Third Party Outdoor Advertising
on City Property (All Wards)
The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends:
(1) the adoption of the following report (January 4, 2000) from the Commissioner of
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, subject to amending Recommendation
No. (1) by adding thereto the words "save and except Question 4c of the Survey", so
that the Recommendation shall read as follows:
"(1) Council receive the results of the public opinion survey and authorize the
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, the Commissioner of
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, save and except Question 4c of the Survey;";
and
(2) that the aforementioned Question 4c of the Survey be referred to the
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for further
consideration and report thereon to the Economic Development and Parks Committee.
Purpose:
To report on the results of the public consultation undertaken regarding the draft
principles for Third Party Outdoor Advertising endorsed by City Council on September
28 and 29, 1999; to advise City Council of the next steps regarding the development of
a Third Party Outdoor Advertising program; and to request City Council's
authorization to investigate the City of Toronto'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) City Council receive the results of the public opinion survey and authorize the
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, the Commissioner of
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) City Council authorize the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and
Tourism, and the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services to investigate the City of
Toronto'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 Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and the Acting Commissioner of
Corporate Services be requested to submit a joint report back to City Council on
Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) in the year 2000;
(4) this report be forwarded to the Administration Committee for information; and
(5) City 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 and 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 and 27, 1998, recommended that the existing Metro
signboard agreements continue until City Council has adopted a City-wide policy. City
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 and 17, 1998, City Council considered a report from the
Commissioner of 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 and 30, 1999, City Council adopted the
recommendations of a joint report from the Commissioner of Economic Development,
Culture and Tourism and the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services which
presented a series of draft principles for Third Party Outdoor Advertising endorsed by
City Council as a basis for public consultation. City 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. City 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 City 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 nine out of ten 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 percent 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 percent 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 percent 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 (i.e., 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 percent of
respondents indicated that they either strongly disagree or disagree with this
statement;
(2) 55.3 percent 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 percent of respondents indicated that they either strongly
disagree or disagree with this statement.
(3) 61.9 percent 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 percent 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
percent and 67.5 percent 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 of
Toronto. 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, City 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 City Council authorize the Acting Commissioner of Corporate
Services and the Commissioner of 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 City 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 and 30, 1999,
directed the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the
Acting Commissioner of 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 City
Council receive the results of the public opinion survey and authorize the
Commissioners of 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 City 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 Name:
Ms. Karen Thorne-Stone, Director of Administration and Support Services, Tel:
395-6152,
Fax: 395-0388.
Attachment No. 1
Public Opinion Survey
Attachment No. 1
Public Opinion Survey
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 percent
Agree - 10.0 percent
No Opinion - 1.3 percent
Disagree - 3.8 percent
Strongly Disagree - 1.9 percent
(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 percent
Agree - 16.0 percent
No Opinion - 1.9 percent
Disagree - 7.4 percent
Strongly Disagree - 2.5 percent
(c) Third party outdoor advertising should be permitted in "active" parkland areas
where sports and recreational uses take place (i.e., 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 percent
Agree - 36.4 percent
No Opinion - 4.9 percent
Disagree - 11.1 percent
Strongly Disagree - 33.3 percent
(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 percent
Agree - 9.3 percent
No Opinion - 1.2 percent
Disagree - 4.3 percent
Strongly Disagree - 1.2 percent
(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 percent
Agree - 44.7 percent
No Opinion - 2.5 percent
Disagree - 15.5 percent
Strongly Disagree - 26.7 percent
(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 percent
Agree - 16.9 percent
No Opinion - 10.0 percent
Disagree - 22.5 percent
Strongly Disagree - 5.6 percent
(b) Additional third party outdoor advertising should be allowed on street furniture
(i.e., 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 percent
Agree - 57.3 percent
No Opinion - 1.3 percent
Disagree - 5.7 percent
Strongly Disagree - 10.8 percent
(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 percent
Agree - 49.4 percent
No Opinion - 8.1 percent
Disagree - 13.1 percent
Strongly Disagree - 11.3 percent
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
The Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the communication
(January 14, 2000) from Mr. James L. Robinson, Urban Design Co-ordinator,
Bloor-Yorkville BIA:
In communities where there are Business Improvement Areas, the streetscape is a
joint responsibility of both the B.I.A. and the City.
We would, therefore, like to recommend that in areas with B.I.A.s, new programs for
third party advertising on municipally-owned lands be established only with the
support of the local B.I.A.
The Board of Management for the Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A. has taken the position of
limiting third party advertising within the B.I.A. This results from the following:
Streetscape Considerations:
All installations on the road allowances require careful consideration in regard to their
integration with the streetscape. B.I.A. involvement is essential in ensuring that
established streetscape and street furniture standards are maintained.
Advertising Signage Issues:
The urban landscape is visually cluttered with illegal sandwich boards, billboards,
store signage bus shelter advertising, newspaper boxes, and traffic signage. It is
important to work with the community in considering an appropriate level of
advertising and signage for an area.
Promote Local Business:
A primary mandate of B.I.A.s is to promote our local businesses. Allowing further
opportunities for advertising out of area interests is of concern to local merchants.
With the support of our local Councillors, the Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A. was one of the
areas in the City that was excluded from the installation of the new litter bins with
advertising. We would request similar consideration in any new projects for third party
advertising within our Business Improvement Area.
Thank you for your consideration.
_________
Councillor Frances Nunziata, York Humber, appeared before the Economic
Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.