January 4, 2000

To: Economic Development and Parks Committee

From: Joe Halstead, Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism

Subject: Third Party Outdoor Advertising on City Property

All Wards

Purpose:

To report on the results of the public consultation undertaken regarding the draft principles for Third Party Outdoor Advertising endorsed by Council on September 28, 29,1999. To advise Council of the next steps regarding the development of a Third Party Outdoor Advertising program. The report also seeks Council's authorization to investigate the City's options regarding alternate methods of tendering the leasing of third party outdoor advertising locations.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council receive the results of the public opinion survey and authorize the Commissioners Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; Works and Emergency Services; and the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services to continue developing a third party outdoor advertising program which takes into consideration the results of the survey;

(2) Council authorize the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and the Acting Commissioner Corporate Services to investigate the City's options with respect to suggestions made by sign industry representatives regarding alternate methods of tendering the leasing of third party outdoor sign locations;

(3) the Commissioners Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; Works and Emergency Services; and the Acting Commissioner Corporate Services submit a joint report back to Council on recommendations (1) and (2) in the year 2000;

(4) this report be forwarded to the Administration Committee for information; and

(5) Council forward this report to the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions for their information.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting on July 29, 30, 31, 1998, recommended the adoption of a report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services to terminate existing signboard agreements for certain non-conforming signboard locations, and to issue a tender to lease certain other locations. The Commissioner was also requested to prepare a report to the Corporate Services Committee respecting the tendering of signboards presently located on former Metropolitan Toronto properties. City Council, at its meeting on November 25, 26, 27, 1998, recommended that the existing Metro signboard agreements continue until Council has adopted a City-wide policy. Council also directed a report be prepared regarding policies, process and criteria for tendering signboards, and that this report ensure that there will be more than one provider of these advertising services.

At its meeting on December 16, 17, 1998, Council considered a report from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism regarding third party outdoor advertising and adopted a recommendation that called for the establishment of a staff project team to examine issues related to this matter.

At its meeting on September 28, 29, 30, 1999, Council adopted the recommendations of a joint report from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department and the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services which presented a series of draft principles for Third Party Outdoor Advertising endorsed by Council as a basis for public consultation. Council directed the Commissioners to report back on the results of the public consultation by February 1, 2000, and authorized the development of a draft third party outdoor advertising program, so that the tendering process may begin, at the very latest, at the end of March 2000. Council also requested that the City's Agencies, Boards and Commissions be included in the consultation process.

Public Consultation

In order to gauge public response to the draft principles for third party outdoor advertising endorsed by Council, an eight-question opinion survey was developed and mailed to approximately 900 ratepayer, resident and business associations, facility user groups, environmental and heritage associations, arena boards of management, and horticulture/gardening clubs. In addition, thousands of copies of the survey were made available at civic centres, community centres and libraries for pick-up and response. A copy of the survey is Attachment No. 1.

A total of 164 surveys were returned. The tabulated responses to several of the questions indicate a clear preference on behalf of the majority of respondents regarding third party outdoor advertising. Approximately 9 out of 10 respondents strongly agree or agree that third party outdoor advertising should not be allowed within natural or passive parkland areas, including children's play areas, or on City-owned heritage buildings, heritage sites or other heritage assets. A clear majority of respondents, 82.1% strongly agree or agree that additional third party outdoor advertising should be allowed on street furniture provided that such advertising does not detract from public safety, streetscape aesthetics, or from the residential amenity or business interests of the surrounding community. In addition, 67.5% of respondents agree or strongly agree that stand alone third party outdoor advertising signs should be allowed only in select locations within the road allowance if the sign also serves the public interest by, for example, exhibiting public service announcements.

With respect to the remaining questions, the opinion of the respondents is clearly divided:

(1) 50.6% of respondents indicated that they either strongly agree or agree that third party outdoor advertising should be permitted in active parkland where sports and recreational uses take place (ie. sports fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, outdoor ice rinks) provided it does not detract, physically or visually, from the use or enjoyment of the parkland or sports/recreational facilities. 44.4% of respondents indicated that they either strongly disagree or disagree with this statement.

(2) 55.3% of respondents indicated that they either agree or strongly agree that third party outdoor advertising should be permitted on City-owned buildings such as community centres, service buildings and arenas (excluding heritage buildings and Civic Centres). 42.2% of respondents indicated that they either strongly disagree or disagree with this statement.

(3) 61.9% of respondents indicated that they either strongly agree or agree that additional third party outdoor advertising signs should not be allowed anywhere within City road allowances. 28.1% of respondents indicated that they either disagree or strongly disagree with this statement.

The public response regarding third party outdoor advertising in road allowances is significant. While response to the general question regarding road allowances suggests limited support for allowing third party outdoor advertising, the more detailed questions regarding allowing advertising on street furniture and in select road allowance locations received a significantly greater level of acceptance, with 82.1% and 67.5 % of respondents in favour, respectively. The staff team believes this is because the more detailed questions refer to qualifying considerations

such as maintaining public safety, streetscape aesthetics and signage that may also serve the public interest. This suggests that a third party outdoor advertising program which includes provisions that address issues such as public safety and streetscape appearance may also receive broader public acceptance.

Many of the surveys returned include written comments, offering a wide variety of issues and opinions. Many of the comments expressed concern with the existing level of outdoor advertising and its negative impact upon the appearance of the City. Several respondents suggested that if third party outdoor advertising is to be permitted on City assets, that it be done in accordance with design and content guidelines, and that issues such as public safety and streetscape aesthetics be considered. Still other respondents commented that the City should profit from third party advertising. A detailed tabulation of the survey results and a summary of the written comments are as Attachment No. 2.

In addition to the survey, meetings were organized with representatives of City Agencies, Boards and Commissions, and with representatives of the outdoor sign industry. The meetings were held as information sessions, allowing the staff team to provide an update on its work. The sign companies offered interesting insight regarding trends and product development in their industry. With respect to the tendering process, the sign company representatives offered ideas such as master lease agreements, retaining the services of a sign consultant to provide expertise and act as the City's leasing agent. They suggested that staff review how the cities of Montreal, Quebec City and Calgary manage their third party outdoor advertising programs.

Comments:

Alternate Methods of Tendering Sign Locations

In 1998, Council allowed existing signboard agreements to continue until such time as a uniform process for tendering sign locations has been adopted. As noted above, the sign industry representatives have provided staff with several ideas regarding alternate methods of tendering and leasing third party outdoor advertising sign locations, including traditional billboards and potential new sign products. Staff find these suggestions worthy of further investigation and consideration.

Staff recommend that Council authorize the Acting Commissioner Corporate Services and the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to investigate the City's options with respect to suggestions made by sign industry representatives regarding alternate methods of leasing and tendering third party outdoor sign locations and to report back to Council as early as possible in 2000. In addition, as suggested by the sign industry representatives, staff will also undertake a review of how other cities manage and implement their third party outdoor advertising programs.

Third Party Outdoor Advertising Program

The staff team is proceeding with the development of a draft third party outdoor advertising program, taking into consideration the findings of the public opinion survey. Clearly, the results of the survey suggest that there is little support for such advertising within natural and passive parkland areas, including children's play areas, or on City-owned heritage buildings, heritage sites or other heritage assets.

The draft program will concentrate upon those areas where the survey suggests there may be more acceptance of third party outdoor advertising such as street furniture and select road allowance locations where signage may also serve the public interest. In the development of the draft program, staff will also consider those areas where the results of the survey suggest opinions are more evenly divided, namely active parkland areas, City-owned buildings (excluding heritage buildings and Civic Centres) and other road allowance locations. Staff will report back on appropriate venues, sign types and design guidelines as part of the draft program. Recommendations may also be made on potential innovative sign products that can promote the City's programs and services as well as include third party outdoor advertising.

With respect to timing, City Council, at its meeting on September 28, 29, 30, 1999, directed the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Acting Commissioner Corporate Services to report back on the results of the public consultation by February 1, 2000, so that the tendering process may begin at the very latest at the end of March 2000. The sign industry representatives provided interesting suggestions, which will require further investigation. In addition, the opinion survey results suggest a third party outdoor advertising program, which includes adequate design, content, and location guidelines will receive greater public acceptance. Therefore, the staff team believes it appropriate to spend additional time developing a comprehensive program, which takes into account these considerations, and will achieve desired results over the short and long term.

Both the tabulated survey results and the written comments submitted suggest that the public may be more amenable to third party outdoor advertising if proper design, location and content guidelines are developed. Although these guidelines will take additional time to prepare, the staff team believes that they will have a significant impact upon how the program is received by the public. It is recommended that Council receive the results of the public opinion survey and authorize the Commissioners Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; Works and Emergency Services; and the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services to continue developing a draft third party outdoor advertising program, which takes into consideration the results of the survey, and report back to Council as early as possible in 2000.

Conclusions:

The results of the public opinion survey suggest that, while there are concerns regarding the effects of third party outdoor advertising on City-owned lands and buildings, a modest program which is sensitive to public safety and visual appearance issues, and which also serves the public interest, may be acceptable to the general public. The staff team will continue to develop the draft program, including signage design, location and content guidelines, for Council's consideration. Implementation of the third party outdoor advertising program will have to take into consideration progress made in the harmonization of the existing sign by-laws.

Contact:

Karen Thorne-Stone

Director of Administration & Support Services

Tel: 395-6152

Fax: 395-0388

Joe Halstead Brenda Glover

Commissioner Economic Development, Acting Commissioner

Culture and Tourism Corporate Services

List of Attachments:

Attachment No. 1 - Public Opinion Survey

Attachment No. 2 - Tabulation of Survey Results and Summary of Written Comments

Attachment No. 2 (cont'd)

The following is a summary of the written comments received through the Public Opinion Survey. Staff have grouped the comments under headings for easy reference. Some comments have been interpreted or paraphrased by staff for clarification and grouping purposes. The number following each comment refers to the number of respondents (if more than one) who submitted similar comments.

Visual Appearance / Design Considerations

Too much advertising / visual clutter / sign pollution - 24

Advertising should be subject to design and location guidelines - 9

Maintain streetscape aesthetics - 4

Don't allow many signs close together in one area

Sign Location

No advertising on publicly-owned property or public transit - 5

No advertising in parklands, sports fields, etc. - 4

No advertising on street furniture - 5

Third party advertising incompatible with parkland - 3

Advertising should be allowed on street furniture / transit shelters - 9

No advertising on city-owned buildings - 2

Advertising not compatible in historical areas - 3

Advertising in "active" parkland areas should be available only to the services in that location , i.e. tennis clubs, rinks

Advertising on heritage properties should be permitted with guidelines

Heritage properties and natural parkland are cheapened by commercial advertisements

Minimize advertising in areas where children are the principal users of the facilities

Revenue Generation / Use of Revenues

City should not be involved in third party advertising in order to raise money - 4

Money earned from advertising on City property should be spent to further the naturalization -3

City should make profit from advertising - 2

Money accrued from any advertising on City-owned properties should be spent on educating the public about the pitfalls associated with using pesticides on private lands - 2

Do more with sponsorship-teams, leagues, events classes, etc. for extra funding

Money earned from advertising should be used for parkland conservation or improvements for the host facility

Public Safety

Address public safety considerations - 7

Distraction of motorists should be avoided - 3

General / Other

Need guidelines for advertising content - 2

Fear that advertising in parkland will lead to privatization of parkland

Concern with ethical ramifications of advertising on City property

Allow advertising, but in moderation - 3

B.I.A.'s should have input

Advertising to be permitted only if the third party has contributed to the public interest

Attachment No. 2

Tabulated Results of Opinion Survey

1. Parkland

a) Third party outdoor advertising should not be allowed within "natural" parkland areas.

Strongly Agree - 83.1 %

Agree - 10.0 %

No Opinion - 1.3 %

Disagree - 3.8 %

Strongly Disagree - 1.9 %

b) Third party outdoor advertising should not be allowed within "passive" parkland areas (where leisure activities take place like walking or reading) or gardens.

Strongly Agree - 72.2.0 %

Agree - 16.0 %

No Opinion - 1.9 %

Disagree - 7.4 %

Strongly Disagree - 2.5 %

c) Third party outdoor advertising should be permitted in "active" parkland areas where sports and recreational uses take place (ie. sports fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, outdoor ice rinks) provided it does not detract, physically or visually, from the use or enjoyment of the parkland or sports/recreational facilities.

Strongly Agree - 14.2 %

Agree - 36.4 %

No Opinion - 4.9 %

Disagree - 11.1 %

Strongly Disagree - 33.3 %

2. Heritage Properties

a) Third party outdoor advertising should not be allowed on City-owned heritage buildings, heritage sites and other heritage assets.

Strongly Agree - 84.0 %

Agree - 9.3 %

No Opinion - 1.2 %

Disagree - 4.3 %

Strongly Disagree - 1.2 %

3. Buildings

a) Third party outdoor advertising should be permitted on City-owned buildings such as community centres, service buildings and arenas (excluding heritage buildings and Civic Centres)

Strongly Agree - 10.6 %

Agree - 44.7 %

No Opinion - 2.5 %

Disagree - 15.5 %

Strongly Disagree - 26.7 %

4. Road allowances (A road allowance consists of the road, sidewalk and boulevard area)

a) Additional third party outdoor advertising signs should not be allowed anywhere within City road allowances.

Strongly Agree - 45.0 %

Agree - 16.9 %

No Opinion - 10.0 %

Disagree - 22.5 %

Strongly Disagree - 5.6 %

b) Additional third party outdoor advertising should be allowed on street furniture (ie. transit shelters, benches, litter bins) located within the road allowance, provided that such advertising does not detract from public safety, streetscape aesthetics, or from the residential amenity or business interests of the surrounding community.

Strongly Agree - 24.8 %

Agree - 57.3 %

No Opinion - 1.3 %

Disagree - 5.7 %

Strongly Disagree - 10.8 %

c) Stand-alone third party outdoor advertising signs should be allowed only in select locations within the road allowance if the sign also serves the public interest by, for example, exhibiting public service announcements.

Strongly Agree - 18.1 %

Agree - 49.4 %

No Opinion - 8.1 %

Disagree - 13.1 %

Strongly Disagree - 11.3 %