CITY CLERK

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 3

For Consideration by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999


1 Draft Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendments to Permit Second Suites As-of-Right

2 Amendments to the Licensing By-law: Ambassador Class Cabs

3 Review of Sub-Committees, Special Committees andTask Forces

4 Amendments to By-law No. 20-85, the Licensing By-law: Massage Therapists

5 Proposal to Bury the F.G. Gardiner Expressway Below Grade Between Dufferin Street and the Don River
(Trinity-Niagara, Downtown, Don River - Wards 20, 24 & 25)

6 Attendance at Conference

7 Other Items Considered by the Committee



City of Toronto


REPORT No. 3

OF THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on July 12, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Joanne Flint, Chair)


As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999


1

Draft Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendments

to Permit Second Suites As-of-Right

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, considered this Clause in conjunction with Clause No. 9 of Report No. 2 of The Community Services Committee, headed "Proposed 'Add-A-Suite' Incentive Program".

Council amended the Clauses:

(1) in accordance with the recommendations embodied in the report dated July 22, 1999, from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, subject to deleting from Recommendation No. (4) the words "two years old" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "5 years old", so that such recommendations shall now read as follows:

"It is recommended that:

(1) the term 'row house' in Part (3)(i) embodied in Recommendation No. (1) of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Planning and Transportation Committee be deleted;

(2) Council adopt the recommendations embodied in Clause No. 1 in Report No. 3 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, as amended by Recommendation No. (1) above, which responds to Council's directive on May 11 and 12, 1999, that unnecessary barriers to the creation of second suites be removed and that the City's planning documents be amended to permit second suites as-of-right in all single- and semi-detached houses, subject to appropriate building, fire and property standards being met and consistent with the approach taken in the 1994 provincial legislation;

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action to give effect thereto, including preparing and introducing any necessary bills; and

(4) Council modify the proposed zoning amendments to include a requirement that single- or semi-detached houses across the City of Toronto be a minimum of five years old before permitting the creation of a second suite.";

(2) to provide that:

(a) the area of a second suite shall be smaller than the remaining area of the original unit; and

(b) all portions of the Clauses pertaining to the registration of second suites and the following motions related thereto, be referred to the Planning and Transportation Committee for report thereon to Council for its regular meeting to be held on October 26, 1999:

Moved by Councillor Cho:

"That Part (3) of the motion by Councillor Flint be amended to provide that:

(1) registration take place prior to, or at the same time, as the lease on the second suite closes; and

(2) the City grant a six-month grace period to those persons already living in a second suite and the owners who have been renting their second suites."

Moved by Councillor Duguid:

"That Part (3) of the motion of Councillor Flint be amended by deleting the words 'and annually thereafter', and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

'and that the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to apply to the Province of Ontario for an amendment to the Municipal Act to permit municipalities to undertake an annual inspection and impose an annual registration fee for each second suite.' "

Moved by Councillor Nunziata:

"That Part (4) of the motion by Councillor Flint be struck out and the following be inserted in lieu thereof:

'(4) that the City establish a system for the registration of two-unit houses authorizing these suites only where there is compliance with the Zoning By-law, the Property Standards By-law, the Fire Code and the Building Code, and that such registration be reviewed when the Registrar receives complaints with respect to the second unit and revoked when there is a breach of any of these laws or when inspection to determine a breach is refused.' "

Moved by Councillor Flint:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) Recommendation No. (4) of the Planning and Transportation Committee be deleted;

(2) a By-law, substantially in the form of the draft by-law attached to the report dated June 22, 1999, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, regarding registration of second suites, be approved, and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto;

(3) a fee of $75.00 be charged for each second suite; such fee to be payable at the time of registration and annually thereafter; and

(4) Council endorse an enforcement strategy based upon responding to complaints and voluntary compliance by homeowners and tenants."

Moved by Councillor Duguid:

"It is further recommended that, if a registration system for second suites is adopted by Council, staff be requested to apply to the Province of Ontario for an amendment to the relevant legislation to increase the maximum fine for failure to register a second suite to $25,000.00 from $5,000.00."

Moved by Councillor Li Preti:

"It is further recommended that a permanent registry of 'add-a-suite' be established by the appropriate Department."

Moved by Councillor Bossons:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the City establish and maintain a registry of units existing before enactment of the second suites By-law and units created on the basis of the new By-law, to the extent possible under the rights-of-entry powers available to the City;

(2) the City not charge inspection fees, and the waiving of fees be considered the City's contribution to affordable housing construction; and

(3) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on registry and inspection costs."

Moved by Councillor King:

"It is further recommended that, when the Planning and Transportation Committee gives consideration to the matter of registering second suites, it also give consideration to imposing fines on the owners of those second suites which have not been registered."

Moved by Councillor Minnan-Wong:

"It is further recommended that sufficient enforcement officers be retained for by-law enforcement, property standards and registration and that this be done on a cost-recovery basis from owners who have second suite apartments."

Moved by Councillor Tzekas:

"It is further recommended that the Province of Ontario be requested to amend the Municipal Act to permit the City of Toronto to pass By-laws licensing and regulating units in houses with second suites."; and

(3) by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) the Province of Ontario be requested to:

(i) enact the necessary legislation to permit the prosecution of landlords for property standards or other by-law violations by tenants, where the City has notified the landlord of these violations;

(ii) amend the Tenant Protection Act to permit an expedited eviction process for tenants living in owner-occupied residences in cases involving a breach of contract concerning:

(1) smoking on the premises:

(2) the presence of pets;

(3) unapproved occupants; and

(4) disorderly behaviour;

(iii) amend the Tenant Protection Act and the City of Toronto Act to provide that a landlord's refusal to comply with the Building Code, the Fire Code and municipal by-laws may result in the relocation of the tenant and/or the Municipality undertaking needed repairs and maintenance, with all costs being recovered as taxes;

(iv) ensure that all second suites are assessed as duplexes for property tax purposes, in comparison with other duplexes under the Assessment Act;

(v) amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act to provide that the cost of work carried out under municipal order shall be recovered as taxes;

(vi) create a Municipal By-law Court to deal with all By-law inspections and Building Code violations; and

(vii) give municipalities greater rights of entry, specifically by Building Inspectors;

(b) Council confirm that any 'add-a-suite' incentive grant or capital loan program be restricted to owner-occupied residences to promote stable residential neighbourhoods;

(c) the Second Suites By-law No. 447-1999, being a by-law 'To enact zoning by-law amendments respecting second suites', be reviewed in September 2000;

(d) the City Solicitor be requested to seek the necessary legislative authority from the Province of Ontario, to implement the requirement that second suites only be permitted in owner-occupied buildings;

(e) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Community Services Committee, through the Assessment and Tax Policy Task Force, on:

(i) ensuring that the property tax assessment system takes into account, in a timely fashion, any change in value created by second suites; and

(ii) directing such additional tax revenue toward enhancing enforcement and inspection activities of these units;

(f) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to:

(i) ensure that, where alternative parking standards for second suites do not already exist, at least one additional on-site parking space be provided for a second suite, with the exception of the former City of Toronto area;

(ii) report, as soon as possible, on a mechanism where neighbours could approach the City to help identify solutions to individual or local neighbourhood concerns respecting the condition of properties, including those containing second suites; and

(iii) implement a program for landlords and tenants to educate and inform them of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments related to second suites as-of-right;

(g) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee, as soon as possible, on the possibility of implementing permit parking to accommodate the parking needs of the second suite dwellers;

(h) the following motions be referred to the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for report thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee:

Moved by Councillor Bossons:

'That the Clause be amended to provide that maximum sizes for second suites shall be as follows:

Bachelor/1 Bedroom - 62 m2 or 667 ft2

2 Bedroom - 82 m2 or 882 ft2

3 Bedroom - 98 m2 or 1,054 ft2

and that the draft by-law(s) be amended accordingly.'

Moved by Councillor Giansante:

'It is further recommended that the City Solicitor be requested to review the legislative authority and implement an easier means of access for the landlord/City staff to enter into second suites.'

Moved by Councillor Lindsay Luby:

'It is further recommended that the City Solicitor seek appropriate legislation, as required, to ensure right-of-entry for City staff to inspect for fire and safety issues'; and

(i) Council determine that, pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, no further notice of the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments is to be given in respect thereof."

The Planning and Transportation Committee, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact and recommendations contained in the report (June 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Service, recommends that:

(1) the report (June 24, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to deleting subsection (3) in Section E titled "Amendments to former City of Toronto General Zoning By-law No. 438-86 " included in Appendix C of the report, as it inadvertently permits second suites only in R1 and R1S districts, and substituting in place the following:

"(3) amending qualification 1 in section 6(2) by inserting a new subparagraph (i) as follows:

"(i) in the case of a converted house originally constructed as a detached house, row house or a semi-detached house:

A. in an R1 or R1S district, the maximum number of dwelling units is two and one of the provisions set out in subparagraphs (ii) to (v) inclusive shall apply; and

B. in an R2, R3, R4 and R4A district, where two dwelling units are provided, none of the provisions set out in subparagraphs (ii) to (v) inclusive shall apply;"

and that no further notice is required as a result of this technical amendment;

(2) the report (June 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to the adoption of the report (June 24, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services as amended by the Committee's foregoing Recommendation (1);

(3) the joint report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services respecting Education and Promotional Program of Second Suites, be adopted;

(4) a program for registration of two-unit houses not be adopted, and that the report (June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be received; and

(5) it is ensured that adequate inspection staff is available to protect living standards and to ensure swift action on complaints;

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

(1) requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to analyse and report directly to Council for its meeting on July 27, 1999 on the substantive comments, both written and verbal, made by the deputants and by Councillor Bossons;

(2) held a statutory public hearing on July 12, 1999 in accordance with Sections 17 and 34 of The Planning Act and advises that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder; and

The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (June 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To report on draft official plan amendments and proposed changes to the City's zoning by-laws which will permit second suites as-of-right in all single- and semi-detached houses.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no additional funding or financial implications stemming from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council adopt the proposed official plan amendments in Appendix B which will allow second suites in single- and semi-detached houses throughout the City;

(2) Council enact the proposed zoning by-law amendments in Appendix C subject to any modifications recommended by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and/or arising from the public meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee to be held on July 12, 1999;

(3) in the event that Council adopts new official plan policies and zoning by-law amendments which permit second suites in single- and semi-detached houses as-of-right, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to:

(a) monitor the creation of new second suites and the legalization of existing second suites; and

(b) provide a status report on second suites within two years of the new zoning regulations taking effect, including, if necessary, recommendations on any additional changes to the City's planning documents;

(4) a copy of this report be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and

(5) the appropriate City officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action to give effect thereto, including preparing and introducing any necessary bills.

Background:

At its meeting on May 11 and 12, 1999, City Council directed the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to amend, within 60 days:

(1) the City's planning documents to permit second suites as-of-right in all single- and semi-detached houses, subject to appropriate building, fire and property standards being met and consistent with the approach taken in the 1994 provincial legislation; and

(2) address the removal of unnecessary barriers to the creation of second suites while maintaining the integrity of the Building Code, Fire Code and property standards.

At its meeting of June 14, the Planning and Transportation Committee (PTC) had before it a report titled: "Changes to the City's Planning Documents to Permit Second Suites As-of-Right". The report noted that in order to meet Council's 60-day deadline, a statutory public meeting would need to be scheduled for July 12, and that draft official plan amendments, together with explanations of the proposed zoning by-law amendments, should be available for public viewing as of June 17. At its meeting on June 14, as requested, the PTC scheduled the statutory public meeting for July 12.

This report discusses the proposed changes to the official plans and zoning by-laws that are required to comply with Council's directive and presents draft official plan amendments. The draft zoning by-laws in Appendix C are still under review. Any further revisions to the draft by-laws will be reported on at the public meeting.

Comments:

Increasing the Supply of Affordable Rental Housing: the Role of Second Suites

At its meeting of May 11 & 12, City Council had before it my report entitled: "The Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force Final Report: Recommendations and Policy Directions Related to the Housing Policies of the Official Plan". This report focused on 10 of the Task Force's 105 recommendations - specifically those related to the implementation of an affordable housing action plan using the planning tools at the City's disposal.

The Task Force had identified the shrinking supply of low-cost rental housing as one of the major barriers preventing effective solutions to the increasing problem of homelessness in the City. The Task Force provided compelling evidence of a growing affordability problem for renters as a result of:

- a real decline in tenant incomes;

- rent inflation which has reduced the number of low-cost units; and

- a set of economic and market circumstances which have discouraged investment in new affordable rental housing over many years.

To respond to the severe shortage of affordable housing in the City, the Task Force identified the removal of restrictions and the legalization of second suites as an important part of an overall housing strategy. Second suites were seen as having the following direct benefits:

- they are a cost-effective form of affordable housing which does not require subsidization; and

- they are a means of providing additional income for seniors, allowing them to stay in their homes, and for young families, to help meet mortgage payments.

The report before Council also identified that no new significant problems occurred when second suites were permitted as-of-right throughout the province under provincial legislation between July 14, 1994 and November 16, 1995. Second suites already form a major component of the rental market with 1 in 5 rental units being a second suite.

The Affordable Housing Action Plan and Council's Direction on Second Suites

In recognition of the need to proceed with the implementation of the City's affordable housing action plan in a timely manner, Council directed the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, within 60 days, to amend:

(1) the City's planning documents to permit second suites as-of-right in all single- and semi-detached houses, subject to appropriate building, fire and property standards being met and consistent with the approach taken in the 1994 provincial legislation; and

(2) to address the removal of unnecessary barriers to the creation of second suites while maintaining the integrity of the Building Code, Fire Code and property standards.

It is also important to note that the adoption of policies and enactment of by-laws to permit second suites as-of-right will have the effect of bringing the former area municipal planning documents into compliance with the Official Plan of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. The Metro Official Plan included a provision that the area municipal official plans and zoning by-laws permit apartments-in-houses in residential neighbourhoods.

Use of the Term "Second Suite"

For clarity and consistency, the term "second suite" is being proposed to describe the additional living space that will be permitted in single- and semi-detached houses through the application of the proposed policy and by-laws across the City. Where appropriate, the term second suite will be substituted for other terms currently in use such as accessory suites/apartments and apartments-in-houses.

Developing an Approach Consistent with Previous Provincial Legislation (Bill 120)

As noted above, the recommendation adopted by Council included the clause: "consistent with the approach taken in the 1994 provincial legislation". The intent of referring to the previous provincial legislation is not to reinstate Bill 120 in its entirety and verbatim through the zoning by-laws. Rather, the objective is to adopt, where appropriate, as many of the principles and standards of Bill 120 and to build on existing policies and zoning regulations to meet the direction set by City Council. One of Bill 120's key principles which has been retained is the general rule that: "standards which apply to a house with two units cannot exceed the standards for a house with one unit". This general rule has been used to guide staff in the identification of and removal of potential barriers.

There are some key differences between the provisions of Bill 120 and the proposals outlined in this report. For example, second suites were permitted as-of-right in townhouses under Bill 120. It is proposed here that second suites continue to be permitted in townhouses/rowhouses where existing planning documents allow them (e.g. former municipalities of Toronto and York). However, this permission will not be extended throughout the entire City. One of the main reasons for this is that there are difficulties in providing sufficient parking for second suites in row housing, particularly in the case of condominium row housing where visitor parking requirements can be a major constraint.

Another difference relates to noncompliance with planning standards. Bill 120 did not apply to residential premises that were legal non-conforming uses in zones that did not permit such uses (e.g., industrial areas). The proposed policies and zoning will permit second suites in legal non-conforming single- and semi-detached dwellings.

Removing Barriers to the Implementation of Second Suites

City Council directed staff to address the removal of unnecessary barriers to the creation of second suites while maintaining the integrity of the Building Code, Fire Code and property standards. The following discussion takes a closer look at the actions which have been taken to remove potential barriers.

(i) Floor Area and Lot Area:

The proposed changes take into account the principle that the planning documents should not prohibit alterations to facilitate a second suite in a basement because of standards which define a relationship between floor area and lot area (e.g. where the use of the basement is included in floor area calculations). It is anticipated that the majority of new second suites will be created in basements.

Occupancy of an attic for purposes of a second suite, however, will be treated differently and will be counted in floor space calculations. This reflects the fact that in dwellings where there is no second suite and the additional space is occupied by the household, the floor area of an attic that is used for habitable space is included in the calculation of permitted floor area and other restrictions related to the number of permitted storeys and height are applicable.

(ii) Building Alterations:

The majority of second suites have and will continue to be created by internal alterations to existing houses. The proposed zoning by-laws do not preclude additions to houses to accommodate second suites provided the additions do not contravene zoning standards such as set-back requirements and height limitations. Similar to single-occupancy situations, owners would have to apply for a minor variance or zoning amendment for additions that contravene zoning standards.

(iii) Exit Requirements:

Bill 120 allowed egress from a second suite to the outside through another residential unit. The proposals outlined here also adopt this standard which complies with the Fire Code. The Fire Code provides several options which may be used to provide a suitable means of escape. Two means of escape are required from a second suite where the second suite's access is through a door that involves entering another unit. A window may serve as a second means of escape provided it meets minimum specified requirements.

It may be appropriate, in some situations, to add another door to the outside for the exclusive use of the tenants living in the second suite. In some of the former municipalities there are no restrictions on adding a second door on the front facade of a house while others preclude second doors on the front facade or a side facade that faces a public road. Where such restrictions have been in place, the owner is required to obtain the approval of the Committee of Adjustment to add a second door whether it is to serve the existing unit or a second suite.

Past experience has shown that this restriction has not proved to be a barrier or impediment to the creation of second suites but may emerge as an issue in other areas of the City depending on the design characteristics of the housing stock. In accordance with Council's directive, staff have identified such restrictions as potential barriers and these have been deleted or not included in the proposed zoning by-laws depending on the current circumstances. If this matter is identified as an emerging problem in the course of future monitoring, Council could reintroduce restrictions on alterations to the exterior of houses.

(iv) Unit Limits:

Consistent with the previous provincial legislation, the proposals outlined here exempt second suites from density limits (e.g. not included in the number of units calculations) and do not apply restrictions based on the age of the structure. Bill 120 established maximum unit area requirements which were calculated using the minimum room size figures in the Building Code and municipalities were permitted to set minimum size standards but could not exceed the regulated maximum figures. The proposals in this report rely on the minimum size standards in the Building Code.

(v) Parking Standards:

The proposed parking standards are similar to those in Bill 120. A house with a second suite will not be required to have more than two on-site parking spaces. This means that, with the exception of the former City of Toronto, two parking spaces are required for a house with a second suite. The more permissive standard in the former Toronto, which allows for one parking space for the first unit where parking existed before the addition of the second unit plus one parking space for each dwelling unit in excess of the first two units, will continue.

The proposals allow for the driveway to be used to meet the parking requirement, including that part of the driveway between the facade of the house and the property line. This will facilitate the use of tandem parking. In those cases where front yard parking is currently permitted, the required parking space for the second unit may be as front yard parking provided it meets all other zoning by-law front yard parking requirements, including minimum parking space dimensions and there is no encroachment by the parking space into the municipal road allowance. Street permit parking, where available and previously permitted, may also be sought to provide parking for the second suite.

(vi) Ontario Building Code and Fire Code Standards:

While the proposed by-laws permit below-grade second suites, these units will also be subject to other health and safety requirements specified under the Ontario Building Code (OBC). These include minimum ceiling height, lighting, ventilation and fire exit requirements but are only enforceable for one year after construction of the second suite. Some of the former municipalities identified requirements related to these matters in their zoning by-laws. By contrast, the approach taken here is to refer to the Ontario Building Code which provides Province-wide standards in the zoning by-laws. Furthermore, it may be inappropriate for these matters to be addressed through the zoning by-laws as Section 34 of the Planning Act does not explicitly authorize the municipal regulation of these matters.

The Ontario Building Code has standards that apply to second suites which provide a measure of flexibility in creating and upgrading units while maintaining reasonable levels of safety. New Fire Code standards which apply to houses with two units came into force on July 14, 1994 in conjunction with the proclamation of Bill 120 and are still in force. These standards cover such matters as fire separations between units, fire exits and smoke alarms. Provisions of Bill 120 regarding powers of entry under the Planning Act also remain in effect.

Fire officials have the strongest powers to inspect a property. They may enter without a search warrant where there is reason to believe that risk of fire poses a threat to life. Where occupants do not consent, and there is no reason to believe that there is an immediate threat to life, inspectors are required to obtain a search warrant. Property standards officers typically inspect units when requested to do so by the occupant or where a complaint has been received from another source. Inspectors can enter with the consent of the occupant. If there is no consent, a search warrant must be obtained by showing "reasonable grounds" that a property standards offense has occurred

(vii) Registration:

The Municipal Act provides municipalities with the ability to register second suites. A registration by-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act may specify the standards that must be met to register a house with a second suite (e.g. Building and Fire Codes). Inspection for compliance with the standards may be a condition of registration.

In 1997, East York and York enacted registration by-laws and initiated registration programs. The registration programs in both areas were suspended in June 1998 because of changes to the work program as a result of new municipal priorities and staff reassignments.

The Etobicoke Official Plan permits second suites provided they are registered with the municipality. However, no registration by-law was developed in Etobicoke to implement this policy. To ensure that this administrative oversight does not act as a potential barrier to the creation of second suites it is proposed that, in this specific case, the reference to a registration requirement be deleted from the Etobicoke planning documents.

It should be noted that the former Toronto, with the longest history and experience with second suites, and a substantial stock of them, had no registration by-law. The development of a proposed implementation plan for the registration of second suites in the new City, including a discussion of an enforcement strategy and possible resource requirements, will be reported on separately.

Proposed Changes to the Official Plans and Zoning By-Laws

The proposed changes to the official plans and the zoning by-laws are as follows:

Appendix A: describes the existing and proposed official plan policies and zoning regulations respecting second suites. Changes are proposed to the official plans of the former municipalities except for the Official Plan of the former City of Toronto. Amendments to all of the zoning by-laws of the six former area municipalities are required to meet Council's directive;

Appendix B: contains draft official plan amendments;

Appendix C: contains draft zoning by-law amendments. Staff are finalizing their detailed review of the draft zoning by-laws to determine if further amendments are required. If necessary, a report regarding further amendments will be prepared for the July 12 public meeting.

Conclusion:

This report has outlined the necessary changes to the planning documents to accomplish the task of permitting second suites as-of-right without prejudicing requirements specific to the former municipality (e.g. the size of a parking space, driveway width). Where more permissive policies and regulations exist, such as in the former City of Toronto, they will continue to apply. The most substantive changes are to the Scarborough and North York documents where second suites had been more restricted. This proposal meets Council's requirements that such amendments occur within a 60-day time frame.

The effect of the changes discussed in this report are that, subject to meeting other planning standards, a second suite could be created by altering or adding to an existing house or created in a new house upon first occupancy. Changes to the exterior of the house to accommodate a second suite will be permitted across the City although past experience has shown that most homeowners opt to create an interior vestibule to allow for a separate doorway to the second suite.

Monitoring and evaluation have been identified as key elements of the implementation of the proposed policy on second suites. This component will help to identify any emerging issues and the need to respond with any necessary changes to the City's various planning documents. It is recommended that a status report be prepared on this matter within two years after the new zoning regulations take effect.

The proposals outlined in this report will advance the implementation of the affordable housing action plan developed by the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force, which has been endorsed by City Council. The proposals also respond to Council's direction that this plan be implemented in a timely manner.

Contact:

Ross Paterson Matt Rea

Principal Planner Planner

(392-7863) (392-8124)

--------

Appendix A:

Existing and Proposed Official Plan and Zoning Provisions Regarding Second Suites

Metro Official Plan:

Policy No. 123 states that the Area Municipal official plans and zoning by-laws shall provide for permitting "apartments in houses" in residential neighbourhoods and Area Municipalities may establish conditions governing standards for apartments in houses, provided that the conditions governing alteration of the dwelling are not more onerous than would apply were the building to remain in single household occupancy, and the parking standards provide some measure of flexibility.

Draft OPA No. 4 changes "apartments in houses" to second suites, indicates that second suites shall be permitted in single- and semi-detached houses and defines "second suite" in the Glossary of Terms. The amendment does not preclude second suites in row housing/townhouses as permitted in the planning documents of former municipalities of East York, Toronto and York. The Area Municipal official plans and zoning by-laws establish similar city-wide standards and eliminate onerous requirements.

East York:

Policy 2.5.22 of the East York Official Plan states that accessory apartments may be permitted in Low Density Areas and apartments in houses shall be permitted in detached, semi-detached and row houses in residential areas provided they maintain one parking space per unit., and that other requirements, as may be detailed in the zoning by-law. The policies provide that the zoning by-law may contain provisions to restrict exterior modifications.

Draft OPA No. 17 to the East York Official Plan deletes: the definitions of "Accessory Apartment" and "Apartment in Houses" and inserts a new definition of "Second Suites"; the policy that permits zoning prohibitions of exterior alterations and the requirement of one parking space per unit as this is a matter that is more appropriately addressed in the zoning by-law.

The zoning by-laws for former Township of East York (By-law No. 6752) and Town of Leaside (By-law No. 1916) permit , subject to conditions, accessory apartments in any one-family detached or semi-detached dwelling, and permit one of the required parking spaces to be tandem parking space which may be located in front of the main wall of the dwelling.

The zoning amendment to By-law No. 1916 changes the term "Accessory Apartments" to "Second Suites", deletes Section 5.20 which prohibits habitable rooms in basements and deletes 5.33 which prohibits second doorways.

The zoning amendment to By-law No.6752 changes the term "Accessory Apartments" to "second Suites", deletes Section 5.24 (a technical correction) and deletes Section 5.25 which prohibits second doorways.

Etobicoke:

The Official Plan's definition of "accessory apartment" is an additional, self-contained, supplementary dwelling unit added to an existing single- or semi-detached dwelling, duplex or other grade related dwelling, by the conversion of the existing space within the dwelling. The Plan provides that an accessory apartment shall be permitted provided the unit is registered with the municipality, there is adequate on-site parking, the exterior appearance of the dwelling is unaltered and no overcrowding of the dwelling is created.

Draft OPA No.71-99 deletes the definition of "accessory apartment", permission for an accessory apartment in a duplex, the requirement that the unit be registered, the restrictions on altering the exterior of the dwelling and the condition that no overcrowding is created. A new definition of "Second Suite" is added and a policy that allows one additional housing unit in the form of a Second Suite within single-detached and semi-detached dwellings, provided there is adequate on-site parking.

The Zoning Code provisions regulating Etobicoke's three Lakeshore communities have varying standards with respect to the conversion of buildings into multiple-unit dwellings. Depending on the zone, the regulations for the conversion of dwellings in New Toronto and Long Branch deal, in varying degrees, with such matters as: the age and height of the dwelling, minimum lot frontage, depth and area, unit size and portion of the dwelling below grade, floor space index, minimum landscaped open space, and parking requirements. In Mimico and New Toronto, no portion of a cellar may be used as a dwelling unit or a habitable room respectively.

The proposed zoning amendment deletes certain provisions respecting converted dwellings, the use of a cellar for a habitable room and adds a definition and Supplementary Regulations that permit Second Suites in single-detached or semi-detached dwellings. The Supplementary Regulations exempt the below grade floor area of a Second Suite from the calculation of Gross Floor Area and requires one on-site parking space be provided for the Second Suite. The parking for the Second Suite may be located at-grade, in front of the required parking space for the dwelling.

North York:

The North York Official Plan currently has no policies regarding second suites. The policies regarding Range of Housing Forms in Part C.4, Section 2.4.2 of the Plan had been drafted to include a section on "accessory apartments", but this section had been deferred by North York Council when it adopted overall Housing policies by way of OPA No. 377 on May 25, 1994.

Draft OPA No. 476 attached to this report re-establishes Part C.4, Section 2.4.2(1), using revised wording consistent with the now-proposed approach to Second Suites. This will enable a second suite, which is described in a similar manner as definitions proposed for the other official plans, to be permitted in detached and semi-detached units, and will clarify that second suites are not to be included when calculating densities in respective residential designations. Corresponding statements are inserted into the Specific Residential Land Use Policies for the Residential Density One (RD-1) Land Use District in Part C.4, Section 3.3.

The North York zoning by-law does not currently permit second suites in its One-family Detached Dwelling Zones, nor in the standard zone for semi-detached dwellings (RM2). There are limited permissions in Apartment Zones (RM3+) and commercial zones. The by-law's current parking provisions were established during the time Bill 120 was in effect, and consequently, the parking regulations for detached and semi-detached units do cite a minimum number of parking spaces (2 spaces with or without a second residence) and allow the spaces to be tandem and to be located in the front yard, subject to front yard hard surfacing restrictions, in a manner that is consistent with the 1994 legislation.

The proposed zoning amendment introduces a definition for second suites, and inserts provisions in Section 6(2) of the bylaw (General Provisions for All Zones - Special Uses Permitted). This new subsection will explicitly permit one second suite in any detached or semi-detached dwelling unit, and will provide that: a second suite will be a part of a dwelling unit for all relevant regulations, unless a regulation specifically states otherwise; a second suite is to be divided horizontally from the main dwelling, except where it occupies only a part of a storey or cellar; a second suite may have a private external entrance or may be entered from a common area within the main dwelling; and a second suite cannot be located in an accessory building. The amendment also includes a corresponding statement in the general provisions for accessory buildings to reaffirm the latter point; and there are technical revisions to the parking regulations, to change the term "second dwelling unit" to "second suite".

Scarborough:

The Official Plan currently does not provide for second suites.

Draft OPA No. 1028 adds a new Section 3.1.8 which allows a second suite in single- and semi-detached dwellings and excludes second suites from density calculations. New definitions of "Dwelling" and "Second Suite" are added that permit a second suites in detached and semi-detached dwellings.

The zoning regulations in Scarborough do not permit basement apartments in single-family areas.

The zoning amendment adds a definition of "second suite" and adds "second suite" as a permitted use in the definitions of "Dwelling Unit or Dwelling" and "Single-Family Dwelling". The zoning introduces a parking requirement of one parking space per second unit and provides that the parking space may be located in the street yard, only in tandem on the driveway leading to the required parking space for the dwelling unit.

Former Toronto:

Section 6.15 of the Toronto Official Plan states that it is the policy of Council to promote the provision of new residential units by administering and participating in programs intended to encourage creation of "accessory apartments". The term "accessory apartments" means self contained apartments created through converting part of, or adding on to, existing homes (single-detached, semi-detached, duplexes, triplexes, row houses, etc.).

No amendments are required or proposed to the official plan.

The zoning by-law permits, subject to conditions such as age of the building, accessory apartments in single-detached, semi-detached, row housing, duplexes and triplexes in most areas of the former City of Toronto except for Swansea, Forest Hill and parts of North Toronto. Parking requirements are one space for the first dwelling unit where parking existed before the addition of the second suite, plus one space for each unit in excess of the first two dwelling units.

The zoning amendment deletes the restrictions on second suites in Swansea, Forest Hill and parts of North Toronto, exempts below grade space from the residential gross floor area calculation where it is used for a dwelling or a portion of a dwelling unit and exempts converted houses that have two units from complying with controls on exterior alterations, size requirements and requirements that the building to be converted must be of a certain age.

York:

The Official Plan states that permitted uses in Low Density Residential Areas may include converted dwellings, including one apartment in a house in addition to the original dwelling unit in a single-detached, semi-detached or townhouse dwelling.

Draft OPA No. 155 deletes the term "apartments-in-houses" and replaces it with "second suites". The Plan's other policies, 9.12c) and 9.13d) are deleted and 9.12c) is replace to permit one second suite in addition to the original dwelling unit in a single-detached, semi-detached or townhouse dwelling.

The York zoning by-law permits, subject to conditions, apartments in houses in single- and semi-detached houses in R1, R2. R3 and RM1 zones. One parking space per unit is required and tandem and front yard parking (provided it meets the front yard parking requirements) are allowed.

The zoning amendment includes the following:

- changes the term apartment-in-house to second suite;

- provides an exemption from the GFA calculation for second suites located in basements and cellars;

- deletes the regulations prohibiting exterior alterations to the front facade or flankage facade facing a public road;

- deletes the regulations prohibiting a second suite where there is no sewer system, where a dwelling house is accessory to another dwelling house on the same lot, where the dwelling house has internal access from it to another dwelling house or through an internal corridor;

- deletes minimum floor area requirements; and

- deletes regulations regarding minimum room heights, height of egress, glazed area, and ventilation for second suites and the use of any cellar area as a habitable room or second suite.

--------

Appendix B:

Draft Official Plan Amendments

Authority: Planning and Transportation Committee, Clause Number ~ of Report Number ~, as approved on July 12, 1999.

Intended for first presentation to Council: July 27, 28 & 29, 1999

Adopted by Council:

City of Toronto

Bill No.

By-law No.

To adopt Amendment No. 4 of the Official Plan for the

former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

To adopt Amendment No. 1028 of the Official Plan for the

former City of Scarborough

To adopt Amendment No. 476 of the Official Plan for the

former City of North York

To adopt Amendment No. 71-99 of the Official Plan for the

former City of Etobicoke

To adopt Amendment No. 17 of the Official Plan for the

former Borough of East York

and

To adopt Amendment No. 155 of the Official Plan for the

former City of York

Whereas authority is given to Council by the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;

The Council of the City of Toronto hereby enacts as follows:

1. Amendment No. 4 of the Official Plan of the (former) Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, consisting of the attached text, is hereby adopted.

2. Amendment No. 17 of the Official Plan of the (former) Borough of East York, consisting of the attached text, is hereby adopted.

3. Amendment No. 71-99 of the Official Plan of the (former) City of Etobicoke, consisting of the attached text, is hereby adopted

4. Amendment No. 476 of the Official Plan of the (former) City of North York, consisting of the attached text, is hereby adopted

5. Amendment No. 1028 of the Official Plan of the (former) City of Scarborough, consisting of the attached text, is hereby adopted.

6. Amendment No. 155 of the Official Plan of the (former) City of York, consisting of the attached text, is hereby adopted

Enacted and Passed this ~ day of ~~ , A.D. 1999

Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

Amendments To Official Plans

of the

Former Municipalities Comprising the City of Toronto

Second Suites Within Single-detached

and Semi-detached

(Single-family

and Two-family) Dwelling Units

The following text constitutes Amendments to the Official Plans of the former municipalities of East York, Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York which along with the former municipality of Toronto now comprise the City of Toronto. The sections headed "Purpose", "Location" and "Basis" are explanatory only, and shall not constitute part of this amendment.

Purpose:

This amendment provides for Second Suites within Single-detached and Semi-detached (Single-family and Semi-Detached/Two-family) dwelling units, and will enable the introduction of such suites into those dwelling units without affecting permitted residential densities or requiring further Official Plan amendment.

Location:

This amendment applies across the planning areas of the former municipalities which now comprise the City of Toronto.

Basis:

Recognizing and providing for second suites within Single-detached and Semi-detached (Single-family and Semi-Detached/Two-family) dwelling units will facilitate the creation of new rental housing accommodation to enhance the City's housing stock, particularly for affordable housing and will facilitate the City's ability to apply and enforce appropriate building and safety standards to the units being created.

Official Plan Amendment:

A. Amendment No. 4 to the Official Plan of the (Former) Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto:

The Official Plan of the (former) Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is amended by:

i) deleting a) in policy 123 and inserting in its place the following new policy:

a) permitting second suites in single-detached and semi-detached houses.

ii) adding the following definition under the Glossary of Terms:

second suite

second suite means an additional separate, self-contained residential unit which contains at least one room, a kitchen and sanitary conveniences for the exclusive use of its occupant(s).

iii) deleting the definition of apartments in houses under the Glossary of Terms

B. Amendment No. 17 to the Official Plan of the (Former) Borough of East York

The Official Plan of the (former) Borough of East York is amended by:

i) deleting Section 2.5.22 in its entirety, and replacing it with a new Section 2.5.22, as follows:

"2.5.22 Second Suites shall be permitted in detached, semi-detached and row houses in residential areas. The zoning by-law may contain parking regulations for Second Suites".

ii) deleting the words "accessory apartments" from Section 3.3.5 and replacing them with the words "Second Suites".

iii) deleting the definitions of "Accessory Apartment" and "Apartments in Houses" in Section 4.21, and by adding a new definition of "Second Suites", immediately following the definition of "Regulatory Flood Plain" as follows:

"Second Suite - a self-contained apartment located within a dwelling and designed for occupancy by a separate household. Where the terms "accessory apartment" and "apartments in houses" are used in this Plan, they shall be deemed to have the same meaning as Second Suites."

C. Amendment No. 71-99 to the Official Plan of the (Former) City of Etobicoke

The Official Plan of the (former) City of Etobicoke is amended by:

i) deleting Section 4.2.15 in its entirety and replaced with the following:

"4.2.15 One additional housing unit in the form of a Second Suite shall be permitted by the Zoning Code within single-detached and semi-detached dwellings, provided there is adequate on-site parking."

ii) deleting Section 11.5.1.g, in its entirety.

iii) deleting, the definition of Accessory Apartment contained Section 12.2.1 and replacing it with the following definition of a Second Suite:

"Second Suite is a lawful, second dwelling unit located within a single-detached or semi-detached dwelling."

D. Amendment No. 476 to the Official Plan of the (Former) City of North York

The Official Plan of the (former) City of North York is amended by:

i) inserting in Part C.4 - Housing, the following text as the new Clause 1 in Section 2.4.2 - Range of Housing Forms:

"1) Second Suites

One second suite, in the form of a self-contained space or enclosure within a dwelling designed for habitation by a separate family or household, shall be permitted within single-detached dwellings and within each dwelling unit in semi-detached dwellings. In calculating densities within the residential designations, including those expressed in Part C.9 - Specific Development Policies - and in Part D Secondary Plans, these second suites will not be considered as dwelling units for the purposes of density calculations.

ii) by inserting in Part C.4 - Housing, a new cross-reference to Section 2.4.2(1) at Clause  2 under the sub-heading "Permitted Uses:" in Section 3.3 - Residential Density One (RD-1) - and renumbering the cross-reference in the current Clause 2 accordingly, so that the following Clauses 2 and 3 are after Clause 1:

"2) Second Suites in accordance with Part C.4, Section 2.4.2(1).

3) Group Homes and Group Foster Homes in accordance with Part C.4, Section 2.4.2(4)."

iii) by adding in Part C.4 - Housing, the following sentence at the end of the first paragraph under the sub-heading "Density:" in Section 3.3 - Residential Density One (RD-1):

"Second suites within single-detached dwellings and second suites within semi-detached dwellings will not be considered as dwelling units for the purposes of density calculations."

E. Amendment No. 1028 to the Official Plan of the (Former) City of Scarborough:

The Official Plan of the (former) City of Scarborough is amended by:

i) adding the following to Section 3.1 - Residential Designations, as Policy 3.1.8:

3.1.8 Within each of the Residential designations which permit single-detached and semi-detached dwellings, one second suite will be permitted in each of these dwelling unit types. In calculating residential densities expressed in this Plan, including those expressed in individual Secondary Plans, second suites will not be considered as units for the purposes of density calculations. In this regard, Section 5 - Implementation and Interpretation, prevailing Section 3 - Land Use Designations shall not apply.

ii) adding the following to Section 5. Implementation, Policy 5.1:

...Notwithstanding the foregoing, Section 3- Land Use Designations, Policy 3.1.8, shall prevail for residential densities expressed in individual Secondary Plans.

iii) adding the following to Section 5. Implementation, Policy 5.5.3, Glossary of Terms definition of Dwelling:

...and within a detached dwelling and semi-detached dwellings, may include a second suite.

iv) adding the following definition to Section 5. Implementation, Policy 5.5.3, Glossary of Terms:

Second Suite - shall mean a self-contained space or enclosure within a dwelling designed for habitation by a separate family or household.

F. Amendment No. 155 to the Official Plan of the (Former) City of York

The Official Plan of the (former) City of York is amended by:

i) deleting the term "apartments-in-houses" in Policy 4.25a) and replacing it with "second suites")

ii) deleting Policy 9.12c) and replacing it with:

9.12c) one second suite in addition to the original dwelling unit in a detached house, semi-detached or townhouse dwelling only.

iii) deleting Policy 9.13d)

--------

Appendix C:

Draft Zoning By-law Amendments

Authority: Planning and Transportation Committee Report No. ___ Clause No. ____ , as adopted by Council on July 27, 28 and 29, 1999

Enacted by Council: July 27, 1999

City of Toronto

Bill No.By-law No. _______

To amend City of North York By-law No. 7625

Whereas authority is given to Council by Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;

The Council of the City of Toronto Hereby enacts as follows:

1. Section 2 of By-law No. 7625 is amended by adding the following new definition:

"2.72.7 Second Suite means a self-contained space or enclosure within a dwelling unit designed for habitation by a separate family or household, and which shall contain at least one room, a kitchen and sanitary conveniences designated for the exclusive use of its occupants."

2. Section 6(2) of By-law No. 7625 is amended by adding the following new subsection:

"(l) Second Suites

One Second Suite shall be permitted in any One-Family Detached Dwelling or Single Family Dwelling, and one second suite shall be permitted in any Semi-Detached Dwelling Unit, in accordance with the following provisions:

(i) for the purposes of all zone regulations, unless the contrary intention is indicated, a second suite is part of the dwelling unit it is located in;

(ii) a second suite shall be divided horizontally, only, from the rest of the dwelling unit it is located in except as provided in (iii);

(iii) a second suite may occupy the whole or part of a storey or cellar;

(iv) a second suite may have a private entrance from outside or from a common hallway or stairway inside the dwelling unit it is located in; and

(v) a second suite shall not be located in an accessory building."

3. Section 6(23)(b) of By-law No. 7625 is amended by adding the following phrase at the end of the section, after the words "as if they were one building" and before the period:

", except that a second suite shall not be located in the accessory building".

4. Section 6A(2) of By-law No. 7625 is amended in the minimum parking requirement "(b)" for the use "one-family detached dwelling" by changing the words "second dwelling unit" to "second suite", so that the requirement reads as follows:

"one-family detached dwelling (a) 2 spaces per dwelling unit;

(b) for a one-family detached dwelling with a second suite where permitted, a total of 2 spaces."

5. Section 6A(2) of By-law No. 7625 is amended in the minimum parking requirement "(b)" for the use "semi-detached dwelling" by changing the words "second dwelling unit" to "second suite", so that the requirement reads as follows:

"semi-detached dwelling (a) 2 spaces per dwelling unit;

(b) for a semi-detached dwelling with a second suite where permitted, a total of 2 spaces."

Enacted and Passed this _____ day of __________, A.D. 1999.

Mel Lastman, Novina Wong,

Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

By-law No. ___-1999

To amend the General Zoning By-law No. 438-86, with respect to the

permission for a second dwelling unit in a detached or semi-detached house

throughout the entire boundaries of the former City of Toronto

The Council of the City of Toronto hereby enacts, as follows:

1. By-law 438-86, being "A By-law to regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to building and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto" , as amended, is further amended by:

(1) amending the definition of " residential gross floor area" in section 2(1), by:

(i) deleting the word "and" at the end of clause (v) in paragraph (ii);

(ii) inserting the word "and" at the end of clause (vi) in paragraph (ii); and

(iii) inserting a new clause (vii) in paragraph (ii) as follows:

"(vii) a part of the building or structure that is used for a dwelling unit or a portion of a dwelling unit in a converted house containing not more than two dwelling units, provided the floor level is at least 0.9 metres below grade;";

(2) amending section 6(1)(f)(a)(i) as follows:

(i) by inserting the letter and number "q1" under the columns titled R1 and R1S, opposite the expression "converted house"; and

(ii) by deleting the word "two" where it appears following the expression " dwelling units" and inserting in lieu thereof, the word " three" ;

(3) amending qualification 1 in section 6(2)(1) by inserting a new subparagraph (i) as follows:

"in the case of a converted house in an R1 or R1S district, originally constructed as a detached house or a semi-detached house, the maximum number of dwelling units permitted is two and none of the provisions set out in subparagraphs (ii) to (vi) inclusive shall apply;";

(4) amending section 6(2)3 by deleting the words " two or more" and inserting in lieu thereof, the words "more than two";

(5) amending section 12(1)68(c) by deleting the word "two" and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "three":

(6) amending section 12(1)230 by deleting the word "two" and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "three";

(7) by amending section 12(1)242 by deleting the word "two" in subparagraph (ii) and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "three"; and

(8) by amending section 12(1)332 by deleting the word " two" and inserting in lieu thereof, the word " three" .

Enacted and Passed this ____ day of ______, A.D. 1999.

Mel Lastman, Novina Wong,

Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

By-law No.

Being a By-law to amend the:

Agincourt Community, By-law Number 10076;

Agincourt North Community, By-law Number 12797;

Bendale Community, By-law Number 9350;

Birchmount Community, By-law Number 9174;

Cenntenial Community, By-law Number 12077;

Cliffcrest Community, By-law Number 9396;

Cliffside Community, By-law Number 9364;

Dorset Park Community, By-law Number 9508;

Eglinton Community, By-law Number 10048;

Guildwood Community, By-law Number 9676;

Highland Creek Community, By-law Number 10827;

(recite all individual Community Zoning By-laws)

Whereas authority is given to Council by Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;

The Council of the City of Toronto hereby enacts as follows:

1. Sub-Clause (f) Definitions of Clause V - Interpretation, in the Agincourt Community, By-law Number 10076; the Agincourt North Community, By-law Number 12797; Bendale Community, By-law Number 9350;Birchmount Community, By-law Number 9174; Cenntenial Community, By-law Number 12077; Cliffcrest Community, By-law Number 9396; Cliffside Community, By-law Number 9364; Dorset Park Community, By-law Number 9508; Eglinton Community, By-law Number 10048; Guildwood Community, By-law Number 9676; Highland Creek Community, By-law Number 10827; (all other by-laws if clause numbering is right) is amended by:

1.1 adding the following definition:

Second Suite

shall mean a separate, self-contained residential accommodation located in a detached single-family dwelling and a semi-detached/two family dwelling, and which shall contain at least one room, a kitchen and sanitary conveniences designated for the exclusive use of its occupant(s).

1.2 deleting "The floor of any dwelling unit shall not be more than 0.8 m below the finished grade level of the building abutting the dwelling unit." from the definition of a Dwelling Unit or Dwelling and adding thereto "5. may include a second suite".

1.3 adding "may include a second suite," after the words "motor vehicles," in the definition of a Single-family Dwelling.

2. Section 1.1, Table of Required Parking Rates of Clause VII General Parking Regulations For All Zones in the Agincourt Community, By-law Number 10076; the Agincourt North Community, By-law Number 12797; Bendale Community, By-law Number 9350; Birchmount Community, By-law Number 9174; Cenntenial Community, By-law Number 12077; Clairlea Community, By-law Number 8978; Cliffcrest Community, By-law Number 9396; Cliffside Community, By-law Number 9364; Dorset Park Community, By-law Number 9508; Eglinton Community, By-law Number 10048; Guildwood Community, By-law Number 9676; Highland Creek Community, By-law Number 10827; (other by-laws if numbering is right) is amended by adding "Second Suites" under heading Use, and "1 space per second suite" under heading Minimum Rate of Parking Space Supply Required.

3. Sub-Section 2.2.1, Street Yard Exceptions Of Clause VII - General Parking Regulations For All Zones in the Agincourt Community, By-law Number 10076; the Agincourt North Community, By-law Number 12797; Bendale Community, By-law Number 9350; Birchmount Community, By-law Number 9174; Cenntenial Community, By-law Number 12077; Clairlea Community, By-law Number 8978; Cliffcrest Community, By-law Number 9396; Cliffside Community, By-law Number 9364; Dorset Park Community, By-law Number 9508; Eglinton Community, By-law Number 10048; Guildwood Community, By-law Number 9676; Highland Creek Community, By-law Number 10827; (other by-laws if numbering is right) is amended by adding the following Sub-Section:

2.2.1.3 Notwithstanding paragraphs 2.1.1 and 2.2.1.1, the parking space required for a second suite may be located in a street yard, only in tandem on the driveway leading to the parking space required for a dwelling unit.

Enacted and Passed this ____ day of ______, A.D. 1999.

Mel Lastman, Novina Wong,

Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

By-law No.

To Amend Chapters 304, 330, 340 and 350 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code with respect to the introduction of Second Suites.

The Council of the City of Toronto hereby enacts as follows:

1. That Section 304-3 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code is hereby amended by adding the following definition of a Second Suite:

"Second Suite is a lawful, second dwelling unit located within a single-detached or semi-detached dwelling."

2. That Chapter 304, Article IV Supplementary Regulations of the Etobicoke Zoning Code is hereby amended by adding the following subsection:

Supplementary Regulations for Second Suites

A Second Suite shall be permitted as a secondary use within all single-detached and semi-detached dwellings subject to the following provisions:

A. Any additions or expansions in relation to the introduction of a Second Suite must comply with the Zoning requirements specified for single-detached or semi-detached dwellings.

B. The below-grade portion of the floor area attributed to the Second Suite, shall not be included in the calculation of Gross Floor Area for the single-detached or semi-detached dwelling in which it is located.

C. One on-site parking space shall be provided for the Second Suite. Parking for the Second Suite may be located at-grade, in front of the required parking space for the dwelling, at a length of not less than 6.0 m.

3. That Section 330-8 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code is hereby deleted.

4. That Section 340-14 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code is hereby deleted.

5. That Section 350-19 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code is hereby deleted.

Enacted and Passed this ____ day of ______, A.D. 1999.

Mel Lastman, Novina Wong,

Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

A By-law

No. ---------

The Council of the Corporation of the City of Toronto

Enacts as Follows:

Section 2 Definitions

That any reference in the former City of York General Zoning By-law Number 1-83, as amended, to "Apartment-in-house" be and is hereby amended to read "Second Suite".

Section 3 General Provisions

That Section 3 of the former City of York General Zoning By-law Number 1-83, as amended, be and it is hereby further amended as follows:

(1) By deleting therefrom Subsection 3.4.1 and replacing it with:

3.4.1 Second Suites

Notwithstanding Subsection 2(35.a.1) and 2(91.1) one second suite is permitted in a detached or semi-detached house provided that the following regulations are complied with:

(1) Notwithstanding Subsection 2(56) in the case of a detached or semi-detached dwelling house gross floor area shall exclude space used for second suites in a basement or cellar.

(2) (i) Notwithstanding Subsection 2(73) a parking space for a second suite may be located partially or entirely in front of or behind another parking space, or on a driveway providing access to a parking space. If a boulevard licence is issued for one such space, it may be located partially on the boulevard abutting the driveway.

(ii) Where a parking space required for a second suite cannot be provided under sub-paragraph 3.4.1(a)(2)(i) above, the parking space may be provided for the second suite as a front yard parking space which is not wholly on the lot, provided the parking space meets the front yard parking regulations in Section 4 of the By-law.

(2) By deleting therefrom Subparagraphs 3.4.6 (a) to (f) inclusive and (h), and renumbering (g) as (a).

Enacted and Passed this ____ day of ______, A.D. 1999.

Mel Lastman, Novina Wong,

Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

By-law No.

To amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law No. 1916,

as amended, of the former Town of Leaside

Whereas authority is given to Council by Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;

The Council of the City of Toronto hereby enacts as follows:

1. Zoning By-law No. 1916, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the title "Accessory Apartments" from Section 6.1.2 and replacing it with the title "Second Suites".

2. Zoning By-law No. 1916, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the title "Tandem Parking - Accessory Apartments" from Section 5.32 and replacing it with the title "Tandem Parking - Second Suites".

3. Zoning By-law No. 1916, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting Section 5.20 in its entirety.

4. Zoning By-law No. 1916, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting Section 5.33 in its entirety.

Enacted and Passed this ____ day of ______, A.D. 1999.

Mel Lastman, Novina Wong,

Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

By-law No.

To amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law No. 6752,

as amended, of the former Township of East York

Whereas authority is given to Council by Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;

The Council of the City of Toronto hereby enacts as follows:

1. Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the title "Accessory Apartments" from Section 7.1.3 and replacing it with the title "Second Suites".

2. Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the title "Tandem Parking - Accessory Apartments" from Section 5.24 and replacing it with the title "Tandem Parking - Second Suites".

3. Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the words "Section 6.1.2" from Section 5.24 and inserting the words "Section 7.1.3" in their place."

4. Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting Section 5.25 in its entirety.

Enacted and Passed this day of , A.D. 1999.

Mayor City Clerk

--------

The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (June 24, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To report on further amendments to zoning by-laws to permit second suites as-of-right in all single- and semi-detached houses throughout the City.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no additional funding or financial implications stemming from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Appendix C in the report dated June 14, 1999, regarding "Draft Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendments to Permit Second Suites As-of-Right" be replaced with Appendix C (revised) attached to this report;

(2) the reference to "Appendix C" in Recommendation No. (2) in the June 14, 1999 report be replaced with "Appendix C (revised)"; and

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action to give effect thereto, including making any minor technical, stylistic or format changes to the amendments in Appendix B and Appendix C (as revised by this report) in the June 14, 1999 report respecting second suites, and preparing and introducing any necessary bills.

Background:

My June 14, 1999 report to the Planning and Transportation Committee entitled "Draft Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendments to Permit Second Suites As-of-Right" included draft zoning amendments (Appendix C) and noted that staff were in the process of reviewing the City's zoning by-laws in detail to determine if further zoning amendments would be required. In anticipation of possible further revisions, the report included the following recommendation:

"Council enact the proposed zoning by-law amendments in Appendix C subject to any modifications recommended by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and/or arising from the public meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee to be held on July 12, 1999."

Discussion:

The review of the City's zoning by-laws has been completed. Amendments to thirty five (35) Scarborough zoning by-laws were required to effect the changes directed by Council. At the time of the writing of the June 14 report, staff had identified the necessary changes to eleven (11) of the Scarborough community zoning by-laws. The additional Scarborough by-laws that must be amended are incorporated in the revised Appendix C (see attached) which should replace Appendix C in the June 14 report.

Several minor technical changes have also been made to the proposed amendments to the former City of Toronto and City of North York zoning by-laws. No further changes are proposed to the East York, Etobicoke and York zoning bylaws.

The format of the draft Bill and Zoning By-law Amendments has been modified to facilitate the enactment of only one by-law rather than six by-laws as presented in the June 14 report.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that Appendix C in my June 14 report be replaced with Appendix C (revised) attached to this report and Council enact the proposed zoning amendments in Appendix C (revised).

Contact:

Ross Paterson Matt Rea

Principal Planner Planner

(392-7863) (392-8124)

--------

Appendix C (Revised)

Draft Zoning By-law Amendments

Authority: Planning and Transportation Committee Report No.__ Clause No.__,

as adopted by Council on July 27, 28 and 29, 1999.

Enacted by Council:

City of Toronto

Bill No.

By-law No.

To amend former Borough of East York Restricted Area Zoning By-law No. 1916 (former Town of Leaside) and Restricted Area Zoning By-law No. 6752 (former Township of East York);

To amend former City of Etobicoke Zoning Code Chapters 304, 330, 340 and 350;

To amend former City of North York By-law No. 7625;

To amend former City of Toronto General Zoning By-law No. 438-86;

To amend former City of Scarborough:

Agincourt Community, By-law Number 10076;

Agincourt North Community, By-law Number 12797;

Bendale Community, By-law Number 9350;

Birchcliff Community, By-law Number 8786;

Birchmount Community, By-law Number 9174;

Centennial Community, By-law Number 12077;

Clairlea Community, By-law Number 8978;

Cliffcrest Community, By-law Number 9396;

Cliffside Community, By-law Number 9364;

Dorset Park Community, By-law Number 9508;

Eglinton Community, By-law Number 10048;

Guildwood Community, By-law Number 9676;

Highland Creek Community, By-law Number 10827;

Ionview Community, By-law Number 9089;

Kennedy Park Community, By-law Number 9276;

L'Amoreaux Community, By-law Number 12466;

Malvern Community, By-law Number 14402;

Malvern West Community, By-law Number 12181;

Maryvale Community, By-law Number 9366;

Milliken Community, By-law Number 17677;

Morningside Community, By-law Number 11883;

Oakridge Community, By-law Number 9812;

Rouge Community, By-law Number 15907;

Scarborough Village Community, By-law Number 10010;

Steeles Community, By-law Number 16762;

Sullivan Community, By-law Number 10717;

Tam O'Shanter Community, By-law Number 12360;

West Hill Community, By-law Number 10327;

Wexford Community, By-law Number 9511;

Woburn Community, By-law Number 9510; and

Employment Districts, By-law Number 24982; and

City of Scarborough By-law Number 5952; and

Township of Pickering, By-law Number 1978; and

Agricultural Holding By-law Number 10217; and

Township of Pickering By-law Number 3036; and

To amend former City of York General Zoning By-law Number 1-83.

Whereas authority is given to Council by Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;

The Council of the City of Toronto hereby enacts as follows:

A. Amendments to former Borough of East York Restricted Area Zoning By-law No. 1916 (former Town of Leaside)

1. Zoning By-law No. 1916, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the title "Accessory Apartments" from Section 6.1.2 and replacing it with the title "Second Suites".

2. Zoning By-law No. 1916, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the title "Tandem Parking - Accessory Apartments" from Section 5.32 and replacing it with the title "Tandem Parking - Second Suites".

3. Zoning By-law No. 1916, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting Section 5.20 in its entirety.

4. Zoning By-law No. 1916, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting Section 5.33 in its entirety.

B. Amendments to former Borough of East York Restricted Area Zoning By-law No. 6752 (former Township of East York)

1. Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the title "Accessory Apartments" from Section 7.1.3 and replacing it with the title "Second Suites".

2. Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the title "Tandem Parking - Accessory Apartments" from Section 5.24 and replacing it with the title "Tandem Parking - Second Suites".

3. Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the words "Section 6.1.2" from Section 5.24 and inserting the words "Section 7.1.3" in their place."

4. Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting Section 5.25 in its entirety.

C. Amendments to former City of Etobicoke Zoning Code Chapters 304, 330, 340 and 350

1. That Section 304-3 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code is hereby amended by adding the following definition of a Second Suite:

"Second Suite is a lawful, second dwelling unit located within a single-detached or semi-detached dwelling."

2. That Chapter 304, Article IV Supplementary Regulations of the Etobicoke Zoning Code is hereby amended by adding the following subsection:

Supplementary Regulations for Second Suites

A Second Suite shall be permitted as a secondary use within all single-detached and semi-detached dwellings subject to the following provisions:

A. Any additions or expansions in relation to the introduction of a Second Suite must comply with the Zoning requirements specified for single-detached or semi-detached dwellings.

B. The below-grade portion of the floor area attributed to the Second Suite, shall not be included in the calculation of Gross Floor Area for the single-detached or semi-detached dwelling in which it is located.

C. One on-site parking space shall be provided for the Second Suite. Parking for the Second Suite may be located at-grade, in front of the required parking space for the dwelling, at a length of not less than 6.0 m.

1. That Section 330-8 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code is hereby deleted.

2. That Section 340-14 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code is hereby deleted.

3. That Section 350-19 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code is hereby deleted.

D. Amendments to City of North York By-law No. 7625

1. Section 2 of By-law No. 7625 is amended by adding the following new definition:

"2.72.7 Second Suite means a self-contained space or enclosure within a dwelling unit designed for habitation by a separate family or household, and which shall contain at least one room, a kitchen and sanitary conveniences designated for the exclusive use of its occupants."

2. Section 6(2) of By-law No. 7625 is amended by adding the following new subsection:

"(l) Second Suites

One Second Suite shall be permitted in any One-Family Detached Dwelling or Single Family Dwelling, and one second suite shall be permitted in any Semi-Detached Dwelling Unit, in accordance with the following provisions:

(i) for the purposes of all zone regulations, unless the contrary intention is indicated, a second suite is part of the dwelling unit it is located in;

(ii) a second suite shall be divided horizontally, only, from the rest of the dwelling unit it is located in except as provided in (iii);

(iii) a second suite may occupy the whole or part of a storey or cellar;

(iv) a second suite may have a private entrance from outside or from a common hallway or stairway inside the dwelling unit it is located in; and

(v) a second suite shall not be located in an accessory building."

3. Section 6(23)(b) of By-law No. 7625 is amended by adding the following phrase at the end of the section, after the words "as if they were one building" and before the period:

", except that a second suite shall not be located in the accessory building".

4. Section 6A(2) of By-law No. 7625 is amended in the minimum parking requirement "(b)" for the use "one-family detached dwelling" by changing the words "second dwelling unit" to "second suite", so that the requirement reads as follows:

"one-family detached dwelling (a) 2 spaces per dwelling unit;

(b) for a one-family detached dwelling with a second suite where permitted, a total of 2 spaces."

5. Section 6A(2) of By-law No. 7625 is amended in the minimum parking requirement "(b)" for the use "semi-detached dwelling" by changing the words "second dwelling unit" to "second suite", so that the requirement reads as follows:

"semi-detached dwelling (a) 2 spaces per dwelling unit;

(b) for a semi-detached dwelling unit with a second suite where permitted, a total of 2 spaces."

E. Amendments to former City of Toronto General Zoning By-law No. 438-86

1. By-law 438-86, being "A By-law to regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to building and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto" , as amended, is further amended by:

(1) amending the definition of " residential gross floor area" in section 2(1), by:

(i) deleting the word "and" at the end of clause (v) in paragraph (ii);

(ii) inserting the word "and" at the end of clause (vi) in paragraph (ii); and

(iii) inserting a new clause (vii) in paragraph (ii) as follows:

"(vii) a part of the building or structure that is used for a dwelling unit or a portion of a dwelling unit in a converted house containing not more than two dwelling units, provided the floor level is at least 0.9 metres below grade;";

(2) amending section 6(1)(f)(a)(i) as follows:

(i) by inserting the letter and number "q1" under the columns titled R1 and R1S, opposite the expression "converted house";and

(ii) by deleting the word "two" where it appears following the expression "dwelling units" and inserting in lieu thereof, the word " three" ;

(3) amending qualification 1 in section 6(2) by inserting a new subparagraph (i) as follows:

"(i) in the case of a converted house in an R1 or R1S district, originally constructed as a detached house or a semi-detached house, the maximum number of dwelling units permitted is two and none of the provisions set out in subparagraphs (ii) to (vi) inclusive shall apply;";

(4) amending qualification 3 in section 6(2) by deleting the words " two or more" and inserting in lieu thereof, the words " three or more" ;

(5) amending section 12(1)68(c) by deleting the word "two" and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "three";

(6) amending section 12(1)230 by deleting the word "two" and inserting in lieu thereof, the word "three";

(7) by amending section 12(1)242 by deleting the word " two" in subparagraph (ii) and inserting in lieu thereof, the word " three" ; and

(8) by amending section 12(1)332 by deleting the word "two" and inserting in lieu thereof, the word " three" .

F. Amendments to former City of Scarborough:

Agincourt Community, By-law Number 10076;

Agincourt North Community, By-law Number 12797;

Bendale Community, By-law Number 9350;

Birchcliff Community, By-law Number 8786;

Birchmount Community, By-law Number 9174;

Centennial Community, By-law Number 12077;

Clairlea Community, By-law Number 8978;

Cliffcrest Community, By-law Number 9396;

Cliffside Community, By-law Number 9364;

Dorset Park Community, By-law Number 9508;

Eglinton Community, By-law Number 10048;

Guildwood Community, By-law Number 9676;

Highland Creek Community, By-law Number 10827;

Ionview Community, By-law Number 9089;

Kennedy Park Community, By-law Number 9276;

L'Amoreaux Community, By-law Number 12466;

Malvern Community, By-law Number 14402;

Malvern West Community, By-law Number 12181;

Maryvale Community, By-law Number 9366;

Milliken Community, By-law Number 17677;

Morningside Community, By-law Number 11883;

Oakridge Community, By-law Number 9812;

Rouge Community, By-law Number 15907;

Scarborough Village Community, By-law Number 10010;

Steeles Community, By-law Number 16762;

Sullivan Community, By-law Number 10717;

Tam O'Shanter Community, By-law Number 12360;

West Hil Community, By-law Number 10327;

Wexford Community, By-law Number 9511;

Woburn Community, By-law Number 9510; and

Employment Districts, By-law Number 24982; and

City of Scarborough By-law Number 5952; and

Township of Pickering, By-law Number 1978; and

Agricultural Holding By-law Number 10217; and

Township of Pickering By-law Number 3036

1. Sub-Clause (f) Definitions of Clause V - Interpretation, in the Agincourt Community, By-law Number 10076; the Agincourt North Community, By-law Number 12797; Bendale Community, By-law Number 9350; Birchmount Community, By-law Number 9174; Centennial Community, By-law Number 12077; Cliffcrest Community, By-law Number 9396; Cliffside Community, By-law Number 9364; Dorset Park Community, By-law Number 9508; Eglinton Community, By-law Number 10048; Guildwood Community, By-law Number 9676; Highland Creek Community, By-law Number 10827; Ionview Community, By-law Number 9089; Kennedy Park Community, By-law Number 9276; L'Amoreaux Community, By-law Number 12466; Malvern Community, By-law Number 14402; Malvern West Community, By-law Number 12181; Maryvale Community, By-law Number 9366; Morningside Community, By-law Number 11883; Oakridge Community, By-law Number 9812; Scarborough Village Community, By-law Number 10010; Sullivan Community, By-law Number 10717; Tam O'Shanter Community, By-law Number 12360; West Hill Community, By-law Number 10327; Wexford Community, By-law Number 9511; and Woburn Community, By-law Number 9510; and,

Clause II - Definitions, in the Milliken Community, By-law Number 17677; Rouge Community, By-law Number 15907; and Steeles Community, By-law Number 16762;

are amended by:

1.1 adding the following definition:

Second Suite

shall mean a separate, self-contained residential accommodation located in a detached single-family dwelling and a semi-detached/two family dwelling, and which shall contain at least one room, a kitchen and separate sanitary conveniences;

1.2 deleting the sentence commencing with "The floor of any dwelling unit shall not be more than 0.8 m below the finished grade level..." from the definition of a Dwelling Unit or Dwelling and adding a separate paragraph, as follows:

"In addition, it may include a second suite."; and

1.3 adding "may include one second suite," after the words "motor vehicles/cars," in the definition of a Single-Family Dwelling.

2. Sub-Clause (f) Definitions of Clause V - Interpretation, in the Birchcliff Community, By-law Number 8786; and Clairlea Community, By-law Number 8978, is amended by:

2.1 adding the following definition:

Second Suite

shall mean a separate, self-contained residential accommodation located in a detached single-family dwelling and a semi-detached/two family dwelling, and which shall contain at least one room, a kitchen and separate sanitary conveniences; and

2.2 adding "may include one second suite," after the word "vehicles," in the definition of a Single-Family Dwelling.

3. Section 1.1, Table of Required Parking Rates of Clause VII - General Parking Regulations for All Zones in the Agincourt Community, By-law Number 10076; the Agincourt North Community, By-law Number 12797; Bendale Community, By-law Number 9350; Birchcliff Community, By-law Number 8786; Birchmount Community, By-law Number 9174; Centennial Community, By-law Number 12077; Clairlea Community, By-law Number 8978; Cliffcrest Community, By-law Number 9396; Cliffside Community, By-law Number 9364; Dorset Park Community, By-law Number 9508; Eglinton Community, By-law Number 10048; Guildwood Community, By-law Number 9676; Highland Creek Community, By-law Number 10827; Ionview Community, By-law Number 9089; Kennedy Park Community, By-law Number 9276; L'Amoreaux Community, By-law Number 12466; Malvern Community, By-law Number 14402; Malvern West Community, By-law Number 12181; Maryvale Community, By-law Number 9366; Milliken Community, By-law Number 17677; Morningside Community, By-law Number 11883; Oakridge Community, By-law Number 9812; Rouge Community, By-law Number 15907; Scarborough Village Community, By-law Number 10010; Steeles Community, By-law Number 16762; Sullivan Community, By-law Number 10717; Tam O'Shanter Community, By-law Number 12360; West Hill Community, By-law Number 10327; Wexford Community, By-law Number 9511; and Woburn Community, By-law Number 9510;

is amended by:

3.1 Adding "(excluding second suites)" following "dwelling unit" under the heading Minimum Rate of Parking Space Supply Required; and

3.2 Adding "Second Suites" under heading Use, and "1 space per second suite under heading Minimum Rate of Parking Space Supply Required.

4. Sub-Section 2.2.1, Street Yard Exceptions of Clause VII - General Parking Regulations for All Zones in the Agincourt Community, By-law Number 10076; the Agincourt North Community, By-law Number 12797; Bendale Community, By-law Number 9350; Birchcliff Community, By-law Number 8786; Birchmount Community, By-law Number 9174; Centennial Community, By-law Number 12077; Clairlea Community, By-law number 8978; Cliffcrest Community, By-law Number 9396; Cliffside Community, By-law Number 9364; Dorset Park Community, By-law Number 9508; Eglinton Community, By-law Number 10048; Guildwood Community, By-law Number 9676; Highland Creek Community, By-law Number 10827; Ionview Community, By-law Number 9089; Kennedy Park Community, By-law Number 9276; L'Amoreaux Community, By-law Number 12466; Malvern Community, By-law Number 14402; Malvern West Community, By-law Number 12181; Maryvale Community, By-law Number 9366; Milliken Community, By-law Number 17677; Morningside Community, By-law Number 11883; Oakridge Community, By-law Number 9812; Rouge Community, By-law Number 15907; Scarborough Village Community, By-law Number 10010; Steeles Community, By-law Number 16762; Sullivan Community, By-law Number 10717; Tam O'Shanter Community, By-law Number 12360; West Hill Community, By-law Number 10327; Wexford Community, By-law Number 9511; Woburn Community, By-law Number 9510; is amended by adding the following Sub-Section:

2.2.1.3 Notwithstanding paragraphs 2.1.1 and 2.2.1.1, the parking space required for a second suite may be located in a street yard, only in tandem on the driveway leading to the parking space required for a dwelling unit.

5. Clause IV - Definitions in the Employment Districts Zoning By-law Number 24982 is amended by:

5.1 adding the following definition:

Second Suite

shall mean a separate, self-contained residential accommodation located in a detached single-family dwelling, and which shall contain at least one room, a kitchen and separate sanitary conveniences;

5.2 deleting ", and the floor of which shall not be more than 0.8 m below the finished grade level at the building." from the definition of Dwelling Unit and adding a separate paragraph, as follows:

"In addition, it may include a second suite."; and

5.3 adding ", may include one second suite," after the words "motor cars" in the definition of a Single-Family Dwelling.

6. Section 7.2, Table of Required Parking Rates of Clause V - General Provisions in the Employment Districts Zoning By-law Number 24982 is amended by:

6.1 adding "(excluding second suites)" following "dwelling unit" under the heading Minimum Rate of Parking Space Supply Required; and,

6.2 adding "Second Suites" under heading Use, and "1 space per second suite" under heading Minimum Rate of Parking Space Supply Required.

7. Sub-Section 7.8.1.2, Street Yard Exceptions of Clause V- General Provisions in the Employment Districts Zoning By-law Number 24982 is amended by adding the following Sub-Section:

7.8.1.4 Notwithstanding paragraphs 7.7.1 and 7.8.1.2, the parking space required for a second suite may be located in a street yard, only in tandem on the driveway leading to the parking space required for a dwelling unit.

8. Clause 3. - Definitions in the City of Scarborough By-law Number 5952 is amended by:

8.1 adding the following definition:

Second Suite

shall mean a separate, self-contained residential accommodation located in a detached single-family dwelling and a semi-detached/two family dwelling, and which shall contain at least one room, a kitchen and separate sanitary conveniences; and

8.2 adding "may include one second suite," after the words "motor cars" in the definition of a Dwelling.

9. Section 18.1.1 Table of Required Parking Rates of Clause 18 - Parking Regulations in the City of Scarborough By-law Number 5952 is amended by:

9.1 adding "(excluding second suites)" following "dwelling unit" under the heading Minimum Rate of Parking Space Supply Required; and

9.2 adding "Second Suites" under heading Use, and "1 space per second suite"under heading Minimum Rate of Parking Space Required.

10. Sub-Section 18.2.2.1 Street Yard Exceptions of CLAUSE 18 - Parking Regulations in the City of Scarborough By-law Number 5952 is amended by adding the following Sub-Section 18.2.2.1.3:

18.2.2.1.3 Notwithstanding paragraph 1. of 18.2.1, and paragraph 18.2.2.1.1, the parking space required for a second suite may be located in a street yard, only in tandem on the driveway leading to the parking space required for a dwelling unit.

11. Section 5 - Definitions in the Township of Pickering By-law Number 1978 is amended by:

11.1 adding the following definition:

Second Suite

shall mean a separate, self-contained residential accommodation located in a detached single-family dwelling and a semi-detached/two family dwelling, and which shall contain at least one room, a kitchen and separate sanitary conveniences; and,

11.2 adding "and may include one second suite," after the word "occupancy" in the definition of a Dwelling.

12. Section 9.10.1 Table of Required Parking Rates of Section 9 - General Provisions in the Township of Pickering By-law Number 1978 is amended by:

12.1 adding "(excluding second suites)" following "dwelling unit" under the heading Minimum Rate of Parking Space Supply Required; and

12.2 adding "Second Suites" under heading Use, and "1 space per second suite" under heading Minimum Rate of Parking Space Required.

13. Sub-Section 6.1.13.2.1, Street Yard Exceptions of Section 6 - Residential Zones in the Township of Pickering By-law Number 1978 is amended by adding the following Sub-Section:

6.1.13.2.1.2.4 Notwithstanding paragraphs 61.13.1.1 and 6.1.13.2.1.1, the parking space required for a second suite may be located in a street yard, only in tandem on the driveway leading to the parking space required for a dwelling unit.

14. Section 2 - Definitions in the Township of Pickering By-law Number 3036 is amended by:

14.1 adding the following definition:

Second Suite

shall mean a separate, self-contained residential accommodation located in a Dwelling, One-Family Detached and a Dwelling, Semi-Detached, and which shall contain at least one room, a kitchen and separate sanitary conveniences;

14.2 adding ", and may include one second suite," after the word "persons" in the definition of a Dwelling, and after the word "inside" in the definition of Dwelling Unit, and

14.3 adding ", and may include one second suite" after the words "side yards" in the definition of Dwelling, One-Family-Detached.

15. Sub-Section 5.19.1, Table of Required Parking Rates of Section 5 - General Provisions for All Zones in the Township of Pickering By-law Number 3036 is amended by:

15.1 adding "(excluding second suites)" following "a dwelling unit" under the heading Minimum Rate of Parking Space Supply Required; and

15.2 adding "Second Suites" under heading Use, and "1 space per second suite" under heading Minimum Rate of Parking Space Required.

16. Section 12. Definitions of Clause II - General Provisions in the Agricultural Holding By-law Number 10217 is amended by adding the following definition:

Second Suite

shall mean a separate, self-contained residential accommodation located in a detached single-family dwelling and a semi-detached/two-family dwelling, and which shall contain at least one room, a kitchen and separate sanitary conveniences.

17. Section 2, Residential Uses (R) of Clause IV - Zone Provisions in the Agricultural Holding By-law Number 10217 is amended by adding "may include one second suite," after the words "a private garage or carport" in the first paragraph.

18. Clause II - General Provisions, in the Agincourt Community, By-law Number 10076; the Agincourt North Community, By-law Number 12797; Bendale Community, By-law Number 9350; Birchcliff Community, By-law Number 8786; Birchmount Community, By-law Number 9174; Centennial Community, By-law Number 12077; Clairlea Community By-law Number 8978; Cliffcrest Community, By-law Number 9396; Cliffside Community, By-law Number 9364; Dorset Park Community, By-law Number 9508; Eglinton Community, By-law Number 10048; Guildwood Community, By-law Number 9676; Highland Creek Community, By-law Number 10827; Ionview Community, By-law Number 9089; Kennedy Park Community, By-law Number 9276; L'Amoreaux Community, By-law Number 12466; Malvern Community, By-law Number 14402; Malvern West Community, By-law Number 12181; Maryvale Community, By-law Number 9366; Morningside Community, By-law Number 11883; Oakridge Community, By-law Number 9812; Sullivan Community, By-law Number 10717; Tam O'Shanter Community, By-law Number 12360; West Hill Community, By-law Number 10327; Wexford Community, By-law Number 9511; and Woburn Community, By-law Number 9510;

is amended by adding the following Section 5:

5. Second Suite Permission when the Existing Use is Legal Non-Conforming

When the existing use is legal non-conforming, a second suite may be provided in the existing detached single-family dwellings and existing semi-detached/two family dwellings, notwithstanding Section 3. Expansion of Non-Conforming Buildings and Structures of Clause II - General Provisions. A parking space required for the second suite shall be provided.

19. Section A, For All Zones of Clause VI - General Provisions, in the Milliken Community, By-law Number 17677 is amended by adding the following Sub-Section (1.5):

1.5 Second Suite Permission when the Existing Use is Legal Non-Conforming. When the existing use is legal non-conforming, a second suite may be provided in the existing detached single-family dwellings and existing semi-detached/two family dwellings, notwithstanding Sub-Section 1.3 Expansion of Non-Conforming Buildings and Structures of Clause VI - General Provisions. A parking space required for the second suite shall be provided.

20. Section 1. For All Zones of Clause VI -General Provisions, in the Rouge Community, By-law Number 15907; and the Steeles Community, By-law Number 16762 is amended by adding the following Sub-Section 1.5:

1.5 Second Suite Permission when the Existing Use is Legal Non-Conforming. When the existing use is legal non-conforming, a second suite may be provided in the existing detached single-family dwellings and existing semi-detached/two family dwellings, notwithstanding Sub-Section 1.3 Expansion of Non-Conforming Buildings and Structures of Clause VI - General Provisions. A parking space required for the second suite shall be provided.

21. Clause II - General Provisions in the Scarborough Village Community, By-law Number 10010, is amended by adding the following Section 6:

6. Second Suite Permission when the Existing Use is Legal Non-Conforming

When the existing use is legal non-conforming, a second suite may be provided in the existing detached single-family dwellings and existing semi-detached/two family dwellings, notwithstanding Section 3. Expansion of Non-Conforming Buildings and Structures of Clause II - General Provisions. A parking space required for the second suite shall be provided.

22. Clause V - General Provisions, in the Employment Districts Zoning By-law Number 24982 is amended by adding the following Section 1.7:

1.7 Second Suite Permission when the Existing Use is Legal Non-Conforming

When the existing use is legal non-conforming, a second suite may be provided in the existing detached single-family dwellings and existing semi-detached/two family dwellings, notwithstanding Section 1.5 Expansion of Non-Conforming Buildings and Structures of Clause V - General Provisions. A parking space required for the second suite shall be provided.

23. Clause 2.1 - Legal Non-conforming Buildings Or Structures, in the City of Scarborough Zoning By-law Number 5952 is amended by adding the following Section 2.4:

2.4 Second Suite Permission when the Existing Use is Legal Non-Conforming

When the existing use is legal non-conforming, a second suite may be provided in the existing detached single-family dwellings and existing semi-detached/two family dwellings, notwithstanding Section 2.2 Expansion of Non-Conforming Buildings and Structures of Clause 2.1 - Legal Non-conforming Buildings or Structures. A parking space required for the second suite shall be provided.

24. Section 4 - General Provisions, in the Township of Pickering Zoning By-law Number 1978 is amended by adding the following Sub-Section 4.5:

4.5 Second Suite Permission when the Existing Use is Legal Non-Conforming

When the existing use is legal non-conforming, a second suite may be provided in the existing detached single-family dwellings and existing semi-detached/two family dwellings, notwithstanding Sub-Section 4.3 Expansion of Non-Conforming Buildings and Structures of Section 4 - General Provisions. A parking space required for the second suite shall be provided.

25. Section 5 - General Provisions for All Zones, in the Township of Pickering Zoning By-law Number 3036 is amended by adding the following Sub-Section 5.30:

5.30 Second Suite Permission when the Existing Use is Legal Non-Conforming

When the existing use is legal non-conforming, a second suite may be provided in the existing detached single-family dwellings and existing semi-detached/two family dwellings, notwithstanding Sub-Section 5.3 Expansion of Non-Conforming Buildings and Structures of Section 5 - General Provisions for All Zones. A parking space required for the second suite shall be provided.

26. Clause II - General Provisions, in the Agricultural Holding Zoning By-law Number 10217 is amended by adding the following Section 2.5:

2.5 Second Suite Permission when the Existing Use is Legal Non-Conforming

When the existing use is legal non-conforming, a second suite may be provided in the existing detached single-family dwellings and existing semi-detached/two family dwellings.,notwithstanding Sub-Section 2.3 Expansion of Non-Conforming Buildings and Structures of Clause II - General Provisions. A parking space required for the second suite shall be provided.

G. Amendment to former City of York General Zoning By-law Number 1-8

Section 2 Definitions

That any reference in the former City of York General Zoning By-law Number 1-83, as amended, to "Apartment-in-house" be and is hereby amended to read "Second Suite".

Section 3 General Provisions

That Section 3 of the former City of York General Zoning By-law Number 1-83, as amended, be and it is hereby further amended as follows:

(1) By deleting therefrom Subsection 3.4.1 and replacing it with:

3.4.1 Second Suites

Notwithstanding Subsection 2(35.a.1) and 2(91.1) one second suite is permitted in a detached or semi-detached house provided that the following regulations are complied with.

(1) Notwithstanding Subsection 2(56) in the case of a detached or semi-detached dwelling house gross floor area shall exclude space used for second suites in a basement or cellar.

(i) Notwithstanding Subsection 2(73) a parking space for a second suite may be located partially or entirely in front of or behind another parking space, or on a driveway providing access to a parking space. If a boulevard licence is issued for one such space, it may be located partially on the boulevard abutting the driveway.

(ii) Where a parking space required for a second suite cannot be provided under sub-paragraph 3.4.1(a)(2)(i) above, the parking space may be provided for the second suite as a front yard parking space which is not wholly on the lot, provided the parking space meets the front yard parking regulations in Section 4 of the By-law.

(2) By deleting therefrom Subparagraphs 3.4.6 (a) to (f) inclusive and (h), and renumbering (g) as (a).

Enacted and Passed this ____ day of ______, A.D. 1999.

Mel Lastman, Novina Wong,

Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To report on implementation options for the registration of second suites including a draft by-law and outlining the resources required to support the implementation plan.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

If Council institutes a program for the registration of two-unit houses, and endorses a strategy that relies solely upon complaints and voluntary compliance, the impact on staffing should be minimized. In this case the greatest impact will be in those former municipalities where second units were dealt with solely as a zoning issue, and housing and property standards within the illegal unit were not actively enforced. With the legalization of the units, the issues of housing and property standards within the unit will have to be addressed. However, if Council adopts a strategy that includes proactive enforcement, the need for additional staffing will be significant.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council decide whether to adopt a program for registration of two-unit houses or not;

(2) if Council decides to adopt a program for registration of two-unit houses, then

(a) a by-law, substantially in the form of the draft by-law attached to this report, be approved, and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto;

(b) Council decide whether fees should be charged for the registration of a two-unit house and, if so, the appropriate amount of the fees; and

(c) Council endorse an enforcement strategy based upon responding to complaints and voluntary compliance by homeowners; and

(3) if Council decides not to adopt a program for registration of two-unit houses, then receive this report for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Council, at its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999, requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor report on an implementation plan for the registration of second suites, including a draft by-law and outlining what resources may be required, if any, to support the plan.

Section 207.3 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.M45, as amended, authorizes the municipality to pass by-laws providing for the registration of two-unit houses or such classes of them as are set out in the by-law.

The purpose of such a by-law is to institute a registration program to better assure compliance with all by-laws, codes and regulations applicable to two-unit housing within the City. The implementation of such a program may also serve to promote safe, healthy, and habitable housing conditions in rental housing units, to reduce deterioration of rental housing units and to encourage responsible management, maintenance and use of rental housing units by the inspection and inventorying of these units.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

It should be noted that the former City of Toronto, with the longest history and experience with second units, as well as the former Cities of North York and Scarborough, had no registration by-laws.

The former City of Etobicoke Official Plan permits second units provided they are registered. However, no registration by-law was developed in Etobicoke to implement this policy.

In 1997, the former Borough of East York and the former City of York enacted registration by-laws and initiated registration programs. These programs were suspended in June of 1998 because of changes to the work program as a result of new municipal priorities, and staff reassignments.

The Draft By-law

The draft by-law attached to this report provides for:

a. the registration of two-unit houses, and the revocation of the registrations, when necessary; and

b. the appointment of a registrar to register two-unit houses, to revoke registrations and to perform such other related duties.

The draft by-law:

a. prohibits any person from operating or permitting the occupancy of more than one residential unit in a two-unit house unless the house is registered;

b. specifies the standards which must be met to register a two-unit house;

c. requires such inspections of two-unit houses as are necessary to determine, before registration, if they comply with the prescribed standards;

d. designates the inspectors for the purposes of the by-law; and

e. fixes fees for the registration and inspection of two-unit houses.

It is important to note that the Act specifically provides that a two-unit house, once registered, remains registered without payment of any renewal or other fees, unless the registration is revoked.

As noted, the fees for registration and inspection may be fixed in the by-law.

In the former City of York By-law the fee schedule was as follows:

I. Inspection Fees

(A) Unit for which application for a Building Permit under the Building Code Act also submitted: (payable at time of application) $150.00

(B) Unit not requiring application for a Building Permit under the Building Code Act:

- for Zoning Compliance Review $100.00

- for Development Services inspection

(up to and including 2 inspections) $ 50.00

- for Fire inspection (up to and including 2 inspections) $100.00

(payable at time of application) Total $250.00

If additional inspections are required, an additional fee of $50.00 per inspection will be charged and will be payable at the time of registration.

II. Registration Fee

A Registration Fee of $400.00 is payable at time of registration and prior to registration.

In the former Borough of East York By-law the fee schedule was as follows:
Inspection Fees
1. Inspection Fee for a Two-Unit House for which a building Permit has also been submitted $ 0.00
2. Inspection Fee for a Two-Unit House which does not require a building permit:

a) For Zoning compliance;

b) for Property Standards/Regulations Compliance (up to and including two (2) inspections).

If additional inspections are required, an additional fee of $50.00 per inspection will be charged and will be payable at the time of registration.

$ 50.00

$100.00

Registration Fee $150.00

For comparison purposes, in the City of Brampton By-law the fee schedule is as follows:

Registration Fee:

Part I Application Processing (due upon initial application) $450.00

Part II Final Inspection and Registration (due upon final sign-off and registration) $450.00

Total $900.00

Enforcement Strategy

i. Applicable Legislation

Prior to registration, every residential unit in a two-unit house shall be inspected to ensure it complies with all relevant standards set out in,

a. the Ontario Building Code;

b. the Ontario Fire Code;

c. the applicable zoning by-law; and

d. the applicable Property Standards By-law or Housing By-law.

ii. Inspection/Investigation

The enforcement of this by-law and the registration program requires inter-departmental coordination among the inspectors and officers of the Building Division, the Municipal Licensing & Standards Division of Urban Planning and Development Services, and the Fire Services Division of Works and Emergency Services.

Approaches to initiate inspections/investigations to identify two-unit houses include:

a. complaints;

b. voluntary compliance (requests for registration by homeowners);

c. sweeps; and

d. city-wide surveys.

Complaints

I. Normal first step in a compliance program.

II. Reactive, not proactive.

III. Limited impact on total community.

IV. Addresses individual concerns at an individual property.

V. Lowest impact on staffing

Voluntary Compliance (Requests for Registration by Homeowners)

I. Normal first step in a registry program.

II. Reactive, not proactive.

III. Limited impact on total community.

IV. Addresses individual concerns at an individual property.

V. Ensure safe, healthy and habitable housing conditions prior to occupancy.

VI. Low impact on staffing.

VII. Voluntary compliance rates could be low.

Sweeps

I. Proactive program specifically targeting defined areas.

II. Aids in public education/information regarding applicable standards.

III. Large resource commitment across departmental lines.

IV. Results in targeted neighbourhood can be significant; however limited rights of access into occupied units will impact on success.

City-wide Surveys (active, ongoing enforcement)

I. Proactive program.

II. Highest level of staffing required.

III. Eases necessity for neighbourhood complaints.

IV. Enforcement process can be equitably applied throughout the City.

V. Limited rights of access into occupied units will impact on success.

In 1996 the Fire Chief in Scarborough initiated a formal inspection program. The Fire Department did a house by house survey (inspected second suite if the owner indicated they had one). Owners were given six weeks to start on required upgrades. A report outlining requirements was left with the owner. It indicated if a building permit was necessary. The onus was on the owner to contact Buildings as Fire did not contact Buildings. Fire officials returned six weeks later and granted an extension if work was underway. If the owner could not be convinced and refused to do the work, Fire took legal action. If convicted in court, the owner was fined up to $25,000 and/or a year in jail, and there were convictions. Fines increase significantly with additional convictions.

In 1996 the Scarborough Fire Department visited 2803 homes - 155 had two units. The program was revised because of residents' complaints about the intimidating nature of four fire fighters showing up at the door. In the revised program that targeted known or suspected properties with second suites, the Fire Department visited 416 homes - 197 had two units. The program was terminated in 1997.

The former City of York policy was not to be pro-active on illegal units. With the enactment of the registration by-law, property standards sent out letters to the known illegal properties (about 700). There were 42 registrations in 1997, and 1998 buildings staff stopped registering second suites to cut costs (high administrative costs for inspections and registration, budget and staff cut backs).

Increase awareness/knowledge

A key component to the success of the registration program will be the development of a campaign to increase the knowledge and awareness of the tenants, landlords, mortgage lenders and insurance companies, and the public in general of the new requirements and obligations associated with a second suite in a two-unit house.

This can accomplished by a coordinated approach using several communications tools including:

a. Press releases and information published in local newspapers;

b. Mass mailing of information in conjunction with tax bills directed at property owners;

c. Bus shelter advertising program directed at second unit tenants;

d. Public service announcements on community cable TV;

e. Community meeting with community associations and tenant advocacy groups; and

f. The development of a small landlord education program.

Compliance/Prosecution

Rights of Entry

The rights of entry and inspection are specifically delineated in s. 207.3 (6), (7), and (8) of the Municipal Act. These rights of entry mirror those provided in the Building Code Act for enforcement of Property Standards By-laws. An inspector may, at all reasonable times, and upon producing proper identification, enter upon land and into buildings without warrant to inspect a building for compliance. However, an inspector shall not enter any room or place actually used as a dwelling without requesting and obtaining consent of the occupier, having first informed the occupier that the right of entry may be refused.

Actions to Gain Compliance:

a. A verbal request to correct violations, explaining the benefits of compliance and risks of non-compliance.

b. A first letter is a written request to correct violations. It does not legally bind the responsible party to carry out the work but it does point out to the contravenor that this is initial action and continued non-compliance will result in further action.

c. An order is a formal legal request to correct violations within a stated time limit. Non-compliance with the Order results in fines, either using the Provincial Offences Ticket (provided short form wording and set fine amounts have been approved) or legal action through the Provincial Court.

Resources

Staffing impacts, as noted in Inspection/investigation, will vary with the strategy for enforcement that Council endorses.

If the strategy endorsed is the one which relies solely on complaints and voluntary compliance, the impact on staffing should be minimized, with the greatest impact in those former municipalities where second units were dealt with solely as a zoning issue, and housing and property standards within the illegal unit were not actively enforced. With the legalization of the units, the issues of housing and property standards within the unit will have to be addressed.

If the strategy adopted is more proactive in nature, such as employing sweeps of designated areas or a city-wide survey, the staffing impact would be very significant with an estimated 100,000 existing units to be inspected and registered. Ongoing active enforcement of the entire city (door to door inspections) would have a major staffing impact well beyond current capacity.

In addition to the staff time involved in responding to the complaints, and/or going door to door in any area sweep or city-wide survey, the Chief Building Official has indicated that each unit, whether existing or new, that requires a building permit, would require approximately two-person days to complete the necessary reviews to issue the building permit and the necessary inspections to confirm the work is completed in accordance with the approved drawings and the Ontario Building Code.

In the case of pre-existing units, a Fire Prevention Officer would also have to inspect to determine compliance with the Ontario Fire Code. This would require an additional one to two-person days to complete the necessary reviews and inspections.

If an average of four-person days is used as an estimate of the staff time involved in the investigation, inspection and registration of an existing unit, and it is assumed that one FTE works 235 days in a year, one person/year would be required for approximately 60 units to be registered. If just one percent of the existing stock, 1000 units, came forward for registration in the year, it would require approximately 16 person/years to process the work load.

If an average of two-person days is used as an estimate of the staff time involved in the building permit plan review, inspection and registration of a new unit, and it is assumed that one FTE works 235 days in a year, one person/year would be required for approximately 120 units to be registered. If 1000 new units were created in the year, it would require approximately eight person years to process the work load.

Conclusions:

The adoption of a by-law to institute a registration program may better assure compliance with all by-laws, codes and regulations applicable to two-unit housing within the City. The implementation of such a program may also serve to promote and ensure safe, healthy and habitable housing conditions in rental housing units, to prevent deterioration of rental housing units and to encourage responsible management, maintenance and use of rental housing units by the inspection and inventorying of these units. However, the costs associated with the staffing requirements needed to deliver the program may make it prohibitive to operate other than on a complaint and/or voluntary compliance basis.

Contact Name:

Frank Weinstock

22nd Floor, Metro Hall, fweinst@toronto.ca

--------

Draft By-law No.

Whereas s.207.3 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.M45, as amended, authorizes the municipality to pass by-laws providing for the registration of two-unit houses or such classes of them as are set out in the by-law;

The Council of the City of Toronto hereby enacts as follows:

1. (1) "two-unit house" means a detached or semi-detached house which contains two residential units or other structure containing two residential units that existed before November 16, 1995 and was grandfathered by Bill 20.

(2) "residential unit" means a unit that,

(a) consists of a self contained set of rooms located in a building or structure,

(b) is used as a residential premises,

(c) contains kitchen and bathroom facilities that are used only by the occupants of the unit,

(d) is used as a single housekeeping unit, which includes a unit in which an occupant has exclusive possession of any part of the unit, and

(e) has a means of egress to the outside of the building or structure in which it is located, which may be a means of egress through another residential unit.

2. No person shall operate or permit the occupancy of more than one residential unit in a two-unit house unless the house is registered as required by this bylaw.

3. Every person who operates or permits the occupancy of more than one residential unit in a two-unit house shall ensure that the two-unit house is registered as required by this by-law.

4. Prior to registration:

(1) Every residential unit in a two-unit house shall be inspected to ensure it complies with all relevant standards set out in,

(a) the Ontario Building Code;

(b) the Ontario Fire Code;

(c) the applicable zoning by-law; and

(d) the applicable Property Standards By-law or Housing By-law.

(2) The owner pays a one-time, non-refundable registration fee along with the applicable inspection fees as set out in Schedule A to this by-law.

(3) The owner shall submit a completed application in a form provided by the City.

5. The Registrar may refuse to register any two-unit house which does not meet the requirements set out in this by-law.

6. The Registrar may revoke the registration of any two-unit house which, at any time after registration, ceases to meet the requirements set out in this by-law.

7. The onus of proving that a two-unit house meet the requirements set out in this by-law is on the owner of the two-unit house.

8. (1) Where the Registrar revokes the registration of a two-unit house, he shall notify the owner of the two-unit house of the revocation and provide a brief explanation of the reason for the revocation.

(2) The notice of revocation shall be sent by regular mail to the address of the owner as shown on the assessment rolls.

(3) Where the registration of a two-unit house is revoked, the use of the building or structure as a two-unit house shall immediately discontinue and shall not be resumed until a new application for registration has been submitted, the required fee has been paid, the two-unit house has been re-inspected and approved, and the two-unit house has been re-registered.

9. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services is appointed as the registrar for the purpose of this by-law.

10. Persons employed by the City in the following positions are hereby designated as inspectors for the purposes of this by-law and section 207.3 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M45, as amended, namely:

Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

Executive Director, Building/Chief Building Official

Directors, Building/Deputy Chief Building Officials

Managers Inspections

Building Inspectors

Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards

District Managers, Municipal Licensing and Standards

Municipal Licensing and Standards Officers

Fire Chief

Deputy Fire Chiefs

Captains, Fire Prevention

Fire Prevention Officers

11. Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine as provided for in the Provincial Offences Act.

Mel Lastman Novina Wong

Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal) Enacted and Passed this day of , AD. 1999

--------

The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following joint report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services:

Purpose:

Proposal for a promotional campaign and an education and support program for small landlords, complementing the proposed zoning by-law changes, registration system, and "add-a-suite" program.

Funding Sources:

Funds are available for the program in the 1999 approved operating budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) this proposed education and promotional program for encouraging the creation of new second suites, and providing information for homeowners of both new and existing second suites, be approved, and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services be authorized to expend up to $20,000 to purchase services for this purpose; and

(2) appropriate City Officials be authorized to undertake all necessary action to give effect hereto.

Council reference:

In May 1999, Council requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to, within 60 days, amend the City's planning documents to permit second suites as-of-right in all single and semi-detached houses, subject to appropriate building, fire and property standards being met and consistent with the approach taken in the 1994 provincial legislation. The proposed Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments will be before the July 12, 1999 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee.

In conjunction with the 60 day directive to amend the City's planning documents, Council requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report on ways to encourage homeowners to create second suites, including the feasibility, cost and possible source of funds for (1) a promotional campaign for homeowners; (2) an education and support program for small landlords; and (3) an incentive program (e.g. capital grants, interest free loans).

This report outlines an initial proposal for a promotional campaign and an education and support program for small landlords, including homeowners with second suites. Development of incentive programs will be considered as part of a future report on registration of second suites, and in a report to Community Services Committee July 14, 1999, about a proposed Add a Suite program.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As outlined in the report to Council dated May 10, 1999 by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services "The Development of a Small Landlord Education Program, a Registration By-Law and an Enforcement Strategy for Second Suites", often the problems which arise between the landlord and tenant of a second suite occur because neither party fully understands or respects the rights and responsibilities of the other. This is made worse by the fact that the Tenant Protection Act, which regulates both rents and tenancy matters, is relatively new.

The purpose of this report, therefore, is to outline a proposal for an education program for small landlords, homeowners with second suites or who are planning to create a second suite, and a promotional program to encourage the development of second suites. The overall intent of the program is to ensure that landlords and potential landlords can access information about the legal and "business" issues involved in developing and operating a rental suite in their home.

Council has requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor jointly report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on an implementation plan for the registration of second suites. It is intended that the education program proposed in this report would be linked to the registration program as appropriate.

Finally, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services will be reporting to the Community Services Committee about potential uses for the Mayor's Homeless Initiatives Reserve Fund. One use which will be recommended is to provide financial assistance to homeowners with existing second suites to bring those units up to health and safety standards, and to homeowners wishing to create a second suite. If this program is approved, the education program will be linked to program delivery.

Education Program Proposal:

The goal of the education program would be to encourage homeowners to create and operate affordable rental units in their own homes, and for small landlords to be informed of rights, obligations and best practices around operating their rental housing. The initial focus of the education program will be on current homeowners with second suites, and homeowners who are planning to create a second suite.

Funding for the program can be made available from the approved 1999 operating budget. It is estimated that a maximum of $20,000 will be required in 1999.

The program would include developing two booklets/workbooks (creating a suite, operating a suite), a pamphlet for tenants living in second suites, promotional materials and a series of information sessions for current/prospective second suite homeowners. The workbooks would be distributed with the assistance of landlord organizations, organizations which operate rent registries, upon request, and would be used as the basis for information sessions. In addition, if the registration program and/or the financial assistance program are approved, the workbook would be given to participants of those programs and who would also be invited to attend information sessions, and to connect with organizations which can provide ongoing support.

Planning, Municipal Standards and Shelter Housing & Support staff will produce the first workbook about creating a second suites. This workbook will focus on the regulatory environment (e.g., the by-law, fire safety, Ontario Building Code, etc.). As with all written materials produced under this program, it will be made available in multiple languages. Staff will also be responsible for promotional materials such as media releases and fact sheets. The timing of this part of the program, and the products produced, is dependant upon the timelines of related activities (by-law, registration program, incentive program).

A partnership of the Landlord Self Help Centre and City of Toronto Housing Help Centres will, through a purchase of service, prepare the second workbook, an information pamphlet for tenants living in second suites, and conduct several pilot information/training sessions. Both organizations have long histories of providing services to landlords with second suites, have undertaken similar outreach activities, and are well aware of the issues and concerns of both homeowners and tenants.

The program would run this fall and winter. Depending upon results and demand, staff will report back to Community Services Committee next spring with recommendations for a longer term program. More detailed information about the proposed education and promotional program is provided as Appendix A.

Conclusion:

This report outlines a proposal for an educational and promotional program to encourage homeowners to develop second suites. The program would begin this fall/winter, with extensions dependant upon results and demand. Design and delivery of the program would be carried out with assistance of the Landlord Self Help Centre and Housing Centres, both of which have extensive experience working with landlords who have second suites.

Attachments:

Appendix A: Description of Proposed Education and Promotion Program

Contact:

Joanne Campbell Barbara Leonhardt

General Manager Director, Policy and Research

Shelter Housing & Support Division City Planning Division

392 - 7885 392 - 8148

--------

Appendix A: Description of Proposed Education and Promotion Program

Purpose of Education Program:

To encourage homeowners to create and operate rental units in their own homes. To inform new and existing homeowners with second suites, and small landlords, about rights, obligations and best practices.

Objectives:

- to promote development of new second suites;

- to promote improvements of existing second suites to at least minimum standards;

- to provide information to landlords and prospective landlords about:

- creation/improvement of second suites;

- the business of operating a second suite;

- rights and obligations of landlords and tenants; and

- developing and maintaining good landlord and tenant relationships;

- to provide information about City programs, rules and policies related to second suites including enforcement of standards, registration, and financial and/or other incentives;

- to foster linkages between homeowners with second suites and organizations which provide support to landlords and to tenants seeking affordable housing; and

- to ensure the education program is developed in consultation with landlord and tenant organizations and meets the following criteria:

- can be delivered by community organizations and others locally;

- is available in a timely manner; and

- will remain up-to-date, and subject to ongoing improvements.

Stakeholders:

Homeowners/Homeowners with existing second suites

- direct education

Landlord and Tenant Organizations

- can deliver education program, provide input into development of program including ongoing improvements

- part of ongoing linkages with homeowners for such supports a suite registries, placement of tenants, mediation supports, business advice/information, etc.

Real Estate, Banking, Insurance, Building industry

- input and education about City initiatives

- encouragement to support initiative

City Departments (City Planning, Shelter Housing & Support, Fire Services, Municipal Licensing and Standards, Buildings/Chief Building Official)

- content input

- may assist with delivery

- funding (recommended through Shelter Housing & Support using allocation from Mayor's Homelessness Initiatives Fund)

Provincial and Federal Governments

- awareness of City initiatives

Timing:

The program would begin in late fall, after the "as-of-right" by-law has been approved, and after the harmonized property standards by-law has been approved. These two by-laws form a critical part of the education program, and it makes sense to wait until they are implemented before rolling out the program.

The first wave of program delivery would initially be offered on a smaller scale in fall/winter 99 to permit evaluation and improvements should the program be extended. Estimate 3 to 5 sessions with class sizes about 20 - 25 each, to be offered in various City locations.

Program Design:

Program design and delivery will be developed with assistance of representatives from Housing Help Centres and Landlord Self-Help. Both organizations have a history of working with homeowners who have second suites. Landlord Self-Help provides legal assistance to low income landlords. Housing Help Centres focus on placing tenants in affordable units and providing support to both the landlord and tenant to maintain the tenancy over the long term.

It is recommended that the City provide funding, through a purchase of service agreement, to a partnership of Landlord Self Help and Housing Help Centres, to develop written materials and deliver information sessions. Initially classroom training would not be extensive and would be done on a pilot project basis. If the program is successful, some form of longer term education program and longer term funding may be required.

In addition, staff will seek input from other stakeholders including the real estate, banking, insurance and building industries with respect to content and deliver of the education program.

Principles:

- local delivery wherever possible for purposes of convenience which may spur increased participation

- local landlord and tenant organization involvement in delivery wherever possible to foster linkages and ongoing support

- multiple methods of delivery and multi-media (written materials including pamphlets and workbooks, web-site, class-room, etc.)

- multi-language and plain language as is possible

- understanding that operating a second suite is seldom the owner's full time job and can make demands

Products:

1. Creating a Second Suite (booklet / workbook)

- this project would be carried out by staff of Shelter Housing and Support, with assistance of various City departments, primarily because of the detailed and changing technical issues involved. Landlord Self Help and Housing Help would be consulted on content

- rules, processes and best practices for creating a new second suite

- information can also apply to bringing existing suites up to standards

- information about things to consider before creating a second suite

- references to other sources of information and contacts (e.g. video about fire safety)

- staff currently drafting booklet - first edition to be finalized after approval of second suite bylaw and harmonization of property standards

- the "workbook" component is intended to also serve as a guide for classroom training

- production costs (printing, translation) estimated at $3,000; this work will require future updates as changes in legislation, etc. occur

2. Operating a Second Suite (booklet / workbook)

- this project would be run by the partnership

- builds on information providing in "Creating a Second Suite"

- rules, processes and best practices for operating a second suite including the homeowner/tenant relationship, maintenance and eviction prevention

- contacts/supports information including the role of Housing Help Centres with respect to marketing of units and mediation of landlord and tenant problems

- the "workbook" component is intended to also serve as a guide for classroom training

- recommend funding joint partnership between Landlord Self-Help and Housing Help Centres to research and prepare the booklet in the amount of $5,000 with an additional $3,000 for production costs (printing, translation); this work will require future updates as changes in legislation, etc. occur.

3. Living in a Second Suite (pamphlet)

- this project would be run by the partnership

- information for tenants of second suites about rights and obligations, with special emphasis on the distinctive relationship between tenants and homeowners, and maintaining a good homeowner/tenant relationship

- recommend funding joint partnership between Landlord Self-Help and Housing Help Centres to research and prepare the pamphlet in the amount of $1,000 (inclusive of production costs).

4. Various promotional materials

- this project would be carried out by staff

- media releases, fact sheets, pamphlets, etc. to promote second suites, provide information updates, etc.

- recommend these be prepared by staff, with budget of $3,000 for printing, translation and distribution costs

Delivery:

Classroom sessions for Landlords:

- the pilot curriculum

- regular information sessions in various parts of the City on a schedule to be determined based on funding available, timing of bylaw approvals, etc.; estimate 3 to 5 sessions Fall '99 with 20-25 people each

- sessions organized and delivered by a partnership of Housing Help Centres and Landlord Self Help. Recommend funding in the amount of $5,000 through a purchase of service to Landlord Self Help and Housing Help Centre partnership to conduct 5 information sessions beginning Oct. 99 in several City locations (may be more sessions - subject to negotiation of purchase of service agreement) (for pilot, sessions will likely concentrate on municipalities which already have accessory apts. as of right)

Information sessions for other stakeholders about initiative:

- as requested

- delivery by City staff, Councillors, Landlord Self-Help, Housing Help, as appropriate

- the purchase of service agreement with the partnership would include undertaking local area outreach to other stakeholders to promote initiative as part of the overall City staff lead communication initiative

Written Materials:

- Promotional materials to be multi-lingual with stock provided to landlord and tenant organizations, home-builder associations, Toronto Real Estate Board, etc.

- Booklets/Workbooks to be provided on request

- If approval given for registration program and/or financial/incentive program, the booklets/workbooks could be included as part of information outreach for those programs

- Homeowners encouraged to provide copy of tenant pamphlet to prospective/current tenants

Evaluation:

Staff will monitor and evaluate this program based on criteria such as feedback from clients, and will make recommendations about extending the program, delivery method, etc. next spring.

--------

The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (June 30, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding action taken by Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting held on June 23, 1999:

The Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting held on June 23, 1999:

(1) held an informal public meeting to obtain the views of the Etobicoke community with respect to second suites in single-detached and semi-detached houses; and

(2) referred the comments received from the following persons to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at the July 12, 1999 public meeting on proposed amendments to the Official Plans of the former Borough of East York, Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and Cities of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York, and amendments to the Zoning By-laws of the former Borough of East York and Cities of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, Toronto and York in respect to second suites:

- Mr. Gunter Ganzhuebner, expressing a concern about on-street parking and a fear that front yards would be paved to accommodate additional persons;

- Mr. Donald Wheeler, noting that residents purchase their single-family properties expecting the neighbourhood to remain as such; expressing a concern that there will be extra vehicles and garbage on the street, posing a potential danger for children and removing the aesthetic and safety features of the area; suggesting the establishment of a "Neighbours' Bill of Rights" and a group to which tenants and landlords will be directed, as part of the lease agreement, for information pertaining to the City's by-laws, particularly in the instances of absentee landlords;

- Mr. Terry Reardon, noting in particular the need to strengthen the municipality's right of entry in order to enforce regulations;

- Ms. Elaine Bourke, strongly in favour of the proposed amendments as being important for seniors and single parents being able to maintain their own homes in terms of income and security, and the provision of affordable accommodation;

- Mr. Henry Baun, in favour of the proposed amendments, noting that intensification in other areas of the City has helped to enliven the communities and created neighbourhoods where people care about and help each other;

- Ms. Silvia Rosatone, in favour of the proposed amendments, as a way for residents to provide independent accommodation for family members; and

- Mr. Michael Savage, who expressed opposition to the proposed amendments, giving examples of problems in his own immediate neighbourhood, and stressed the need for enforceable regulations.

The Etobicoke Community Council also received the following communication in connection with the foregoing matter:

- (June 21, 1999) from Ms. Mary Campbell, President, Kingsway Sunnylea Residents' Association/KPRI, requesting that the issue of basement apartments and also the New Toronto Official Plan be revisited after the summer period to allow for appropriate input from constituents and ratepayer groups.

--------

The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it the following communications which are forwarded to Council under separate cover:

- (June 28, 1999) from Robert Truman, Robert Truman & Associates, suggesting that Council not enact any by-law changes at this time and asking staff to establish some process of consultation with Toronto residents on the proposed by-law;

- (June 21, 1999) from Mary Latour Campbell, President, The Kingsway Sunnylea Residents' Association/KPRI, requesting a deferral of this matter until the Autumn;

- (June 28, 1999) from Terry Reardon, Director, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents Associations, suggesting that a regulatory body be established to handle residents' complaints;

- (July 4, 1999) from Werner Mueller, expressing his concerns regarding second suites in single and semi-detached houses;

- (July 9, 1999) from Susan Nwosu, Coalition of Toronto Housing Help Centres, supporting the recommendations contained in the "Homelessness" report;

- (July 6, 1999) from Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby, forwarding comments made by deputants at an informal public meeting held at Etobicoke Community Council on June 23, 1999;

- (July 7, 1999) from Ross Vaughan, President, Islington Ratepayers and Residents Association, expressing concern regarding health, safety, fire and maintenance of the units and requesting that these units be registered and reassessed for value and property taxes;

- (July 12, 1999) from Eric E. Parker, President, Lawrence Park-Bayview Property Owners Association, objecting to the proposed amendments based on concerns related to the impact on the city and its neighbourhoods, such as increased density, public health, crime increase and traffic problems;

- (July 9, 1999) from Councillor Michael Walker, requesting that this item be deferred and referred to the local Community Councils for further discussion and public deputations before going to City Council for final decision;

- (July 10, 1999) from Lower Banbury R.A., expressing concern on the addition of second suites;

- (July 11, 1999) from Cindy Weiner, President, St. Andrew's Ratepayers Association, expressing concern about the proposed Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law amendments;

- (July 12, 1999) from Mary Wahl, Acting President, Glenorrchy Resident's Association, outlining what impact second suites may have in their area;

- (July 12, 1999) from Geoffrey G. Mitchell, objecting to the proposed amendments and citing problems such as traffic and parking congestion, and additional fire hazards and requesting that this matter be postponed until the Fall;

- (July 11, 1999) from Bill Phillips, President, Lawrence Park Ratepayers' Association, registering the objections and concerns of his Association;

- (July 12, 1999) from the President, North Rosedale Ratepayers Association, requesting to be notified of the adoption of the Official Plan amendments;

- (July 6, 1999) from David Vallance, opposing the proposed Official Plan amendments and Zoning By-law amendments;

- (undated) from Geoffrey G. Mitchell, opposing the proposal to allow second suites in single and semi-detached houses;

- (July 12, 1999) from Councillor Ila Bossons, requesting deferral to hear deputations again in September;

- (July 12, 1999) from Marion Rethoret, Scarborough Homelessness Committee, expressing support for the proposed amendments to the Official Plan and the zoning by-law which, when legalized, would increase affordable rental units and supplement rental income;

- (July 12, 1999) from Doug Hum, Community Worker, Children's Aid Society of Toronto, expressing support for the creation of second suites and the legalization of existing units throughout the City, as well as the proposed educational and promotion information program for homeowners and tenants;

- (July 12, 1999) from William H. Roberts, Director, Swansea Area Ratepayers Group, objecting to the proposed amendments to the official plan and zoning by-laws to permit second suites. Some reasons cited refer to secondary suites as not becoming affordable to the homeless, the number of affordable starter homes would decrease, and parking would pose a problem;

- (July 12, 1999) from Margaret Hefferon, Caring Alliance, expressing support for the creation of second suites, and indicating that Caring Alliance has a commitment to the expansion of the stock of affordable housing;

- (July 12, 1999) from Shelley B. Ortved, President, Oriole Park Association, requesting a deferral of this matter until September;

- (July 12, 1999) from Barbara Hurd, Chairperson, Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, supporting the legalization of second suites as a means of addressing the need for affordable housing, as well as the proposed education and information program, but opposing the registration program as not necessary as long as rigorous enforcement of health and safety standards is undertaken;

- (July 12, 1999) from Kenneth Hale, Community Legal Services and Elinor Mahoney, Parkdale Legal Services, supporting the proposed amendments and the education/information program, but not supporting the registration program; and

- copy of an overhead presentation given by staff from Urban Planning and Development Services.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Planning and Transportation Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Marion Rethoret, Scarborough Homelessness Committee, expressed support for the proposed amendments to the Official Plan and the zoning by-law to permit second suites and advised that second suites would lead to more affordable rental units, and this new source of legal housing would increase affordable rental units and would supplement rental income;

- David Vallance reiterated the remarks made in his submission (July 6, 1999) which expressed concern that second suites will spread throughout all districts of the City, and ending by saying he felt it was a terrific plan because it will allow newcomers to Toronto to live anywhere in Metro;

- Carol Burtin Fripp, Leaside Property Owners' Association Inc., stated that she is in support of the legalization of second suites but was concerned about non-enforceability of safety requirements, parking and safety, and recommended periodic follow-ups;

- Doug Hum, Children's Aid Society of Toronto, expressed support for the creation of second suites and the legalization of existing units throughout the City, as well as the proposed educational and promotion information program for homeowners and tenants and stated that the creation and legalization of second suites would contribute significantly towards meeting the housing needs of Children's Aid client population;

- William Roberts, Swansea Area Ratepayers Group, objected to the proposed amendments to the official plan and zoning by-laws to permit second suites and cited reasons such as secondary suites not becoming affordable to the homeless, the number of affordable starter homes would decrease, and parking would pose a problem;

- Margaret Hefferon, Caring Alliance, expressed support for the creation of second suites and indicated that Caring Alliance had a commitment to the expansion of the stock of affordable housing;

- Paget Blaza, expressed support for the creation of second suites;

- John May, Scarborough Homelessness Committee, expressed support for the creation of second suites to allow for adequate living for young couples, widows and homeless people;

- Charles Young, representing the community at large as well as the business community, expressed support of the City's initiative and, besides considering it a moral issue, regarded it as a stimulant for increasing rental vacancies and advised that he also supported the education and information program;

- Peter Vanderyagt, Presbyterian Church, expressed his support for the creation of second suites but was opposed to the proposed registration program;

- George Teichman, objected to the proposed amendments on the basis that an exodus of residents from the City of Toronto to the outskirts of the GTA could take place;

- Geoffrey Mitchell, objected to the proposed amendments and cited problems such as traffic and parking congestion, and additional fire hazards;

- Debra Phelps, Scarborough Housing Help, expressed support for the proposed amendments and stated that the legalization of second suites would improve the relationship between landlord and tenant;

- Barbara Hurd, Federation of Metro Tenants, expressed support for the legalization of second suites as a means of addressing the need for affordable housing, and for the proposed education and information program and advised that the registration program was not necessary so long as rigorous enforcement of health and safety standards was undertaken;

- Doug Greaves and Bill Harridge, North Rosedale Ratepayers Association, objected to the proposed amendments;

- Michael Opara, Bedford Park Residents' Association, objected to the proposed amendments and cited such reasons as additional fire hazards and the need to preserve single family homes;

- Eric Parker, President, Lawrence Park, Bayview Property Owners' Association, objected to the proposed amendments based on concerns related to the impact on the city and its neighbourhoods and increased density, public health, crime increase and traffic problems;

- Susan Ainley, President, Lawrence Park-Bayview Property Owners' Association, objected for the same reasons cited by Eric Parker and indicated that proper and sufficient notification to the neighbours was not provided;

- Ken Hale, Tenant Advocacy Group, expressed support for the proposed amendments and the education/information program, but did not support the registration program and advocated follow-ups on tenants' complaints regarding safety standards, and regular inspections to achieve required health and safety standards;

- Councillor Michael Feldman;

- Councillor Michael Walker; and

- Councillor Ila Bossons.

Councillor Filion declared his interest in the foregoing matter, in that he owns property which contains a second suite.

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 22, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

On July 12, 1999, the Planning and Transportation Committee (PTC) held a statutory public meeting on proposed official plan and zoning amendments to allow second suites as-of-right in single- and semi-detached houses throughout the City. This report is in response to the request for an analysis of the substantive comments, both written and verbal, made by the deputants, the members of the PTC, and Councillor Bossons.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no additional funding or financial implications stemming from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the term ", row house" in (3)(i) in Recommendation No. (1) in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Planning and Transportation Committee be deleted;

(2) Council adopt the recommendations contained in Clause No. 1 in Report No. 3 of The Planning and Transportation Committee as amended by Recommendation No. (1) above which responds to Council's directive (May 11 and 12, 1999) that unnecessary barriers to the creation of second suites be removed and that the City's planning documents be amended to permit second suites as-of-right in all single-and semi-detached houses, subject to appropriate building, fire and property standards being met and consistent with the approach taken in the 1994 provincial legislation;

(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action to give effect thereto, including preparing and introducing any necessary bills; and

If Council so wishes and in order to restrict builders from using the policy on second suites to create duplexes:

(4) Council modify the proposed zoning amendments to include a requirement that single- or semi-detached houses across the City of Toronto be a minimum of 2 years old before permitting the creation of a second suite.

Background:

In accordance with Sections 17 and 34 of the Planning Act, the Planning and Transportation Committee (PTC) held a statutory public meeting, on July 12, 1999, on proposed official plan and zoning amendments to allow second suites as-of-right in single- and semi-detached houses throughout the City. The Committee had before it the following reports:

- Draft Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-Law Amendments to Permit Second Suites As-of-Right (City Planning Division, June 14, 1999);

- Supplementary Report on Second Suites - Revised Draft Zoning By-Law Amendments to Permit Second Suites As-of-Right in Single- and Semi-Detached Houses (City Planning Division, June 24, 1999);

- Registration of Second Suites (Municipal Licensing and Standards, June 22, 1999); and

- Education and Promotional Program for Second Suites (Shelter, Housing and Support Division, June 25, 1999).

These reports were prepared in response to the Council directive of May 11, 1999, that the City's planning documents be amended, within 60 days, to permit second suites as-of-right in all single- and semi-detached houses, subject to appropriate building, fire and property standards being met and consistent with the approach taken in the 1994 provincial legislation. Staff were also directed to address the removal of unnecessary barriers to the creation of second suites while maintaining the integrity of the building code, fire code and property standards.

Comments:

The following discussion outlines the issues which were identified by the deputants, the members of the Planning and Transportation Committee and Councillor Bossons and provides comments and additional information.

(1) Builders and developers will subvert the policy on second suites by using it to create duplexes.

A number of deputants and several Councillors have expressed a serious concern that builders and developers will subvert the policy on second suites by using it to build new duplexes. Following a review by staff, it has been determined that the removal of restrictions on the age of a structure (Toronto, Etobicoke) may encourage builders to construct duplexes.

The intent of the policy is that it should be the decision of the homeowner to give up some of their living space and create a second suite. It is not the intent of the policy to encourage the construction of duplexes. To address this concern, I am recommending that Council consider establishing a minimum age restriction of two years on houses which can have a second suite.

The former Toronto had an age restriction of 5 years and the Lakeshore communities in Etobicoke had a minimum age restriction of 20 years. There is no apparent explanation for these figures.

In determining a 2-year minimum age restriction, the following are the key considerations:

- a lengthy age restriction, such as those currently in place, acts as a barrier in contravention of Council's direction;

- second suites have been identified as a way of helping young families with a mortgage payment and a lengthy age restriction would not be of assistance;

- the intent of the policy is to allow the home owner to make the decision to create a second suite. In order to do this the owner should have sufficient time to make the appropriate arrangements for the creation of the suite, including any necessary renovations. Again, a lengthy age restriction would discourage these households.

Therefore, a minimum age restriction of 2 years would appear to be appropriate. This length of time should give sufficient comfort to communities that builders will not be able to use the policy to create duplexes while not acting as an unnecessary barrier to the creation of second suites.

In 1998, there were 1,625 single- and semi-detached housing starts in the City of Toronto. The Golden Task Force has estimated that approximately 20 percent of resale homes have a second suite. Using 20 percent as a benchmark, it is estimated that the creation of roughly 325 legal second suites, per year, in new homes would be affected. While an age limitation does pose a barrier in contravention of Council's direction, the overall impact of this on the supply of rental housing appears to be relatively small.

(2) There should be a maximum unit size for second suites.

The proposals which have been developed by staff rely on the minimum size standards in the Building Code. The objective of this approach is to ensure that families living in second suites have sufficient and appropriate living space.

The former City of Toronto used the following maximum sizes for intrinsically affordable units:

- Bachelor/1-Bed 62 m or 667 ft

- 2-Bed 82 m or 882 ft

- 3-Bed 98 m or 1,054 ft

The provision of maximum unit sizes for second suites has not been recommended for the following reasons:

- unlike conventional rental apartments, size plays a less important role in determining the affordability of second suite rents. In the case of second suites, other factors such as location and amenities can have more impact on rent levels;

- maximum sizes could present an unnecessary barrier, in contravention of Council's direction; and

- maximum sizes could place limits on flexibility and restrict opportunities for accommodation for families with children who tend to prefer units with larger rooms. One of the benefits of many second suites is that they provide grade-related housing for children.

(3) The issue of second suites needs further study.

Second suites have been the subject of detailed analysis and review for more than 15 years. A selected bibliography of studies on second suites, or which recommend the implementation of second suites, is attached in Appendix A.

(4) There has been insufficient time for consultation.

City Council established the 60-day time line for the amendment of the City's planning documents and directed that the matter proceed directly to the Planning and Transportation Committee. The PTC defeated a motion that the matter be referred for further discussion and consultation at the Community Councils.

(5) Second Suites should not be permitted in certain districts in the City (e.g., R1S zones in the former Toronto)

Some deputants have proposed that certain areas of the City should be reserved exclusively for single-family, ownership housing and that second suites should not be permitted in such areas. In amending the City's planning documents, the approach taken by staff has been to permit second suites according to house forms (e.g., singles, semis).

An examination of data, from the 1996 Census, showed that there are no census tracts which are exclusively occupied by owner-occupiers. The community with the lowest proportion has 3.9 percent of households as tenant households. The overall distribution for the City is as follows:
% of Tenants No. of Census Tracts
3.9% - 19.9% 55
20.0% - 39.9% 132
40.0% - 59.9% 147
60.0% - 79.9% 87
80.0% - 100.0% 53
Total 474

These data show that a mix of owner and tenant households is the prevalent pattern in the City and that, currently, there are no exclusively owner-occupied communities. Reasons for this include:

- there are no restrictions on owners renting out their properties, including single-family homes; and

- second suites were made legal through provincial legislation in 1994 and 1995 and through a variety of enabling policies across the former Metro municipalities. The Golden Task Force has estimated that there are approximately 100,000 second suites.

(6) As-of-right permission for second suites throughout the City contravenes the planning directions of the new Official Plan.

Reinvestment "lenses" have been proposed as an organizing framework for the development of the City's new Official Plan. For discussion purposes, three potential "lenses" have been introduced: (1) stable areas, (2) areas with potential for change, and (3) "big change" areas.

Stable areas have been described in several City Planning documents as having an established character and where official plan policies should provide a high degree of certainty about the consequences of redevelopment. It was suggested that as-of-right permission for second suites, which would introduce additional rental accommodation into areas of predominantly ownership housing, would have a destabilizing effect on certain communities.

It is important to make a clear distinction between stable communities and static communities. It is not possible to guarantee that communities will be static in nature and that there will never be some element of change. Some communities change through redevelopment or infill but most do not experience major changes in their structural form.

Rather, the main changes occur as communities move through a family life-cycle of stages which include young families with children, older families with teenagers, empty-nesters and seniors. Many communities in Toronto have moved through this cycle and are now experiencing "demographic thinning" as children have left home and household sizes have become smaller. For the most part, the impact of second suites is demographic rather than structural as physical changes for the second suite take place within the existing building envelopes as set by current zoning setbacks and height limits.

(7) As-of-right permission for second suites will place undue pressure on the City's infrastructure and municipal services.

It was noted that one of the potential impacts of second suites would be to place stress on the City's infrastructure and municipal services by increasing the population of communities. Taking a closer look at census population data, however, provides the following information:

- between 1976 and 1996, the City increased its housing stock by approximately 200,000 units (or 27 percent);

- over the same period, the population of the City increased only marginally by approximately 260,000 people (or 13 percent);

- as a result of a number of factors, including "demographic thinning" mentioned above, many communities in the City have lower populations today than 20 years ago. Information for 364 census tracts with comparable population data for 1976 and 1996 shows the following:
Area No. of Census Tracts w/ a Pop Gain,

1976-96

No. of Census Tracts w/ a Pop Loss,

1976-96

Total

Census Tracts

% of Census Tracts s w/ a Population

Loss

Former Toronto 61 75 136 55%
York 14 13 27 48%
East York 9 8 17 47%
Etobicoke 18 35 53 66%
North York 40 39 79 49%
Scarborough 25 27 52 52%
City of Toronto 167 197 364 54%

- these data show that 1 in 2 communities in the City has experienced a population decline over the past twenty years;

- 23 communities had declines, over the twenty year period, of more than 1,000 people;

- average household sizes have become smaller in the City. In 1976, there were almost 3 persons/household. By 1996, this had declined to 2.6 persons/household.

- Areas which have experienced increases in population over the past twenty years are generally located in the downtown area where much new housing has been developed, areas which were greenfields, and other areas where condominium housing has been built.

- Population declines can have negative impacts on communities:

- it is anticipated that there could be as many as 35 to 40 school closings across the City, over the next three years, owing to declining enrolments;

- declining population means a shrinking market base which can affect the sustainability of local retailing and other small businesses; and

- declining populations work against efforts to maintain an efficient and effective transit service.

- Second suites can play a role in maintaining a healthy population balance. However, it should be noted that, on average, renter households tend to be smaller households. In the City of Toronto, 2 out of every 3 tenant households are either singles or 2- person households.

- Second suites allow for a more efficient use of the City's existing housing stock.

(8) Properties with a second suite should have an increase in property taxes.

If a property owner decides to enlarge their house, whether to allow for a second suite or for additional living space for their family, appropriate permissions and permits must be obtained. In these cases there is a significant improvement to the value of the property and it would be reassessed for property tax purposes.

The majority of second suites are created within the existing building envelope. The home owner makes the decision to give up some of their living space to allow for a second suite. As noted above, the majority of tenant households in the City are small households and the City has been experiencing a decline in household size over the past 20 years. Where there are significant property improvements to facilitate this there can be a reassessment.

(9) The proposals are inconsistent with the recommendations made by the Mayor's Homelessness Task Force on second suites.

This issue was explicitly addressed in the report to the May 11 meeting of City Council entitled: "The Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force Final Report: Recommendations and policy Directions related to the Housing Policies of the Official Plan".

In its report, the Golden Task Force strongly advocated for second suites as part of a range of strategies to address the shortage of new rental supply in the City, as well as being an important source of more affordable housing. Following a review by planning staff, it was determined that the specific recommendations of the Task Force would result in only a very limited supply of new second suites. This was not the intended effect sought by the Task Force. As a result, staff recommended that second suites be permitted as-of-right in single- and semi-detached houses throughout the City. This approach was confirmed through Council's direction to staff to amend the City's planning documents within 60 days.

(10) Second suites are not a solution for the City's homelessness problem and will not provide affordable housing.

It was noted that if second suites are permitted throughout the City some will not be affordable. For example, a second suite created in a house at the upper-end of the market could command a high rent. This would appear to be contrary to the objectives established by the Golden Task Force by neither providing housing for the homeless nor a unit which is affordable.

In their final report, the Golden Task Force noted that over the last decade the character of homelessness has undergone a significant change:

- The fastest growing groups of hostel users are youth under 18 and families with children;

- Families, including 5,300 children, accounted for 46 percent of the people using hostels in Toronto in 1996.

Affordability is a major issue for many families in the City but for many more the problem is simply finding a vacant apartment to rent. The City's vacancy rate of 0.9 percent means that, at any one time, only 9 out of 1,000 apartments are available for rent. Housing analysts use a 2.5 percent vacancy rate as a benchmark measure of a healthy rental market.

The Task Force commissioned projections of rental housing demand in the GTA and the City between 1996 and 2001. It was determined that to meet demand the City would need to add up to 4,800 units/year, of which approximately 50 percent should be affordable to families with low incomes. This means that there needs to be an increase in the stock of rental housing as a whole, as well as in the affordable component.

Last year, there were only 148 conventional rental housing starts in the City. CMHC has estimated that, in the City, 30.1 percent of condo apartments and 13.7 percent of townhouses are rented. In 1998, there were 3,589 condo apartment starts and 505 condo townhouse starts which could generate an estimated 1,149 rental units. Taken together this represents 1,297 units or 27 percent of the amount needed to meet the estimated total annual demand. This means that in 1998 alone there has been a shortfall of 73 percent. Furthermore, only a very small proportion of these units will be affordable to households with low incomes.

The Task Force noted that the creation of second suites has had to fill the shortfall in rental supply in Ontario for the past twenty years. They are a cost-effective, market driven alternative to new construction and they do not require subsidy. The evidence suggests that, for the most part, they do provide housing that is more affordable.

Data provided by the Housing Help Centres in East York, Etobicoke, Scarborough and York show that second suites are currently renting as follows:

Bachelor up to $500

1-Bed up to $650

2-Bed up to $850.

These 1999 rents are below the 1998 market rents identified by CMHC through its Fall survey of the conventional rental market. These data confirm the Task Force's finding that, in general, second suites are priced below average market rents.

(11) Second suites should only be allowed in houses that are owner-occupied.

A number of deputants saw the advantage of having a second suite in an owner-occupied residence. If there were any problems with the tenancy, they felt that they could approach the homeowner to address any issues in a timely manner. The zoning provisions, however, cannot regulate ownership or who lives in a building.

Deputants expressed their concern about absentee landlords who did not ensure that their tenants were good neighbours or that their property was kept up. Deputants recognized that these problems will arise whether there is a second suite or not and felt that it would be useful if the City could develop a mechanism where neighbours could approach the City to help identify solutions in these cases.

(12) Second suites do not provide a healthy living environment.

The Tenant Protection Act makes the landlord responsible for providing and maintaining a rental unit in a good state of repair, fit for habitation and complying with health, safety, housing and maintenance standards.

Second suites which meet building, fire and property standards do provide a healthy living environment. Indeed, the Golden Task Force report argues at length that it is individuals and families that do not have access to secure and stable housing that are most at risk for poor health and reduced access to health services. There were 5,300 children who lived in the City's shelter system in 1996.

Being able to access more affordable housing could allow many lower income households to put more food on the table. The recently released report of the Daily Bread Food Bank (Hungry for a Home: Housing, Hunger and Food Assistance in the Greater Toronto Area, June, 1999) notes that:

"These households with a more severe shelter problem (mainly families with children) continually search for affordable alternatives but, given the paltry supply of affordable units in the GTA, they face the threat of eviction . . . over 30 percent of households with a more severe shelter problem had no money for food at least two days a week; and over 20 percent had no money for food one day each week".

Legalizing second suites may lead to improvements in the health and safety conditions of the stock as tenants may be more willing to enforce their rights under the TPA. In the past, tenants of illegal units have been reluctant to make complaints as they are concerned that their unit will be "shut down" forcing the tenant to lose their home.

(13) There should be consistent parking requirements for second suites across the new City. The former Toronto should not have more permissive provisions.

With the exception of the former Toronto, it is proposed that a house with a second suite must provide two parking spaces. The driveway in front of the house may be used for parking purposes and parking may be in tandem.

Where parking requirements can be satisfied through front-yard and on-street parking, the required parking space for the second unit may be provided as front-yard parking or permit parking as appropriate, provided all the applicable requirements are met. Parking standards (size of space) and requirements are not to be compromised.

The proposed amendments do not permit wider driveways or introduce front-yard parking where it is currently not permitted. The Works and Emergency Services Department is reviewing existing permit parking regulations and the extension of permit parking throughout the City. A report is expected by the end of the year.

In the former City of Toronto, the zoning provisions require one parking space for the first unit, where parking existed before the addition of the second suite, plus one parking space for each dwelling unit in excess of the first two units. The former Toronto has had long experience with this approach to parking and no change has been proposed to this requirement. In addition, this approach is consistent with the parking provisions of the former municipalities when Bill 120 was in effect.

Increasing the requirement in the R1S zones in the former Toronto to provide a second space could be interpreted as creating an unnecessary barrier contrary to Council's direction. It should be noted, however, that across the former Toronto these areas have the most likely capacity for providing a second parking space if required to do so.

It would be unfair to attribute all parking problems to tenants. There are no restrictions on how many vehicles a single-occupancy household can have. Households with several vehicles violate parking regulations (e.g. eliminate required parking space by converting garage to living space, front-yard parking, overnight parking on the street). Prospective tenants with vehicles will clearly have to consider the availability of parking in their decision on where to live.

(14) The Ontario Building Code and Fire Code Requirements should not be relaxed to permit second suites. These Code requirements should be enforced.

Concerns were expressed that the building and fire requirements were going to be relaxed to permit second suites and that code requirements were not going to be enforced. It should be noted that the Ontario Building Code and Fire Code are Provincial statutes and that these were amended in 1994 to establish minimum safety requirements for houses with second suites. These requirements were not changed when Bill 120 was repealed in 1996. The Province will not be approached to relax these requirements.

In preparing the June 24 report, staff were advised that OBC requirements with respect to minimum ceiling height, lighting, ventilation and fire exit requirements are only enforceable for one year after construction of the second suite. This point needs additional clarification:

- this time limit on enforceability was the general practise resulting from some of the former municipalities' interpretation of the OBC;

- the former Toronto, where second suites have been permitted in most areas, had a more strict interpretation which required and enforced compliance one year from the time code violations were detected. The Divisional Court supported the former City's interpretation where it was challenged;

- as part of amalgamation, the former Toronto's stricter practice is being adopted as the City-wide standard;

- Unsafe conditions under the OBC can be enforced at any time and there have never been any time limitations on the enforcement of the Fire Code.

With respect to fire safety for tenants and homeowners, in the case of second suites, the owner must ensure that the Fire Code's requirements for fire separations, means of egress, smoke alarms and electrical safety are met. The Fire Code provides four options which may be used to provide a suitable means of escape. The options address situations where the second suite is below, at-grade and above-grade.

(15) Basements should be included in the GFA calculations so that a property owner has to seek a variance to zoning to get permission for a second suite. This will provide a process for neighbours to have a say on changes in their community.

The inclusion of basements in the GFA calculations was interpreted as a potential barrier to the creation of second suites as it may require applicants to obtain approval for a variance to the zoning by-law. This would have contravened Council's direction to staff. Excluding basement GFA is consistent with Bill 120 which provided that planning documents could not prohibit interior alterations on the basis that they would violate standards related to the relationship between floor area and lot area.

It should be noted that the use of a basement for habitation in itself does not negatively affect the appearance or character of a community. What is controlled and will not be altered by the Second Suite By-Law is the building envelope established by setbacks, lot coverage, height limits, etc.

(16) A registration system is needed to ensure enforcement.

The Planning and Transportation Committee adopted a motion that a program of registration of two-unit houses not be adopted. The PTC took into account the following considerations:

- the former Toronto, with the longest experience of second suites, did not have a registration system;

- York and East York implemented registration systems but these have now been discontinued;

- an onerous registration system could act as a barrier to the creation of second suites in contravention of Council's direction;

- registration is a "one-time"process and does not improve rights of entry;

- the Municipal Act does not allow regular inspections to be provided for as a condition of maintaining registration;

- registration and enforcement are NOT the same thing. Enforcement happens regardless of registration.

(17) Building alterations should not be permitted to facilitate second suites .

Restrictions on altering building exteriors, such as installing additional doorways, are proposed to be removed. This has been done in compliance with Council's direction to remove unnecessary barriers to the creation of second suites. Several deputants, however, noted that removing this restriction could have a negative impact on the appearance of their communities.

There are currently no restrictions on the number of doors for newly constructed single- and semi-detached houses in the former municipalities of Toronto, Scarborough, North York and York. However, there are restrictions on altering the exterior of a house (e.g. adding a door) in respect to the provision of second suites in the former municipalities of Toronto, York and East York.

It has been the past experience that most second suites have been accommodated either through internal alterations or through side-doors or back-doors.

(18) Restrictions are needed to discourage builders from redeveloping residential properties for "monster homes" which contain second suites.

Deputants noted that there could be a loss of affordable ownership stock as smaller bungalow-style housing could be torn down and replaced by "monster homes" whose owners could more easily carry the new, larger home as a result of the income derived from the second suite.

With respect to the removal of smaller, more affordable ownership stock, there is little evidence to support the suggestion that as-of-right permission for second suites will encourage the development of "monster homes". This type of upper-market housing is generally occupied by households with high incomes who do not need to give up part of their living space to derive an additional income.

The following table shows the number of demolitions of single-detached dwellings in the City of Toronto between 1991 and 1997. This includes the two-year period (1994 and 1995) when second suites were made legal through the provincial legislation.

Single-Detached Demolitions 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
East York 21 32 27 22 16 17 18
Etobicoke 71 60 63 61 60 50 60
North York 256 337 280 545 369 330 339
Scarborough 82 108 92 145 83 78 93
Toronto (former) 27 0 0 0 0 10 5
York 40 46 40 30 22 15 32
City of Toronto 497 551 475 781 534 483 529

These data show the following:

- with the exception of the City of North York, there was little perceptible change in the number of demolitions during the period Bill 120 was in effect;

- building officials cannot attribute the increase in demolitions in North York in 1994 to redevelopment which included second suites; and

- in East York, York and the former Toronto, the number of demolitions declined in 1994 and 1995.

Correction to the Technical Amendment:

The former City of Toronto's zoning by-law is the only one that allows second suites in row houses. This permission is to continue. In response to Council's directive that any unnecessary barriers to the creation of second suites be removed, staff concentrated their review of restrictions to single- and semi-detached houses. Consequently, the proposed amendments to the former City of Toronto's zoning by-law (June 14 and June 24 reports) should pertain only to single- and semi-detached houses.

The technical amendment prepared by staff, which Councillor McConnell introduced at the July 12, Planning and Transportation Committee meeting and which the Committee recommends Council adopt, removes restrictions on second suites in row houses in the former City of Toronto. This was done in error. To correct this mistake, the term ", row house" in (3) (i) in Recommendation No. (1) in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 3 of The Planning and Transportation Committee should be deleted.

This deletion will not affect the permission for second suites in row houses in the former Toronto. However, this will mean that the restrictions and conditions (e.g., age of structure, building alterations, etc.) will continue to apply to row houses in the former Toronto.

Conclusion:

This report has been prepared in response to the request by the Planning and Transportation Committee for an analysis of the substantive comments, both written and verbal, made by the deputants, the members of the PTC, and Councillor Bossons in the context of the statutory public meeting of July 12 on second suites.

The report has focussed on addressing eighteen theme areas identified as being of concern in implementing as-of-right permission for second suites in single-and semi-detached houses throughout the City.

Second suites have been used to meet the shortfall in the production of rental housing in our communities for many years. The City has taken a number of steps to encourage the development of more affordable housing, including the establishment of a new multi-residential tax rate for newly created rental units, a "housing first" policy for municipal lands, and a Capital Revolving Fund for Affordable Housing. Additional assistance has been provided by the provincial government which has provided a rebate on the PST for building material for new rental construction.

In spite of these important steps to increase the supply of conventional rental housing, second suites will continue to be an important part of the City's housing action plan for the following reasons:

- they are a means of providing new rental supply without long lead times and without public subsidy;

- they represent a market solution and provide housing at rents which are more affordable;

- they provide additional income to seniors who wish to remain in their homes and for young families trying to meet mortgage payments; and

- they ensure that the existing housing stock is used efficiently and help to sustain the population base necessary to support community services and local businesses.

Contacts:

Ross Paterson Matt Rea

Principal Planner Planner

(392-7863) (392-8124)

APPENDIX A

Second Suites - Selected Bibliography

Klein and Sears et al., Study of Residential Intensification and Rental Housing Conservation (prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, 10 Volumes (Toronto, March , 1983).

Lewinberg Consultants Ltd. et al., In Your Neighbourhood (prepared for Ontario Ministry of Housing, September, 1984).

Ekos Research Associates Inc., The Impact of Conversions on Neighbourhoods: Property Values and Perceptions (Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Housing, 1987).

The Starr Group, Etobicoke Housing Statement: Background Report #1 - Population, Housing Trends and Housing Needs (March, 1988).

The Starr Group/Richard Drdla Assoc., City of Etobicoke Municipal Housing Statement Update: A Housing Strategy for Today (April, 1988).

First Time Home Buyers Task Force, The Endangered Dream (Toronto, January 1989).

Berridge, Lewinberg, Greenberg et al., Scarborough - Maturing Neighbourhoods: Interim Report (Scarborough, 1989)

Ontario Home Builders Association, Housing: Restoring the Dream (Toronto, 1990) [see pp. 34-35].

R.A. Murdie and D. Northrup, Residential Conversions in Toronto: The Availability of Rental Units in Owner-Occupied Dwellings in the City of Toronto and Owner's Experience in the Rental Market (Institute for Social Research, York University, March, 1990).

Regional Real Estate Consultants, Accessory Apartments: Characteristics, Issues, Opportunities (prepared for CMHC , 1990)

The Starr Group/Richard Drdla Assoc., City of North York: Accessory Apartment/Rental Housing for Singles Study - Final Summary Report (May, 1991).

Clayton Research Associates Ltd., Rental Housing: A Study of Selected Local Markets (Prepared for CMHC and the B.C. Housing Management Commission, July, 1991) [see. P. 170].

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Apartments in Houses: Some Facts and Figures (Toronto, 1992).

Kehilla Residential Programme, A Study for the Legalization and Management of Accessory Apartments as Affordable Housing in North York (North York, November, 1992).

Metro Toronto Planning Department, Housing Patterns and Prospects in Metro (Toronto, 1996).

Edward Starr/TCI Convergence Ltd., "Housing Supply and Affordability: Rooming Houses and Second Suites" [Background Paper prepared for the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force, June, 1998].)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 20, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding communications received by the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting held on July 12, 1999, with respect to the Draft Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit second suites as-of-right:

Attached are submissions received by the City Clerk respecting the foregoing matter:

- (June 28, 1999) from Robert Truman, Robert Truman & Associates, suggesting that Council not enact any by-law changes at this time and asking staff to establish some process of consultation with Toronto residents on the proposed by-law;

- (June 21, 1999) from Mary Latour Campbell, President, The Kingsway Sunnylea Residents' Association/KPRI, requesting a deferral of this matter until the Autumn;

- (June 28, 1999) from Terry Reardon, Director, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' and Residents Associations, suggesting that a regulatory body be established to handle residents' complaints;

- (July 4, 1999) from Werner Mueller, expressing his concerns regarding second suites in single and semi-detached houses;

- (July 9, 1999) from Susan Nwosu, Coalition of Toronto Housing Help Centres, supporting the recommendations contained in the "Homelessness" report;

- (July 6, 1999) from Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby, forwarding comments made by deputants at an informal public meeting held at Etobicoke Community Council on June 23, 1999;

- (July 7, 1999) from Ross Vaughan, President, Islington Ratepayers and Residents Association, expressing concern regarding health, safety, fire and maintenance of the units and requesting that these units be registered and reassessed for value and property taxes;

- (July 12, 1999) from Eric E. Parker, President, Lawrence Park-Bayview Property Owners Association, objecting to the proposed amendments based on concerns related to the impact on the city and its neighbourhoods, such as increased density, public health, crime increase and traffic problems;

- (July 9, 1999) from Councillor Michael Walker, requesting that this item be deferred and referred to the local Community Councils for further discussion and public deputations before going to City Council for final decision;

- (July 10, 1999) from Lower Banbury R.A., expressing concern on the addition of second suites;

- (July 11, 1999) from Cindy Weiner, President, St. Andrew's Ratepayers Association, expressing concern about the proposed Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law amendments;

- (July 12, 1999) from Mary Wahl, Acting President, Glenorrchy Resident's Association, outlining what impact second suites may have in their area;

- (July 12, 1999) from Geoffrey G. Mitchell, objecting to the proposed amendments and citing problems such as traffic and parking congestion, and additional fire hazards and requesting that this matter be postponed until the Fall;

- (July 11, 1999) from Bill Phillips, President, Lawrence Park Ratepayers' Association, registering the objections and concerns of his Association;

- (July 12, 1999) from the President, North Rosedale Ratepayers Association, requesting to be notified of the adoption of the Official Plan amendments;

- (July 6, 1999) from David Vallance, opposing the proposed Official Plan amendments and Zoning By-law amendments;

- (undated) from Geoffrey G. Mitchell, opposing the proposal to allow second suites in single and semi-detached houses;

- (July 12, 1999) from Councillor Ila Bossons, requesting deferral to hear deputations again in September;

- (July 12, 1999) from Marion Rethoret, Scarborough Homelessness Committee, expressing support for the proposed amendments to the Official Plan and the zoning by-law which, when legalized, would increase affordable rental units and supplement rental income;

- (July 12, 1999) from Doug Hum, Community Worker, Children's Aid Society of Toronto, expressing support for the creation of second suites and the legalization of existing units throughout the City, as well as the proposed educational and promotion information program for homeowners and tenants;

- (July 12, 1999) from William H. Roberts, Director, Swansea Area Ratepayers Group, objecting to the proposed amendments to the official plan and zoning by-laws to permit second suites. Some reasons cited refer to secondary suites as not becoming affordable to the homeless, the number of affordable starter homes would decrease, and parking would pose a problem;

- (July 12, 1999) from Margaret Hefferon, Caring Alliance, expressing support for the creation of second suites, and indicating that Caring Alliance has a commitment to the expansion of the stock of affordable housing;

- (July 12, 1999) from Shelley B. Ortved, President, Oriole Park Association, requesting a deferral of this matter until September;

- (July 12, 1999) from Barbara Hurd, Chairperson, Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, supporting the legalization of second suites as a means of addressing the need for affordable housing, as well as the proposed education and information program, but opposing the registration program as not necessary as long as rigorous enforcement of health and safety standards is undertaken;

- (July 12, 1999) from Kenneth Hale, Community Legal Services and Elinor Mahoney, Parkdale Legal Services, supporting the proposed amendments and the education/information program, but not supporting the registration program;

- copy of an overhead presentation given by staff from Urban Planning and Development Services; and

- (July 14, 1999) from William R. Herridge, North Rosedale Ratepayers Association, objecting to the proposed amendments.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in opposition to the proposed By-law to legalize second suites as-of-right:

(i) (July 7, 1999) from Mr. Edward J. Rowan, Scarborough;

(ii) (July 8, 1999) from Mr. Joseph Chiavatti, President, Gretsland Properties Limited;

(iii) (July 16, 1999) from Ms. Margaret Love;

(iv) (July 24, 1999) from Mr. George G. Fowler;

(v) (July 26, 1999) from Mr. John H. Clune, Etobicoke;

(vi) (undated) from Ms. Susan Ainley, President, North Hill District Home Owners Association; and

(vii) (undated) from The Toronto Homeowners Alliance, submitted by Councillor Walker.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications expressing support for the recommendations of the Planning and Transportation Committee with respect to second suites as-of-right:

(i) (July 23, 1999) from Mrs. Terry Martin, Lakeshore Community Audit Project Housing Taskforce;

(ii) (July 26, 1999) from Terri Noseworthy, Executive Director, Albion Neighbourhood Services (ANS); and

(iii) (July 26, 1999) from Ms. Peggie Walden, Staff Lawyer, Scarborough Community Legal Services.)

(City Council also had before it, a copy of a staff presentation dated July 28, 1999, prepared by the Urban Planning and Development Services Department.)

(Councillor Filion, at the meeting of Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he owns property which contains a second suite.)

2

Amendments to the Licensing By-law: Ambassador Class Cabs

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that:

(1) the report (June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to the addition of the following Recommendation (7) and that the existing Recommendation (7) be renumbered Recommendation (8):

"(7) taxi drivers from the current list who take the Ambassador Class training course and do not pass be given one opportunity to retain their position on the waiting list while they retake the course or rewrite the exam. This does not mean that a plate will be reserved for them, but that the person will retain their position for the next issue;"

(2) the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards, receive suggestions for incorporating topics into the course; and

(3) a meeting, to include the Chairs of the TTC and the Taxi Commission and representation from unions, taxi companies and brokerages, be convened to explore options to ensure that the Ambassador Plates for accessible taxi cabs are picked up.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, having received an overhead presentation by James Ridge, Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report arises from the approved recommendations of the Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry and responds to Council's request for a report on the necessary amendments to the by-law to change the purpose of the current drivers' list and owners' list to a mechanism to determine who has access to the advanced Ambassador class training for the purposes of obtaining a licence. Amendments to the Licensing By-law to implement this change are recommended.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The administration of the cab drivers' waiting list for the purposes of issuing ambassador licences can be accomplished within existing resources.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the sections in this report on the access to ambassador training and plate issue, registration for drivers from the waiting list, and designated ambassador cabs, be received for information;

(2) the Licensing By-law be amended to repeal the provisions relating to the owners' list;

(3) "Deferral" of ambassador cab training be defined, as outlined in this report;

(4) applicants for a new issue of an ambassador cab be required to begin operation of the ambassador cab within 90 days of completing the advanced ambassador training course. Applicants who are unable to begin operation within 90 days due to illness, injury or pregnancy be allowed to request a hearing before the Tribunal;

(5) holders of taxicab owners' licences, who do not drive and wish to convert to an ambassador cab designation, be required to complete the 16-day introductory driver training course before they can apply for the advanced ambassador training course;

(6) applicants for designated ambassador cabs be required to retake the advanced ambassador class training if they have not begun operation of the designated ambassador cab within three years of completing the course; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the Council meeting on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, recommendations of the Task Force to Review the Taxicab Industry contained in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 13 of the Emergency and Protective Services Committee were adopted, as amended. Among these is the requirement that:

"Toronto Licensing, in consultation with the City Solicitor, report to [Committee] on the necessary amendment to the By-law to change the purpose of the current drivers' list and owners' list to a mechanism to determine who has access to the advanced Ambassador class training for the purposes of obtaining a licence."

This recommendation is the subject of this report.

Additional recommendations which were previously approved are discussed as they apply to implementing this reform. These include the creation of an Ambassador Taxicab licence class and an advanced Ambassador training course. Specifically, these approved recommendations are that:

(1) Ambassador Taxicab licences be issued to persons who successfully complete the Advanced Taxi training course;

(2) staff work with community colleges to establish a flexible time, comprehensive taxi driver education and advanced ambassador class training program;

(3) this training program be implemented for 1999;

(4) all new recipients of City-issued licences be required to have completed the aforementioned training program;

(5) access to the advanced ambassador class training program to enhance the skills and quality of drivers and also for the purpose of obtaining an Ambassador Taxicab licence, should be granted to persons on the drivers' list;

(6) when an individual's name reaches the top of the list, they may:

- elect to take the training; or,

- defer their training under the following provisions:

a) each individual only may defer twice,

b) each individual must notify Licensing that they elect to defer training to the next available year or to the bottom of the list;

(7) drivers from the current list who take the course and do not pass, be given one opportunity to add their name to the bottom of the list and retake the training program; and

(8) a currently operating taxicab may be converted and become a designated ambassador class taxicab. The licence holder must successfully complete the advanced ambassador taxi training course before receiving the ambassador cab designation.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Timing of By-law Amendments

Council has directed that the advanced ambassador cab training program be implemented for 1999. To meet this deadline amendments to create the ambassador class of cabs should be in place by July, before the start of the first Ambassador training course in September. This will provide potential Ambassador cab licensees the time to assess their options to take the course and operate an ambassador cab. Also, participants will need the time to make appropriate arrangements to attend the course in the fall and begin operating an ambassador cab as early as December.

Access to Advanced Ambassador Class Training and New Ambassador Cab Plate Issues

The Council-approved reforms require that all new cab owner's licences be ambassador cabs and that these new licences be issued only to drivers on the drivers' waiting list. The criteria for a driver to be placed and remain on the Drivers' List will continue as currently stipulated in the By-law.

Registration for Drivers from the Waiting List

Council approved that ambassador taxicab licences shall be issued only to persons from the Drivers' List who have successfully completed the advanced ambassador taxi training course. To implement this, the order for registering for the receipt of an Ambassador licence and enrolling in the training course will be determined by the seniority of the drivers' waiting list. Applicants will not be permitted to register or participate in Ambassador Taxi training in advance of notification. However, individuals may audit the training program through arrangements with the community college responsible for the delivery of the program.

An applicant whose name heads the drivers' list will be mailed a pre-registration form, and notified of their eligibility for an Ambassador Taxi licence and the time of the next available Ambassador Taxi Training Course. Applicants will be asked to indicate their intentions within thirty days of receiving notice. They may elect to: register for the next available course; defer the training for twelve months; or, not participate in the ambassador program. Applicants electing to register for the course apply in person to complete the required application process and enrol in the next available advanced ambassador cab training course. As part of the application process, each applicant will be investigated to ensure they meet the requirements of the by-law.

Designated Ambassador Cabs

Council approved that the currently operating standard cabs be allowed to convert their operation to "designated ambassador class cabs". One of the conditions for conversion is that the licence holder successfully complete the advanced ambassador taxi training course. Holders of cab owners' licences who wish to convert to an ambassador designation will be enrolled in the advanced ambassador training course in the order their applications are received in the office. As part of the application process, each applicant will be investigated to ensure they meet the by-law requirements. Upon successful completion of the ambassador taxi training and fulfillment of all other licence requirements, a designated ambassador taxicab licence will be issued and the previous licence will be cancelled.

Recommendations Nos. (2) to (6)

Owners' Waiting List: Recommendation No. (2)

The current drivers' and owners' waiting lists are in place to provide a mechanism for distributing new cab owners' licences. Under the Council-approved reforms the purposes of these lists changes. As described above, the reforms require that all new cab owners' licences be issued only to drivers on the drivers' waiting list. Therefore, it is recommended that the by-law be amended to reflect this change by repealing the provisions relating to the owners' list.

Deferral of Training: Recommendation No. (3)

As approved by Council, each applicant may defer ambassador training twice. An applicant who fails to attend advanced ambassador taxi training after two deferrals shall be repositioned to the bottom of the list or may choose to be removed from the list. An applicant shall retain his/her current position on the list upon deferring. Training will be offered to the next applicant on the waiting list. To provide guidelines for staff and applicants, it is recommended that deferral be defined to include the following:

(1) an applicant who elects to defer ambassador training and informs MLS on the pre-registration form;

(2) an applicant who fails to notify MLS of his/her intentions to register for the ambassador training after receiving the pre-registration notice;

(3) an applicant who registers for an issuance of an ambassador cab licence and fails to register with the college for the training course; and

(4) an applicant who registers for the training, enrols with the designated college, and fails to attend the required number of training hours, as established by the college and MLS.

A by-law amendment reflecting these definitions is recommended.

90 Days to Operate a Cab after Completing the Course/Tribunal Hearing: Recommendation No. (4)

Staff recommends that applicants register in the training and begin operation of the ambassador cab within 90 days of completing the course. This would provide applicants at least seven months after receiving initial notification of eligibility to make appropriate business arrangements. Drivers who anticipate that they will not be able to operate within this time period are able to defer the staff of training as described above. It is also recommended that an applicant who is unable to fulfil this 90-day requirement shall have his/her name automatically repositioned to the bottom of the waiting list or the applicant may choose to be removed from the list. It is further recommended that in the event an applicant is unable to fulfil the 90-day requirement due to illness, injury or pregnancy, prior to the expiry of the 90-day period the applicant may request a Tribunal hearing for an extension. In the event the Tribunal decides not to grant an extension the applicant would be repositioned to the bottom of the waiting list.

Training for Owners Who Do Not Drive and Are Converting to Ambassador Cab Designation: Recommendation No. (5)

As discussed above, Council approved that the currently operating cabs be allowed to convert their operation to 'designated ambassador class cabs'. One of the conditions for conversion is that the licence holder successfully complete the advanced ambassador taxi training course. It is recommended that, since applicants who elect to adopt an ambassador cab designation are required to drive their vehicle, the holder of cab owners' licences who do not drive be required to complete the 16-day introductory driver training course, before they can apply for the advanced ambassador training course. The advanced ambassador training program is designed for the experienced cab driver. The course builds on the knowledge and skill developed through earlier training and work experience. Holders of owners' licences who do not drive will lack this knowledge and skill. The 16-day introductory course will be required to develop this knowledge and skill.

Recognizing Earlier Training: Recommendation No. (6)

A limit on the number of years the training would be recognized is recommended. As much of the training will be hands-on, it will be lost unless it is practised regularly. In keeping with the current by-law provisions in section 3.1 of Schedule 8, it is recommended that licensees be required to retake the training if they have not begun operating a designated ambassador cab within three years of completing the course.

Conclusions:

This report has been prepared in consultation with the City Solicitor.

The report puts forward and seeks approval for adoption of the proposed by-law amendments to change the purpose of the current waiting lists for a taxicab owners' licence to a mechanism to determine who has access to the advanced ambassador class training for the purpose of obtaining a licence.

Contact Name:

Bruce Robertson,

Director, Taxi Industry Unit, Municipal Licensing and Standards

392-3070

--------

The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it a communication (July 12, 1999) from Eugene W. Meikle, Driver, Toronto Taxi Drivers Association, supporting most of the guidelines that accompany the Ambassador Class Cabs, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Planning and Transportation Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Bob Stewart;

- Ian Allaby;

- Martin Ceh-Seremet;

- Wilma Walsh;

- Loui Racz;

- Eugene Meikle;

- Owen Leach;

- Nabil Charbel, Ontario Taxi Union; and

- Arvind Kumar Agarwal.

3

Review of Sub-Committees, Special Committees and

Task Forces

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that, as recommended by the Works Committee in the communication dated July 14, 1999, from the City Clerk, Councillors Ila Bossons and Dennis Fotinos be appointed to the Road Allowance Task Force.")

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that:

(1) the following Task Forces/Special Committees be disbanded for the reasons given:

Task Force/Special Committee Reason

Sub-Committee on Gambling Inactive

Task Force to Review the Taxi Industry Mandate completed

Working Group on Spadina Streetscape Final report submitted to Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting on July 12, 1999

Task Force to Oversee Phase One of the Superseded by the Official Plan

New Official Plan Development Reference Group

Working Group on the Restructuring Mandate completed of the Toronto Licensing Commission

Sub-Committee on Pro-Transit Initiatives Inactive - activities were absorbed into the Environmental Task Force

(2) the Road Allowance Sub-Committee be reconstituted as a Task Force consisting of interested members of the Planning and Transportation Committee and the Works Committee, such membership to be advised further; and

(3) the Steeles Avenue Sub-Committee continue to meet but that it be reconstituted as a Sub-Committee of the Planning and Transportation Committee, and that its membership be revised to consist of the following members of the Planning and Transportation Committee:

Councillor Flint (Chair of the Planning and Transportation Committee)

Councillor O'Brien

Councillor Augimeri

Councillor Moscoe

Councillor Filion

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

(1) disbanded the Sub-Committee on Pro-Transit Initiatives which was established by the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

(2) requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to ensure that the Working Group on Vital Services By-law holds its first meeting in the very near future.

The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (June 28, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To provide for the information of the newly-formed Standing Committees a list of the various sub-committees, special committees, advisory committees and task forces, which were formed under the previous Council-Committee structure and are now grouped under each Standing Committee in accordance with the new Committee Structure.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Standing Committees:

(1) determine whether the mandate and membership of those sub-committees listed under the column "Sub-Committees" in Schedule 1 attached should be continued; and

(2) receive for information the balance of Schedule 1 regarding special committees, advisory committees and task forces established by Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, City Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of Report No. 1 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, headed "Revisions to the Council-Committee Structure", which established a new Council-Committee structure effective June 14, 1999. As noted in this Clause, the new structure replaces existing Standing Committees and their sub-committees.

The previous interim Council-Committee structure was established by City Council on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998. As part of this previous interim structure, numerous sub-committees, special committees and task forces were subsequently established under the purview of the various Standing Committees of Council.

The rules governing the establishment of special committees, task forces, advisory committees and sub-committees are set out in section 104 of the Council Procedural By-law, viz.:

"104. (1) A special committee, task force or advisory committee may be established by the Council in accordance with subsection (3).

(2) A sub-committee of a Standing Committee, consisting of members of the Committee only, may also be established by a Standing Committee, in accordance with subsection (3).

(3) Any recommendation to establish a special committee, task force, advisory committee or sub-committee shall include terms of reference outlining:

(a) the matters to be dealt with;

(b) a reporting date and a sunset date, beyond which Council approval is required for its continuation;

(c) the membership;

(d) the Standing Committee to which the special committee, task force, advisory committee or sub-committee shall report to;

(e) the reason why the work cannot be undertaken by an existing Standing Committee; and

(f) identification of the staff and other resources required to support the work of the special committee, advisory committee, task force or sub-committee, and a determination that they are available within existing resources.

(4) No further sub-groups of special committees or sub-committees referred to in subsections (1) and (2) above shall be established without approval by the Council or the Standing Committee, as appropriate."

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The attached schedule presents a list of those sub-committees, advisory committees and task forces which have been established under the old governance structure and realigned in accordance with the new committee structure approved by Council. Special committees or task forces that have completed their mandates are also listed in the schedule for the information of each Standing Committee.

It is now necessary to determine whether the sub-committees, indicated under the column "Sub-Committees" in the attached Schedule 1, which were established as part of the interim structure, should be re-established and whether the membership should be revised in light of the membership of the newly-formed Standing Committees.

It should be noted that only those Sub-Committees which are true sub-committees of a Standing Committee (i.e., they are to include members of the Standing Committee only), are listed in the column headed "Sub-Committees" in Schedule 1. Other committees that include the term "Sub-Committee" in their name, but are not true sub-committees in that their membership is broad, are included under the heading "Advisory Committees and Special/Other Committees".

No action is required by the Standing Committees with respect to those advisory committees and task forces listed in the columns "Advisory Committees and Special/Other Committees" and "Task Forces" in Schedule 1 since they were established by Council on a project/issue basis and involve the participation of Members of Council from more than one Standing Committee.

Also attached, for reference purposes, is a copy of each of the following:

(a) Appendix "A" - List of page numbers in Schedule 1 by relevant Standing Committee; and

(b) Appendix "B" - Chart of the key functional areas assigned to the various Standing Committees under the new Council-Committee structure.

Conclusion:

The attached Schedule summarizes of all of the sub-committees, special committees, advisory committees or task forces that have been established under the old governance structure and are grouped under each new Standing Committee in accordance with the new committee structure. It is recommended that the Planning and Transportation Committee receive the attached Schedule listing the aforementioned sub-committees, special committees and task forces.

Contact Name:

Joanne Hamill, Manager of Community Councils and Committees, 392-4339

The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it the following material, which was forwarded to all Members of Council and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- Appendix "A", list of page numbers in Schedule 1 by relevant Standing Committee and Appendix "B", chart of the key functional areas assigned to the various Standing Committees under the new Council-Committee structure, which were appended to the foregoing report; and

- Schedule 1, entitled "Review of Sub-Committees, Special Committees and Task Forces".

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 14, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendations:

The Works Committee:

(1) reports having endorsed the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Committee with respect to the establishment of a Road Allowance Task Force to be comprised of members of the Planning and Transportation and Works Committees; and

(2) recommends that Councillors Ila Bossons and Dennis Fotinos be appointed to the aforementioned Road Allowance Task Force.

The Works Committee further reports having deferred consideration of the remainder of the report from the City Clerk until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on September 8, 1999.

Background:

The Works Committee on July 14, 1999, had before it a report (June 28, 1999) from the City Clerk providing for the information of the newly formed Standing Committees a list of the various sub-committees, special committees, advisory committees and task forces which were formed under the previous Council-Committee structure; and recommending that the Standing Committees:

(1) determine whether the mandate and membership of those sub-committees listed under the column "Sub-Committees" in Schedule 1 attached thereto should be continued; and

(2) receive for information the balance of Schedule 1 regarding special committees, advisory committees and task forces established by Council.

Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York-Spadina, appeared before the Works Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.)

4

Amendments to By-law No. 20-85,

the Licensing By-law: Massage Therapists

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report discusses the duplication of regulation of Massage Therapists (MT) in municipal licensing and provincial legislation and recommends the adoption of by-law amendments to repeal the specific schedules of the Licensing By-law applicable to M.S.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Repeal of the schedules applicable to M.S. would not have a significant impact on the budget of the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division (M.L.S.). The amendment would mean a drop in annual licensing revenue of $5,500.00. Staff and resources currently allocated to licensing M.S. will be redeployed to work with the College of Massage Therapists and enforce the licensing regulations governing body rub and holistic services.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the licence requirements and schedules of the Licensing By-Law, By-law No. 20-85, relating to massage therapists and massage parlours be repealed;

(2) staff continue to enforce the by-law schedules regulating body rub and holistic services, and work with the College of Massage Therapists to ensure compliance with relevant Toronto by-laws;

(3) staff report back within one year on the impact of the changes recommended above; and

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

This report discusses the impact of removing the requirement that M.S. obtain a municipal licence. Under this proposal a full regulatory scheme for non-therapeutic massage services will remain intact. The municipal regulations for non-therapeutic massage services addressed in the body rub and holistic services schedule will continue unchanged, as these are distinct from the municipal regulations for M.S.. The intention of this proposed revision is to address a long-standing issue: how to properly recognize and regulate providers of massage therapy, non-therapeutic massage and other services that involve touch.

Provincial legislation recognizes the professional status of M.S.. M.S. are subject to the same extensive legislation as many other health professionals. As described in the attached letter from the solicitor representing the College of Massage Therapists, it is the position of the College of Massage Therapists that the field of regulation of massage therapy is fully occupied by the provincial legislature by the provisions of The Massage Therapy Act S.O. 1991 c. 27 and The Regulated Health Professions Act S.O 1991 c. 18, thus Council lacks the authority to regulate massage therapists under its general authority to pass by-laws for the licensing, regulating and governing of businesses. The College of Massage Therapists has indicated that, failing other action by Council, the College will consider pursuing a legal challenge to the validity of the licensing regulations applied to M.S.. The City Solicitor has previously provided legal advice to the former Toronto Licensing Commission consistent with the position taken by the College of Massage Therapists.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The requirements that MTs obtain a City of Toronto licence and must work in a licensed "massage parlour" were established years before the introduction of current comprehensive provincial legislation regulating M.S.. Now, much of the City's licensing requirements duplicate provincial regulations. If Council approves the repeal of the licensing requirements for M.S., M.S. would continue to be subject to comprehensive provincial regulation. Staff would continue to enforce the regulations for body rub and holistic services which will remain, and work with the College of Massage Therapists to ensure all practitioners comply with relevant Toronto by-laws.

Current Regulations Applying to Massage Therapists under By-law No. 20-85, as amended

By subsection 2(26) of the General Provisions of By-law No. 20-85 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, "every massagist and every person who owns and operates a massage parlour" requires a City of Toronto licence. "Massagist" is defined in subsection 1(27) of the by-law as "a person who, in pursuance of a trade, calling, business or occupation, performs massages in a massage parlour".

Although "Massage Parlour" is not specifically defined in the by-law, section 2 of Schedule 17 to the by-law requires that owners of massage parlours only employ persons licensed under the by-law as "massagists". Since section 7 of Schedule 17 requires all "massagists" to be registered as massagists under the laws of the Province of Ontario, a massage parlour may be described as a premises on which only persons registered under the Massage Therapy Act may perform services. Specific regulations pertaining to massage parlours are contained in Schedule 17 to the by-law, a copy of which is attached as Appendix "A". Other than the requirement for a licence from the City, By-law No. 20-85 and Schedule 17 do not contain any standards or qualifications for massage therapists which are not already contained in the Massage Therapy Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act, described in more detail below. In fact, section 7 of Schedule 17 recognizes these statutes by requiring that "all massagists shall, before carrying on business as a massagist, produce to the Commission evidence that they are duly qualified, licensed or registered as a massagist under the laws of the Province of Ontario."

Provincial Regulation of Massage Therapy

Provincial regulation recognizes M.S. as health professionals and regulates them accordingly. They are one of the twenty one "self governing health professions" regulated by the Regulated Health Professions Act. Other "self governing health professions" include doctors, dentists, opticians, midwives and physiotherapists. Under this Act the regulations recognize massage therapists by defining their "scope of practice" as: "the assessment of the soft tissue and joints of the body and the treatment and prevention of physical dysfunction and pain of the soft tissues and joints by manipulation to develop, maintain, rehabilitate or augment physical function, or relieve pain."

Massage therapists are governed by the Massage Therapy Act, most of which came into force on December 31, 1993. In 1998, a final piece of regulation, the quality assurance programme requirement, became law. The College of Massage Therapists of Ontario in accordance with the Massage Therapy Act and the Regulated Health Professions Act is the self-governing body that administers this legislation. The College ensures M.S. comply with the complete code of regulation for massage therapists which includes standards of practice. The College investigates and adjudicates complaints, disciplines members, and administers a quality assurance programme which audits practices and physical premises of each MT in a five year cycle.

While these regulations do not specifically regulate the premises at which the massage treatment is provided, they substantially duplicate the provisions of Schedule 17 to the by-law pertaining to massage parlours. The College of Massage Therapists maintains a directory of all registered members, including the address of the place of business. Massage therapists are required to keep for ten years detailed financial records, and health records for each person receiving massage therapy.

Regulation of Massage Performed by Persons Not Registered as Massage Therapists

Although the College of Massage Therapy has no authority over persons who perform massages which do not fall within the above scope of practice, under By-law No. 20-85, where a massage is performed by a person other than a massage therapist, such person is required to be licensed by the City of Toronto as a body-rubber or holistic practitioner and the premises on which such services are offered is required to be licensed as a body-rub parlour or holistic services centre.

Where enforcement staff reasonably believe that the business of a body-rub parlour is being carried on at a premises, staff may investigate and inspect such premises and, where there are grounds to do so, lay charges under the By-law in respect of the carrying on of the business of the body-rub parlour. The proposed amendments do not diminish the present authority of enforcement staff to investigate and inspect body-rub parlours or holistic services centre.

College of Massage Therapists

On May 7, 1999, staff of M.L.S. and a member of Legal Services Division met with the Registrar and the Assistant Registrar of the College of Massage Therapists and their legal representative to discuss the current provincial and municipal regulation of massage therapy and to develop joint compliance activities. Staff from the M.L.S. and College of Massage Therapists agreed that it is in the interest of both to work together to ensure all practitioners comply with the relevant regulations.

The College will use all the tools at their disposal to recognize legitimate M.S. as such. M.L.S. will work with the College to verify the licence status of clinics and M.S.. The College will provide publicly available material resulting from any disciplinary hearings and will take action against anyone falsely advertising as an MT. In addition, the College will provide its directory of members on diskette. All these activities will support the enforcement of the provisions of By-Law No. 20-85, as amended, pertaining to body rub parlours and holistic centres.

Since that meeting, the College has provided a copy of the following documents pertaining to the College of Massage Therapy:

- Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice;

- A Guide to the Quality Assurance Program;

- A Guide to the Health Care Consent Act and the Substitute Decisions Act;

- Publications respecting guidelines for professional behaviour regarding prevention of sexual abuse of clients of massage therapy;

- 1999 Examination Candidate's Handbook;

- Brochure on the complaints process;

- Annual Report 1997;

- Information pamphlets for use by members of the public; and

- the 1998 Directory of Massage Therapists.

Conclusions:

The City Solicitor has been consulted in the preparation of this report.

The regulation of massage therapists under the Massage Therapy Act, in conjunction with the regulation of body rubbers and body rub parlours and holistic services under By-Law No. 20-85, as amended, provides a complete regulatory scheme governing the conduct of the business of both therapeutic and non-therapeutic massage.

Where a massage is performed by a massage therapist, the services provided to members of the public are regulated as the massage therapist is governed by the Massage Therapy Act. Where a massage or body rub is performed by a person who is not a massage therapist, services provided to members of the public are regulated by the provisions of By-law No. 20-85 pertaining to body-rubbers or holistic services. The proposed amendments do not diminish the authority of licensing enforcement staff to investigate services provided by persons who are not massage therapists, to inspect body-rub parlours and holistic centres and to lay charges under the By-law, where necessary.

Contact Name:

Harold Bratten, Director

Municipal Licensing and Standards

112 Elizabeth Street

392-8768

--------

Schedule 17 to By-law No. 20-85

Relating to Massage Parlours

1. Every applicant for a licence as a massagist shall submit with his application two photographs of himself, one of which photographs shall be attached to the licence and the other shall be filed with the Commission, and upon application for renewal of any licence, the applicant shall furnish new photographs if required so to do by the Commission.

2. No person owning or operating a massage parlour shall employ any person other than a massagist licensed under the provisions of this By-law to act as a massagist in such establishment.

3. Every owner or operator of a massage parlour shall, during the term of employment of any massagist, retain such massagist's licence in his possession.

4. Whenever any owner or operator of a massage parlour employs a massagist, he or she shall, within forty-eight hours thereafter, notify the Commission that he or she has employed such massagist, and when any massagist leaves such employment, such person shall within forty-eight hours thereafter, notify the Commission to such effect, giving reasons therefor.

5. The owner or operator of every massage parlour shall keep a record of all persons receiving massage treatment at his establishment, and such record shall give the date, name and address of each such person and the name of the licensed massagist giving such treatment and such record shall be open to inspection by the Commission or any person authorized by it.

6. Every massagist shall include or have included his name and business address in every advertisement of his massage business.

7. All massagists shall, before carrying on business as such, produce to the Commission evidence that they are duly qualified, licensed or registered as a massagist under the law of the Province of Ontario. Amended by By-law 99-96

--------

The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it the communication (May 23, 1997) from Richard H. Shekter, Shekter, Dychtenberg, Barristers, appended to the foregoing report, which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting of July 12, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

5

Proposal to Bury the F.G. Gardiner Expressway Below Grade

Between Dufferin Street and the Don River

(Trinity-Niagara, Downtown, Don River - Wards 20, 24 & 25)

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, amended this Clause by striking out and referring the following portion of Recommendation No. (1) embodied in the joint report dated June 28, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to the Office of the Mayor for further consideration and report, as appropriate:

"and that no further work be undertaken on the proposal by the Canadian Highways International Corporation (CHIC) until the adoption of the Strategic Plan and the Official Plan by City Council.")

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends the adoption of the following joint report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide additional information on a private sector initiative to replace the elevated section of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway with a new, below grade, toll highway, and to respond to questions raised by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting of February 8, 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding impacts as a result of the recommendations of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the issue of the long term disposition of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway be dealt with as part of the development of the City's Strategic Plan and Official Plan and that no further work be undertaken on the proposal by the Canadian Highways International Corporation (CHIC) until the adoption of the Strategic Plan and Official Plan by City Council; and

(2) City staff explore the feasibility of tolling as a way of funding road infrastructure improvements, such as the Front Street Extension, and report back on this issue.

Background:

At its February 8, 1999 meeting, the Urban Environment and Development Committee considered a joint report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services that provided preliminary staff comments on a private sector proposal to replace the existing elevated section of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway between Dufferin Street and the Don River with a new, below grade, toll highway. The Committee deferred consideration of the report to its May 17, 1999 meeting (subsequently deferred to the July 12, 1999 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee) and requested that staff report on:

(1) the following motions which were placed at the Committee:

"(a) that Council be requested to approve, in principle, the proposal to bury the Gardiner Expressway subject to positive findings of the proposal;

(b) that in order to accomplish a significant modal shift toward public transit, further investigation include full integration of transit improvements and integrated road and transit fee structures;

(c) that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services continue to discuss the CHIC proposal with the proponents so long as:

(i) the proposal is, in the opinion of the Commissioners, likely to contribute to an improved ability for the public to access and use the waterfront area;

(ii) the proposal, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is unlikely to result in unmanageable level of disruption to the traffic flow in the City;

(iii) the proposal, in the opinion of the Commissioners, contributes to the stated transportation goals of the City of Toronto in areas including air quality, transit usage and pedestrian friendly environments; and

(iv) the proposed toll policy, in the opinion of the Commissioners, works to promote the City's objectives and is subject to adequate controls to ensure that it continues to promote City objectives;

(d) the Commissioners begin a process to determine if the community is prepared to accept tolls to travel downtown;

(e) the Commissioners explore the possibility and costs of an electronic toll system on the centre core lane of the Queen Elizabeth Way;

(f) the Commissioners consider the possibility of introducing a modest toll from the 427 to the Humber on the centre core lane and that funds raised be utilized in a central transportation fund and for improvements along the lakeshore corridor";

(2) suggestions and comments expressed by the public with respect to this matter;

(3) the infrastructure west of Dufferin Street and what actions need to be started in order to upgrade it in an urban friendly manner;

(4) a detailed proposal and cost analysis for the retention of the expertise necessary to address the technical feasibility of redeveloping the Gardiner Expressway and the expertise necessary to assist staff in drafting a Request for Proposals for the re-development of the Gardiner Expressway;

(5) the economic impact of redeveloping the Gardiner, such report to also be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee;

(6) a list of objectives to meet the City's transportation, transit, environmental, economic and cultural needs along the waterfront and the City in general;

(7) an analysis of the economic costs involved in the construction exercise of burying the Gardiner; and

(8) a breakdown of the $1 million costs estimated to formulate the proposal call.

Discussion:

The requests from the Committee to report can be summarized into four distinct areas:

1. The costs and process involved in developing a plan for the redevelopment of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway (FGG);

2. The costs and process involved in embarking on a public sector-private sector partnership, with specific information on resources required to undertake a request for qualifications/ request for proposals for the redevelopment of the FGG;

3. An economic analysis of the costs and benefits of burying the FGG; and

4. A process to determine if the community is prepared to accept tolls to travel downtown.

To assist City staff in determining the costs and processes involved in engaging in a Public-Private Partnership (PPP), the City engaged the firm of KPMG. The firm's response to our questions is provided in Appendix A, attached to this report.

What is a Public-Private Partnership?

The KPMG report describes the PPP approach as "essentially a business relationship where the public and private sectors share the risks, rewards, and responsibilities for the success of the project."

While in many cases government is the obvious vehicle to provide certain types of infrastructure, there are merits in considering a PPP approach, including:

- to provide an opportunity to share significant risks;

- to provide an opportunity for efficient maintenance of current service levels or improvement to service levels;

- to reduce costs;

- to provide access to new sources of capital;

- to promote economic development opportunities for local firms; and

- to provide access to skills not resident and not optimally provided in-house.

From the municipality's perspective, the potential risks of using a PPP approach include:

- loss of control;

- loss of accountability for service quality;

- risks from an inappropriate proposal call process;

- problematic transfer of assets; and

- development of an inappropriate risk strategy.

KPMG identifies three elements to replacing the FGG using a PPP approach:

A. the Planning Phase;

B. the Execution Phase; and

C. the Monitoring Phase.

A. A Plan for the F.G. Gardiner Expressway - The Planning Phase

A critical step in the discussion of any public-private partnership is the determination of what exactly the public sector wants the private sector to ultimately bid on. If the public sector does not or cannot specify what the 'project' is, it is then left to the private sector to determine what it is they will bid on. As a result, the private sectors' 'plans' may or may not be what the public is actually looking for or willing to accept.

The City's plan must include not only the physical and operational elements, but it also has to include what the City intends to achieve in a financial sense by partnering with the private sector. Any lack of specificity in developing what the private sector will bid on can create legal problems for the public sector, such as legal challenges on the evaluation of alternative bids. Also, it can lead to increased costs for the private sector, which has to take on the risks of having their 'plan' approved by both the public sector owner and the public sector approving agencies.

KPMG states: "Devoting appropriate attention to the planning phase of a PPP project is crucial to the project's success. In our experience, many PPP projects which do not succeed fail because the planning phase was inadequate."

The lack of a plan (both physical/operational and financial) for the FGG and its environs creates significant problems for the City in any discussion of a public sector-private sector partnership. Therefore, the first phase in any further consideration of such proposals must be the development and approval of both a physical/operational plan and a financial plan. The higher the degree of specificity in these plans, the greater the degree of control the City will have on the process and, as a result, the lower the overall risk there will be to the City.

The development of a plan for the FGG has to be within the context of the City's overall Strategic Plan and its new Official Plan. The recently inaugurated processes for the development of these important documents will allow for the public to provide significant input on the strategic direction the City should pursue with respect to the FGG. Further development of the more detailed physical/operational and financial plans for the Lake Shore corridor should await the outputs from the Strategic and Official Plans.

Once the City has decided on the strategic direction for the Lake Shore corridor, the development of the physical/operational and financial plans will still require considerable staff and outside resources. Staff estimate that to consult with the public, develop and approve a physical/operational plan for the FGG and develop and finalize financial goals will take from 12 to 18 months at a cost of approximately $1.0 to $1.5 million. Staff do not recommend that the City proceed further on the PPP concept without undertaking this planning phase.

B. Request for Qualifications/Request for Proposals - The Execution Phase

The details of the Execution Phase are provided in Appendix A. This phase involves four stages:

1. mobilization;

2. administering the Request for Qualifications;

3. administering the Request for Proposals; and

4. negotiation of Agreements.

The Execution phase generally does not begin until completion of the Planning phase, with a decision by City Council on what the project is.

It is important to note that the Execution phase is a competitive bidding process and, as such, "A key aspect in designing the reporting structure is to ensure that information is treated confidentially. The general principle is that information is provided to individuals only on a 'need to know' basis. The maintenance of appropriate confidentiality in the process is a key to success, and therefore the City should ensure that 'internal spectators' do not have access to important project information."

KPMG estimates that, based on the complexity of an FGG project, a two-stage request for qualifications/request for proposals process would be required. They estimate that the Execution phase would take up to 12 months to complete at a cost to the City of from $5 million to $7 million.

C. During Construction and Operation - The Monitoring Phase

The Monitoring phase involves:

- monitoring compliance with the agreements during the construction phase; and

- monitoring compliance with the agreements during the operational phase.

KPMG notes that governments generally are good at monitoring compliance during the construction phase, but less attentive to monitoring compliance during the operational phase. If the City decides to proceed with the PPP approach, sufficient resources must be made available to ensure compliance during both the construction phase and the ongoing operational phase of the agreement.

Discussion of Economic Impacts

Transportation infrastructure is critical to maintaining and improving the City's competitive economic position. The regional transportation network serving the downtown core, such as the facilities in the Lake Shore corridor which connect many of the most highly urbanized areas in the Golden Horseshoe, have always been important to sustaining and developing Toronto's economy. Prior to considering any specific proposal for the future of the FGG, it is important that Council clearly articulate the City's overall economic, environmental and social objectives. The achievement of those objectives should guide the subsequent preparation of physical/operational and financial plans for facilities in the Lake Shore corridor.

In addition to the impact on residents and commuters, planning for this corridor must include an assessment of both the short and long term impacts, benefits and costs of any proposed change on businesses operating within the City. The FGG is a major access route for commercial vehicles transporting people and goods in and out of the downtown core. The existing level of traffic congestion in this corridor is already a concern to many businesses. The tourism industry, for example, relies heavily on visitors coming to Toronto by bus and private automobile.

The City should ensure that its investment strategy seeks to improve its overall competitive position (i.e., investment by the City should attract private sector investment and economic growth). To date, there has been considerable discussion about some of the potential environmental and social benefits of burying the FGG (reconnecting the City to its waterfront, eliminating a visual barrier) and the financial aspects related to project funding, but relatively little analysis about how changes to the Lake Shore corridor could contribute to the economy of the City. Planning for this corridor should address ways to increase the capacity of the transportation system serving this vital area of the City.

Discussion of Public Attitudes

The Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) requested that staff begin the process of determining the public attitude toward charging tolls on the FGG. The issue of charging a user fee for the use of existing City infrastructure is much broader than simply whether or not to toll the FGG. This broader discussion should be made in the wider context of the development of the City's Strategic Plan.

Timing

One of the opportunities that was identified by CHIC in its proposal concept was the ability for the City to undertake the burial of the FGG in time for the 2008 Olympic games. Given the scale, cost and logistics of moving the equipment, materials and labour in the tight timeframes to undertake these works, the level of local disruption and the risk to the success of both projects of attempting to bury the FGG and construct the required Olympic facilities at the same time and in the same corridor are unacceptable. The timeframes identified in this report for proper planning and requesting/evaluating/negotiating proposals would appear to preclude the possibility of burying the FGG before the Olympics. Committee and Council should be aware that the City's bid for the 2008 Olympic games would be significantly enhanced if it could assure that required new competition facilities can be in place for pre-games testing by 2007. Conversely, decisions that could result in delays to the construction schedule will negatively affect the bid.

The complexity of the process required to undertake such a massive reconfiguration of City infrastructure, combined with the lack of a plan of what the reconfiguration should look like, puts into question the advisability of trying to advance the construction activities so that the project is finished in time for the Olympics.

Protecting Options for the Future

During the period that City Council is developing the Strategic and Official Plans, staff will continue to review activities in the Lake Shore corridor to protect potential opportunities for reconfiguring the corridor.

The Front Street Extension and the Introduction of Tolls

The Front Street Extension has been widely recognized as an important first step in any possible reconfiguration of the Lake Shore corridor. The CHIC proposal included the Front Street Extension as the first component of its plan to bury the FGG. The Front Street Extension has been approved by both the former City of Toronto and the former Metropolitan Toronto Councils and has Environmental Assessment approvals in place. If the City wished to expedite the process for the future reconfiguration of the FGG, a good place to begin would be the implementation of this important link to the downtown.

Implementation of the Front Street Extension has been slowed because of the ongoing lack of funding for major transportation infrastructure improvements in the City. The private sector's proposal to pay for new transportation infrastructure through the introduction of highway tolls could be tested through the Front Street Extension project.

Summary:

The UEDC requested staff to respond to a number of issues. It is clear from the work undertaken to date that the City is not in a position at this time to make a firm decision on whether or not to proceed with the detailed planning required to develop a request for proposals for the possible burial of the FGG. Staff estimate that to develop the necessary plans and then to undertake a proposal call for a public-private partnership would take up to 2 to 2 1/2 years at an estimated cost of between $6.0 million to $8.5 million.

Given the magnitude of the resources required to undertake the planning and development of a public-private partnership for the possible burial of the FGG, staff recommend that the recently initiated Strategic Plan and Official Plan processes be used to develop the strategic context for the future of the FGG. The planning process should include an assessment of the fiscal impact on the City, and the economic benefits and costs to businesses and other stakeholders within the City that could be realized/incurred through improvements to transportation facilities in the Lake Shore corridor. Only when this strategic context has been finalized should Council consider embarking on the more detailed and costly process of developing the detailed plans for the FGG and the Request for Proposals process for a public-private partnership.

Contact Name:

T. W. Mulligan, Director, Transportation Programming and Policy

Tel: (416) 392-8329, Fax: (416) 392-4426

--------

The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it Appendix "A" being a communication (April 30, 1999) from Will Lipson, KPMG, appended to the foregoing report, which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting of July 12, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

--------

Susan Deryk, CAA, appeared before the Planning and Transportation Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

6

Attendance at Conference

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (June 11, 1999) from the Chair, Toronto Licensing Tribunal:

Recommendations:

(1) That authority be granted for a member of the Toronto Licensing Tribunal to attend the International Association of Transportation Regulators 12th International Conference, October 31 to November 3, 1999 in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., at a cost of approximately $2,000 (Canadian), to be funded from the Licensing Support Group Administration Budget; and

(2) that authority be granted to the appropriate City officials to give effect thereto.

Comments:

At a meeting of the members of the Toronto Licensing Tribunal on June 8, 1999, members discussed previous conferences of the International Association of Transportation Regulators. Members noted that this year's Annual International Conference would focus on "Regulating for the Millennium: the opportunities and challenges for transportation regulators at the turn of the Century."

The Tribunal decided to request one of its members to attend this year's International Conference, October 31 to November 3, 1999 in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A.

Information regarding the International Association of Transportation Regulators and its 12th Annual Conference are included in the attached Journal.

--------

The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it the Journal of the International Association of Transportation Regulators, entitled "The Regulator" dated April 1999, appended to the foregoing report, which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting of July 12, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

7

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Matters Arising from Minutes of Last Meeting - Body Shops/Automobile Service Centres - Regulation and Hours of Operation - Licensing Sub-Committee

The Committee reports that, in confirming the Minutes of its Meeting of June 14, 1999 and arising from Minute No. 1.4 "Body Shops/Automobile Service Centres - Regulations of Hours of Operation" which was adopted by City Council at its meeting on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999 (Clause 3 of Report No. 1 refers), in accordance with Council's directive therein which authorized the Committee to appoint to the Licensing Sub-Committee beyond its membership, the Committee appointed Councillor Minnan-Wong to this Sub-Committee.

(b) Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future (Don River - Ward 25)

The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having forwarded the following recommendations to the Toronto Community Council for its July 15, 1999 meeting with a request that, in accordance with Recommendation (6) of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the Toronto Community Council forward the said report and the recommendations of Planning and Transportation Committee to City Council for its meeting on July 27, 1999:

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that:

(1) the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to:

(a) amending Recommendation (3) to read:

"(3) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services carry out a public consultation process over the next two months to solicit comment on the "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands" report including the Port Lands Community Forum, other community groups, BIAs, area landowners, industrialists and other businesses and that this consultation process include discussions on how to protect and enhance the industrial potential, and that it be a consultative process similar to that provided for the F.G. Gardiner East Dismantling Project;"

(b) deleting Recommendation (5);

(2) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be actively involved in the development process and that he be requested to report separately on all matters relating to the extension of the urban forest in all areas of the Port Lands;

(3) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the TTC be requested to report jointly to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the options available in bringing public transit to this area;

(4) a waterfront setback policy be established;

(5) a transportation plan for automobile, truck, transit and rail access be developed;

(6) the following recommendations contained in the joint report (July 12, 1999) from Councillors McConnell and Layton, be adopted:

(a) that further planning directions for the Port Lands effectively address the following issues:

(i) that Carlaw Avenue be emphasized as a potential gateway as well encouraging access to the waterfront for children and families;

(ii) the provision of a connection from Carlaw Avenue/ Commissioners Street on the west edge of the turning basin to a bridge (perhaps floating) across the Ship Channel to the east end of the Cherry Beach area;

(iii) the need to provide much better access to the public to the open spaces at Clarke (Cherry) Beach for recreational purposes. Recreation needs of the whole city can be met here and this should be one of the priorities for the new planning;

(iv) the need for more detail on the greenspace and access in subsequent plans;

(v) the poor air quality issues in the area be addressed in the next report;

(vi) a stronger emphasis on LRT plans;

(vii) consideration of implementing a "green roof policy" for the Port Lands;

(viii) the inclusion in the plan of an environmental template/plan including storm water management and food production opportunities;

(ix) the connection of the wildlife corridor to the Leslie Street Spit including the consideration of ornithological studies and height of buildings appropriate for birds. Songbird pathways should be improved and strengthened in consultation with provincial birding organizations, and natural habitat and food sources should be enhanced throughout the Port Lands;

(x) the identification of rail options to achieve the goals outlined in the Plan such as the revitalization of the mouth of the Don River;

(xi) the development and application of green performance standards for all lands, developments and activities in the Port Lands;

(xii) consideration of a design competition for the entire Port Lands at appropriate points in the development; and

(b) the goal of increasing employment in the Port Lands, including the protection of existing industry, be supported and that the Port Lands Forum be permitted to establish a sub-group to meet in parallel with the citizens to facilitate the involvement of as many affected businesses as possible;

(c) a facilitator be used to assist with the public consultations; and

(d) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Task Force to Bring Back the Don and affected Ward Councillors, be requested to undertake a full consideration of options, including flooding, groundwater and soil remediation, to re-route the Don River and that a special meeting of experts and interested citizens be convened and that studies previously prepared on this subject be made available.

The Committee also:

(1) requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report directly to Council for its meeting on July 27, 1999:

(a) on the source of any additional funds required to implement the Committee's Recommendation 1(a) respecting an expansion of the consultative process along similar lines as that implemented for the F.G. Gardiner East Dismantling Project;

(b) in consultation with TEDCO and Ward Councillors, on an amended Recommendation to replace Recommendation (5) of the report (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(2) received a presentation given by Beate Bowron, Urban Planning and Development Services.

(i) (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, providing a planning direction for the Port Lands which outlines:

- an urban design and open space framework;

- options to improve access to the Port Lands for all modes of transport;

- opportunities to allow for a wider mix of land uses while protecting, and allowing for expansion of the existing industrial base; and

- an implementation strategy and various tools which can be used to help achieve the revitalization of the area;

and recommending that:

(1) City Council adopt in principle the planning directions outlined in the report "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands: Directions for the Future";

(2) the boundaries of the Port Lands Part II Official Plan Area be amended to include all of Tommy Thompson Park and the Ashbridges Bay Sewage Treatment Plant;

(3) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services carry out a public consultation process over the next two months to solicit comment on the "Unlocking Toronto's Port Lands" report including the Port Lands Community Forum, other community groups, BIAs, area landowners, industrialists and other businesses;

(4) City Council request the Ontario Municipal Board at its September 3, 1999 hearing on the East Bayfront Official Plan and Zoning By-law to amend the East Bayfront Zoning By-law 1997-0184 to repeal the permission for 4500 sq.m. of retail development per lot;

(5) City Council endorse the hiring of a consultant to undertake a study of Land Management Partnership models for the Port Lands. The estimated $100,000 required for this purpose could be cost-shared between the City and TEDCO;

(6) this report and the recommendations of the Planning and Transportation Committee be forwarded to the July 15, 1999 meeting of Toronto Community Council and that Toronto Community Council forward this report, its recommendations and the recommendations of Planning and Transportation Committee to City Council for its meeting of July 27, 1999; and

(7) all future reporting on the new Official Plan for the Port Lands be sent directly to the Planning and Transportation Committee, as this study is of City-wide interest.

(ii) (July 9, 1999) from Tim W. Bermingham, Blake, Cassels & Graydon, respecting Home Depot Appeal to the OMB regarding 429 Lakeshore and 324 Cherry;

(iii) (July 12, 1999) from Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, requesting that the Toronto Pedestrian Committee be included in the deliberations around the future of the Port Lands;

(iv) (June 21, 1999) from Paul Young, South Riverdale Community Health Centre, forwarding a pamphlet explaining the Health Centre's interest in local planning issues;

(v) (July 12, 1999) from Councillor McConnell and Councillor Layton, forwarding the following recommendations:

(1) It is recommended that the further development of the Plan for the Port Lands effectively address the issues below:

- emphasize Carlaw as a potential gateway as well as encourage access to the waterfront for families and children;

- connection could be provided from Carlaw/Commissioners on the west edge of the turning basin to a bridge (floating? etc.) across the shipping channel to the east end of the Cherry Beach area;

- need to provide much better access to the public to the open spaces at Clarke (Cherry) beach for recreational purposes. Recreation needs of the whole city can be met here and this should be one of the priorities for the new planning;

- need more detail on the greenspace and access in subsequent plans;

- next Planning report to address the poor air quality issues in the area;

- stronger emphasis on the LRT plans;

- consider a "green roof policy" for the Port Lands;

- environmental template/plan including storm water management and food production opportunities should be included in the plan;

- the wildlife corridor should connect to the spit. Height of buildings should be appropriate for birds. Ornithological studies should be considered. Songbird pathways should be improved and strengthened in consultation with provincial birding organizations. Natural habitat and food sources should be enhanced throughout the Port Lands;

- identify the rail options to achieve the goals outlined in the plan such as the re-vitalization of the mouth of the Don River;

- green performance standards for all lands, developments and activities in the port should be developed and applied;

- a design competition for the entire Port Lands should be considered at appropriate points in the development of ideas;

(2) the Forum urges Council to support the suggestions in the "Unlocking" Report which oppose "big box" uses in the Port Lands. The Forum supports the removal of the 4500 sq.m. retail permission in the East Bayfront;.

(3) the Forum supports the goal of increasing employment in the Port Lands, including protecting existing industry;

(4) the Forum recommends that the Port Lands Forum be allowed to spawn a business sector sub group which can meet in parallel with the citizens to facilitate the involvement of as many affected businesses as possible;

(5) the Forum recommends that the City establish and fund a facilitator to assist with the public consultations; and

(6) the Planning Department, in conjunction with the Task Force to Bring Back the Don, Ward Councillors and the Works Department undertake a full consideration of options for the Don River re-routing should be undertaken. A special meeting of experts and interested citizens should be convened to sort out the merits of the options. Full documentation of studies already done should be made available for this process. Flooding, groundwater and soil remediation issues should also be considered.

--------

The following persons appeared before the Planning and Transportation Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- James W. Harbell, on behalf of Setiao and Redpath Sugars;

- Ruth Richardson, Lever Ponds;

- Stan Makuch, on behalf of Lasarge Cement;

- Ernest Rovet, Barrister & Solicitor;

- Tony O'Donohue, Environmental Probe Ltd.;

- Dale Martin;

- Tim Bermingham, Blake Cassels & Graydon;

- Gerald Swinkin, Blake Cassels & Graydon;

- Dalton C. Shipway;

- Marilyn Roy;

- Councillor Jack Layton; and

- Councillor Bruce Sinclair.

(c) The Design of the New Bridge to the City Centre Airport

The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having:

(1) deferred consideration of the report (June 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services until the following conditions are met:

(a) the Business Plan is approved;

(b) the Federal Government has given its final approval for the Environmental Assessment;

(c) a permit under the Navigable Waters Protection Act has been issued by the Canada Coast Guard; and

(d) the transfer or lease from the Federal Government to the City of the lands currently used for parking and access to the ferry; and

(2) requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report on the approaches to the bridge at both ends.

(i) (June 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, responding to the direction of Council in December, 1998, when it gave approval to the former Toronto Harbour Commissioners' proposal to build a bridge to the City Centre Airport and recommending that:

(1) Council approve the design of the bridge to the City Centre Airport including the improvements to lower Bathurst Street, as outlined in this report, and require the Toronto Port Authority to earmark $500,00.00 of total project costs to funding improvements along the water's edge including the conversion of the lands used for parking and access to the ferry into an extension of Little Norway Park and creating a Waterfront promenade along the north side of the Western Gap;

(2) Council's approval is subject to and conditional upon the following actions being completed before construction begins:

(a) the Tripartite Agreement be amended, among other things, to:

(i) permit the fixed link;

(ii) require the Toronto Port Authority to develop an off-site (remote) terminal once a sustained annual passenger volume of 600,000 passengers has been reached or when the queuing capacity of vehicles on the section of Bathurst Street south of Queen's Quay has been consistently exceeded;

(iii) require the Toronto Port Authority to develop a strategy for encouraging the use of public transit to access the City Centre Airport;

(iv) limit the total number of spaces for passenger parking on the airport lands to 450 and that building and landscape plans associated with the construction of a parking garage be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction; and

(v) require the Toronto Port Authority to retain the services of a qualified consultant(s) to prepare annual monitoring reports on the effects of the bridge operation on local traffic and pedestrian conditions, including pollution levels, and to make appropriate changes to the bridge operations of access control to mitigate any negative impacts identified by the monitoring process;

(b) the project receive final Environmental Assessment approval;

(c) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back to City Council on the business plan for the bridge and to confirm compliance with Council's directive that the bridge be built at no expense to City taxpayers;

(d) the City be released and discharged from any obligations to the Toronto Port Authority to provide parking facilities in relation to airport parking on Bathurst Quay;

(e) the land south of the existing Bathurst Street road allowance be conveyed to the City at no cost and dedicated as a public highway; and

(f) the City undertake an assessment of the condition of the dockwall on the north side of the Western Gap and the Toronto Port Authority be held liable for the cost of any damage to the dockwall attributable to the construction of the bridge;

(3) City staff continue to negotiate with representatives of Public Works Canada for the transfer or lease of the lands currently used for parking and access to the ferry so that these lands can be converted to an extension of Little Norway Park; and

(4) City and Toronto Port Authority staff, with community input, develop a permanent design of the park extension which addresses concerns regarding the treatment of the ferry slip, dockwall and water's edge promenade along with an accompanying funding strategy;

(ii) (February 12, 1999) from Ken E. Brant, Superintendent, Navigable Waters Protection, Fisheries and Oceans, responding to Council's action taken at its meeting on December 16 and 17, 1998 with respect to Council's request (Clause 3 of the UEDC Report No. 14, adopted as amended by Council on December 16, 17 and 18, 1999) that the Canadian Coast Guard and/or the Federal Fisheries Ministry submit to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, their report on the impact of the fixed link (bridge) to the City Centre Airport, and providing information with regard to the public right to navigation and marine traffic safety and further advising that the bridge proposal will not be made until such time as the public has had the opportunity to comment;

(iii) (July 5, 1999) from A. Aubert & William Saganace endorsing the recommendations of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(iv) (July 5, 1999) from Mae Makarchuk, President, Canamac Cruises, commenting that the proposed agreement does not have a recommendation related to recreational and commercial traffic operating in the Toronto Harbour;

(v) (July 12, 1999) from Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, providing comments on behalf of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee;

(vi) (July 10, 1999) from George F. Sekely, forwarding a letter sent to the Superintendent, Navigable Waters Protection, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Coast Guard, highlighting the dangers to navigation;

(vii) Captain Mark Millen and Captain Richard James, on behalf of the Technical Committee, Company of Master Mariners of Canada, Great Lakes Division, writing on the technical aspects of the proposed fixed link to the Toronto City Centre Airport;

(viii) (July 9, 1999) from Syd Rein, Commodore, Island Yacht Club, requesting that this matter be referred back to staff to deal with the concerns of the Island Yacht Club;

(ix) (July 12, 1999) from Michael Vollmer, President, Ontario Sailing Association, presenting critical issues that have not been properly and completely addressed;

(x) (July 6, 1999) from the Toronto Windsurfing Club, Toronto Outer Harbour, protesting in the strongest terms the complete lack of consideration for area watersports;

(xi) (July 12, 1999) from Don S. McKinnon, Project Manager, Dillon Consulting Limited, forwarding the recommendations from their meeting with the Canadian Coast Guard;

(xii) (July 12, 1999) from Paul Mulrooney, President, Ontario Regional Airlines, Canadian Partner, commenting that the construction of the bridge would contribute much towards the convenience and ease of use of the airport facility; and

(xiii) (July 12, 1999) from Councillor Olivia Chow, requesting deferral of this matter until certain conditions outlined in the communication are met.

(d) New Practices for the Review of Development Applications

The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having:

(1) referred the report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to Community Councils for review and comment to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting on October 4, 1999;

(2) requested that copies of the report be distributed to resident and ratepayer groups in the City of Toronto;

(3) requested each Community Council to schedule deputations from the public on this report and to give notice of such meetings by way of a newspaper advertisement using plain language; and

(4) requested Councillor Filion to forward his suggested amendments to the foregoing report to the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for consideration by the Community Councils and requested the Commissioner to develop an informal process to better educate the Community Council on the proposed changes.

(i) (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, proposing new practices for the review of development applications and for the delivery of City Planning services across the City and recommending that:

(1) this report be referred to the Community Councils for review and comment to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its October 4, 1999 meeting;

(2) Council endorse the following principles as the foundation for new practices in City Planning:

(i) delegation of authority to staff, as permitted by statute, to approve applications for site plan control approval, various classes of consents, draft condominium approval (except for conversion of rental housing) and authority to execute, amend and release site plan agreements on behalf of the City;

(ii) a case management system which provides for a continuity of planning staff assignment from the beginning to the completion of any project;

(iii) a one-window review and comment process which is streamlined to the essential agencies and which establishes time frames for responses;

(iv) use of preliminary evaluation reports, for applications to amend the official plan or zoning by-law, to identify issues, set up a community consultation process and to establish a target for delivery of a final recommendation report and statutory public meeting;

(v) provision for roundtable meetings between applicants and empowered staff from City departments to identify issues, technical studies needed and other relevant matters early in the review process;

(vi) use of plain language and common formats in reports to Council, notices to the public and agreements related to development approvals; and

(vii) use of informal and formal dispute resolution throughout the approval process to avoid appeals and referrals to the Ontario Municipal Board;

(3) the City Solicitor be directed to prepare by-laws for presentation to and approval by City Council as follows:

(i) to delegate authority to approve applications for site plan control approval to the Chief Planner or delegate(s), subject to a provision for the Ward Councillor(s) to request a "bump-up" to City Council for approval;

(ii) to establish areas of site plan control on a consistent basis across the City, establishing appropriate thresholds defining the intensity of development or redevelopment which would require the submission of an application for site plan approval as detailed in this report;

(iii) to delegate authority to grant draft condominium approvals except for applications involving the conversion of rental housing, and exemptions from draft approval as appropriate, to the Chief Planner or delegate(s);

(iv) to delegate approval authority for the creation of new lots by consent to the Committee of Adjustment as permitted under Section 54 of the Planning Act;

(v) to delegate approval authority for all consents, other than the creation of new lots, to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment or delegate(s) in accordance with Section 54(2) of the Planning Act; and

(vi) to delegate authority to execute, amend and release agreements as required, to the Chief Planner or delegate(s);

(4) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to prepare and present for Council approval, standard form agreements as required and authorized by the Planning Act and any other statutes to replace standard form agreements currently in use;

(5) Council request the Province of Ontario to amend the Planning Act to delete the requirements for a public meeting in conjunction with plans of subdivision;

(6) staff be authorized to accept certificates of completion from Provincially registered professionals as proof of compliance with City requirements and Provincial statutes with regard to site plan approval and condominium registration;

(7) staff be directed to bring forward any amendments to the Official Plans of the former municipalities required to implement the findings of this report;

(8) staff be directed to bring forward a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee recommending a new structure for the Committee(s) of Adjustment;

(9) staff be directed to bring forward a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee recommending new practices for harmonizing the Committee of Adjustment function; and

(10) staff in the Urban Planning and Development Services Department, Corporate Services Department, Economic Development Culture and Tourism Department, and Works and Emergency Services Department, be authorized to undertake necessary actions to give effect to these recommendations.

(e) Supplementary Report - Amendments to the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan - Modifications to Official Plan Amendment 464 (North York Spadina - Ward 8)

The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having referred the joint report (June 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the North York Community Council having noted that the North York Community Council had, at its June 23, 1999 meeting, deferred this report for further consideration at a public meeting to be held on July 15, 1999.

(i) (June 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, recommending revised amendments to the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan further to Council's direction of November 25, 26 and 27, 1998 in considering the report of the Director of Transportation Services, District 3 dated October 27, 1998, and recommending that:

(1) it is recommended that the revisions to the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan set out in the revised Schedule "A" be adopted; and

(2) it is recommended that modifications to Official Plan Amendment 464 set out in Schedule "B" be adopted and that the Ontario Municipal Board be so advised; and

(ii) (June 29, 1999) from the City Clerk, North York Community Council, forwarding the action taken by the North York Community Council which recommended that the report (June 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the matter of the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan and Office Plan Amendment No. 464:

(1) be received by City Council on July 6, 1999; and

(2) requested the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District to:

(a) make copies of the said report available to the public; and

(b) provide notice of a public meeting to be held at the North York Community Council meeting scheduled for July 15, 1999, to hear deputations on the proposed amendments to the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan and modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 464.

(f) TTC Division of Proceeds of Gasoline Taxes if and when they become available for Public Transit

The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having deferred consideration of the report (June 10, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer to its next meeting on September 13, 1999 and having requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report to that meeting with a clarification as to when the comprehensive report on the Provincial/Municipal funding trends with respect to the TTC and a strategy for safeguarding the viability of the TTC, which should have been submitted to the June 24, 1999 meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee, would be available.

(June 10, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer providing an update on the report detailing how the TTC would divide (between operational requirements and transit expansion) any proceeds from gasoline taxes presently collected by the federal and provincial governments, if and when such taxes become available for public transit and recommending that this report be received for information.

(g) Social Indicators and Priority Areas Report

The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having received the report (June 28, 1999) for information and requested that the report titled "Social Indicators and Priority Areas" be forwarded to senior staff, the regions of the GTA, Toronto Public Libraries, and to the group involved with the Interim "Welcome Policy" for Users of Recreation Program (Clause No. 6 of Report No. 1 of the Economic Development and Parks Committee refers) and that copies be made available to the public at a cost of $20.00 each.

(i) (June 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services advising that the Social Indicators and Priority Areas Report is the first background report in support of the New Official Plan and is a description of social conditions in the new City of Toronto which focuses attention on indicators of risk, or social vulnerability, so that planning can be tailored to the unique nature of communities and neighbourhoods within the City and recommending that:

(1) the accompanying Social Indicators and Priority Areas report be received for information; and

(2) the accompanying Social Indicators and Priority Areas report be forwarded to Senior Staff, the GTA Regions, and Toronto Public Libraries and that copies be made publicly available at a cost of $20.00;

(ii) Revised Page 8 of the Social Indicators and Priority Areas Report numbered Re: 12.

(h) Update on the Status of Spadina Streetscape Design (Downtown - Ward 24)

The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having received for information the report (June 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development providing update information on the status of the Spadina Streetscape Design and the report (July 12, 1999) from Vincent Rodo, Interim Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission and Transit Commission and having recommended to Council, under separate cover, that the funding for the installation of permanent barriers on Spadina Avenue to be erected upon the removal of the temporary barriers by December 1, 1999, be provided by the Toronto Transit Commission.

(i) (June 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services responding to Urban Environment and Development Committee Recommendation No. 4 (Report No. 5) as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, requesting that the newly established staff working group, report to the July, 1999 Committee meeting, and recommending that this report be received for information; and

(ii) (July 12, 1999) from Vincent Rodo, Interim Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that as a result of a meeting held on July 7, 1999 to discuss the construction and funding of the permanent barriers on Spadina Avenue, it was agreed that the funding of these barriers, in an estimated amount of $1.5 million, be shown as a "below the line" item in the TTC's 2000-2004 Capital Program, which will be before the City for approval in the Fall.

(i) Proposed Development Charge By-law

The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having received the report (June 28, 1999) from the City Clerk, Policy and Finance Committee.

(June 28, 1999) from the City Clerk, Policy and Finance Committee, forwarding the action taken at the meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee on June 24, 1999, whereby the Committee, in part, concurred with the following recommendations embodied in the report (June 17, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, viz:

"(1) this report be received for information; and

(2) this report, together with the proposed Development Charge By-law, be forwarded to Planning and Transportation Committee for its review in accordance with Council's direction."

Respectfully submitted,

JOANNE FLINT

Chair

Toronto, July 12, 1999

(Report No. 3 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended by City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999.)