department - Staff Resources, forwarding the Committee's action of May 17, 1999 to Community Councils for information and to the Budget Committee for consideration and report directly to Council for its meeting on June 9, 1999.

The Toronto Community Council actions are noted above.)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide an update on Moving The Economy Sustainable Transportation Sector Development

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Urban Environment Development Committee:

(1) endorse the Moving The Economy (MTE) goals and objectives related to developing and implementing the Sector Development Strategy for Sustainable Transportation; and

(2) continue to provide information and staff support to facilitate partnerships and projects aimed at attracting investment to Toronto's sustainable transportation sector through the Sector Development Strategy's two key directions: establishment of the Sector Development Agency for Sustainable Transportation, and development of Personal Mobility Systems (see description and attached).

Background:

In July of 1998, The City of Toronto and Transportation Options hosted Moving the Economy: Economic Opportunities in Sustainable Transportation, the first international conference of the new City. This highly successful event linked economic opportunity with sustainable transportation by showcasing over 200 living examples from around the world where sustainable transportation has created jobs, boosted business, saved money, or revitalized the local economy. Over 540 leaders in business, government, labour, and community from 16 different countries attended the conference. On the Sunday of the conference a special consultation session laid the foundation for the development of a Sector Development Strategy for Sustainable Transportation in Toronto.

The Sustainable Transportation Sector refers to all business, industry, employment or other economic activity related to sustainable transportation. Sustainable transportation can be briefly described as "moving people and goods in cleaner and greener ways, and, where possible, not moving people and goods". As such the sustainable transportation sector includes a range of economic activity related to sustainable goods movement and green fleets, telework and telecommunications to reduce and replace travel, transit, cycling, walking, and car sharing, as well as land use and green development.

The conference's financial sponsors included Bombardier, Consumers Gas, the British Department of Trade and Industry, the Commonwealth Foundation, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), the International Forum for Rural Transport Development, Environment Canada, Health Canada, the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy, the North American Fund for Environmental Co-operation, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, and Transport Canada, as well as a wide range of in-kind sponsors and supporters.

A number of City Departments have been involved in this initiative, in particular Urban Planning and Development Services, and Economic Development, Culture, and Tourism. In addition to staff and in-kind resources, the City Economic Partnership Program of the Economic Development Department contributed an initial $10,000.00 in 1997 and an additional $20,000.00 in 1998 to the Moving the Economy conference.

Since the conference (Phase 1), the Moving the Economy team has achieved the following:

- Secured funding for Phase 2 (near completion) through Human Resources Development Canada and a range of other funders.

- Produced MTE In-Print -- comprehensive proceedings of the Moving the Economy (MTE) Conference which have evolved into MTE On-Line, a searchable, expandable on-line database of economic success stories and best practices related to sustainable transportation, making Toronto the international hub of information linking sustainable transportation and economic opportunity.

- Consulted on development of MTE spinoff events in Canada, the US, the UK, and Central America.

- Developed a Sector Development Strategy for Sustainable Transportation for Toronto's particular context, through extensive consultations with business, government (all levels), labour, and community groups. Drawing from these consultations and the 200 international examples at the conference, two key directions and 7 key activities for Phase 3 implementation of the Sector Development Strategy are proposed, with the aim of attracting investment to and creating jobs in Toronto's sustainable transportation sector (see attached).

- Secured core funding for Phase 3 (Implementation), to begin in June of 1999.

Goals and Objectives for Sustainable Transportation Sector Development Strategy Identified in Phase Two

- To position Toronto as an internationally known hub of sustainable transportation sector development and job creation.

- To move from strategy to action on seven core activities related to sector development as identified and refined in Phase 2, including the establishment of a Sector Development Agency which would serve as a multi-partner home for future MTE economic development and job creation activities related to sustainable transportation.

- To build upon and attract private and public investment specific to the seven core activities identified for Phase 3 within a three year self-sufficiency schedule. Annual investments attracted to Calstart's member businesses in California grew from zero to over $1 billion between 1995 and 1999. (See Calstart summary, attached).

- To create jobs and economic spinoffs related to the seven core activities identified for Phase 3. Job creation related to Calstart's member businesses grew from zero in 1995 to over 11,000 in 1999. (See Calstart summary, attached). It should be noted that Calstart's development activities began in 1992, allowing a three year period before significant job creation results could be measured. Moving the Economy's developmental activity is well underway and could see substantial job creation results within the next two to three years. It should be noted that in addition to seven specific core initiatives, additional jobs would be created by members / partners in the Sector Development Agency as a result of strategic alliances and other services provided by the Agency.

- To engage and benefit the community in developing Toronto's sustainable transportation sector, through increased business spinoffs, job creation, air quality and quality of life improvements.

- To build upon existing partnerships and to engage additional partners, in particular in the business / corporate sector as full Sector Development Agency partners.

- To support the City's strategic and official plan objectives regarding economic competitiveness , smog reduction, affordable transit, and the efficient use of public funds in ensuring citizens and businesses have access to the people and goods they need.

Phase Three Sector Development Initiatives (begins June, 1999)

1. Sector Development Agency (Key Direction): Building from Calstart's successful transportation business development consortium in California, Toronto's Sector Development Agency would provide a home for the range of sustainable transportation sector development activities, including Incubation and Pilot Development, Partnership Building and Strategic Alliances, Financial Support, and Marketing. (see attached).

2. Personal Mobility Systems (Key Direction): Building from the Swiss Mobility System showcased at the conference, one electronic smart card links a range of sustainable transportation choices including transit, inter-city rail, car sharing (linking with existing initiatives such as Auto Share and FAAN), car and bicycle rentals, etc. This ultimately seamless system has the effect of increasing consumer choice, enhancing sustainable transportation integration, and stimulating a range of businesses, industry, and associated employment (see attached).

3. Information and Analysis: MTE ON-Line: Building on the conference proceedings and presented in a similar accessible format, MTE On-Line is an expandable, accesible, searchable electronic database of sustainable transportation success stories from around the world. It establishes Toronto as the international source of research and information on the economic benefits of sustainable transportation.

4. Partnership Building and Strategic Expertise: Phase 2 consultations identified two major gaps in economic development related to sustainable transportation: sustainable goods movement and "not moving" people and goods. The conference highlighted significant opportunities in targeting goods movement in urban areas as an economic development focus. The conference also brought together two themes related to "not moving" people and goods: telecommunications to replace travel and enhance efficiencies, and land use and green development to reduce the need to travel. MTE has already been approached by a group representing Canada's rail industry for partnership in promoting rail as a viable economic and environmental solution in the urban context. The MTE team has also conducted a strategic meeting on "not moving" people and goods in the urban context.

5. Financial Support: The Sector Development Agency would lever resources to provide business start-up funds for sustainable transportation enterprises. Attracting money to help develop and pilot specific products has been key to Calstart's success. The Agency would also work to support implementation of innovative financing mechanisms, in particular those highlighted in studies undertaken by the Federal Transportation Tables charged with meeting Canada's Kyoto targets.

6. Research and Development: Phase 2 identified a need for a comprehensive approach to information around job creation and sustainable transportation, both locally and worldwide. Phase 3 will build on initial Phase 2 research to further explore employment opportunities in the sustainable transportation sector. The Sector Development Agency will identify additional research needs based on pilot and partnership development.

7. Marketing Services: Detour Publications (of Transportation Options) has expanded from its internationally distributed Catalogue of Sustainable Transportation and Urban Ecology Books and Resources to provide on-line ordering of an even wider range of sustainable transportation information and products. Detour will be directly linked to MTE On-Line to provide direct access to information and products related to MTE. Based on its information base, Detour identifies gaps and publishes, produces, and sells products to fill those gaps. Detour also brings together local and international expertise in marketing and advertising to address the current vacuum in applied sustainable transportation marketing.

Phase Two Consultations on Sector Development

Phase Two consultations have occurred through meetings or within topic-specific focus groups. Consultations that have been conducted or arranged include but are not limited to the following:

Brian Ashton City Councillor and Chair, Economic Development Committee

Paul Bain City of Toronto Official Plan

Suzanne Barrett Bidco / Olympic Committee

Paul Bedford Executive Director and Chief Planner, City of Toronto

David Bell Chair, York Centre for Applied Sustainability

Pamela Blais Metropole Consultants

Bob Brent Chief Marketing Officer, TTC

Roger Cameron General Manager Public and Government Affairs, Railway Ass'n of Canada

Kevin Currie Owner, Wheel Excitement

Frances Chung GO Transit

Rick Ducharme Managing Director GO Transit

Daniel Egan Manager, Pedestrian and Cycling Policy, City WES

Jeff Evenson Bidco / Olympic Committee

Peter Finestone Director of International Marketing, City of Toronto EDCT

Peter Gabor Gabor and Popper Architects

Richard Gilbert Managing Director Centre for Sustainable Transport / OECD Consultant

Janet Hall Toronto Economic Development Corporation

Catherine Higgins Transport Canada

John Hutchison Transportation Consultant

John Howe Ontario Jobs and Investment Board

Neil Irwin Managing Director, IBI Group

Phil Jessup Executive Director, Toronto Atmospheric Fund

Jack Layton City Councillor, and FCM Vice Chair

Barbara Leonhardt Director of Policy and Research , UPDS

Ed Levy Chair, BA Group and Chair Transportation Committee, Board of Trade

John Livey Commissioner of Planning, York Region

Mark Maloney Office of the Mayor of Toronto

Rocco Maragna FAAN

Randy Marsh Manager of Government and Public Affairs Canadian Pacific

Rod McPhail Director of Transportation Planning, City UPDS

Robert Millward Past Commissioner, Toronto Planning Department

Frank McLean Senior Consultant, Urban Economic Development, MEDTT

Randy McLean City of Toronto Economic Development, Culture and Tourism

Lynn Morrow Greater Toronto Services Board

Ken Ogilvie Executive Director, Pollution Probe, Chair Federal Table to meet Kyoto targets

Liz Reynolds Owner and Director, Auto Share

Dave Roberts Canadian Urban Transit Association

Ron Roffey Transit Manager, Ajax Transit and initiator of Combo Card

Loretta Ryan Policy Advisor, Toronto Board of Trade

Teresa Sarkesian Vice President, Samci

Greg Stewart Program Co-ordinator, Transportation Planning, UPDS

Andrew Stein Office of the Mayor of Toronto

Allan Tonks Chairman, Greater Toronto Services Board

Bill Van Amburg CALSTART, VP Marketing

Peter Valade General Manager, RaiLink Ltd

Conrad Wagner Director, Swiss Mobility Systems

Kerry Voumvakis Manager, Official Plan and Zoning, UPDS

Jane Weninger Co-ordinator, Toronto Environmental Task Force

Marlene Ziobrowski Street City Bikes

Additional: 90 attendees of the Moving the Economy Reunion; The General Motors Global Investigation Team; Twenty French Ministers and Mayors; and MTE international advisors including

Dr. Peter Newman (Australia); Robin Murray (U.K.); Whitney Birch (U.S.); Ricardo Neves (Brasil);

Maria Figueroa (U.N. Denmark)

Contact Name:

Sue Zielinski

SustainableTransportation Planner

Telephone: (416)392-1556, Fax: (416)392-0071, e-mail: szielinski@toronto.ca

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it the following material, which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting of May 17, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- Fact Sheets on Calstart, Personal Mobility Systems, and other relevant information.

- Overhead Summaries of Sector Development Strategy Presentation

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits to Council for its information a copy of the approved consolidated financial statements of the Toronto Transit Commission for the year ended December 31, 1998 as required by the City of Toronto Act.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (May 6, 1999) from the Interim General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, May 5, 1999, the Commission considered the attached report entitled, "Consolidated Financial Statements Of Toronto Transit Commission For Year Ended December 31, 1998."

The Commission adopted the Recommendation contained in the above report, without amendment, and directed that a copy be forwarded to the City Urban Environment and Development Committee and Toronto City Council for information, as required by the City of Toronto Act.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Commission:

(1) receive and approve the attached consolidated financial statements of the Toronto Transit Commission for the year ended December 31, 1998; and

(2) forward a copy of the approved consolidated financial statements to the City of Toronto Council, through the City Urban Environment and Development Committee, as required by the City of Toronto Act.

Discussion:

In previous years, the annual financial statements of the Commission have been reviewed by an Audit Committee, before submission to the Commission. However, at a meeting of the Commission's Audit Committee on March 25, 1998, it was agreed that no further Audit Committee meetings would be convened and that all future reports would be brought forward for consideration at public Commission meetings. Consequently, the financial statements of the Commission for the year ended December 31, 1998 are hereby submitted for approval. Formal approval should be signified by the signature of the consolidated balance sheet by two Commissioners.

In order to more fully comply with generally accepted accounting principles, the 1998 statements are presented on a consolidated basis. This means that the financial statements of Toronto Coach Terminal Inc., TTC Insurance Company Limited, Toronto Transit Consultants Limited and Toronto Transit Commission have been joined together and presented as a single, combined entity. It should be noted, however, that separate financial statements will still be presented at the annual meetings of each of the subsidiaries.

Section 36 of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 requires that "....immediately after the end of each calendar year, the commission shall prepare, deliver to the council, and make available to the public a complete audited and certified financial statement of its affairs, including a revenue and expense account, a balance sheet and a profit and loss statement." The statements should be routed to Council through the appropriate Standing Committee.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Reconstruction of Track Allowance and Pavement, Sidewalk and Curb on Queen Street East from Carlaw Avenue to Greenwood Avenue - Contract No. TO9901RD (59725), Tender Call No. 54-1999 (Toronto East and Don River).

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having awarded the contract as recommended in the joint report (May 3, 1999) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer in accordance with By-law No. 57-1998, the Interim Purchasing By-law, as amended.

(May 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer advising of the results of the Tender issued for the reconstruction of track allowance and pavement, sidewalk and curb on Queen Street East from Carlaw Avenue to Greenwood Avenue, 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 and recommending that Contract No. TO9901RD (59725), Tender Call No. 54-1999 for the reconstruction of track allowance and pavement, sidewalk and curb on Queen Street East from Carlaw Avenue to Greenwood Avenue be awarded to GM Sansalone Engineering Inc. in the total amount of $2,151,865.80 including all taxes and charges being the lowest tender received.

(b) Appointment of Trustee Donald Clune, Toronto Catholic District School Board, to the Toronto Pedestrian Committee.

The Committee reports having received the communication (March 15, 1999) from Johanne Stewart, Director of Education and Secretary of the Board, Toronto Catholic District School Board advising of the appointment of Mr. Donald Clune, Trustee, as their representative on The Toronto Pedestrian Committee.

(c) 1999-2000 Schedule of Meetings of the City of Toronto Council.

The Committee reports having:

(1) received the 1999-2000 Schedule of Meetings of the City of Toronto Council, Community Councils and Committees; and

(2) requested the City Clerk to review the necessity of including a full copy of material such as this on future Committee agendas.

(April 22, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding the revised 1999-2000 Schedule of Meetings of the City of Toronto Council, Community Councils and its Committees, commencing on June 14, 1999, as adopted by the City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999.

(d) Union Station Crowding: Long-Term Solution and Interim Crowd Control Plan.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the communication (May 6, 1999) from the Interim General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission to the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services with a request that he report to the Planning and Transportation Committee with a status report on the Council-approved establishment of a special reserve fund for private-sector contributions towards the cost of expanding Union Subway Station and the establishment of a mechanism for obtaining contributions towards that fund.

(May 6, 1999) from Interim General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission forwarding a copy of Report No. 14 of its meeting on May 5, 1999 to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for information in response to a request by Toronto City Council at its meeting on May 13 and 14, 1998 for the Toronto Transit Commission to develop a crowd control management plan for Union Subway Station and requesting the Urban Environment and Development Committee through the appropriate City of Toronto staff to provide a status update on the Council-approved establishment of a special reserve fund for private-sector contributions towards the cost of expanding Union Subway Station and the establishment of a mechanism for obtaining contributions towards that fund.

Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE

Chair

Toronto, May 17, 1999

(Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999.)