City of Toronto   *
HomeContact UsHow Do I...? Advanced search Go
Living in TorontoDoing businessVisiting TorontoAccessing City Hall
 
Accessing City Hall
Mayor
Councillors
Meeting Schedules
   
   
  City of Toronto Council and Committees
  All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.
   

 



City of Toronto




REPORT No. 4

OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on March 23 and 24, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair)




As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on April 16, 1998




1

Ward Boundary Review Process.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)



(See Clause No. 1 of Report No. 4A of The Urban Environment and Development Committee.)





2

Monitoring of Red-Light Violations

at Traffic Control Signals.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)



(See Clause No. 2 of Report No. 4A of The Urban Environment and Development Committee.)





3

Prevention of Suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends:



(1) the adoption of the report (February 12, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River, subject to amending Recommendation No. (6) by striking out the words "the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation"; so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:



"(6) the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be requested to consider the advisability of entering into a modest contract with the Bridge Committee of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario in order to draw upon its expertise in the conduct of these investigations and in the preparation of the report (estimate: one day/week for 12 weeks of report preparation at $400.00/day = $4,800.00)."; and



(2) that the Chief of Police be requested to place under special attention the Bloor Street Viaduct and any other high-profile locations for potential suicides.



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



(a) requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to consult with the Bridge Society of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario and submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on April 16, 1998, on any progress that has been made with respect to this matter and, specifically, on any short-term initiatives that can be implemented immediately;



(b) requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the appropriate City officials, to submit a report to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on April 20, 1998, regarding:



(i) a public education program which would set out the actions that should be taken by members of the public if confronted with a potential suicide situation; and



(ii) improved services which can be implemented in an effort to prevent suicides; and



(c) referred the following motions by Councillor Moscoe to the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, with a request that he submit a report thereon to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on April 20, 1998:



"That the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommend that Council:



(a) support, in principle, the concept of barriers or safety netting to avert suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct;



(b) refer the design of the barriers or safety netting to the Toronto Historical Board, the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, and the Interim Functional Lead, Culture, Arts and Heritage, with a request that the design process be in accordance with the City's policies and that an artist be included on the design team; and



(c) that this process be fast-tracked.".



The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (February 12, 1998) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River:



The recent tragic suicides of Martin Kruze and Kenneth Au Yeung have brought to light a disturbing fact: the Bloor Viaduct is a contributing factor in a large number of suicides in Toronto. As you will see in the attached material, over 37 deaths have resulted from people jumping from the viaduct since 1990. This is half of all bridge deaths in Toronto during that period. Clearly, some actions should be taken.



After discussions with Mr. Al Birney and Mr. Michael McCamus, two representatives of the Bridge Committee of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, the Transportation Department as well as other Councillors, I would recommend that the following actions be taken:



Recommendations:



(1) That the appropriate staff be requested to meet with the Schizophrenia Society and the local Councillors, as well as the Historical Board, to develop an options analysis with recommendations to be submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee within 90 days;



(2) that the Chief Coroner of Ontario be requested to assist by providing detailed data on suicide deaths from bridges in Toronto, specifically at the Bloor Viaduct;









(3) that the report consider options in use elsewhere in the world; for example, the netting and emergency phone service provided at the Golden Gate Bridge, fencing as provided in New York state, and other options;



(4) that the report consider both immediate measures and long-term strategies;



(5) that funding source possibilities be investigated; and



(6) that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to consider the advisability of entering into a modest contract with the Bridge Committee of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario in order to draw upon its expertise in the conduct of these investigations and in the preparation of the report (estimate: one day/week for 12 weeks of report preparation at $400.00/day = $4,800.00).



Thanks for your assistance.



--------



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



(i) (February 12, 1998) from Mr. J. A. (Al) Birney, President, East York Chapter and Chairman, Bridge Committee, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, advising that this letter and the attached documentation will demonstrate that:



(1) deaths from Toronto's Bloor Street Viaduct are an alarming, yet preventable, public concern;



(2) the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario's advocacy of safety measures to deter bridge suicide has precedents in other large municipalities; and



(3) Toronto City Council could demonstrate pioneering leadership, and win favour from families of the mentally ill, by taking concerted and public action against bridge suicides;



and stating that the time has come to erect safety fences along the Bloor Street Viaduct, and to install crisis/hot line telephones on each of the bridge's sidewalks.



(ii) (March 10, 1998) from Ms. Alison Licht, Chairperson, Council on Suicide Prevention (COSP), advising that, with respect to the public concern regarding the Bloor Viaduct, COSP requested Dr. Issac Sakinofsky of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry to conduct a comprehensive review of the current research literature and statistical information available on bridge suicides; summarizing some very early conclusions that have arisen from the review, in part:



(1) There is no doubt that certain landmarks become favoured spots for suicide. Publicity from the media undoubtedly enhances the popularity of such suicide points, especially if the initial victims are perceived as celebrities or can be identified with...;



(2) accessibility undoubtedly facilitates choice of suicide method. Thus, any measure that impedes accessibility to the bridge will lower the suicide incidence on that bridge. This has been shown at bridges such as the Duke Ellington Bridge in Washington, D.C.;



(3) there is absolutely no evidence available that closing off access to suicide from the Bloor Viaduct will lower the overall suicide incidence in Toronto... Equally, there is no evidence that suicides will increase at others of the many bridges in Toronto if steps are taken at the Bloor...; and



(4) we recommend that alternative measures to high barriers be considered since we note also the public concern about cutting off visibility and defacing a loved landmark. Safety nets alongside the bridge to catch jumpers may provide such a compromise. Dedicated telephone lines (as are being considered) will likely prove useful for those who become ambivalent at the last minute and opt to seek help, but in themselves would not prevent suicide from those who actually jump, whereas safety nets would do so. Safety nets would also protect motorists and pedestrians down below from jumpers--an important consideration.



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



- Dr. Isaac Sakinofsky, Psychiatrist, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, and Professor of Suicide Studies, York University, who made an overhead presentation, entitled "A Rationale for Preventing Suicide on the Prince Edward (Bloor) Viaduct", and filed a copy of his presentation material;



- Mr. Michael McCamus, Spokesperson of the Bridge Committee, Schizophrenic Society of Ontario, and displayed posters of bridges with safety fencing and/or netting and telephones;



- Superintendent Aidan Maher, Toronto Police, No. 55 Division; and filed a copy of an internal report from himself to Staff Superintendent R. Molyneaux, No. 5 District Headquarters, expressing concern regarding the potential of innocent lives being lost as a result of individuals jumping to their deaths from the Bloor Street Viaduct and landing either on the Don Valley Parkway or the Bayview Extension; and again recommending that anti-suicide fencing be placed over both roadways;



- Mr. Michael Hrecico, Toronto;



- Councillor Jack Layton, Don River; and



- Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park.



(A copy of the following attachments to the foregoing communication dated February 12, 1998, from Mr. J. A. (Al) Birney, President, East York Chapter and Chairman, Bridge Committee, Schizophrenia Society of Ontario, has been forwarded to all Members of Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:



- letter (February 17, 1993) addressed to Ms. Ruth A. Mallory, Toronto, from Mr. Joseph W. Kelly, Regional Traffic Engineer, Department of Transportation, State of New York;

- article, entitled "Bridge of Troubled Souls - Fence Bloor Viaduct for Safety, Group Says", from the Toronto Star of December 9, 1997;

- article, entitled "Anti-Suicide Fencing Urged on Viaduct", from the Toronto Sun of December 12, 1997;

- photographs of the Glen Street Bridge, Glens Falls, New York;

- photographs of more "pedestrian fencing" on bridges in New York;

- letter (February 9, 1998) from Dr. Robin R. Richards, Head of Orthopaedics, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto;

- letter (February 19, 1998) from Dr. Paul S. Links, Arthur Sommer Rotenberg, Chair in Suicide Studies and Professor in Psychiatry, University of Toronto, and St. Michael's/Wellesley Hospital;

- letter (February 27, 1998) from Mr. H. Kent Jackson, Chairman, The Monarchist League of Canada;

- two letters (January 26, 1998) from Deputy Mayor Case Ootes addressed to the Interim Functional Lead, Water/Sewer, City of Toronto, and the Chief Coroner of Ontario;

- article, entitled "'Bridge of Death' a Magnet for Jumpers", from the Globe and Mail of February 23, 1998; and

- brochure from the East York Chapter of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario.)



(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 7, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:



Purpose:



To report on progress that has been made to date with respect to this matter and, specifically, on any short-term initiatives that can be implemented immediately.



Funding Requirements:



The funding requirements for installing safety devices on the Bloor Street Viaduct have not yet been finalized.



Recommendation:



It is recommended that this report be received by City Council.



Background:



At its meeting on March 23 and 24, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it a number of reports and communications regarding the prevention of suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee adopted a number of recommendations including:



"(2) requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to consult with the Bridge Society of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario and submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on April 16, 1998, on any progress that has been made with respect to this matter and, specifically, on any short-term initiatives that can be implemented immediately."



Discussion:



To date, the following progress has been made:



(1) Meeting:



On March 31, 1998, representatives of the following agencies participated in an initial working team meeting:



(i) Schizophrenia Society of Ontario;

(ii) Council on Suicide Prevention;

(iii) Toronto Historical Board;

(iv) Urban Design Section, City of Toronto; and

(v) Transportation, Works and Emergency Services Department.



(2) Work Plan:



At the March 31, 1998 meeting, the following Work Plan was adopted.



Activity Responsibility
Review of Data/Continuation of Data Collection All Agencies, as appropriate
Experience from Other Jurisdictions All Agencies, as appropriate
Develop Options for Barriers/Safety Netting Toronto Transportation
Telephone Installation (911 and Distress Centre Patches) Toronto Transportation
Develop Non-Structural Measures (e.g., Police Patrols) Council on Suicide Prevention
Information Dissemination/Media Contacts Council on Suicide Prevention and Toronto Transportation

(3) Schedule:



The working team has targeted the June 15, 1998 Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) meeting for submitting a report.



(4) Short Term Measures:



Contact has been initiated with Bell Canada regarding the installation of four telephones on the Bloor Street Viaduct, two on the north side and two on the south side. The intent is that each telephone would have two "hot lines", one to 911 and the other to the Toronto Distress Centre. In addition, the Chief of Police has been requested to place the Bloor Street Viaduct under special attention for potential suicides.



Conclusion:



Staff in conjunction with other interested agencies are proceeding as quickly as possible to develop recommendations to submit to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.



Contact Name:



Les Kelman, Assistant Director, Construction, (416) 392-5372.)



(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (March 23, 1998) from Ms. Louise Bridge, Toronto, expressing concern with respect to the proposal to fence the Bloor Street Viaduct, and requesting that consideration be given to a "safety net" which would be a dignified addition to this unique landmark structure.)





4

Proposed 1998 Fee Schedule for Planning Applications.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:



"It is further recommended that:



(a) the report dated April 6, 1998, from the City Solicitor, headed 'Fees for Planning Applications', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:



'It is recommended that:



(1) Council approve the addition of a 7.5 percent surcharge for legal services to the tariff of planning application fees set out in the March 10, 1998 report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;



(2) Council direct that this surcharge be collected by the Planning staff and then transferred to the City Solicitor; and



(3) the appropriate staff be authorized to take the necessary steps to give effect to Council's decision.';



(b) the report dated April 15, 1998, from the City Clerk, headed 'Fees for Planning Applications', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:



'It is recommended that:



(1) Council approve a surcharge to the tariff of fees set out in the March 10, 1998, report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to cover the expenses incurred by City Clerk's in processing planning applications;



(2) the surcharge billed to each applicant shall reflect the direct costs associated with providing notice of public meetings and notices of adoption/notices of passing of the planning by-law(s) related to planning applications;



(3) the surcharge be collected by the Planning staff and then transferred to the City Clerk's budget; and



(4) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.'; and



(c) minor variance applications for 'after the fact' variances be double the regular fee.")



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of Recommendation No. (1), embodied in the joint report (March 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services and the Interim Functional Lead, Planning, viz:



"(1) that Council adopt the 1998 fee schedule for planning applications, as shown on Table 1. The fee schedule, if adopted, can be implemented effective May 1, 1998;".



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



(a) concurred with Recommendation No. (2), embodied in the joint report (March 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services and the Interim Functional Lead, Planning, viz:



"(2) that the Urban Environment and Development Committee forward a copy of this report to the Budget Committee for its information."; and



(b) concurred with the Recommendation embodied in the report (March 20, 1998) from the City Solicitor, viz:



"That the Urban Environment and Development Committee direct the City Solicitor to consult with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and to report directly to Council on April 16, 1998, with a recommendation of how to address the anticipated impact upon the City Solicitor's budget of the new common fees proposed.".



The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following joint report (March 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Interim Functional Lead, Planning:



Purpose:



To adopt a common fee schedule.



Recommendations:



It is recommended:



(1) that Council adopt the attached 1998 fee schedule for planning applications, as shown on Table 1. The fee schedule, if adopted, can be implemented effective May 1, 1998; and



(2) that the Urban Environment and Development Committee refer this report to Budget Committee for its information.



Discussion:



The Commissioners of Planning, in consultation with staff from the Treasurer's Office, have developed the proposed fee schedule for planning applications. The adoption of a single planning application fee schedule is an important step in the process of creating one Planning Department. The proposed fee schedule represents a harmonization of the existing fee structures of the former municipalities and will enable the harmonization of other matters including the development of one common application form across the City.



The proposed fees will be fair and equitable to the development community and residents and will allow the Planning Department to assess identical fees for each application type in each District Office. A single harmonized fee schedule will reduce Department administrative costs and improve the ability of the Planning Department to more accurately forecast its budget, thereby achieving a greater cost savings to the City of Toronto.



The proposed fees will continue to recover a portion of the staffing costs associated with the review of development applications. They do not represent the full cost associated with processing development applications nor do they include the costs of other Departments, such as the Legal and Clerk's Departments.



Rationale Behind the Proposed Fee Schedule:



The proposed fees are not based on a statistical review of costs associated with the processing of development applications. The base data to perform such an analysis is not yet available on a consistent basis across the Corporation. All existing application fees charged by the former municipalities are essentially arbitrary and represent, based on a recent study done by the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association, less than three percent of the total charges levied by a municipality in the development process.



In developing the proposed fee schedule, the Directors of Development Control adopted the following principles:



(1) a single harmonized fee schedule should be developed for administrative simplicity;



(2) fees should be fair and equitable to the development community and residents of the City of Toronto;



(3) fees must ensure that Toronto remains competitive with abutting municipalities; and



(4) fees should be easily understood and calculated.



In an effort to reduce red tape, streamline the planning process and make it more user friendly, staff have combined a number of separate fees previously levied into the proposed fees. The objective is to levy one set fee for each application type, rather than assess additional charges at different times in the process, for the different components of application approval.



Official Plan/Zoning By-law Applications:



A flat fee for an Official Plan Amendment is appropriate, given that it is generally accompanied by a Zoning By-law Amendment application. Staff felt it more appropriate to assess a larger fee for a Zoning By-law application, given the large amount of staff time involved in the processing of this type of application. The proposed fee for a Zoning By-law Amendment application is premised on a sliding scale, such that small applications are assessed a one-time flat fee and larger, more complicated applications are assessed a base fee, coupled with a per square metre charge. The total fee becomes dependent upon the size of development proposed.







Lifting of Holding (H) Zone:



A flat fee for the removal of a Holding Zone is appropriate given that the majority of the review has been completed by staff during the initial implementation stage of the Zoning By-law.



Site Plan Control:



A separate fee for Site Plan Control applications is appropriate given the amount of staff time involved and given the different type of examination required from that of an Official Plan or Zoning By-law application. Again a sliding scale has been proposed, such that small applications are assessed a one-time flat fee and larger more complicated applications are assessed a base fee, coupled with a per square metre charge.



Subdivision/Condominium/Part Lot Control:



For Draft Plan of Subdivision, Draft Plan of Condominium and Part Lot Control applications, a base fee coupled with a per unit or per lot charge is appropriate. Generally, the larger the draft plan of subdivision or condominium, the more time staff spends processing the application. The Draft Plan of Subdivision and the Draft Plan of Condominium fees may appear significantly higher than those fees previous levied by the local municipalities. However, by incorporating the fee previously levied by the local municipality and the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, there is now a net reduction in the combined fee.



Variances/Consents:



Review of minor variance and consent applications involves a significant amount of staff time. In an effort to recover a portion of these costs but remaining cognizant of the fact that the majority of these applications are submitted by homeowners, the fees for these applications have been kept to a minimum. However, the proposed minor variance and consent fees do represent an increase in those fees previously levied by most of the former municipalities. It may appear that the proposed fees for consents have increased significantly; however, it should be noted that the many separate costs previously levied during the consent process have now been combined. No longer are there separate charges for stamping a deed or issuing a certificate of approval.



The following tables compare the difference in fees being proposed from those fees previously levied by each former municipality and include an average cost between the former municipalities. Staff have developed three typical development scenarios, which are illustrated below:



Scenario 1:



An owner has submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control application to construct a 6 000 m (64,600 square feet) new commercial building.





Borough of East York City of Etobicoke City of

North York

City of Scarborough City of Toronto City of York Average Cost Proposed

Fee

Zoning

By-law

$7,750 * $3,750 $5,550 $2,000 $6,250

**

$3,700

***

$4,833 $3,950
Site Plan Control $8,000 * $3,750

****

$1,440 $2,600 $650 $1,700 $3,023 $3,250
Total $15,750 $7,500 $6,990 $4,600 $6,900 $5,400 $7,856 $7,900



* Includes $1,500.00 base consultant recovery fee--unused monies to be refunded or if in excess of base fee additional monies are requested to cover costs.



** Includes a $1,000.00 newspaper advertising charge and a $125.00 fee for a Preliminary Review Notice.



*** Includes a $1,000.00 newspaper advertising charge.



**** Includes a $750.00 fee for a Site Plan Control Agreement.



Scenario 2:



An owner has submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Condominium application to construct a 300-unit residential apartment building. The proposed residential apartment building is approximately 27 870 m (300,000 square feet).



Borough of East York City of Etobicoke City of

North York

City of Scarborough City of Toronto City of York Average

Cost

Proposed Fee
Zoning By-law $11,750* $14,685

$25,233 $7,030 $21,400** $5,500

***

$14,266 $14,885
Plan of Condominium

****

$17,000* $6,500 $6,280 $7,900 $6,700 $8,750 $8,855 $6,000
Total $28,750 $21,185 $31,513 $14,930 $28,100 $14,250 $23,121 $20,885



* Includes $1,500.00 base consultant recovery fee for Zoning By-law applications and a $1,000.00 base consultant recovery fee for Condominiums--unused monies to be refunded or if in excess of base fee additional monies are requested to cover costs.



** Includes a $1,000.00 newspaper advertising charge and a $400.00 fee for a Preliminary Review Notice.



*** Includes a $1,000.00 newspaper advertising charge.



**** Includes a $5,500.00 fee which was previously levied by the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. This Condominium fee is included in the total fee for each of the former municipalities.



Scenario 3:



An owner has submitted a Consent and Minor Variance application to divide one lot into two lots with a request to reduce the side yard setback for the existing dwelling.



Borough of East York City of Etobicoke City of

North York

City of Scarborough City of Toronto City of

York

Average Cost Proposed Fee
Consent $1,000 $1,400* $550 $1,850 $1,100

**

$1,750

***

$1,275 $1,400
Minor Variance $175 $200 $330 $500 $230

****

$200 $273 $300
Total $1,175 $1,600 $880 $2,350 $1,330 $1,950 $1,548 $1,700



* Includes a $1,000.00 fee required for the preparation of a consent agreement.



** Includes a $300.00 fee for stamping deeds.



*** Includes a $500.00 fee for any lot created by deed and a $400.00 fee for stamping of documents.



**** Includes a $30.00 fee for a Preliminary Review Notice.



Of note, staff will implement a time-tracking system as part of the effort of creating a single planning organization for the City of Toronto. This system will allow for benchmarking and staff costing measurements, which will ensure a more accurate assessment for subsequent fee adjustments.



In addition, staff reviewed planning application fees from the City of Mississauga, the Town of Vaughan, the Town of Markham and the Town of Pickering (see attached Table 2). The proposed fee schedule will remain competitive with those fees currently levied by abutting municipalities.



Conclusions:



The Commissioners of Planning of each municipality, in consultation with the Treasurer, agree that the attached 1998 harmonized fee schedule (Table 1) is essential and is required for the immediate operation of one Planning Department.



Contact Name:



Ms. Kennedy Self, MCIP, RPP, Director of Community Planning, 396-7012, Fax: 396-4265,

E.Mail: self@city.scarborough.on.ca.

--------



Table 1 - Proposed 1998 Fee Structure:



Planning Application Fee
Official Plan Amendment - Fee: $3,000.00
Zoning By-Law Amendment - Base Fee for all applications: $1,200.00.

Additional Fee for buildings having gross floor area over 500 m: $0.50/m.

Maximum Fee: $20,000.00.

Lifting of Holding Zone Provisions - Fee: $1,200.00.

Draft Plan of Subdivision - Base Fee: $4,500.00 plus $100.00 per lot proposed.
Draft Plan of Condominium - Base Fee: $3,000.00 plus $10.00/unit.
Consent - Sever one lot into two or establishment of a new easement: $1,400.00.

Additional Fee for each additional lot created: $900.00.

- Validation of Title, Clear Title, leases, mortgage discharge, lot additions, re-establishment of easements: $700.00.

Part Lot Control - Base Fee: $1,800.00 plus additional $200.00 per lot proposed.
Site Plan Control - Base Fee for all applications: $500.00.

Additional Fee for buildings having gross floor area over 500 m: $0.50/m .

- Agreement/Revision: $500.00.

Maximum Fee: $30,000.00.

Minor Variance - Clear title - i.e., no construction work involved: $300.00.

- Additions and alterations to existing dwellings with three units or less: $400.00.

- All other residential, commercial, industrial or institutional: $900.00.

Table 2 - Existing Fees for the Town of Markham, Town of Vaughan, City of Mississauga and Town of Pickering and the City of Toronto's Proposed Fees:

Planning Application Town of Vaughan Town of Markham City of Mississauga Town of Pickering Proposed

Fees

Official Plan Amendment Regional fee- min $1,740 or max $3,665.

$1,000 base fee plus $750 if approved.

Regional fee- min $1,740 or max $3,665.

$1,500.

Regional fee-$1,000.

$1,000 base fee plus 50% of $761/gross ha- (min $761 and max $11,035).

Regional fee- $500.

$2,000.

$2,000.
Zoning

By-Law Amendment

$750 base fee plus $750 if approved. $750 to change dev standards.

$1,500 to change zone category or uses.

$1,000 base fee plus- 50% of $761/gross ha- (min $761 and max $11,035). $800. $1,200 base fee plus $0.50/m for gfa over

500 m.

Lifting of Holding Zone Provisions $1,000. $750. N/A. $350. $1,200.
Plan of Subdivision Regional fee- min $1,080 or max $1,910.

$3,000 base fee plus- $150/unit [sf,sd,th] or

$50/unit [mf] or

$2,000/ha

[non-resid].

Regional fee- min $1,080 or max $1,910.

$3,800 base fee plus-

$1,100/half ha [non-resid]or

1st 100 units: $220/unit, next 150 units: $175/unit, next 250 units: $150/ unit, excess 500 units: $100/ unit [resid], apts $100/ unit.

Regional fee- $1,500.

$1,000 base fee plus-

50% of $320/gross ha- (min $1,504 and max $20,736).

Regional fee- $4,000 processing + $1,000 final approval. $1,500 base fee plus- $50/dwelling unit (max $5,000). $4,500 base fee plus- $100/lot.
Plan of Condominium Regional fee- min $930 or max $1,205.

$2,000 base fee plus-

$50/ha [industrial] or

$20/unit [residential].

Regional fee- min $930 or max $1,205

$2,470.

Regional fee- $700.

$1,300.

Regional fee- $4,000 processing + $1,000 final approval.

$800.

Condo conversion-$1,000.

$3,000 base fee plus- $10.00/unit.









Consent $1,000.

$500 to appeal conditions.

$800 base fee plus-

$220/unit [resid] or

$1,500/half ha or part thereof, min $1,500 [other].

Technical $250.

$927 plus $350 to issue certificate. Regional Fees-

$600 applic, plus $750 to stamp deeds [new lots] or

$150 [lot alignment].

$1,400 base fee [1 lot into 2 or new easement] plus- $900 for each additional lot.

$700 for title, lease, mortgage, lot additions, etc.

Part Lot Control



$800. $1,500. $1,000 plus $50/lot created.

Regional fee- $125.

N/A. $1,800 base fee plus- $200/lot proposed.
Site Plan Control $350 base fee plus-

$0.30/m to

4 500 m +

$0.10 m -

(max $3,000)

[ind/off/inst] or

$1/m up to 4 500 m + $0.25/m -

(max $5,000)

[commercial] or

$150/unit-[residential].

$275/unit base or

1st 100 units: $275/unit, next 150 units: $230/unit, next 250 units: $205/ unit, excess 500 units: $155/ unit [resid], apts $155/ unit or

$1,500/half ha or part thereof [ind/comm/inst] min $1,500.

To amend agmts-$750.

To amend resid agmts-$125.

$500 [resid].

$750 [other] plus 50% of $1,670/gross ha- (min $902 and max $11,189).

$500 base fee plus- $50/unit [resid] max $5,000.

$500 base fee plus- $275 for each 2 000 m [comm] max $5,000.

Other and major revisions- $500. Minor revisions- $200.

$500 base fee plus- $0.50/m for gross floor area over 500 m.

$500 agreements or revisions.

(max $30,000).

Minor Variance $300- resid/agric/inst.

$600- indust/comm.

$450 resid [excl- apts and condos].

$600 [other].

$150 residential.

$350 other.

$300. $300 clear title.

$400 dwllg with three units or less [additions/ alterations].

$700 three units or less [new resid devs].

$900 all others.





Notes:



(i) York Region will assess a fee of $5,775.00 for an OPA which requires amending the regional plan. This fee is applicable only to privately-initiated applications.



(ii) Peel Region will assess a fee of $3,500.00 for an OPA which requires amending the regional plan. This fee is applicable only to privately-initiated applications.



(iii) Durham Region will assess a fee of $2,000.00 (plus $1,000.000 for final approval) for an OPA which requires amending the regional plan. This fee is applicable only to privately-initiated applications.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (March 20, 1998) from the City Solicitor:



Purpose:



To ensure that the adoption of a common fee schedule recommended in the March 10, 1998 report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services does not negatively impact the City Solicitor's budget.



Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:



Prior to amalgamation, planning application fees in several of the municipalities within what is now the City of Toronto included legal services as a portion of the cost of processing planning applications. Some of the fees collected were used to pay for legal services. The report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services indicates that the new common fee schedule excludes legal costs associated with the processing of planning applications. To protect the City Solicitor's budget, the previous level of funding for legal services associated with planning applications should be maintained.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that the Urban Environment and Development Committee direct the City Solicitor to consult with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and to report directly to Council on April 16, 1998, with a recommendation of how to address the anticipated impact upon the City Solicitor's budget of the new common fees proposed.



Council Reference/Background/History:



The former municipalities in what is currently the City of Toronto collected fees for the processing of planning applications pursuant to policies and tariffs of fees adopted by by-law. In several of the former municipalities, the fees were designed to recover a portion of the legal costs associated with the processing of applications. These fees were used to pay for legal services. The Legal Department of the City is now responsible for all of those services, including the payment of some counsel in private practice.



The report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommends the adoption of a new tariff of fees for all applications in the amalgamated City. The report indicates that the new fees are not intended to include legal costs associated with processing the applications. The adoption of that report will repeal by implication all existing fee tariffs and related fee policies of Council.



Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:



Adoption of the report recommending a common fee schedule could have an unintended negative impact on my budget. As is the case for planning costs, there has not been a uniform practice across the seven amalgamating municipalities with respect to legal costs associated with planning applications. However, at least three of the seven amalgamated municipalities did charge fees in connection with planning applications intended to either fully or partially offset related legal costs.

As the report of March 10, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services indicates, the former Borough of East York recovered consultants fees, including fees for legal services by charging these directly to development applicants. The former City of Etobicoke also recovered at least some of its legal costs by charging these to development applicants. The former City of North York also charged a fee to development applicants in respect of its Legal Department's services. That fee was set at ten percent of the fees being collected by the North York Planning Department for its own services (i.e., a ten percent surcharge). It was collected by the Planning Department at the same time as the Planning Department's fees were collected and credited to the Legal Department. This ten percent surcharge was recognized as representing only a small part of the North York Legal Department's full costs for these services. My budget anticipates that revenue sources will remain as they were prior to amalgamation.



Conclusion:



As indicated above, it appears that an unintended consequence of adopting the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services will be to eliminate a revenue source that has been used in the past to partially offset the costs of legal services for planning applications. Should that report be adopted, protection of the City Solicitor's budget is required.



Contact Name:



Mr. H.W.O. Doyle, City Solicitor, Legal Services.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 6, 1998) from the City Solicitor:



Purpose:



The purpose of this report is to recommend planning application fees that will partially cover the cost of legal services in respect of the processing of planning applications and to avoid a shortfall in the City Solicitor's budget.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:



A report dated March 10, 1998 from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommends the adoption of a common fee schedule for planning applications in the City of Toronto. If adopted, this tariff of fees would replace those currently in existence. Some of the planning application fees currently imposed within the City of Toronto include a component for the cost of legal services required for the processing of applications. The City Solicitor's budget anticipates that the collection of such fees will continue throughout the City.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) Council approve the addition of a 7.5 percent surcharge for legal services to the tariff of planning application fees set out in the March 10, 1998, report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;



(2) Council direct that this surcharge be collected by the Planning staff and then transferred to the City Solicitor; and



(3) the appropriate staff be authorized to take the necessary steps to give effect to Council's decision.



Council Reference/Background/History:



On March 23, 1998 the Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it a report dated March 10, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending the adoption of a tariff of fees for planning applications. The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommended that Council adopt of the tariff of fees. In addition, the Urban Environment and Development Committee directed me to consult with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and to report directly to Council with a recommendation of how to address the anticipated impact of the proposed tariff of fees on the Solicitor's budget.



Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:



The report of Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services indicates that the proposed tariff of fees excludes the cost of legal services provided to process the planning applications. Some of the existing planning application fees, however, do include a component for legal services. The budget which I have proposed for 1998 anticipates the receipt of such revenue from planning application fees. A surcharge of 7.5 percent on the fees proposed by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services is required to protect my budget.



As it is not possible to predict the amount of revenue from planning applications, I propose that this surcharge be treated as an interim measure upon which I will report back to Council before year end. In addition, it may be necessary to request further amounts should unanticipated matter arise, such as hearings which require the outside counsel currently on retainer.



Conclusions:



To protect the City Solicitor's budget, a 7.5 percent surcharge for legal services should be added to the proposed tariff of fees for planning applications.



Contact Name:



H.W.O. Doyle, City Solicitor, Legal Services.)



(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 15, 1998) from the City Clerk:



Purpose:



To recommend planning application fees which will recover costs associated with the processing of planning applications and avoid a shortfall in the City Clerk's budget.



Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:



A report dated March 10, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommends the adoption of a common fee schedule for planning applications in the City of Toronto. This fee schedule only addresses the costs incurred by the Planning Division. The Clerk's Department incurs substantial costs in processing planning applications.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) Council approve a surcharge to the tariff of fees set out in the March 10, 1998, report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to cover the expenses incurred by City Clerk's Department in processing planning applications;



(2) the surcharge billed to each applicant shall reflect the direct costs associated with providing notice of public meetings and notices of adoption/notices of passing of the planning by-law(s) related to planning applications;



(3) the surcharge be collected by the Planning staff and then transferred to the City Clerk's budget; and



(4) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.









Council Reference/Background/History:



On March 23, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it a report dated March 10,1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development services recommending a new fee schedule for planning applications for the City of Toronto. The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommended that Council adopt the tariff of fees. Additionally, the Committee requested the City Solicitor to report to Council regarding the impact of the proposed tariff of fees on the Solicitor's budget. The City Solicitor is recommending the addition of a surcharge for legal services.



Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:



Section 69 of the Planning Act permits the council of a municipality to establish a tariff of fees for the processing of applications made in respect of planning matters. The tariff is to be designed to meet only the anticipated cost to the municipality in respect of the processing of an application.



The report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services addressed only the Planning Department's costs associated with planning applications. The Clerk's Department incurs substantial printing, postage and/or advertising costs associated with each planning application. The City Clerk undertakes circulation and/or advertising of notices for the public meeting and notices of adoption and/or notices of passing of appropriate planning by-laws associated with an application. There are other related costs associated with processing a planning application such as staff time dedicated to an application, the holding of a public meeting, and the production of staff reports for the public meeting agenda. These related costs are more difficult to measure and therefore this report will address only the measurable costs associated with planning applications.



The proposed tariff directly reflects the costs associated with type of notice undertaken. For example, if the notices are circulated within a 120 metre radius of the property under consideration then the tariff would reflect the printing and postage costs associated with the number of properties within that 120 metre radius. If the notices are advertised in one of the three daily newspapers, the tariff would reflect the cost of advertising plus notices for a limited circulation list. It is anticipated that for notice circulation for a zoning by-law amendment (notice of public meeting and notice of passing) through prepaid first class mail the direct costs per property shall be approximately $0.96. Since these planning applications are privately driven, the associated costs should be borne by the applicant.



It is proposed that the addition of this surcharge be treated as an interim measure to allow the Clerk's Department to immediately recover substantial costs currently absorbed by the Department and that a further report be submitted before the end of the year after analyzing, in greater detail, the related administrative costs associated with processing a planning application.









Conclusions:



Since planning applications are privately driven, it is proposed that the applicant be responsible for the real costs associated with the processing of a planning application and that a surcharge to recover the printing and postage/advertising costs be implemented along with the planning application fee proposed by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the legal surcharge.



Contact Name:



Terry Fenton, Interim Contact, East York Community Council, 778-2002.)





5

By-law for Building Permits.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the reports (February 27, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Building and (March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.



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



(1) directed that a copy of the aforementioned reports be forwarded to the Budget Committee for information; and



(2) requested the Interim Functional Lead, Building:



(a) to submit directly to Council, for consideration with this matter on April 16, 1998:



(i) a copy of the former City of Toronto Building Permit By-law, and any relevant policies with respect thereto; and



(ii) a brief report outlining any differences in the proposed Building Permit By-law from the former City of Toronto Building Permit By-law; and



(b) to submit a report to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on April 20, 1998, regarding:



(i) any further requirements which should be included in the Building Permits By-law in order to protect the infrastructure from unnecessary demolition; and



(ii) a proposed policy for reporting new construction or renovation to the assessment office.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (February 27, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Building:



Purpose:



To seek approval to standardize fees to be charged across the entire City for the issuance of permits for building, demolition and other related matters.



Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:



By eliminating differences in existing fee structures of the former area municipalities, there will be an approximate four percent ($1 million) increase over the 1997 combined budgeted revenues. A further increase in revenues is also expected ($4 million) due to an anticipated increase in value of permit applications.



Recommendation:



It is recommended that the attached Building Permit By-law be approved.



Council Reference/Background/History:



Fees are charged for the issuance of permits for the construction and demolition of buildings. The Ontario Building Code Act 1992 authorizes municipalities to charge such fees in order to offset expenditures associated with the administration and enforcement of the Ontario Building Code.



For many years, the calculation of fees in all former municipalities had been based on the prescribed value of construction. With the exception of the value of the land, prescribed value included many construction-related costs such as professional fees, land transfer taxes and the actual cost of construction. However, it was a subjective method and it was not a good service level indicator to reflect the efforts needed by Building Departments and others to carry out plan examination and inspection of buildings.



Approximately four years ago, in view of the above shortcomings, the Toronto Area Chief Building Officials Committee developed a new model by-law and a new method of fee calculation. The new method is considered to be more equitable and less subjective.



The by-law consists of two elements, the first being the general text portion, which deals with matters such as issuance and revocation of permits as well as refunds. The second portion under Schedule A establishes fees to be charged for the issuance of a variety of permits. Currently, it is in use by all of the six former Metro Toronto Municipalities and seven others within the Greater Toronto Area. Under this method, fees are calculated on the basis of the area of the building, its classification as to the type of occupancy and the Service Index associated with that type of occupancy. Compliance letters are usually requested by real estate solicitors in connection with the sale of a property. Currently, fees for this service among the six former municipalities range from $50.00 to $150.00 per request. The attached by-law also consolidates these charges.









Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:



The general text portion of the proposed by-law is very similar to the by-laws currently in use. However, there are differences in the fees charged by the former municipalities. The purpose of this report is to eliminate these differences so that fees charged for similar work will be the same throughout the City.



The differences in the current fee structures are primarily due to the following two factors:



(1) different Service Indices established by the former municipalities based on services provided; and



(2) date of last amendment of the by-laws.



In our approach for establishing the new Schedule A, the six existing Chief Building Officials followed the following principles:



(1) to standardize the fees but not to increase them across the board;



(2) to reduce the fees where appropriate;



(3) to ensure that any fee is not greater than the maximum being charged at any of the former municipalities;



(4) to take into account the fact that in some of the former area municipalities, fees have not been increased in the past three to five years;



(5) to ensure that services provided are standardized resulting in enhanced services for some areas;



(6) to be simple and easy to understand;



(7) to be flexible for single or multiple permit applications for the same project; and



(8) to give credit for repeat permits (e.g., in subdivisions).



To assist the Committee, the following Table 1 has been prepared to give examples of permit fees in different municipalities, for three different types of occupancy.



--------





Table 1

Fee Comparison



Min.

Fee

Example 1

House



2 Storeys, 200 m2, Air Conditioning,

2 baths, 12 fixtures, 8500 BTU furnace, Value: $160,000.00 (exclusive of land)

Example 2

Commercial



2 Storeys, 200 m2, Sprinklered, Value: $3,500,000.00 (exclusive of land)

Example 3

Industrial



1 Storey,

2500 m2,

Sprinklered, Value: $1,700,000.00 (exclusive of land)

By-law

Date

Former Metro Toronto Municipalities
Permit Fee -- $
East York 50 2,110 40,320 22,600 Oct. 1993
Etobicoke 60-120 2,330 44,153 26,490 Oct. 1993
North York 50-150 2,326 48,762 25,735 April, 1994
Scarborough 80 2,400 53,445 29,937 Jan. 1997
Toronto 50-150 1,950 45,500 22,100 Feb. 1997
York 45-185 2,820 43,900 22,750 Jan. 1996
Other Cities
Vaughan 50 1,950 42,000 19,125 May, 1995
Mississauga 60-100 1,766 33,600 14,275 April, 1997
Oshawa 50 1,292 37,728 17,225 Dec. 1997
Markham 60-100 2,110 40,320 16,900 Aug. 1993
United States

(Same size city as City of Toronto)

100-150 2,410 71,245 28,020
Toronto (Proposed) 80 2,400

(Cert). 2040

50,880 28,500





Conclusions:



The Chief Building Officials believe that the proposed by-law is fair, effective and efficient. It will achieve the goal to create uniformity across Toronto.



The attached by-law has been also reviewed by the Legal Department.



Contact Name:



Mr. Yaman Uzumeri, Tel: 395-7513, Fax: 395-7570.



--------



Authority: Standing Committee

Report No. , Date: , 1998

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:









CITY OF TORONTO



By-law Number ________



A By-law under the Building Code Act, 1992 respecting permits and related matters





WHEREAS Section 7 of the Building Code Act, 1992, authorizes a municipal council to pass by-laws concerning the issuance of permits and related matters;



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





1. Short Title.



This By-law may be cited as the "Building Permit By-law".





2. Definitions and Word Usage.



(1) In this By-law, unless the context requires otherwise,



(a) "Act" means the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended;

(b) "applicant" means the owner of a building or property who applies for a permit or any person authorized by the owner to apply for a permit on the owner's behalf, or any person or corporation empowered by statute to cause the demolition of a building or buildings and anyone acting under the authority of such person or corporation;



(c) "Building Code" means the regulations made under section 34 of the Act;

(d) "owner" means the registered owner of the land and includes a lessee, mortgagee in possession, and the person in charge of the property;

(e) "permit" means permission or authorization given in writing by the chief building official to perform work, to change the use of a building or part thereof, or to occupy a building or part thereof, as regulated by the Act and Building Code;



(f) "permit holder" means the owner to whom a permit has been issued or where a permit has been transferred, the new owner to whom the permit has been transferred,



(g) "work" means construction or demolition of a building or part thereof, as the case may be.



(2) Terms not defined in this By-law shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Act or the Building Code.



(3) Grammatical variations of any terms defined in this By-law shall have similar meanings to such defined terms.



(4) Unless the contrary intention appears, words importing the masculine gender include the feminine or neuter gender and words in the singular include the plural, and vice versa.



3. Classes of Permits.



(1) Classes of permits required for construction, demolition or change of use are set out in Schedule "A" appended to and forming part of this By-law.



(2) In the event of a conflict between a provision in the body of this By-law and a provision in Schedule "A" of this By-law, the provision in the body of this By-law shall prevail.



4. Permits.



(1) An applicant for a permit shall file an application in writing on forms prescribed by and available from the chief building official, and shall supply any other information relating to the application as required by the chief building official.

(2) Every permit application shall:



(a) identify and describe in detail the work, use and occupancy to be covered by the permit for which the application is made;



(b) identify and describe in detail the existing uses and the proposed use for which the premises are intended;



(c) describe the land on which the work is to be done, by a description that will readily identify and locate the site on which the construction, demolition or change of use is to occur;



(d) be accompanied by plans, specifications, documents and other information required by this By-law;

(e) be accompanied by a deposit equal to the chief building official's preliminary estimate of the fees required by this By-law or twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), whichever amount is the lesser;



(f) state the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner, the applicant, the architect, engineer or other designer, and the person who will carry out the work applied for;



(g) when section 2.3 of the Building Code applies, be accompanied by a signed acknowledgment of the owner on a form prescribed by the chief building official that an architect or professional engineer, or both, have been retained to carry out the general review of the construction or demolition of the building;



(h) when section 2.3 of the Building Code applies, be accompanied by a signed statement of the architect or professional engineer, or both, on a form prescribed by the chief building official, undertaking to provide general review of the construction or demolition of the building;

(i) include, where applicable, the registration number of the builder or vendor as provided in the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.31, as may be amended or replaced from time to time;



(j) state estimated valuation of the proposed work including material, labour and related direct costs associated with the work exclusive of the cost of the land;



(k) state, for all proposed temporary buildings, the date of removal of the temporary buildings; and



(l) be signed by the applicant who shall certify as to the truth of the contents of the application.



(3) In addition to the requirements of subsection 4(2) of this By-law every permit application that includes demolition, shall:



(a) when section 2.3 of the Building Code applies, be accompanied by structural design characteristics of the building and the method and time schedule of demolition; and



(b) where the application includes the use of explosives during the course of demolition, be accompanied by, at the sole discretion of the chief building official, an undertaking, insurance policy, and performance bond, letter of credit or certified cheque, in a form satisfactory to the chief building official, but subject to the following requirements:



(i) the undertaking shall be in favour of the City of Toronto and in it the applicant, contractor and owner of the property containing the building to be demolished shall each indemnify jointly and severally the City, its officers, servants and agents, against all claims of any kind resulting from the demolition,



(ii) the insurance policy shall:



A. be a third-party no-deductible liability insurance policy in an amount approved by the chief building official, but providing not less than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00) coverage;



B. include the City, its officers, servants and agents, and the chief building official as additional named insureds; and



C. include a cross-liability clause,



(iii) the performance bond, letter of credit or certified cheque shall be in an amount approved by the chief building official, but such amount shall not be less than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), to cover the removal of protective work and to cover any damage occasioned to property of the City.



(4) In addition to the requirements of subsection 4(2) of this By-law, every construction permit application for part of a building shall:



(a) include an application for the entire project; and



(b) include plans and specifications covering the part of the work for which more expeditious approval is desired, together with such information pertaining to the remainder of the work as may be required by the chief building official.



(5) In addition to the requirements of subsection 4(2) of this By-law, every conditional permit application for the construction of a building shall:



(a) state the reasons why the applicant believes that unreasonable delays in construction would occur if a conditional permit is not granted;



(b) state the necessary approvals which must be obtained in respect of the proposed building and the time in which such approvals will be obtained; and



(c) be subject to the applicant entering into an agreement as provided for in Subsection 8(3) of the Act.



(6) In addition to the applicable requirements of subsection 4(2) of this By-law, every change of use permit application shall:

(a) describe the building or part thereof in which the occupancy is to be changed; and



(b) include plans and specifications which show the current and proposed occupancy of all parts of the building, and which contain sufficient information to establish compliance with the requirements of the Building Code including, floor plans, details of wall, floor and roof assemblies identifying required fire resistance rating and load bearing capacities.



(7) The chief building official shall, where conditions in subsection 4(4) of this By-law have been fulfilled, issue a permit for part of a building subject to compliance with the Act, the Building Code and any other applicable law.



(8) The chief building official may, where conditions in subsection 8(3) to 8(5) of the Act and subsection 4(5) of this By-law have been fulfilled, issue a conditional permit for a building subject to compliance with the Act, the Building Code and any other applicable law.



(9) The chief building official shall not, by reason of the issuance of a permit for which application was made under subsection 4(4) or subsection 4(5) of this By-law, be under any obligation to grant any further permit therefor.



(10) Where an application for a permit remains incomplete or inactive for six months after it is made, the application may be deemed by the chief building official to have been abandoned and notice thereof shall be given to the applicant.



5. Plans and Specifications.



(1) Every applicant shall furnish,



(a) sufficient plans, specifications, documents and other information to enable the chief building official to determine whether the proposed construction, demolition, or change of use conforms to the Act, the Building Code and any other applicable law; and



(b) a site plan referenced to a current plan of survey certified by a registered Ontario Land Surveyor and a copy of such a survey shall be filed with the municipality unless this requirement is waived because the chief building official is able, without having a current plan of survey, to determine whether the proposed work conforms to the Act, the Building Code, and any other applicable law.



(2) The site plan referred to in subsection 5(1) of this By-law shall include:



(i) lot size and dimensions of the property and setbacks to any existing or proposed buildings;



(ii) existing and finished ground elevations of the property and elevations of the streets abutting the property;



(iii) existing rights of way, easements and municipal services;



(iv) dimensions of setbacks of proposed buildings from buildings located on adjacent lots; and



(v) dimensions of setbacks of buildings located on adjacent lots from their respective front property lines.



(3) Plans submitted under subsection 5(1) of this By-law shall be legible and be drawn to scale upon paper or other suitable and durable material.



(4) The chief building official shall determine the number of plans, specifications, documents and other information required to be furnished with an application for permit having regard for the requirements of any Act, regulation or by-law (including this By-law) respecting the examination or circulation of the application.



(5) The chief building official may require additional information to be provided at any time prior to the completion of work.



(6) On completion of the construction of a building, the chief building official may require a set of as constructed plans, including a plan of survey showing the location of the building.



(7) Plans and specifications furnished according to this By-law or otherwise required by the Act become the property of the municipality and will be disposed of or retained in accordance with relevant legislation.



6. Fees.



(1) The chief building official shall determine the required fees calculated in accordance with Schedule "A" of this By-law for the work proposed and the applicant shall pay such fees.



(2) No permit shall be issued until the full fees therefor have been paid.



(3) Upon written request, the chief building official shall determine the amount of fees, if any, that may be refunded in accordance with Schedule "A" of this By-law in the case of:



(a) withdrawal of an application,



(b) abandonment of an application pursuant to subsection 4(10) of this By-law,



(c) refusal to issue a permit, or



(d) request for revocation of a permit pursuant to clause 8(10)(e) of the Act.



7. Revocation of Permit.



(1) Prior to revoking a permit under clause 8(10)(b) or clause 8(10)(c) of the Act, the chief building official shall serve the permit holder with or cause the permit holder to be served with written notice of the intention to revoke the permit.



(2) Notice under subsection 7(1) of this By-law may be served either by personal service or by mailing the notice by registered mail addressed to the permit holder, at the last address the permit holder has communicated to the chief building official in writing; and where notice is served by mailing, the permit holder shall be conclusively deemed for all purposes to have ben served with the notice on the third day after the day of mailing.



(3) If on the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of service of notice of intention to revoke a permit, the ground for revocation continues to exist, the chief building official may revoke the permit without further notice to the permit holder.



(4) Upon revocation of a permit the chief building official has the sole discretion to dispose of any plans or any other information submitted with the permit application, or to return same to the permit holder.



8. Deferral of Revocation.



(1) A permit holder may, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of notice of intention to revoke a permit, request the chief building official in writing to defer the revocation of the permit.



(2) A request for deferral shall set out the reasons why the permit should not be revoked and the date by which the work will be commenced or resumed.



(3) Having considered the circumstances of the request and having determined that there have been no changes to the Act and the Building Code and any other applicable law which would have prevented the issuance of the original permit, the chief building official may allow a deferral to a prescribed date, and shall notify the permit holder of the decision.



(4) A request for deferral of revocation shall be accompanied a fee therefor prescribed in Schedule "A" of this By-law.



9. Transfer of Permit.



(1) Permits are transferrable only upon the current permit holder and the new owner completing a permit application to the requirements of Section 4 of this By-law.



(2) A fee, as prescribed in Schedule "A" of this By-law, shall be payable on a transfer of permit to the new owner, who shall thenceforth be the permit holder for the purpose of the Act and the Building Code.



10. Notifications.



(1) Notices for inspections respecting stages of construction required by the Building Code shall be given by the permit holder to the chief building official at least two business days in advance of each stage of construction specified therein.



(2) A notice pursuant to this section is not effective until written or oral notice is received by the chief building official.





11. Severability.



Should any section, subsection, clause or provision of this By-law be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this By-law as a whole or any part thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid.



12. Transition.



(1) This By-law comes into force on the seventh day after the day it is passed.



(2) Except as provided in subsection 12(3) of this By-law, the By-laws listed in Schedule "B" of this By-law are rescinded on the day this By-law comes into force.



(3) Notwithstanding subsection 12(1) and subsection 12(2) of this By-law, the By-laws listed in Schedule "B" of this By-law continue to apply to and govern all permits issued and all permit applications made before this By-law comes into force.





ENACTED AND PASSED THIS ____ day of , 1998.







MAYOR



--------



Schedule "A"



By-law No____________

Classes of Permits and Permit Fees



1. Calculation of Permit Fees



Permit fees shall be calculated based on the formula given below, unless otherwise specified in this schedule:



Permit Fee = SI x A



where SI = Service Index for Classification of the work proposed.

A = floor area in m2 of work involved.



2. Minimum Fee

A minimum fee of $80.00 shall be charged for all work.



3. Classes of Permits and Permit Fees



A. CONSTRUCTION



BUILDING CLASSIFICATION SERVICE INDEX (SI)

$/m unless otherwise indicated

Group A [Assembly Occupancies]

All Recreation Facilities, Schools, Libraries, 20.00

Places of Worship, Restaurants (Finished),

Theatres, Arenas/Gymnasiums/Pools

Restaurants (Shell) 16.75

Open Public Swimming Pools 5.40

Transit Stations, Subways, Bus Terminals 15.50

All other Group A Buildings 20.00



Group B [Institutional Occupancies]

Institutional, Hospitals, Nursing Homes, 21.30

and other Group B Buildings



Group C [Residential Occupancies]

Single Family Dwellings, Semis, Townhouses, 12.00

Duplexes, Live/Work Unit

All other multiple unit buildings

Motels above 2 stories and Hotels 19.00

Certified Plans - Housing

(i) For Certification of plans 6.00

(ii) Permits for Certified Plans 10.20

All other residential Occupancies 12.00



Group D [Business and Personal Service Occupancies]

Office Buildings (Shell), all other Group D Buildings (Shell) 12.60

Office Buildings (Finished), Banks, Medical clinics 15.80

Fire halls and all other Group D buildings (Finished)



Group E [Mercantile Occupancies]

Mercantile Occupancies, Retail Stores (Shell) 10.20

Retail Stores (Finished), Department Stores, Supermarkets and 3.40

All Other Group E Buildings (Finished)

Group F [Industrial Occupancies]

Industrial Buildings, Warehouses (Shell less than 7 500 m2) 8.00

Industrial Buildings (Finished less than 7 500 m2) 11.00

Industrial Buildings, Warehouses (Shell greater than 7 500 m2) 6.50

Industrial Buildings (Finished greater than 7 500 m2) 9.70

Gas Stations, Car Washes 10.00

Parking Garages (U/G, Open Air) 5.25

All Other Group F Buildings 11.00



B. ALTERATIONS AND RENOVATIONS



Interior alterations (Partitions, Finishings, etc.)



Group A , B and D 3.25

Group C , E and F 3.00



C. DEMOLITION



All Buildings and Occupancies 0.10

Implosion (In Addition to Service Index) $1500.00



D. DESIGNATED STRUCTURES (OBC 2.1. 2.)

Communication Tower 275.00/ Structure

Crane Runway $275.00/ Structure

Exterior Tank and Support $275.00/ Structure

Pedestrian Bridge $275.00/ Structure

Retaining Wall 8.00/ lineal m

Satellite Dish, Solar Collector $275.00/Structure



E. STAND ALONE and MISCELLANEOUS WORK



(a) Air Supported Structures 5.70

(b) Balcony Guards (Replacements) 1.50/lineal m

(c) Balcony Repairs $14.00/Balcony

(d) Basements - Finishing - in Dwellings/TH 4.00

(e) Basements - Unfinished - Non Residential 4.00

(f) Canopy w/o enclosure 4.30

(g) Ceilings (Added or Replacement) 0.40

(h) Demising Walls (no other construction) 4.00/lineal m

(i) Electromagnetic Locks $30.00each,Max.$300.00

(j) Emergency lighting $35.00/storey, Max.$350.00

(k) Farm Buildings 7.00

(l) Fire alarms $50.00/storey, Max.$500.00

(m) Fire doors retrofit $20.00 each, Max. $300.00

(n) Fireplaces, Wood Stoves $80.00 each

(o) Mechanical Service Spaces and Penthouses 7.00

(p) Parking Garage Repairs

(i) Slab Reconstruction 4.00

(ii) All other repairs 1.50

(q) Portable Classrooms

(i) Permits for Noncertified Portable

Classrooms $100.00/Portable

(ii) For Certification $100.00/Portable

(iii) Permits for Certified Portable

Classrooms $50.00/Portable





(r) (i) Repairs or Re-cladding of Walls, 0.50

Re-roofing (non-structural)

(ii) Re-roofing with structural work, 4.00

raise roof structure

(s) Residential Decks, Porches, Carports $80.00 each

(t) Shoring 8.00/lineal m

(u) Single Family Detached Garages, Accessory

Structures $80.00 each

(v) Sprinklers 0.40

(w) Standpipes (Retrofit) $35.00 each, Max.$350.00

(x) Temporary Structures

(i) Tent

1. To certify tents $80.00 up to two tents

$25.00 each additional tent

2. Permits for certified tents $80.00/tent

3. All Other temporary tents $ 1.00/m up to 225 m plus

$ 0.25/m for additional area

over 225 m

(ii) Trailers, Sales Pavilions and 10.00

Temporary Buildings

(y) Underpinning 8.00/lineal m

(z) Window Replacements (except for SFD) $2.00 each



F. STAND ALONE MECHANICAL WORK (HVAC & PLUMBING)



(i) Permit for Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC)



Group A and B

Assembly, Institutional, Restaurants 1.25



Group C

Single Family Detached or Attached Dwellings,

Townhouses

- Heating and Ventilating only,

complete with new ductwork, etc $125.00 Flat fee

- Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning $175.00 Flat fee

- Boiler/Furnace Replacement $100.00 Flat fee

- A/C unit addition $100.00 Flat fee

Other Group C Buildings 0.90



Group D and E

All Group D and E Buildings 1.00



Group F

Small Buildings (up to 230 m2) $150.00 Flat fee

Laboratories 1.25

Parking garages 0.25

Other Group F Buildings (more than 230 m2) 0.70



(ii) HVAC Alterations



Add on System, (Unit Heater, Make-up Air Unit,

Exhaust Fan) and/or Ductwork Alterations $125.00 Flat fee

Boiler/Furnace Replacement or A/C unit $250.00 Flat fee



(iii) Special Ventilation Systems



Commercial Kitchen Exhaust, Spray Booth,

Dust Collector, etc. $300.00 Flat fee



(iv) Plumbing and Drainage Systems



FIXTURES/EQUIPMENT/ROOF DRAINS

Single Family Dwelling $15.00 each

All other Buildings $20.00 each



PIPING

Single Family Detached or Attached Dwellings

- Water services, Sanitary and Storm buried piping $80.00 Flat fee

- Repairs, Replacement and Additions of buried plumbing

and drainage piping , pool drains $80.00 Flat fee



All Other Buildings

- Inside Sanitary and Storm Piping 1.70/lineal m

- Outside Water Services, Sanitary and Storm Piping



(v) Other Plumbing Work



Manholes, Catchbasins, Interceptors and

Sumps complete with pumps 25.00 each



Backflow prevention devices

(devices requiring testing) $60.00 each



Private Sewage Systems

- Holding Tank $250.00 Flat fee

- Septic System $500.00 Flat fee



4. Other Charges



(A) Additional Review Fee In order to compensate the City for additional work and expense in plan examination, if new, additional or revised information is submitted for a permit application which applies to some or all of the permit which has already been reviewed, the greater of $80.00 or the additional review time spent, measured to the nearest whole hour, multiplied by the hourly rate of $60.00 per hour.



(b) Authority to Occupy $300.00 minimum charge plus for any Before Completion examination and inspection time over five hours, $60.00 per hour.



(c) Conditional Permit Under Additional fee equal to 10 percent of the full fees Sec. 8(3) of Building Code Act for the entire project with a minimum of $200.00 and a maximum of $2000.00.



(d) Part Permit $200.00 additional fee for each part permit.

(e) Permission to Defer Revocation $80.00 per permit plus, $60.00 per hour for any review time over one hour.



(f) Permit for Change of Use $60.00 per hour of examination and inspection time, with a $200.00 minimum.



(g) Permit to Revise an Issued Permit $60.00 per hour of examination and inspection time.



(h) Special Inspection Fee $60.00 per hour of inspection time.



(i) Transfer of Permit $80.00 per permit.



(j) Routine Compliance Search Fee $100.00 Flat Fee



5. OTHER APPLICABLE FEES



Fees for classes of permits or services not described or included in this Schedule shall be based on an hourly charge of $60.00/hour to account for processing of the permit and inspections.



6. REFUNDS



Pursuant to Subsection 6 (3) of this By-law, the amount of fees refundable shall be calculated based on the total required fee, using the following factors:



(a) 75 percent if application is cancelled prior to the review of the application and 50 percent if cancelled prior to permit issuance;



(b) 40 percent if permit has been issued and project has been cancelled minus $80.00 for each field inspection performed up to the cancellation date;



(c) in cases where the deposit paid is less than the total required fee calculated using this Schedule, the amount of the refund shall be reduced by the amount owing;



(d) no refund is due for any Other Charges paid under Section 4 of this Schedule "A" or for certification of plans;



(e) if the amount of fees refundable as calculated pursuant to this paragraph 7 is less than the minimum permit fee applicable to the work, there shall be no refund; and



(f) the refund shall be made to the then current permit holder at the time the refund request is made.



--------





Schedule "B"



By-law No ___________



This schedule contains the list of by-laws from the previous six municipalities that must be rescinded when this By-law comes into effect.



(1) East York



(2) Etobicoke



(3) North York



(4) Scarborough



(5) Toronto



(6) York



The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following report (March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:



Purpose:



This is a supplementary report to provide clarification to the proposed by-law to standardize fees to be charged across the entire City for the issuance of permits for building, demolition and other related matters.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) the draft by-law attached to the report dated February 27, 1998 be revised by adding a new Schedule "B" in order to preserve certain practices of the former City of Toronto;





(2) the former Schedule "B", be re-lettered Schedule "C"; and



(3) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services continue to review the current practices of the former municipalities and bring forward appropriate amendments to the Building Permits By-law, as required.



Council Reference/Background/History:



As indicated in the report dated February 27, 1998, the proposed Building Permit By-law was generally concurred with by the Chief Building Officials of the six former municipalities on the understanding that local differences in requirements of building permit applicants might be preserved notwithstanding the passing of a new uniform by-law.



Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:



The Chief Building Officials have recently learned that unique features of the by-laws of the six former municipalities would not be preserved once a new Building Permit By-law was adopted.



The current Building Permit By-law of the former City of Toronto contains unique provisions related to the environmental review of demolition permit applications. In order to preserve these, a new Schedule "B", which is attached to this report, should be added to the draft by-law to enable the Chief Building Official to require demolition permit applicants to provide information necessary for this environmental review. Please note that Schedule "B" to the proposed by-law which accompanies the February 27, 1998, report now becomes Schedule "C".



Conclusions:



The proposed measure will largely preserve the status quo while enabling the new by-law to be adopted. Staff should be instructed to carry out a thorough review of these unique elements of the former City of Toronto's by-law with a view to adopting best practices and, through future amendments, more formally incorporating any recommended changes into the new Building Permit By-law.



Contact Name:



Mr. Yaman Uzumeri, P.Eng., 395-7513, Fax: 395-7570.



--------





Schedule "B"



By-law No __________



Demolition Permit Application Information



(1) Environmental Information



Details and particulars in respect of the proposed demolition which state:



(a) whether there is compliance with Regulation 347 made under the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19;



(b) whether the present owner has or any past owners had generators or a waste generator number;



(c) whether there are hazardous or controlled products, as defined in the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS);



(d) whether there is a list of designated substances including asbestos as required under section 30 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1;

(e) whether there are any fluid storage tanks, above or below grade, on site;



(f) whether there are any outstanding orders issued by the Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Labour in respect of the premises;



(g) whether the structure to be demolished is insulated with urea formaldehyde;



(h) whether the structure contains polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as defined under the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19, Regulation 362;



(i) whether the structure contains chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) bearing refrigerant equipment which requires proper handling in accordance with any applicable City by-law respecting CFC's including the following:



(i) Article I, Ozone-Depleting Substances, of Municipal Code Chapter 127, Air Pollution, of the former City of Toronto; and



(ii) by-laws respecting CFC of the former Cities of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York and the former Borough of East York;



(j) the nature of the past and present uses of the premises;

(k) the precise nature of the waste, as defined under the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19 and regulations made under that Act that will be generated by the demolition of the structure and the method of waste disposal;



(l) whether there will be compliance with section 13 of the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19 and with any applicable City by-law respecting noise including the following:



(i) Chapter 241, Noise, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and



(ii) by-laws respecting noise of the former Cities of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York and the former Borough of East York;



(m) the method of demolition and whether the method for handling air and dust emissions, recognizing on site sources, complies with sections 6 and 11 of Regulation 346 made under the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19;



(n) what the final grading will be;



(o) the post-closure plans;



(p) the proposed enclosure of the land;



(q) the size of the property on which the structure to be demolished is located; and



(r) whether there will be discharge of contaminated waters resulting from either a dewatering process, storm runoff or other discharge contrary to any applicable City by-law respecting sewers including the following:



(i) former Metropolitan Toronto Corporation By-law No. 153-89;



(ii) Article III, Sewer Regulation, of Municipal Code Chapter 292, Sewers, of the former City of Toronto; and



(iii) by-laws respecting sewers of the former Cities of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and York and the former Borough of East York.



(2) Use of Explosives Information



(a) evidence that the building is not on a lot in or adjacent to a residential area designated as an "R district" under the applicable zoning by-law;











(b) a declaration that the contractor shall comply with all applicable law respecting the transportation, storage, handling and use of explosives, including, but not limited to, the Explosives Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-17, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, and the Fire Code, and that, in the absence of legislative requirements, the demolition shall be conducted in accordance with CSA (Canadian Standards Association) standard S350-M1980, Code of Practice for Safety in Demolition of Structures;



(c) a copy of the letter of retention of a professional engineer experienced in the use of explosives during the course of demolition who has been retained to undertake the design and general review of all components of the demolition;



(d) a report on the demolition plan, prepared by the professional engineer described in clause (2)(c) of this schedule, that includes the following:



(i) structural design characteristics of the building sought to be demolished;



(ii) particulars of the method of demolition describing in detail the dates, times, duties, procedures, safety precautions, explosives, vibration, noise and dust effect of the method on:



(1) the building sought to be demolished;



(2) buildings in the area of influence;



(3) public and private utilities and infrastructure in the vicinity; for example, electricity, sewer, water, telephone, gas, cable, district heating and cooling, streetcar and similar services; and



(4) residents in the area of influence;



(iii) the measures employed to isolate the building sought to be demolished from its surroundings; and



(iv) the proposal to inform residents in the area of influence of the demolition;



(e) a precondition survey with pictures prepared by the professional engineer depicting interior and exterior conditions of all buildings, public and private utilities, bridges, underground structures and structural improvements, streets and any similar thing, within the area of influence of the demolition;



(f) where, in the opinion of the professional engineer, buildings in the area of influence of the demolition may suffer damage as a result of the use of explosives during the course of the demolition, written consent of the owners of the buildings concerned, giving permission for an in-depth inspection of their structures by the professional engineer prior to demolition, and the results of this inspection shall be included in the demolition plan required under clause (2)(d) of this schedule;



(g) a letter from the Ministry of Labour confirming that a notice of the project has been filed and that the demolition procedures have been reviewed for compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1;



(h) where considered appropriate by the chief building official, written approval from any of the following:



(i) the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Engineer, the Fire Chief, the Medical Officer of Health or any other City official responsible for public works, fire matters, health matters, parks or recreation matters;



(ii) (1) Toronto District Heating Corporation;



(2) Toronto Economic Development Corporation;



(3) Toronto Historical Board;

(4) Toronto Hydro Electric Commission;



(5) Toronto Police Services Board;



(6) Toronto Transit Commission;



(iii) Ministry of Energy and the Environment;



(iv) (1) Department of Natural Resources of Canada;



(2) Toronto Harbour Commissioners;



(v) (1) Bell Canada;



(2) Consumers Gas Company;



(3) Rogers Cable;



(i) evidence of the execution of any agreements or undertakings required as part of the written approval required under clause 2 (h) of this schedule; and



(j) evidence of compliance with any other reasonable criteria the chief building official determines to be necessary in respect to the specific property for which the demolition permit is requested.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:



Purpose:



This is a supplementary report to provide further information on the comparison of the proposed Building Permit By-law and the similar requirements of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.



Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:



Not applicable.



Recommendation:



It is recommended that this report be received for information.



Council Reference/Background/History:



The Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting held on March 23, 1998, requested the Interim Functional Lead (Building) to report to Council on the following two items:



(a) a copy of the former City of Toronto Building Permit By-law, and any relevant policies with respect thereto; and



(b) a brief report outlining any differences in the proposed Building Permit By-law from the former City of Toronto Building Permit By-law.



Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:



The proposed by-law, substantially in the form submitted, has been in use by many of the greater Toronto area municipalities for the past two to three years. Generally it is accepted by the industry and the public, primarily due to its simplicity and effectiveness.



A copy of Chapter 146, Article 1 (Building Permits) of the Toronto Municipal Code is attached. I have been advised that there are no relevant policies with respect thereto.



Method of Permit Fee Calculation:



The major difference between the two by-laws is the method of permit fee calculation. In the proposed City of Toronto By-law, fees are calculated on the basis of classification of the building; type of occupancy, complexity, etc. and the floor area in square metres, of the work involved. In the Toronto Municipal Code, fees are calculated based strictly on the cost of construction which does not reflect the complexity of the project. Therefore, a detailed review of all the fees is not possible. My report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee dated February 27, 1998, which is included in the agenda, contains additional information regarding this matter. One readily identifiable difference is the new harmonized minimum fee of $80.00 compared to $50.00 currently in effect.



Transfer of Certain Sections of the Municipal Code:



During the review of the by-laws, a number of sections, not directly related to permits and permit fees were identified in the Municipal Code. These included regulations on: duties of City surveyor, projections over public property, highway encroachments and parks levy appraisal fees. In my report to the Toronto Community Council dated March 16, 1998, and in order to maintain current service levels, it was recommended that these regulations be relocated to a new article of the Municipal Code, pending a city-wide service level review.



Conclusions:



It is the collective opinion of the Chief Building Officials of the six former municipalities that the proposed by-law does not remove or diminish any authority currently held by any of the Chief Building Officials. With respect to administrative requirements and operational issues, there are no substantial differences between the two sets of requirements. The proposed by-law wherever appropriate, follows the modern trend in building regulations by being less prescriptive and more performance oriented.



Contact Name:



Yaman Uzumeri, Tel: 395-7513, Fax: 395-7570.)



(A copy of Chapter 146, Article 1 (Building Permits) of the Toronto Municipal Code, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)



(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (March 31, 1998) from the President, Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association, expressing the concerns of the Association with respect to the by-law for building permits; indicating that the fee being proposed is much too high; and requesting that Council reject the proposed by-law at this point in time, and that staff be requested to report on a proposed fee schedule which is more in line with what is being charged in other municipalities in the GTA.)





6

Appointments to the Boards of Management for

Business Improvement Areas and Amendments to

the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20,

Business Improvement Areas - Various Wards.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 6, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development, subject to amending Recommendation No. (2) by adding the words "Kennedy Road" before the words "and Weston"; so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows;



"(2) Council appoint the nominees listed in Appendix 1 of this report to the Boards of Management for Corso Italia, Little Italy, Pape Village, Parkdale Village, Kennedy Road and Weston Business Improvement Areas. The term of office is to expire on November 30, 2000, or as soon thereafter as successors are appointed. Each of the named nominees meets the requirements of Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended by Bill 106; and":



Purpose:



Changes to membership of Boards of Management for Business Improvement Areas require Council approval and a by-law amendment. Attached is Schedule A detailing the amendments to (former Toronto) Municipal Code, Chapter 20, and Appendix 1 listing the names of the nominees to be appointed.



Source of Funds:



No funds are required. Business Improvement Area operating budgets are raised by a special levy on members and will be brought forward in a separate report for approval.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) in accordance with the elections held at the Business Improvement Area Annual General Meetings in the former City of Toronto, amendments be made to Schedule A, Individual Boards of Management, of the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas, as set out in the attached Schedule A. These changes are specific to Number of Members and Members Needed for Quorum and are highlighted by "Changes From and To";



(2) Council appoint the nominees listed in Appendix 1 of this report to the Boards of Management for Corso Italia, Little Italy, Pape Village, Parkdale Village and Weston Business Improvement Areas. The term of office is to expire on November 30, 2000, or as soon thereafter as successors are appointed. Each of the named nominees meets the requirements of Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended by Bill 106; and



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













Comments:



Following the elections held at the Annual General Meetings of Little Italy and Parkdale Village Business Improvement Areas, amendments are required to the number of members and members needed for quorum. These amendments must be reflected in Schedule A, Individual Boards of Management of the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas.



Following the elections held at the Annual General Meetings of Pape Village, Weston and Kennedy Road Business Improvement Areas, and as per Council's resolution at its meeting of February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, attached in Appendix 1 are the nominations for appointments to other Business Improvement Areas Boards of Management in the former Area Municipalities.



The Board of Management of the Bloor by the Park Business Improvement Area has requested that the size of its Board be decreased from ten to nine, due to the resignation of Mr. Paul DiNuzzo, with no replacement being recommended. The quorum should be changed from five to four.



The Board of Management of the Corso Italia Business Improvement Area has requested that the size of its Board be increased from 11 to 12, and that following the resignation of Mr. Murray Culligan, Mr. Joseph Chiaravalloti and Ms. Fulvia T. Mrusek be appointed. The quorum should remain at six.



The Board of Management of the Eglinton Way Business Improvement Area has requested that the size of its Board be decreased from ten to nine, due to the resignation of Ms. Nancy Perkins, with no replacement being recommended. The quorum will remain at five.



The Board of Management of the Old Cabbagetown Business Improvement Area has requested that the size of its Board be decreased from ten to nine, due to the resignation of Ms. Merion Clement, with no replacement being recommended. The quorum should remain at five.



Conclusions:



These amendments should be reflected in Schedule A, Individual Boards of Management of the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20, Business Improvement Areas.



The nominees listed in Appendix 1 of this report should be appointed to the Business Improvement Area, Boards of Management. The terms of office are to expire on November 30, 2000, or as soon thereafter as successors are appointed. Each of the named nominees meets the requirements of Section 220 of the Municipal Act, as amended by Bill 106.



Contact Name:



Ms. Ingrid Girdauskas, 392-1134, (fax) 392-0675, (e-mail) igirdaus@toronto.ca.



--------





Schedule A

Business Improvement Areas

Individual Boards of Management



Name of By-law Members

Business Which Number Council Members Needed

Improvement Designates of For

Area Area Members Number Ward Quorum



Changed Changed

From To From To



Bloor by 117-87 10 9 2 High Park 5 4

the Park

Corso Italia 807-83 11 12 1 Davenport 6

Eglinton Way 662-86 10 9 1 North Toronto 5

Little Italy 497-85 5 6 1 Trinity - Niagara 3

Old 1-82 10 9 1 Don River 5

Cabbagetown

Parkdale 497-78 6 7 1 High Park 4

Village



--------



Appendix 1



Corso Italia BIA:



Joseph Chiaravalloti Canada Trust

1347 St. Clair Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario M6E 1C3



Fulvia T. Mrusek Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

1164 St. Clair Avenue West

Toronto, Ontario M6E 1C3



Little Italy BIA:



Ted Footman Ted's Collision and Body Repair

573 College Street

Toronto, Ontario M6G 1B2



Martin Jose S. Jose Home Hardware Ltd.

556 College Street

Toronto, Ontario M6G 1B1



Andy Kalins College Street Medical

559 College Street

Suite 402

Toronto, Ontario M6G 1A9



Lenny Lombardi CHIN Radio

622 College Street

Toronto, Ontario M6G 1B6



Carlos A. Teixeira Teixeira Associates

637 College Street

Toronto, Ontario M6G 1B5



Pape Village BIA:



Ian Brown Canada Trust

991 Pape Avenue

Toronto, Ontario M4K 3V6



Eldon Dixon Donlands TV and Appliance Service.

1025 Pape Avenue

Toronto, Ontario M4K 3W1

Mark Florence The Dental Office

1011 Pape Avenue

Toronto, Ontario M4K 3V8



Rod Labraco The Dental Office

1011 Pape Avenue

Toronto, Ontario M4K 3V8



Tom Mangos A Mangos T.V. Repair

926 Pape Avenue

Toronto, Ontario M4K 3V2



Sam Sikand Movie Deal

1020 Pape Avenue

Toronto, Ontario M4K 3V9



Elizabeth Zareski California Restaurant

914 Pape Avenue

Toronto, Ontario M4K 3V2



Parkdale Village BIA:



Dick Bacchus Bacchus Roti Shop

1376 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario M6K 2V5



John Colautti Central Bargain House Co. Ltd.

1358 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario M6K 1L7



Mark Crowe Rustic Cosmo Cafe

1278 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario M6K 1L4



Steve Dunlop Andromeda Gallery

1275 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario M6K 1L6



Sheldon Fainer Designer Fabric Outlet

1360 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario M6K 1L7



Larry Simons Barton Floor Coverings

1276 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario M6K 1L6



Weston BIA:



Lou Bunda Central Restaurant

1948 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1W2



Tom Bunda Central Restaurant

1948 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1W2



Victor Caldana West End Chyrsler

1865 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1V9



Tony Cardone Tony's Hardware

1754 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1V8



Renata Czyzcka H & R Block

1931 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1W7



Frank Figura Canada Trust

1979 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1W8



Simon Gilmartin Royal Bank

1906 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1W2

Barry Lowe World of Cake

1766 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1V8



Michael McDonald Day McDonald

1941 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1W8



Nick Simopoulos Weston Station

1935 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1W7



Pam Somers Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

1940 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1W2



John Ward Ward Funeral Home

2000 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1X7



Suri Weinberg Squibbs Stationers

1974 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1W2



Tuffy Zidner Zidner Real Estate Ltd.

1800 Weston Road

Toronto, Ontario M9N 1V8



Kennedy Road BIA:

John Belo Lansing Building Supplies

2021 Kennedy Road

Scarborough, Ontario M1P 2M1



Eddy Jagan Wardell Lumber Building Supplies

2380 Lawrence Avenue East

Scarborough, Ontario M1P 2R5



Blayne Lastman Bad Boy Furniture and Appliances

1119 Kennedy Road

Scarborough, Ontario M1P 2K8



Terrance Lushington Granada

2300 Lawrence Avenue East, No. 18

Scarborough, Ontario M1P 2R2



Lionel Miskin Miskin, Flancman & Frisch

1286 Kennedy Road

Scarborough, Ontario M1P 2L5



Gloria Savablio Royal Bank

1421 Kennedy Road

Scarborough, Ontario M1P 2L6



Jim Stavropoulos The Office Place

2251 Lawrence Avenue East

Scarborough, Ontario M1P 2P5



John Tunstall M & M Meat Shops

2300 Lawrence Avenue East

Scarborough, Ontario M1P 2R2



Vacancy



(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on April 16, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that his son is the President of the Kennedy Road Business Improvement Area.)





7

Renewal of Agreement to Permit Molson Indy Race

at Exhibition Place for 1998, 1999 and 2000.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:



"It is further recommended that the report dated April 14, 1998, from the City Solicitor, headed 'Molson Indy - Indemnity', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:



'It is recommended that:



(1) in addition to the City of Toronto, the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd. and Molstar Inc., Molson Breweries (a partnership) be named as a party to the agreements respecting the consent of Council to holding the Molson Indy and the closure of Lake Shore Boulevard West for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any loss which is a consequence of any default by Molstar of its obligations under the agreements; and



(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the actions necessary to give effect hereto.' ")



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1), (2), (3) and (5), embodied in the joint report (March 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.



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



(1) concurred with Recommendation No. (4) embodied in the joint report (March 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, viz:



"(4) that a copy of this report be forwarded to the Toronto Community Council for its meeting on April 1, 1998, for information;"; and



(2) requested the City Solicitor to submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998, on whether an indemnity should be obtained from Molson Breweries of Canada Limited in addition to the indemnity obtained from Molstar Sports and Entertainment.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following joint report (March 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:



Purpose:



To obtain authority to enter into an Agreement with Molson Breweries of Canada Limited, Molstar Sports and Entertainment and the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place to permit the staging of the 1998, 1999 and 2000 Molson Indy races.



Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:



No funds are required in connection with this report.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) an Agreement between the City of Toronto, the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, Molson Breweries of Canada Limited and Molstar Sports and Entertainment be authorized to permit the Molson Indy Race to be held in 1998, 1999 and 2000, in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Treasurer, and on substantially the same terms and conditions as the previous Agreement executed by the parties;



(2) the approval of the Agreement set out in Recommendation No. (1) above be subject to the renewal of an Agreement between the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, Molson Breweries of Canada Limited and Molstar Sports and Entertainment for the 1998, 1999 and 2000 Molson Indy races;



(3) should Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) above be approved, such approval be subject to the condition that Molson Breweries of Canada Limited and Molstar Sports and Entertainment obtain the necessary City of Toronto approvals each year prior to staging the race;



(4) this report be forwarded to the Toronto Community Council for its meeting on April 1, 1998, for information; and



(5) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.



Background:



Molson Indy organizers have requested, in a letter dated January 30, 1998, from Mr. James H. Tario, Senior Manager, Molstar Sports and Entertainment to Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, that City Council ratify an Agreement, as has been the case in previous years, to permit the Molson Indy race to be held for the three-year period comprising 1998, 1999 and 2000.



Discussion:



Under Section 1(2) of the City of Toronto Act, 1978, Council must authorize the racing of any motor vehicles within the City of Toronto.



The City, Molson Breweries of Canada Limited (through its corporate affiliate Molstar Sports and Entertainment for the purposes of the Molson Indy) and the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place (the "Board") have entered into Agreements since 1986 to allow the staging of the Molson Indy race subject to certain terms and conditions including indemnification of the City, adequate insurance coverage, a community and public official consultation process, deadline for submissions of the operating plan for upcoming races and various safety matters. The Agreements have encompassed a three-year period, with the current Agreement between the City, Molson Breweries of Canada Limited ("Molson") and the Board having expired after the 1997 race. A separate agreement between Molson and the Board has also come to an end.



In the letter from Mr. Tario to Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski dated January 30, 1998, Molstar is requesting that City Council approve a further Agreement with the City and the Board to conduct races for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. Documentation provided by Molstar Sports and Entertainment includes a letter dated January 14, 1998, from Ms. D. Young, Interim General Manager, Exhibition Place, which indicates that the Board is in the process of negotiating an Agreement to permit the 1998 race. It is anticipated an agreement will be in place prior to this year's event. A new Agreement between Molson, Molstar Sports and Entertainment, the City and the Board for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, should contain substantially the same terms and conditions as the predecessor Agreement, in form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Treasurer. The first year's race would be confirmed, but each of the subsequent two years would be subject to Molson and Molstar Sports and Entertainment successfully negotiating an Agreement with the Board to stage the race at Exhibition Place for each of the years of 1999 and 2000.



Molstar Sports and Entertainment must ensure that for each year, all of the requisite approvals under the Agreement are obtained from the City in accordance with the Agreement.



For the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, the existing Agreement permits Council to withdraw its consent on or before March 1 of any year to any or all of the proposed future Molson Indy races if Council believes that the requirements set out in the Agreement have not been complied with, or if Council is not satisfied with the way any particular race was staged, operated or held, including the consultative process utilized for the race preparation.



The terms of the existing Agreement include a requirement for community liaison, under the auspices of a Working Committee which comprises representatives from the Molson Indy organization, Exhibition Place, the neighbouring community and appropriate public agencies . This community liaison process has been an effective means of providing input to the planning of each event, including the "transit-oriented" Transportation Plan, to address impacts which the surrounding neighbourhoods incur during the events and to develop measures to mitigate those impacts. The process should remain an integral requirement of any renewed Agreement.



Required Modifications to the Agreement:



It is noted that a renewed Agreement should reflect the following updates and modifications to the predecessor Agreement:

- the recent amalgamation of the City and Metropolitan levels of government into the "City of Toronto";



- the Molson Indy organization name change from Grand Prix Management Inc. (GPMI) to Molstar Sports and Entertainment;



- an updated race diagram to reflect recent changes to the road layout at Exhibition Place;



- provision of levels of comprehensive general liability insurance in a form and content satisfactory to the City Treasurer.



Conclusions:



The process which has been established to address the Molson Indy event has worked well, and the terms and conditions agreed to by the previous Council should be maintained in any renewed Agreement. Should Council approve a further Agreement between Molson, Molstar Sports and Entertainment, the Board, and the City, the City Solicitor will prepare the necessary Agreement for execution by the parties.



The City Solicitor has been consulted in the course of preparing this report, including legal matters pertaining to the Agreement.



Contact Name and Telephone Number:



Mr. Tim Laspa, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, Toronto City Works Services, 392-7711.



--------



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (January 30, 1998) addressed to Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park, from Mr. James H. Tario, Senior Manager, Operations, Molstar Sports and Entertainment, requesting that the City of Toronto ratify a three-year Agreement with Molstar Sports and Entertainment for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000.



Councillor Moscoe declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that his "soon-in-law" has a catering contract with the Molson Indy.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 14, 1998) from the City Solicitor:



Purpose:



To respond to a request to report directly to Council on whether an indemnity should be obtained from Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd. in addition to the indemnity obtained from Molstar Sports and Entertainment in connection with the Molson Indy.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) in addition to the City of Toronto, the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd. and Molstar Inc., Molson Breweries ( a partnership) be named as a party to the agreements respecting the consent of Council to holding the Molson Indy and the closure of Lakeshore Boulevard West for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any loss which is a consequence of any default by Molstar of its obligations under the agreements; and



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



Council Reference/Background/History:



The Urban Environment and Development Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998 had before it two reports in connection with the Molson Indy to be held at Exhibition Place and adjacent on Lakeshore Boulevard West on the week-end of July 17, 18, and 19, 1998. One report recommended the terms on which the consent should be given to the race pursuant to the powers of Council under section 1(2) of the City of Toronto Act, 1978. The other report recommended the terms on which Lakeshore Boulevard West should be closed for the purposes of the race.



The race will be sponsored and conducted by Molstar Sports and Entertainment, a corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario as Molstar Inc. (Molstar). It was noted in one of the reports that Molstar was a wholly owned subsidiary of Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd. Although the report respecting the consent referred to both these entities being parties to the agreement the report respecting the road closure did not.



Molstar (formerly Grand Prix Management Inc.) has the purpose of the "Promotion of Sports Events". Molson Breweries of Canada is a federally incorporated company with the same principal place of business address in Ontario as Molstar. I am unaware of the availability of the assets of either to satisfy any claim based upon the indemnity of either. Since amalgamation, it is probably appropriate that the race consent and the road closure be the subject of a single agreement. Since this will be the case, Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd. will be an indemnitor of all of Molstar's obligations whether they relate to the road closure or the consent to the race.



Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:



In the previous agreements the indemnity was given solely by Molstar. Since the primary exposure to liability of the City was insured such an arrangement may have been viewed as satisfactory. The extent of the assets of either Molstar or Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd. is unclear but, in any event each will be liable under a single agreement.



My staff has discussed this situation with a representative of Molstar who has indicated that the obligations of Molstar could be guaranteed by Molson Breweries which is a partnership under the Partnership Act (Ontario) of The Molson Companies Limited, a publicly traded company listed on the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges, and Foster's Brewing Group. The partnership has demonstrable assets.



Conclusions:



The position of the City of Toronto will be enhanced if Molson Breweries (the partnership) is added as a party to indemnify the City under the agreements respecting the consent to the race and the closure of Lakeshore Boulevard West for the Molson Indy. Accordingly, this is recommended.



Contact Name:



H.W.O. Doyle, City Solicitor, Legal Services.)



(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on April 16, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Molson Indy.)

8

Operation of the 1998 Molson Indy Race

at Exhibition Place.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:



"It is further recommended that the report dated April 14, 1998, from the City Solicitor, headed 'Molson Indy - Indemnity', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:



'It is recommended that:



(1) in addition to the City of Toronto, the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd. and Molstar Inc., Molson Breweries (a partnership) be named as a party to the agreements respecting the consent of Council to holding the Molson Indy and the closure of Lake Shore Boulevard West for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any loss which is a consequence of any default by Molstar of its obligations under the agreements; and



(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the actions necessary to give effect hereto.' ")



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of Recommendations Nos. (1), (2), (3) and (5), embodied in the joint report (March 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation.



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



(1) concurred with Recommendation No. (4) embodied in the joint report (March 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, viz:



"(4) that a copy of this report be forwarded to the Toronto Community Council for its meeting on April 1, 1998, for information;"; and



(2) requested the City Solicitor to submit a report directly to Council, for consideration with this matter at its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998, on whether an indemnity should be obtained from Molson Breweries of Canada Limited in addition to the indemnity obtained from Molstar Sports and Entertainment.











The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following joint report (March 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:



Purpose:



To review the proposed Operations Plan and endorse certain traffic operational elements to enable the running of the 1998 Molson Indy race at Exhibition Place from July 17 to 19, 1998.



Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:



No funds are required in connection with this report.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) the Agreement recommended to be entered into with Molstar Sports and Entertainment (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Molson Breweries of Canada Limited) in a form satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the City Solicitor and the City Treasurer contain, among others, the following terms and conditions with respect to the partial and total road closures of Lake Shore Boulevard West, from Strachan Avenue to British Columbia Road, between July 17 to 19, 1998, inclusive:



(a) Molstar Sports and Entertainment shall submit a policy of public liability insurance as primary insurance in the amount of not less than $15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Dollars), naming each of the City of Toronto, the Toronto Chief of Police, the Toronto Police Services Board, the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, the Canadian National Exhibition Association, and any Agency, Board, Commission or Body having utilities or services on or in Lake Shore Boulevard West, as additional insureds (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Additional Insureds") in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the City Treasurer;



(b) Molstar Sports and Entertainment shall submit proof satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the City Treasurer, that Molstar Sports and Entertainment and the Additional Insureds are covered for an additional $50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Dollars) under Molson's corporate excess insurance programme;



(c) Molstar Sports and Entertainment shall agree to indemnify and save harmless each of the Additional Insureds from all claims, suits, or demands arising out of the event in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, including claims arising out of negligence of the City of Toronto, its agents and employees;





(d) Molstar Sports and Entertainment shall agree to pay the cost of providing all barriers, delineators, signs, pavement markings, portable flashers and other traffic control measures, including pay-duty officers, deemed necessary by the Toronto Commissioner of Transportation and the Chief of Police for the control of traffic on Lake Shore Boulevard West, all restoration costs attributable to the event(s), and the cost of advertising and registering any by-laws;



(e) Molstar Sports and Entertainment will obtain from each participant a Release, Waiver and Indemnity from any and all claims resulting from participation in the event(s) in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and



(f) Molstar Sports and Entertainment will obtain a written waiver from all persons whose access would be affected by the staging of this event(s);



(2) subject to the execution by Molstar Sports and Entertainment of the aforesaid agreement, authority be granted to totally occupy or close Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Strachan Avenue and Ontario Drive, from 1:00 a.m. Friday, July 17, 1998, to 11:59 p.m. Sunday, July 19, 1998, except for emergency vehicles and Transportation Department vehicles. (Access and egress will be maintained to Ontario Place and local Lake Shore Boulevard West traffic by an alternate route via Remembrance Drive, a parallel road on the south edge of Lake Shore Boulevard West);



(3) stopping be prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. from July 17, 1998, to July 19, 1998, inclusive, on both sides of Fleet Street, from Bathurst Street to Strachan Avenue, and on both sides of Strachan Avenue, from Lake Shore Boulevard West to King Street West;



(4) this report be forwarded to the Toronto Community Council for its meeting on April 1, 1998, for information; and



(5) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.



Background:



In a separate report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee under today's date, it is recommended that City Council ratify an agreement between the City, Molson Breweries of Canada, Limited (through its corporate affiliate Molstar Sports and Entertainment Inc. for the purposes of the Molson Indy) and The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place to permit the yearly Molson Indy race to be held through to the year 2000. In conjunction with this matter, the Molson Indy organization has submitted documentation under date of February 10, 1998, which addresses the staging of the 1998 race, in accordance with the terms of the existing Agreement.









Discussion:



This year's event is scheduled for July 17, 18 and 19, 1998, with a peak attendance estimated at 75,000. The documentation which has been submitted addresses the obligations of Molstar Sports and Entertainment related to such aspects as a transportation plan, noise attenuation, community liaison, emergency services and clean-up, among other things. The community consultation process, which was established through a Community Liaison Committee comprised of area residents and associations, has been continued as in previous years.



In accordance with the existing Agreement, the Molson Indy organization is required to submit documentation on or before February 1 each year to address in detail its obligations related to staging of the race. The elements specifically set out in the Agreement include:



(1) attendance;



(2) traffic/transit/parking;



(3) noise;



(4) community liaison;



(5) operating plan and safety;



(6) law enforcement;



(7) set-up/clean-up;



(8) emergency planning, and



(9) costs/insurance/liability.



Staff have held discussions related to the transportation plan and will continue to liaise with representatives of Molstar Sports and Entertainment, the Toronto Transit Commission, GO Transit, Exhibition Place, the Police and Fire Departments and Ambulance Services, as required, to ensure that all of the transportation elements of this event are carried out in a comprehensive manner. The plan will again be "transit-oriented", with augmented TTC and GO Transit services and stringent controls on illegal parking in abutting neighbourhoods. In terms of community liaison, a meeting held after the 1997 race revealed no significant problems with last year's operation. A further meeting with the community is scheduled for the first week of April to discuss event planning and the Operating Plan for this year's Molson Indy.



The above-noted regulatory changes to prohibit stopping on certain City streets during the event are routinely applied in conjunction with this event. Nevertheless, the changes reflect an extension of the proposed regulations to 8:00 p.m. instead of 7:00 p.m., and an extension in the area to which the prohibition applies on Strachan Avenue, from Ordnance Street to King Street West, in an effort to minimize post-race congestion and ensure a safe operating area.





Agreement Provisions pertaining to Road Closures:



During the first week of July 1998, work crews under contract to the event sponsor, supervised by Transportation Department staff, will install the bulk of the barrier wall system needed for the Molson Indy race. No work will take place during the peak commuter periods or during Ontario Place and Exhibition Place peak periods. The installation procedure only requires limited lane restrictions for short periods of time. Once installed, there will be little adverse impact on Lake Shore Boulevard West traffic operations. The sections of barrier wall which tend to restrict normal traffic operation will not be installed until the major road closures commence on July 17, 1998. At 1:00 a.m., Friday, July 17, 1998, Lake Shore Boulevard West, between Strachan Avenue and Ontario Drive, will be closed to allow completion of the barrier system installation and use of the roadway for the event. Based on previous years' experience, it is proposed to re-open this portion of Lake Shore Boulevard West as soon as practicable after the final race, but no later than midnight, Sunday, July 19, 1998.



Access to the closed portions of Lake Shore Boulevard West will be restricted to persons accessing Ontario Place, local traffic, emergency vehicles, Transportation Department vehicles and public transit vehicles. Police Officers, assisted by Transportation Department staff and equipment, will control the use of all restricted areas.



All expenses attributable to this event will be borne by the event sponsor.



Conclusions:



The Molson Indy race is scheduled for Exhibition Place during July 17 to 19, 1998, inclusive, using the same format as in previous years. Reports by staff of the municipal agencies, the Toronto Police Service and others, indicate that previous races, held annually since 1986, have been managed in a highly professional manner and have resulted in few public complaints. The 1998 race plans have been carefully reviewed and, once again, staff are satisfied that the race can be accommodated with minimum public disruption. The main focus of the plan is to encourage race patrons to rely on public transit for travel to and from race events.



The City Solicitor has been consulted in preparing this report.



Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:



Mr. Ron Rout, Road Allowance Control Section, Toronto Transportation, Metro Hall, 392-5365.



Mr. Tim Laspa, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, Toronto City Works Services, 392-7711.



--------



Councillor Moscoe declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that his "soon-in-law" has a catering contract with the Molson Indy.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 14, 1998) from the City Solicitor:



Purpose:



To respond to a request to report directly to Council on whether an indemnity should be obtained from Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd. in addition to the indemnity obtained from Molstar Sports and Entertainment in connection with the Molson Indy.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) in addition to the City of Toronto, the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place, Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd. and Molstar Inc., Molson Breweries ( a partnership) be named as a party to the agreements respecting the consent of Council to holding the Molson Indy and the closure of Lakeshore Boulevard West for the purpose of indemnifying the City for any loss which is a consequence of any default by Molstar of its obligations under the agreements; and



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



Council Reference/Background/History:



The Urban Environment and Development Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998 had before it two reports in connection with the Molson Indy to be held at Exhibition Place and adjacent on Lakeshore Boulevard West on the week-end of July 17, 18, and 19, 1998. One report recommended the terms on which the consent should be given to the race pursuant to the powers of Council under section 1(2) of the City of Toronto Act, 1978. The other report recommended the terms on which Lakeshore Boulevard West should be closed for the purposes of the race.



The race will be sponsored and conducted by Molstar Sports and Entertainment, a corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario as Molstar Inc. (Molstar). It was noted in one of the reports that Molstar was a wholly owned subsidiary of Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd. Although the report respecting the consent referred to both these entities being parties to the agreement the report respecting the road closure did not.



Molstar (formerly Grand Prix Management Inc.) has the purpose of the "Promotion of Sports Events". Molson Breweries of Canada is a federally incorporated company with the same principal place of business address in Ontario as Molstar. I am unaware of the availability of the assets of either to satisfy any claim based upon the indemnity of either. Since amalgamation, it is probably appropriate that the race consent and the road closure be the subject of a single agreement. Since this will be the case, Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd. will be an indemnitor of all of Molstar's obligations whether they relate to the road closure or the consent to the race.



Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:



In the previous agreements the indemnity was given solely by Molstar. Since the primary exposure to liability of the City was insured such an arrangement may have been viewed as satisfactory. The extent of the assets of either Molstar or Molson Breweries of Canada Ltd. is unclear but, in any event each will be liable under a single agreement.



My staff has discussed this situation with a representative of Molstar who has indicated that the obligations of Molstar could be guaranteed by Molson Breweries which is a partnership under the Partnership Act (Ontario) of The Molson Companies Limited, a publicly traded company listed on the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges, and Foster's Brewing Group. The partnership has demonstrable assets.



Conclusions:



The position of the City of Toronto will be enhanced if Molson Breweries (the partnership) is added as a party to indemnify the City under the agreements respecting the consent to the race and the closure of Lakeshore Boulevard West for the Molson Indy. Accordingly, this is recommended.



Contact Name:



H.W.O. Doyle, City Solicitor, Legal Services.)



(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on April 16, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he is a Member of the Board of Trustees of the Molson Indy.)





9

Toronto Transit Commission:

Sheppard Subway Bayview Station

Bus Loop and Commuter Parking.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, struck out and referred back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration, with a request that the Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, be in attendance at such time as this matter is again before the Committee.)



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to defer elimination of the construction of a commuter parking lot from the Bayview Station concept at this time.









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



(1) directed that a copy of the following communications be forwarded to the North York Community Council for consideration:



- (February 26, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission;

- (March 20, 1998) from Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights; and

- (March 20, 1998) from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South; and



(2) requested the Interim Functional Lead, Planning, in consultation with the appropriate officials from the Planning Department in the North York Civic Centre, to submit an updated report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, through the North York Community Council, on the entire block bounded by Sheppard Avenue East, Bayview Avenue, Bayview Mews Lane and Hawksbury Drive.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (February 26, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:



At its meeting on Wednesday, February 25, 1998, the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) considered the attached memorandum, entitled "Staff Response to Commission Inquiry--Sheppard Subway Bayview Station Bus Loop and Commuter Parking".



The Commission approved the Recommendations contained in the above memorandum, as listed below:



"It is recommended that the Commission:



(1) approve elimination of the construction of a commuter parking lot from the Bayview Station concept;



(2) confirm the requirement for an exclusive off-street bus loop for Bayview Station;



(3) authorize staff to negotiate a permanent exclusive easement for an off-street bus loop (at the north-end of the Dangreen property) now as part of the property settlement with Dangreen, potentially at no cost to the project;



(4) authorize staff to work with the developer and City staff to investigate alternative off-street bus loop locations that can be integrated with the proposed Dangreen development, provided that the new off-street bus loop configuration is acceptable to the TTC with respect to operations and customer convenience, particularly with regard to an exclusive access to/from Bayview Avenue;



(5) confirm that the provision of an off-street bus loop, satisfactory to the TTC, be made a condition of the planning approvals for any development on the Dangreen site; and



(6) forward this report to the City of Toronto."



The foregoing is forwarded to the City of Toronto for information.



(Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 25a, entitled

"Staff Response to Commission Inquiry--Sheppard Subway

Bayview Station Bus Loop and Commuter Parking".)

At its meeting of December 16, 1997, the Toronto Transit Commission (Commission) deferred consideration of Report No. 26, entitled "Sheppard Subway--Bayview Station Commuter Parking Lot", to "permit further consultation between staff, Vice-Chair Moscoe, Councillor Shiner and Councillor King". This report responds to that request.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that the Commission:



(1) approve elimination of the construction of a commuter parking lot from the Bayview Station concept;



(2) confirm the requirement for an exclusive off-street bus loop for Bayview Station;



(3) authorize staff to negotiate a permanent exclusive easement for an off-street bus loop (at the north-end of the Dangreen property) now as part of the property settlement with Dangreen, potentially at no cost to the project;



(4) authorize staff to work with the developer and City staff to investigate alternative off-street bus loop locations that can be integrated with the proposed Dangreen development, provided that the new off-street bus loop configuration is acceptable to the TTC with respect to operations and customer convenience, particularly with regard to an exclusive access to/from Bayview Avenue;



(5) confirm that the provision of an off-street bus loop, satisfactory to the TTC, be made a condition of the planning approvals for any development on the Dangreen site; and



(6) forward this report to the City of Toronto.



Funding:



Sufficient funds for this Sheppard Subway project expenditure are included in the TTC 1998-2002 Capital Program (as set out on pages 695-705 - Sheppard Subway Category) which was approved by the Commission on November 18, 1997.



Background:



At the December 16, 1997, Commission meeting, the Commission deferred consideration of the recommended configuration of the Bayview Station bus loop and commuter parking lot to permit further consultation between staff, Vice-Chair Moscoe and Councillors Shiner and King. TTC and City staff met with Councillors King, Shiner and Moscoe on February 4, 1998.



Discussion:



Concern has been expressed from the area City Councillors and the local community about the location of both the recommended bus loop and the commuter parking lot to be located south of the bus loop (see Exhibit 1).



(a) Commuter Parking:



The commuter parking lot has been seen as a factor in constraining the proposed development of the Dangreen site to the southern half of the property and TTC staff agree that such a small commuter parking lot (65 spaces) should not be a constraint to re-development. Consequently, it is recommended that the commuter parking lot be eliminated from the Bayview Station concept. The elimination of the lot is not expected to result in an appreciable reduction in station ridership and provides more flexibility to re-develop the site. The elimination of the lot, will however, likely be opposed by Orlando Corporation (the owner of Bayview Village Mall located to the east of the Dangreen site) which believes that there is a demand for 400 commuter parking spaces at Bayview Station.



(b) Bus Loop:



Currently, the 11A branch of the 11 Bayview bus route turns back to the south on-street via Sheppard Avenue, Hawksbury Drive, Bayview Mews Lane and Bayview Avenue (see Exhibit 2). This allows a higher level of service to be provided south of Sheppard Avenue to match customer demand. The current daily ridership on the loop itself is extremely low (10-20 trips per day) and would not meet current TTC standards for providing service on these streets.



With the construction of Bayview Station (including two new entrances on the east and west sides of Bayview Avenue, north of Sheppard Avenue), service plans require that the 11/11A Bayview and 78 St. Andrews bus routes connect with the subway entrances in both directions on Bayview Avenue to provide direct subway/bus transfers as is done at most other stations in the system. Eighty percent of the customers to this station are expected to arrive by bus.



This plan would result in the elimination of the on-street loop and the construction of a new off-street bus loop at the north end of the Dangreen site (see Exhibits 3 and 4) to serve the 11A Bayview and 78 St. Andrew bus services which will turn around at this location when the subway is opened for revenue service. An off-street bus loop is the only acceptable design because only that would allow all passengers transferring from the bus to the subway to do so without crossing either Bayview Avenue or Sheppard Avenue. Locating the off-street bus loop at the north end of the Dangreen site leaves 85 percent of the site available for development.



There are no acceptable on-street loop options.



If an off-street bus loop is not provided on the Dangreen property, service would have to loop on-street. A clockwise looping (see Exhibit 5) would not allow the 11A Bayview or 78 St. Andrews buses to connect to the subway in the southbound direction (with the resulting passenger confusion) and, therefore, would be unacceptable from a customer service perspective. The counter-clockwise looping (see Exhibit 6) would also be unacceptable from a service point-of-view, as customers would cross Sheppard Avenue (eight lanes) to access the subway. It should also be noted that with a counter-clockwise looping, passengers getting off the bus to access the subway cannot use the YMCA Entrance on the south side of Sheppard Avenue as it is not staffed and currently cannot accept bus transfers.



Any on-street looping would result in unproductive additional round-trip time on the routes, and would result in a lower frequency of bus service south of Sheppard Avenue, inconveniencing approximately 4,100 customer trips per day and, overall, would provide a poorer quality of service than can be provided with the recommended bus loop. The use of an on-street loop would result in additional annual operating costs of $25,000.00 which can be avoided with a new off-street bus loop. In the long term, the delays to service resulting from on-street looping would result in the need to add a bus to the route earlier, with the resulting annual operating cost impact of $150,000.00 per year and the capital cost of an additional bus ($400,000.00). Re-design of the station to accommodate either of the on-street loops would significantly delay the construction of Bayview Station and would involve significant re-design costs.



Given the above, the protection for an off-street bus loop should be obtained as follows:



- obtain a permanent surface easement (rather than full acquisition), for the recommended off-street bus loop, now as part of a negotiated settlement with Dangreen, potentially at no cost to the project;



- staff consider alternative locations for the off-street bus loop on the Dangreen site as part of the development process provided that the revised location of the loop is operationally acceptable with respect to operations and customer convenience. In particular, the TTC requires an exclusive bus access to/from Bayview Avenue;



- the requirement to satisfy the TTC on the configuration of the off-street bus loop would be made a condition of the planning approvals (official plan amendment, zoning, site plan) for the development of the Dangreen site;



- the TTC would not make a site plan application for an off-street bus loop at this time. The TTC's site plan application can be delayed until 2001 when it is anticipated that the configuration of the development will be known.



Justification:



The TTC requires an off-street bus loop at Bayview Station to maximize passenger convenience and minimize future operating costs whether or not a development proceeds on the Dangreen site. Proceeding as recommended ensures that property is made available for an off-street bus loop.





The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (March 20, 1998) from Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights:



A comprehensive plan for the entire block, which would contain the Sheppard Subway Bayview Station Bus Loop and Commuter Parking, is being considered by North York Planning Department staff, in conjunction with the Toronto Transit Commission, Dangreen and the Orlando Corporation. Orlando has been meeting with Dangreen and has advised the Planning Department that they will be submitting a proposal within the next two weeks and that these plans include commuter/community parking.



As the Toronto Transit Commission's proposal is only dealing with the narrow strip of land along Bayview Avenue, I would, therefore, request your Committee to recommend that the Toronto Transit Commission defer eliminating the commuter parking lot from the construction plans at this time, and that an updated report be requested from the North York Planning Department on the entire block bounded by Sheppard Avenue East, Bayview Avenue, Bayview Mews Lane and Hawksbury Drive.



I am unable be at your March 23, 1998, meeting in the morning; however, if the Committee would like me to address this issue, I will be pleased to attend after your lunch break.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the following communication (March 20, 1998) from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South:



I urge, in the strongest possible terms, that Committee Members recommend against the elimination of proposed parking at the Bayview Subway Station.



The residents of Ward 9 have been assured since the start of subway discussions that there would be adequate parking for commuters and a drop off/pick-up area at the Bayview Station. The Ward 9 residents would be the first to suffer the negative and irritating effects of "spill-over" parking on their streets should the long-promised parking at the Bayview Station not be provided.



(A copy of Exhibits 1-6, referred to in the foregoing TTC Report No. 25a, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the March 23 and 24, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)





10

GO Transit: Year 2021 Plan.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:



"It is further recommended that City Council reiterate to the Provincial government and members of the Greater Toronto Services Board, once it is established, its opposition to its funding of GO Transit.")





The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that the Toronto Transit Commission and GO Transit be encouraged to continue their ongoing discussions with respect to transit planning; and, further, that the Members of Council who have, at this time, been appointed to the Greater Toronto Services Board be involved in such discussions.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on:



(a) the funding relationship between the City of Toronto and GO Transit; and



(b) the funding formula used for all the funding partners of GO Transit.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following communication (February 17, 1998) addressed to Mayor Mel Lastman from Mr. Eldred King, Chairman, GO Transit:



In light of the recent changes in reporting structure for GO Transit, I feel that a presentation by GO Transit staff to your Council would be beneficial to all parties.



Could you please arrange for the appropriate person to call Pauline Chadwick at 869-3600, extension 5502, to set this up.



Thanking you.



--------



Mr. Eldred King, Chairman, and Mr. Rick Ducharme, Managing Director, made an overhead presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.



(A copy of the report, entitled "GO Transit: Year 2021 Plan", has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the March 23 and 24, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)





11

Foot and Bicycle Couriers--Revenue Canada Taxation.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, did not adopt this Clause.)



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee, embodied in the following Committee Transmittal (February 24, 1998) from the City Clerk:



Recommendation:



The Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee on February 23, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and Council, the endorsement of the concept outlined in Mr. A.W. Scott's communication, dated January 21, 1998, that foot and bicycle couriers should be permitted to apply for business expense deductions for tax purposes for the extra nutrition over and above the norm required as a condition of their employment because this nutritional increment is the equivalent of fuel used by transport vehicles; and, further, that the Toronto Hoof and Cycle Courier Coalition be invited to make a deputation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee at the appropriate time.



The Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee reports, for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and Council, having requested the Toronto Hoof and Cycle Courier Coalition to submit more detailed information.



Background:



The Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee had before it a communication dated January 21, 1998, from Mr. A. W. Scott, Charter Member, Toronto Hoof and Cycle Courier Coalition, advising that a federal hearing will take place in either late winter or the early spring respecting his request that Revenue Canada allow foot and bicycle couriers to claim as business expenses, the cost of monies spent fuelling their deliveries; and requesting the Committee to provide him with a letter of support concerning this matter.



Mr. A. W. Scott, Charter Member, Toronto Hoof and Cycle Courier Coalition, appeared before the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.



(Communication dated January 21, 1998, addressed to

the Chair, Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee,

from Mr. Alan Wayne Scott, Charter Member,

Toronto Hoof and Cycle Courier Coalition.)



While I realize you must be swamped with loftier matters, it is our hope that you can find the time to consider the plight of my co-workers and myself. If, in so doing, you find any merit in our position, it is further hoped that you could provide us with a letter outlining your views on the matter.



Our argument is a simple one: enviro-friendly couriers should not be taxed by Revenue Canada on monies spent fuelling their deliveries. That we are currently required to pay this levy on funds that logic recognizes as allowable business expenses, only creates an uneven playing field in our industry and rewards the comparatively irresponsible, motorized members of our fraternity.



Here, despite years of lip service to the contrary, the Canadian Government tacitly encourages the unnecessary pollution of our cities.



Foot and bicycle couriers keep this City moving and have done so for years. They are traditionally maligned, overworked and underpaid, often by the very people who rely on them for so much. Arguably the hardest-working, least-privileged segment of our urban work force, is it any wonder so many of these responsible young Canadians prefer to remain isolated from mainstream society. Here, I feel we all lose.



I have asked for a federal hearing concerning this matter and have been informed that it should take place in either late winter or the early spring.



We look forward to hearing your views on the subject.



(Communication dated July 24, 1997, addressed to the

Tax Court of Canada from Metropolitan Councillor Jack Layton, Don River,

which was attached to the foregoing communication from Mr. Scott.)



Mr. Scott has been a courier for the past 15 years in downtown Toronto, which includes my Ward of Don River. Couriers, like Mr. Scott, are an important part of our community. They perform a necessary service that would otherwise have to be carried out by cars which would highly increase downtown congestion, noise pollution and emissions levels.



In order to properly perform his job as a foot courier, Mr. Scott must consume quantities of food and drink over and above that of the average person, or even himself if he were in another line of work. Maintaining this diet is an absolute requirement of his job and, thus, is a necessary and extra expense that he would otherwise not have.



I fully support his request to have this expense considered as a deductible business expense for tax purposes.



(Communication dated July 22, 1997, from

Metropolitan Councillor Joe Pantalone, Trinity-Niagara,

which was attached to the foregoing communication from Mr. Scott.)



To Whom It May Concern:



As a Metropolitan Toronto Councillor for several years, I am pleased to provide the following statement recognizing the value of the work undertaken by bike and walking couriers:



"Bike couriers and walkers provide a vital service in an environmentally-friendly manner. They deliver packages throughout our city without contributing to our serious smog problem. They reduce the number of vehicles on our over-charged downtown streets while providing a competitive service. If every industry produced so little harm to our environment and contributed so little to our traffic problems, our city would be an even better place in which to live and work."





(Communication dated July 16, 1997, addressed to the

Tax Court of Canada from City Councillor Mario Silva, Ward 3,

which was attached to the foregoing communication from Mr. Scott.)



I am writing in support of Mr. Scott's appeal application to review income tax laws in regard to the propriety of setting expenses needed to generate income to be set against that income for tax purposes.



It is my opinion, shared with many of my political colleagues, that the service provided by cycle and pedestrian couriers is instrumental in moving the economy of the City of Toronto forward, without contributing to increased air pollution, traffic gridlock and ensuring a better quality of life for its citizens.



To this end, all levels of government endorse and encourage greater recreational and business use of bicycles to address these problems through policies such as dedicated bicycle lanes and other initiatives. In the course of their business, couriers spend most of an average ten-hour workday, five days a week on the road, and must, therefore, incur additional expenses for food and beverages. These expenditures would also be greater than that for individuals who work in other industries or businesses due to the nature that this work entails.



It would only be fair and appropriate to permit couriers some allowance for this expense against their income, as is already permitted in other sectors. This would be in keeping with the efforts of all levels of government to further encourage the use of non-polluting ways of moving the economy of this city forward.



Your consideration of my letter is much appreciated. If I may be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.



--------



Distance Calculations

Courier Career Statistics

Alan Wayne Scott



The following calculations represent the total distance of deliveries accomplished on foot, bicycle and public transit by Mr. Scott in the course of his 15-year career.



Metropass/Runner - November 1990 to April 1997:



These totals were arrived at by measuring each delivery on a map, point to point, with a kite string. The total length of the string was then applied to the map's scale to approximate the total distance that Mr. Scott's efforts covered, had each delivery been laid out end to end. An average delivery length was calculated and multiplied by the total number of documented deliveries available. An approximation of undocumented distances was then conservatively arrived at.





Length of average delivery 3.65 miles

Total number of deliveries

from December 1993 to April 1997 12,535

Total length of deliveries

from December 1993 to April 1997 3.65 x 12,535 = 45,752.75 miles

Average total length of deliveries per month

from December 1993 to April 1997 1,115

Approximation of total length of deliveries

from November 1990 to November 1993 1,115 x 37 = 41,255 miles

November 1988 to November 1990

--recovering from bicycle accident

January 1987 to October 1988

--dispatcher for United Messenger Limited

Biker--Approximation of total length of deliveries

from September 1982 to December 1986

(biker capability estimated at

2/3 that of Metropass/runner) 743 x 52 = 38,636 miles



Total: From September 1982 to April 1997 125,642.75 miles



or



More than five times the equatorial circumference of the earth.



--------



Courier Fuel

Daily Food and Liquid Intake



Menu No. 1



Item

Calories
Average Cost
Lime Perrier Water - 750 ml

0

$ 1.50

Oatmeal - 2 cups (with milk)

431

2.00

V-8 juice - 950 ml

160

1.89

Raw sunflower seed kernels - 1 1/2 oz

100

.99

Salad Bar - 2 lbs

1,387

8.00

Doubles - 2

250

2.00

Cheese pizza - 16 inches

1,600

11.75

Fruit salad - 2 cups

228

3.00

Lime Perrier Water - 750 ml - 2 bottles

0

3.00

Total

4,156

$32.63

Menu No. 2



Item
Calories
Average Cost
Lime Perrier Water - 750 ml

0

$ 1.50

Tropicana orange peach mango juice - 1 litre

425

2.25

Quaker Harvest Crunch - 2 cups (with milk)

628

2.00

Date square

168

1.25

Falafel sandwich - 2

682

7.00

Potato ball - 2

222

1.50

Pasta - 8 cups (with tomato sauce and cheese)

2,080

8.00

Ice cream - 2 cups

370

4.00

Lime Perrier - 750 ml - 2 bottles

0

3.00

Total

4,575

$31.50



Menu No. 3



Item
Calories
Average Cost
Lime Perrier water - 750 ml

0

$ 1.50

Pasta - 4 cups (with tomato sauce and cheese)

1,040

4.00

Ceres apricot juice - 1 litre

564

2.49

Granola bar

140

1.50

Club sandwich (with mayonnaise)

690

6.00

Hummus - 1 cup (with 2 pita)

760

3.00

Tuna casserole - 4 cups

1,000

9.00

Cherry pie - 1/2

400

6.00

Lime Perrier - 750 ml - 2 bottles

0

3.00

Total

4,594

$34.99



Caloric Reference Source: Guide To The Foods You Eat - copyright 1994 Black Dog and Leventhal Publishers Inc.

--------



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



- Mr. Alan Wayne Scott, Toronto; and

- Councillor Jack Layton, Don River.



(A copy of the newspaper articles dated August 12, 1997, from the Toronto Sun and August 23, 1997, from the Toronto Star, which were appended to the foregoing communication dated January 21, 1998, from Mr. Scott, have been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the March 23 and 24, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)





12

Contract No. T-9-98:

Dundas Street West Over Etobicoke Creek

West of Highway No. 427--Structure Rehabilitation.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (February 24, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:



Purpose:



To award a contract for the rehabilitation of the bridge on Dundas Street West over Etobicoke Creek west of Highway No. 427.



Funding Source:



The Department's proposed 1998-2002 Capital Works Program includes an amount of $12,500,000.00 under Project No. C-TRO55, Bridge Reconstruction Program. Contract No. T-9-98 forms part of that program, and the estimated total project cost including design, supervision and other costs is $1,789,253.15, of which approximately $895,000.00 is recoverable from the City of Mississauga. The costs are summarized as follows:



(1) Bid Price Amount $1,405,493.15

(2) (a) Design 54,400.00

(b) Construction supervision, 28 weeks at $4,620.00 per week (estimate) 129,360.00

(3) Other costs (estimate): 200,000.00

(a) quality control testing

(b) traffic signage

(c) utility relocation

Total Project Cost $1,789,253.15



By adopting the report, entitled "1998 Interim Capital Budget--Capital Budgets Requiring Urgent Financing Approval", funding for this project was approved by City Council at its meeting on February 4, 1998, and is currently available in Capital Account No. C-TR055, Bridge Reconstruction Program. The Treasurer has previously certified that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and that it falls within Corporate Debt Guidelines.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) Contract No. T-9-98, for the rehabilitation of the bridge on Dundas Street West over Etobicoke Creek, be awarded to Belor Construction Ltd. who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $1,405,493.15; and



(2) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take necessary action to give effect thereto.



Comments:



On February 19, 1998, the City Clerk's Department opened tenders for:



Contract No.T-9-98 Dundas Street West over Etobicoke Creek west of Highway No. 427 Structure Rehabilitation



Number Name $ Amount



9 Belor Construction Ltd. 1,405,493.15

6 Bridgecon Construction Ltd. 1,455,897.10

4 G. Tari Limited 1,506,593.17

10 Anscon Contracting Inc. and Janscon Holdings Inc. 1,605,408.40

13 Soncin Construction Corporation 1,647,092.41

7 Grascan Construction Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd. 1,647,800.00

3 Dagmar Construction Inc. 1,663,576.54

12 Dufferin Construction Co. 1,738,115.49

11 Brennan Paving and Construction Ltd. 1,756,083.29

5 Toronto Zenith Contracting Ltd. 1,824,079.29

8 Underground Services Ltd. 2,012,745.97

2 Armbro Construction Ltd. 2,102,766.90

1 Bot Construction Ltd. 2,327,839.15



Tenders Nos. 4 and 8 contained minor errors in the extension of the unit prices. The revised figures are shown above.





The award is subject to receipt of a favourable report from the Fair Wage and Labour Trades Office regarding working conditions and wages of the recommended contractor and his sub-contractors, and also from the Chief Financial Officer regarding the surety company which issued the Bid Bond and Agreement to Bond.



Scope of Work:



The bridge is located on the boundary between the City of Mississauga and the City of Toronto and the costs are being shared equally between the two municipalities. The rehabilitation work involves the complete replacement of the concrete bridge deck and the repair of the substructure.



Conclusion:



Contract No. T-9-98 should be awarded to Belor Construction Ltd. who submitted the lowest price bid for this Contract.



Contact Name and Telephone Number:



M. Chung, P. Eng., Manager of Structures, Construction Branch, Metro Hall Office, 392-8341.





13

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Keele Street and Humberside Avenue.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (February 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:



Purpose:



To propose the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Keele Street and Humberside Avenue, coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover located immediately to the north of the intersection.



Funding Sources:



The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Transportation Department's proposed Capital Works Program under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of installing traffic control signals on Keele Street at Humberside Avenue is $50,000.00 including the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover.









Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) traffic control signals be installed at the intersection of Keele Street and Humberside Avenue;



(2) coincident with the traffic control signal installation, the existing pedestrian crossover be removed;



(3) installation be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program and the securing of appropriate financing; and



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



Background:



At the request of Councillor David Miller, Transportation Department staff investigated the operational safety of the pedestrian crossover on Keele Street at Humberside Avenue.



Discussion:



Keele Street, in the vicinity of Humberside Avenue, is a four-lane arterial roadway, and Humberside Avenue is a two-lane, local roadway. A pedestrian crossover is located on Keele Street at the north curb of Humberside Avenue. During an eight-hour study period, 389 pedestrians crossed Keele Street at Humberside Avenue. Adjacent traffic control signals are located 410 metres to the south on Keele Street at Glenlake Avenue and 225 metres to the north on Keele Street at Annette Street.



Transportation Department staff evaluated the operational characteristics of this pedestrian crossover location according to the guidelines that were developed for the "Audit of Operational and Physical Suitability of Pedestrian Crossovers in Metropolitan Toronto". The results are as follows:







Standard or Criteria to be met

for physical suitability

of a pedestrian crossover.

Met/Not Met Comment
Vehicle operating speed less than 60 kilometres per hour Not Met The speed limit on Keele Street is 50 kilometres per hour. The 85th percentile speeds for northbound and southbound traffic exceed this standard.
Not more than four lanes wide on a two-way street, or more than three lanes wide on a one-way street. Met Keele Street is a four-lane roadway.
Traffic volume less than 35,000 vehicles per day (total both directions). Met

(marginally)

An estimated 34,250 vehicles use Keele Street daily.
No driveways or entrances nearby Not Met Driveways are located on the east side of Keele Street approximately 24 metres from Humberside Avenue and a driveway is located adjacent to the southbound TTC bus stop.
No significant volume of turning movements which interfere with pedestrian crossover Not Met A high volume of turning movements occur during an eight-hour period in the vicinity of the PXO.
No loading zones in the immediate vicinity Not Met Northbound and southbound TTC bus stops are located within close proximity to the PXO.
Not less than 215 metres to another pedestrian crossover or traffic control device. Met Traffic control signals are located 225 metres to the north at Annette Street and 410 metres to the south at Glenlake Avenue.
No visibility problems exist for either pedestrians or motorists Not Met Sightlines are acceptable; however, are reduced during TTC bus loading/onloading activities.



This pedestrian crossover location fails to meet five of the "environmental standards" listed above.







The collision records provided by the Toronto Police Service for the five-year period ending December 31, 1996, revealed that there were six pedestrian-related collisions at Keele Street and Humberside Avenue. In five cases, the pedestrian was struck within, or near, the pedestrian crossover and sustained minor injuries. In the other collision, the pedestrian was struck while crossing Humberside Avenue on the east side of Keele Street. The Department is also aware of one pedestrian collision which occurred in 1998 in the vicinity of this intersection.



A pedestrian crossing Keele Street, just north of this pedestrian crossover, was fatally injured after being struck by a motorist on Keele Street. Based on the prevailing conditions, there are indications that the existing pedestrian crossover is no longer the most appropriate traffic control device to provide for safe pedestrian crossings at this location. A traffic signal warrant study determined that conditions do not numerically warrant the installation of traffic control signals. However, in our judgement, the more positive form of control provided by traffic control signals is the proper treatment for this location.



Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program, which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 28, 1998.



Conclusions:



The existing pedestrian crossover on Keele Street at Humberside Avenue is no longer operating in a satisfactory manner. Traffic control signals should be installed to improve the operational safety of this location.



Contact Name:



Ms. Jacqueline White, P.Eng., Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region, 397-5021.



--------



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



(i) (March 10, 1998) from Mr. Robert Botten and Ms. Meg Young (Principal), Indian Road Crescent School Community Council, expressing support for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Keele Street and Humberside Avenue; stating, however, some concern that, subsequent to the installation of the aforementioned traffic control signals, there could be a further increase in traffic along Humberside Avenue; urging that the proposed traffic study of the area surrounding the south portion of Keele Street take into account the need for possible further measures to prevent commuting traffic from diverting off arterial roads, e.g., Keele and Annette Streets, onto residential streets such as Humberside Avenue; and recommending that traffic counts regarding this matter be conducted during the school year in order to fairly judge the impact on the schools located close to Keele Street; and







(ii) (March 20, 1998) from Mrs. Helen Hansen and Mrs. Joan Doiron, Toronto Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee urging, with respect to items regarding resurfacing of roads, new traffic control signals and other road changes, that full consideration be given to the safety of pedestrians and other non-motorized road users; suggesting, with respect to road resurfacing, that the work include better pavement markings and rumble strips, especially at intersections where many collisions occur; further suggesting, with respect to the installation of traffic control signals, that pedestrians need an adequate amount of time in which to cross the intersection; and reiterating the following recommendation which was made by the Metropolitan Council at its meeting on October 8 and 9, 1997:



"(iii) that, in view of the high proportion of fatalities on Metro roads which involve pedestrian deaths, the Commissioner of Transportation be requested to make the safety of pedestrians the number one priority in road design ...".



Mrs. Helen Hansen, Toronto Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.



(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the March 23 and 24, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)





14

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Morningside Avenue and

Finch Avenue East/Old Finch Avenue.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (March 3, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:



Purpose:



The purpose of this report is to obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Morningside Avenue and Finch Avenue East/Old Finch Avenue.



Funding Sources:



The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Transportation Department's Proposed Capital Program under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of installing traffic control signals at this location is $90,000.00.









Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) traffic control signals be approved at the intersection of Morningside Avenue and Finch Avenue East/Old Finch Avenue;



(2) coincident with the traffic control signal installation, the easterly northbound lane on Morningside Avenue at Finch Avenue East/Old Finch Avenue be designated for right-turning vehicles only, buses excepted;



(3) installation be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program and the securing of appropriate financing; and



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



Background:



At the request of staff of the former City of Scarborough Works and Environment Department in 1997, Toronto Transportation staff conducted an investigation to determine the feasibility of providing traffic control signals at Morningside Avenue and Finch Avenue East/Old Finch Avenue.



Discussion:



The subject intersection defines the eastern limit of Finch Avenue East. At this point, Finch Avenue East curves southwardly and becomes Morningside Avenue at the intersection of Finch Avenue East, Morningside Avenue and Old Finch Avenue. In this vicinity, Finch Avenue East is a two-lane roadway and Morningside Avenue is a four-lane arterial road. Both roadways have a two-way, 24-hour volume of approximately 17,000 vehicles. Old Finch Avenue is a two-lane roadway with a two-way, 24-hour volume of approximately 9,000 vehicles. Adjacent traffic control signals are located 390 metres to the south on Morningside Avenue at Sewells Road, and 1 100 metres to the west on Finch Avenue East at Neilson Road.



An eight-hour traffic control signal warrant study was conducted and revealed that the installation of traffic control signals is technically warranted. The results are listed below:



Warrant Compliance



(1) Minimum Vehicular Volume 81 percent



(2) Delay to Cross Traffic 82 percent



(3) Collision Hazard 27 percent



Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 should be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants should be 80 percent satisfied to satisfy the minimum technical requirements for the installation of traffic control signals.



The "Collision Hazard" warrant is based on the number of collisions that occurred at the intersection in a three-year period which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Collision statistics provided by the Toronto Police Service are as follows:



Time Period: January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1996

Total Collisions: 11

Collisions Potentially Preventable: 4

Collisions Involving Pedestrians: 0



Based on the above, the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are met.



With the installation of the proposed traffic control signals and the associated pavement markings there would be no discharge lane on the north side of the subject intersection for vehicles in the northbound curb lane if they proceeded through the intersection. To advise motorists of this configuration, and to enable police enforcement, the northbound curb lane should be designated for right-turning vehicles only, buses excepted.



A Canadian Pacific (CP) Railway spur line runs parallel to Morningside Avenue and crosses Old Finch Avenue in the vicinity of the subject intersection. Staff at the St. Lawrence and Hudson Railway (a division of CP) indicate that the railway spur line ceased operation on January 10, 1997, and the track infrastructure will be removed in the future. Railway crossing protection is not currently in place, and will not be required in conjunction with the installation of traffic control signals at the subject intersection.



An Environmental Assessment (EA) is presently being undertaken regarding the realignment of Morningside Avenue with Finch Avenue East and Old Finch Avenue to eliminate the "bottleneck" which presently occurs on Finch Avenue East at the CP Railway overpass north of the subject intersection. The preliminary proposed alignments would not significantly affect the subject intersection operations, nor the degree to which it satisfies the minimum technical requirements for the subject installation. Furthermore, this improvement is not expected to be constructed in the near future.



The roadways affected by this proposal are not major arterial roads in this area, so the installation of traffic control signals will not impact the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the signals will provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.



Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program, which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 28, 1998.



Conclusions:



Traffic control signals are warranted and are recommended at the intersection of Morningside Avenue and Finch Avenue East/Old Finch Avenue.







Contact Name:



Mr. Martin Maguire, Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.



(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the March 23 and 24, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)





15

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Sewells Road and Brenyon Way.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (February 13, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:



Purpose:



The purpose of this report is to obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals and the removal of an existing pedestrian crossover (PXO) at the intersection of Sewells Road and Brenyon Way.



Funding Sources:



The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Transportation Department's proposed Capital Program under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of installing traffic control signals and removing an existing PXO at Sewells Road and Brenyon Way is $98,000.00.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) traffic control signals be approved at the intersection of Sewells Road and Brenyon Way;



(2) coincident with the traffic control signal installation, the existing pedestrian crossover at Sewells Road and Brenyon Way be removed;



(3) installation be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program and the securing of appropriate financing; and



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







Background:



At the request of staff of the former City of Scarborough Works and Environment Department in 1997, an investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of replacing the existing PXO with traffic control signals at Sewells Road and Brenyon Way.



Discussion:



Sewells Road in the vicinity of Brenyon Way is a four-lane collector road with a two-way, 24-hour traffic volume of approximately 18,870. A PXO is located on the west leg of the intersection. Adjacent traffic control signals are located 250 metres to the west at Neilson Avenue and 350 metres to the east at McLevin Avenue.



An eight-hour traffic control signal warrant study was conducted and revealed that traffic control signals are technically warranted. The results are listed below:



Warrant Compliance



(1) Minimum Vehicular Volume 81 percent



(2) Delay to Cross Traffic 87 percent



(3) Collision Hazard 33 percent



Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 should be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants should be 80 percent satisfied to satisfy the minimum technical requirements for the installation of traffic control signals. The "Collision Hazard" warrant is based on the number of collisions that occurred at the intersection in a three-year period which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Collision statistics provided by the Toronto Police Service indicate five collisions over the three-year period from January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1996, that were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Based on the above information, the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are met.



Neither Sewells Road nor Brenyon Way are major arterial roads and the installation of traffic control signals will not impact the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the signals will provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.



Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program, which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 28, 1998.



Conclusions:



Traffic control signals are technically warranted and are recommended at the intersection of Sewells Road and Brenyon Way.





Contact Name:



Mr. Martin Maguire, Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.



(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the March 23 and 24, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)





16

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Tapscott Road and Newgale Gate.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (February 13, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:



Purpose:



To obtain approval for the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Tapscott Road and Newgale Gate.



Funding Sources:



The funds associated with new traffic signal installations are contained in the Transportation Department's proposed Capital Program under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of installing traffic control signals at the intersection of Tapscott Road and Newgale Gate is $85,000.00.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) traffic control signals be approved at the intersection of Tapscott Road at Newgale Gate; and



(2) installation be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program and the securing of appropriate financing.



Background:



At the request of staff at the former City of Scarborough Works and Environment Department in 1997, Toronto Transportation staff conducted an investigation to determine the feasibility of providing traffic control signals at the intersection of Tapscott Road and Newgale Gate.







Discussion:



Tapscott Road in the vicinity of Newgale Gate is a four-lane collector road with a two-way, 24-hour volume of approximately 13,800 vehicles. Adjacent traffic control signals are located 505 metres to the south at Finch Avenue East and 1.5 kilometres to the north at Passmore Avenue.



Newgale Gate is a two-lane local roadway with a two-way, 24-hour volume of approximately 3,100 vehicles. Newgale Gate intersects Tapscott Road on the east side while the west leg of the intersection is a driveway access to an industrial/ commercial complex.



An eight-hour traffic control signal warrant study was conducted and revealed that traffic control signals are technically warranted. The results are listed below:



Warrant Compliance



(1) Minimum Vehicular Volume 90 percent



(2) Delay to Cross Traffic 80 percent



(3) Collision Hazard 27 percent



Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 should be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants should be 80 percent satisfied to satisfy the minimum technical requirements for the installation of traffic control signals. The "Collision Hazard" warrant is based on the number of collisions that occurred at the intersection in a three-year period which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Collision statistics provided by the Toronto Police Service indicate that four collisions occurred over the three-year period from January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1996, which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. Based on the above information, the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are met.



Neither Tapscott Road or Newgale Gate are major arterial roads and the installation of traffic control signals will not impact the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the traffic control signals will provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.



Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program, which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 28, 1998.



Conclusions:



Traffic control signals are technically warranted and are recommended at the intersection of Tapscott Road and Newgale Gate.



Contact Name and Telephone Number:



Mr. Martin Maguire, Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, 392-5243.



(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the March 23 and 24, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)





17

Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:

Doris Avenue at Empress Avenue.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (January 28, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:



Purpose:



To propose the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Doris Avenue and Empress Avenue, coincident with the removal of the pedestrian crossover (PXO) on Doris Avenue approximately 80 metres south of Empress Avenue at Princess Avenue.



Funding Sources:



The funds associated with new traffic control signal installations are contained in the Department's proposed Capital Program under Project No. C-TR031. The estimated cost of the installation of traffic control signals at the intersection of Doris Avenue and Empress Avenue is $66,000.00 including the removal of the existing PXO.



Recommendations:



It is recommended that:



(1) traffic control signals be approved at the intersection of Doris Avenue and Empress Avenue;



(2) coincident with traffic control signal installation at Doris Avenue and Empress Avenue, the existing pedestrian crossover at Doris Avenue and Princess Avenue be removed;



(3) installation and removal be subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program and the securing of appropriate financing; and



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









Background:



In a letter dated August 1, 1997, the Commissioner of Transportation of the City of North York forwarded a copy of an extract of Clause No. 11 of Report No. 1 of The Transportation Committee, headed "Traffic Control Signals - Doris Avenue at Empress Avenue". The report was adopted by the former City of North York Council and recommended that the former Metropolitan Toronto be requested to install traffic control signals at the intersection of Doris Avenue and Empress Avenue.



Discussion:



Doris Avenue is a four-lane collector roadway and Empress Avenue is a two-lane collector roadway. Doris Avenue is part of the North York Downtown Service Road System. Traffic is stop-controlled on all approaches to the intersection.



Staff conducted a traffic signal warrant study at Doris Avenue and Empress Avenue. The results of that investigation are tabled below:



Warrant Compliance



(1) Minimum Vehicular Volume 100 percent



(2) Delay to Cross Traffic 80 percent



(3) Collision Hazard 27 percent



Either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2 should be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants should be 80 percent satisfied to meet the minimum technical requirements for the installation of traffic control signals. Based on the above-noted results, the minimum technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are satisfied at the intersection of Doris Avenue and Empress Avenue.



Transportation Department staff reviewed the collision records provided by the Toronto Police Service for a five-year period ending December 31, 1996. During this period, five collisions of the type susceptible to correction by the installation of traffic control signals have occurred at the intersection of Doris Avenue and Empress Avenue. There have been no pedestrian collisions recorded during this same time period.



The PXO at the intersection of Doris Avenue and Princess Avenue is located approximately 80 metres south of the proposed traffic control signals at the intersection of Doris Avenue and Empress Avenue. This resulting spacing between two traffic control devices would be well below the minimum desirable spacing of 215 metres and, therefore, requires that the existing PXO be removed.



The existing PXO at Princess Avenue primarily served pedestrians travelling between Yonge Street and Doris Avenue using the vacant Princess Avenue road allowance. The southwest corner of Doris Avenue and Empress Avenue is currently being developed and this pedestrian route is no longer available. The area pedestrian crossing demands will be accommodated at the proposed traffic control signals at Empress Avenue.



Neither Doris Avenue nor Empress Avenue are major arterial roads and the installation of traffic control signals will not impact the network of arterial roads. Furthermore, the signals will provide benefits to all road users in the immediate area.



Following approval of a group of traffic signal installations, tender documents will be prepared, and qualified electrical contractors will be asked to submit bids for this work. The installation of these traffic control signals is subject to the approval of the 1998 Capital Works Program, which is scheduled to be considered by City Council on April 28, 1998.



Conclusions:



Based on the study results, traffic control signals are warranted and recommended for the intersection of Doris Avenue and Empress Avenue and will improve traffic operations. Area pedestrian crossing demands will be served by the new traffic signals once the existing PXO is removed.



Contact Name and Telephone Number:



Mr. Bruce Zvaniga, Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, 392-8826.



(A copy of the location plan, which was appended to the foregoing report, has been forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the March 23 and 24, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)



(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 15, 1998) from the Manager, North and West Traffic Regions, Transportation Department, submitting an updated location plan for the intersection of Doris Avenue and Empress Avenue, which reflects the current configuration of the North York Centre ring road system of Doris Avenue and Beecroft Road, which was not properly depicted on the original map attached to the report.)





18

Duplicate Street Names and Emergency Response.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)



The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be requested not to approve any additional names for new streets, which may be a duplication of existing street names, until such time as a policy has been established by Council.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee with a list of the existing identical street names and the duplicate street names with different type extensions that were created in the new City of Toronto.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (March 4, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:



Purpose:



The purpose of this report is to provide a status report on the investigation of the issue of duplicate street names which now exist in the City of Toronto as a result of amalgamation.



Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:



No financial implications have been identified to date.



Recommendation:



It is recommended that this report be received for information.



Background:



The Urban Environment and Development Committee on February 9, 1998, requested the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation to investigate this matter and submit a report to the next meeting of the Committee.



Discussion:



In consultation with the Interim Functional Lead for Planning, Bell Canada 9-1-1 Emergency Service and the Toronto Police Service, the following information was obtained as a result of a preliminary investigation into the issue of duplicate street names.



As a result of amalgamation, 103 pairs/triplets of identical street names were created in the new City of Toronto (i.e., 98 pairs, 5 triplets). These streets were formerly in distinct municipalities; however, as of January 1, 1998, they are now found within the same city. The issue is further complicated by the occurrence of some 600 duplicate street names with different type extensions (e.g., Centre Avenue and Centre Road).



Bell 9-1-1 Emergency Services submitted a letter to the City Clerk dated December 22, 1997, which outlined concerns over changes required to the address databases from the various municipal amalgamations across the Province. These databases are used extensively by emergency response personnel in municipalities throughout Ontario. Bell 9-1-1 staff anticipate that the number of address changes will be significant and the scheduling of these changes will be a major undertaking. They have suggested a process at their end to receive, quantify and schedule changes in order that updates are carried out expeditiously and accurately. This process requires municipalities to ultimately eliminate duplicate street names by determining new street names, passing appropriate by-laws, officially advising residents of new addresses and revising maps. For an interim period, Bell 9-1-1 will maintain the former municipal name as the city identifier within its database in order to avoid ambiguity between like street names within the new City of Toronto. Bell has also provided the name of a contact person with whom changes will be co-ordinated when database information is ready to be updated.



Correspondence received from Canada Post indicates that it is also prepared to assist in resolving the duplicate street name matter and provided the name of a contact person with whom to co-ordinate. Presumably, the postal code can be used to distinguish between duplicate streets for purposes of mail delivery; however, this will be confirmed with Canada Post upon further investigation.



In addition, the City will need to implement a system to avoid confusion in the delivery of municipal services on streets where duplicate names exist.



Transportation staff have been attempting to learn from the experiences of other major North American cities (i.e., Halifax, Winnipeg, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles) with respect to how the issue of duplicate street names was resolved in the course of their municipal mergers. Electronic mail messages have been sent to departments within these cities; however, a complete set of responses has not yet been received. To date, Halifax has indicated that it is using a geographic identifier (i.e., east, west, etc.) attached to the street name to distinguish between duplicates; whereas, Winnipeg went through a rigorous process of changing one of each of the pairs of duplicate street names to eliminate the confusion.



At this point, there appears to be a range of options which needs to be considered further and could potentially resolve the problem of duplicate street names in the new City of Toronto. Alternatives include:



(1) utilizing call display technology for both emergencies and other services to distinguish the location between like street names for incoming calls; however, not all calls received are from the location where service is required and cellular phones cannot be traced with this feature;



(2) using the postal code identifier as a means of distinguishing between duplicate street names for mail delivery and other services;



(3) using a regional designation applied to the street name (e.g., east, west, central, former municipal name, etc.) to identify street names where duplicates are created; and



(4) changing street names through appropriate public notification/consultation and legislative by-law amendments in order to eliminate like street names.



Conclusions:



Further investigation by transportation staff, in co-operation with staff of other departments, organizations and cities, is required before a resolution for dealing with duplicate/triplicate street names can be recommended to Committee and Council. A report will be prepared for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at an upcoming meeting. In the interim, emergency response dispatch will continue to utilize the former municipal identifier through the current Bell 9-1-1 system.



Contact Name:



Mr. Gary H. Welsh, P.Eng., Director, Road and Traffic Services, Works and Environment, 396-5061, Fax: 396-5681; E-mail: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca.

19

Other Items Considered by the Committee.



(City Council on April 16, 1998, received this Clause, for information, subject to striking out and referring Item (i), entitled "Proposed Merger of the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal - Impact on Toronto", back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration.)



(a) Removal of Trees from the Bayview Avenue Right-of-Way

Between Sheppard Avenue East and Mallingham Court.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following matter until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on April 20, 1998:



(February 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, recommending that authority be granted for the removal of six trees from the Bayview Avenue right-of-way between Sheppard Avenue East and Mallingham Court; advising that the removal of the trees is required to facilitate the construction of the Sheppard Subway Bayview Station; and that the costs associated with this work will be the responsibility of the Toronto Transit Commission.



(b) 1998 Cycling Ambassador Program City-Wide.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having concurred with the recommendations embodied in the following report:



(March 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that:



(1) the Urban Environment and Development Committee endorse the 1998 Cycling Ambassadors Program as described in this report, and that the outside funding for the program be administered through Urban Planning and Development Services; and



(2) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services co-ordinate with the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Community and Neighbourhood Services the allocation of funds within their budgets, in order to achieve a minimum City contribution of $40,000.00 towards this program.



(c) High Priority Items Being Considered by Transportation Staff on

Eglinton Avenue West, between Dufferin Street and the W.R. Allen Road.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having directed that:



(1) the following report be received; and



(2) a copy thereof be forwarded to the North York Community Council and the York Community Council for information:



(February 25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, responding to a request made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee on January 12, 1998, for a list of high priority items being considered on Eglinton Avenue West, between Dufferin Street and the W.R. Allen Road; advising that Transportation staff are currently considering the following priority items:



(1) a traffic management plan for the former City of York Ward 2;



(2) the proposed installation of a westbound left-turn lane at Eglinton Avenue West and Dufferin Street; and



(3) a modification to the pedestrian hand-rail at Eglinton Avenue West and Oakwood Avenue;



and recommending that this report be received for information.



(d) Toronto Transit Commission: Clean Air Buses in Etobicoke.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received the following communication:



(February 26, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission (Commission), advising that the Commission on February 25, 1998, considered report No. (20), entitled "Clean Air Buses In Etobicoke", which responds to a request by the Metro Environment and Public Space Committee in November 1997 for the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission to submit a report to the appropriate committee of the new City of Toronto Council on the expected date of receipt of clean air buses in the City of Etobicoke, and the routes that will be utilized for such buses; and stating that the Commission took the following action:



(1) received the report for information, noting that:



(a) pollution from TTC vehicles is a very small component of the total amount of vehicle-generated pollution in Toronto; and



(b) it is impracticable and inefficient to commit specific types of buses to any particular route or area within Toronto; and



(2) requested that a copy of the report be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee of the City of Toronto and to the Etobicoke Community Council for information.



(e) Approval of Plans of Subdivision and Condominium.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:



(1) received the following report; and



(2) directed that, in future, approvals by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services of plans of subdivision and condominium be reported through the appropriate Community Council:

(March 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submitting recent plans of subdivision and condominium which have been approved by the former Metropolitan Commissioner of Planning under the authority delegated to him by the Metropolitan Council; advising that the existing delegations continue until City Council has the opportunity to examine and amend its current procedures; and recommending that this report be received for information.



(f) Toronto Transit Commission: Project Approval for Rail Replacement

Along The Queensway Streetcar Line.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:



(A) recommended to the Budget Committee, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council:



(1) the adoption of Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the following communication, viz:



"(2) It is recommended that the Commission approve forwarding this report to the City of Toronto, requesting City Council's project and financing approval (under Toronto Project No. 120) in the amount of $1,350,000.00 gross ($337,500.00 net);"; and



(2) that the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) be advised of the community's concerns regarding the inconvenience and the economic impact associated with the rail replacement along The Queensway streetcar line, having regard that the TTC already carried out work in this area in 1997; and



(3) directed that this matter be forwarded to the Budget Committee for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on March 31, 1998:



(February 12, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Commission on February 11, 1998, approved the following Recommendations contained in report No. (6), entitled " Project Approval for Rail Replacement Along The Queensway Streetcar Line":



"It is recommended that the Commission approve:



(1) project approval in the amount of $1,350,000.00 under 1.2 Surface Track for the installation of new continuous welded rail on The Queensway line from Parkside Drive Bridge up to, and including, the Humber River Bridge;



(2) forwarding this report to the City of Toronto, requesting City Council's project and financing approval (under Toronto project No. 120) in the amount of $1,350,000.00 gross ($337,500.00 net); and



(3) forwarding the report to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario for information and requesting confirmation of 50 percent funding.";



further advising that the Commission also approved that, if possible, funding for this project be provided from under-expenditures in the 1998 Budget, and if this is not possible, that staff report back to the Commission.



--------



Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, High Park, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.



(g) Contract No. T-23-98:

Resurfacing of City of Toronto Roads at Four Locations.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:



(A) recommended to the Budget Committee, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council:



(1) the adoption of the following report; and



(2) that this matter be forwarded to Council for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998; and



(B) referred the joint communication, and the newspaper articles filed by Mrs. Hansen, to the Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee of the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee for consideration:



(I) (March 2, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, recommending that:



(1) Contract No. T-23-98, for the resurfacing of City of Toronto roads at four locations, be awarded to D. Crupi and Sons Limited who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $2,892,366.33;



(2) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take necessary action to give effect thereto; and



(3) in the event that the 1998-2002 Capital Works Program is not approved by Council at its April 15, 1998 meeting, pre-budget and project financing approval in the amount of $3,227,366.33 be granted for this project in order that the project may commence in late April, 1998.



(ii) (March 20, 1998) from Mrs. Helen Hansen and Mrs. Joan Doiron, Toronto Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee, urging, with respect to items of resurfacing of roads, new traffic control signals and other road changes, that full consideration be given to the safety of pedestrians and other non-motorized road users.



--------



Mrs. Helen Hansen, Toronto Pedestrian Issues Sub-Committee, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.



(h) Update on the Greater Toronto Airports Authority.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having received, with thanks, the following communication and presentation:



(March 4, 1998) from Mr. Keith A. Medenblik, Government Liaison Co-ordinator, The Greater Toronto Airports Authority, requesting that Mr. Gerry Meinzer and Ms. Sharon Moss, Members of the Board of Directors of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, appear before the Urban Environment and Development Committee on March 23, 1998, and submitting a copy of a report, entitled "Greater Toronto Airports Authority--Regional Report February 19, 1998".



--------



Mr. Gerry Meinzer, Member of the Board of Directors, and Mr. Steve Shaw, Vice-President, Strategic Planning, The Greater Toronto Airports Authority, made an overhead presentation to the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.





(i) Proposed Merger of the Royal Bank of Canada

and the Bank of Montreal - Impact on Toronto.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having directed that the matter of the impact on Toronto of the proposed merger of the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal be referred to the first meeting of the Economic Development Committee, once it is established:



(i) (February 13, 1998) from the City Clerk of Toronto advising that City Council, at its meeting held on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, referred the following Motion to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:



Moved by: Councillor Moscoe



Seconded by: Councillor Miller



"WHEREAS the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal have announced that they intend to merge; and



WHEREAS similar mergers in the past have resulted in staff reduction levels of one-third; and



WHEREAS the merger could result in a loss of from 9,000 to 28,000 jobs; and



WHEREAS the merged bank would have more than 300 branches within Toronto, many of which could be closed; and



WHEREAS such a merger could have significant implications in Toronto;



NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Economic Development Department, the Planning Department and the City Treasurer report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the full implications for Toronto of such a merger;



AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT in the interim, the City of Toronto advise the Federal Government that the proposed merger of the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal is not in the interests of the people of Toronto;



AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Treasurer report on the implications of the City transferring its banking business from the merged bank to other chartered Canadian banks."



(ii) (March 9, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer reporting on the implications of the City of Toronto transferring its banking business from the proposed merged Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal to other chartered Canadian banks; advising that such a decision by City Council will have negative financial implications on the City in the form of increased costs in debt issuance, custody and general banking services, and reduced investment income earning potential; stating that, in dealing with the proposed merger, Council should consider the precedent-setting implications of its decision on future mergers in the financial services and other sectors of the economy; and recommending that Council receive this report for information.



(iii) (March 6, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development, recommending that:



(1) the Urban Environment and Development Committee (Committee) receive this report for information only;



(2) the Committee view this report as an initial report and request further reports as information becomes available; and



(3) the Committee consider accepting the offer of the Bank of Montreal for a briefing session to answer any further questions or address any remaining concerns;



advising that the proposed merger of the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal would initially appear to result in a loss of employment for the City of Toronto of approximately 2,500 full and part-time positions currently filled between the two banks; that, however, the banks claim that this loss would be temporary and could actually result in an increase in employment in Toronto due to the merger; that tax revenue lost by the closing of bank branches should be limited and, again, temporary; pointing out that most of the long-term losses in both revenue and employment will be seen in outlying, rural areas where the banks have reduced branch presence; stating that lower levels of competition may indeed cause higher lending rates and lowered service levels, the degree of which is unknown at present; that increases in foreign institutions operating in Canada may assist competition, although not yet at the personal level; and that this is likely to be the primary concern for Toronto and may deserve further attention as more information becomes available.



--------



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



- Mr. George Bothwell, Senior Vice-President, Public Affairs, Bank of Montreal; and



- Councillor Frances Nunziata, York-Humber.



(j) Uniform Permit Parking By-law and Area-Wide Permit Parking Policy.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the following Committee Transmittal to the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, with a request that he submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on all of the issues related to a uniform permit parking by-law prior to developing a uniform policy, in order to determine whether it is desirable to proceed in that manner:



(March 5, 1998) from the City Clerk of Toronto advising that the York Community Council on February 18, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:



(1) the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation be requested to submit to the Committee:



(a) a draft uniform permit parking by-law; and



(b) at the earliest opportunity, an outline of a policy for the introduction of area-wide permit parking, to be considered in a City-wide context, including a graduated fee structure for single addresses requiring multiple vehicle permits; and



(2) the aforementioned draft uniform permit parking by-law and policy be referred to the Community Councils for consideration and public consultation, and subsequent comment thereon back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.



(k) Replacement of Lighting on the F.G. Gardiner Expressway

from the Humber River to the Don Valley Parkway.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council:



(1) the adoption of the following report; and



(2) that this matter be forwarded to Council for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998:



(February 23, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, recommending that, subject to the approval of the 1998-2002 Capital Works Program, authority be granted to undertake the replacement of the lighting systems on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway, from the Humber Bridges to the Don Valley Parkway, at an estimated cost of $9.0 million; advising that the aforementioned work must be undertaken, principally as a result of general deterioration and obsolescence; that the Department's proposed 1998-2002 Capital Works Program includes an amount of $65.82 million under Project No. C-TR180, F. G. Gardiner Expressway, Parkway to Humber, and the replacement of the Gardiner Expressway lighting forms part of that program; that $2.5 million of the estimated total project cost is anticipated to be spent in 1998; stating that funding is currently available in Capital Account No. C-TR180; that the Treasurer has previously certified that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and that it falls within Corporate Debt Guidelines.



(l) A New Official Plan for the City of Toronto.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:



(A) recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee:



(1) the adoption of Recommendation No. (1), embodied in the report (March 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, subject to striking therefrom all of the words following the words "City of Toronto"; so that such Recommendation shall now read as follows:



"(1) It is recommended that Council seize this opportunity to develop its new Official Plan for the City of Toronto.";



(2) that, should the estimated funding of $250,000.00 not be provided as part of the 1998 Transition Costs, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee demonstrating how these funds will be accommodated within the budget process;



(3) that, in addition to "capital works, height, form and density of buildings, use of land and provision of transportation services", the new Official Plan for the City of Toronto should include social and environmental goals and criteria to create a comprehensive framework for planning;



(4) that the following Council-appointed Task Forces and Committee be requested to forward to the Urban Environment and Development Committee their recommendations regarding the proposed new Official Plan and the Official Plan work plan:



- Access and Equity Action Plan, Race Relations, Disability and Human Rights, and Ethno-Canadian Issues Task Force:

- Homeless Strategy Task Force;

- Task Force to Develop a Strategy for Issues of Concern to the Elderly;

- Environment Task Force;

- Children's Action Committee; and

- Task Force on Community Safety;





(5) that the consultation process be modified:



(a) to reflect the need to address social and environmental issues in the new Official Plan;



(b) and expanded to allow sufficient access to the public; and



(c) to give the Council-appointed Task Forces and Committee, referred to in Recommendation No. (3) above, a formal role in the consultation process to focus the public input on critical social and environmental issues;



(6) that the "ambitious" one-year work plan and schedule be extended to a two-year timeframe in order to allow for more thorough analysis and public consultation;



(7) that a Task Force, comprised of Members of Council, be established to oversee Phase One of the new Official Plan development and the consultation process; and



(8) that this matter be forwarded to Council for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998; and



(B) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report directly to Council on April 16, 1998, should there be any further considerations with respect to the new Official Plan for the City of Toronto:



(March 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that:



(1) Council seize this opportunity to develop its new Official Plan for the City of Toronto and adopt the work plan and schedule outlined in this report; and



(2) the Urban Environment and Development Committee endorse this report and refer it to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for consideration;



advising that the Toronto Transition Team in its final report recommended that "an early priority of the Urban Environment and Development Standing Committee should be the preparation of a new Official Plan for the City for adoption during the first term of Council"; that this is an opportunity for the Council of the new City of Toronto to give clear direction to guide city development and to set Council's priorities; stating that a common planning framework for making decisions concerning the built form of the City can and should be undertaken in 1998; that once completed as Council's vision for the future, the planning framework can be incorporated into the Official Plan early in 1999; that conflicting and redundant policies in the six local Official Plans and all of Metroplan can then be repealed at that time; and further advising that funding in the amount of $250,000.00 has been requested by the Planning Department as part of the 1998 Transition Costs.



(m) 1998 City Planning Work Program.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:



(1) concurred with Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the following report (March 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, viz:



"(2) that the City Clerk be requested to place a copy of this report on the April 1, 1998 agenda for all Community Council meetings, with a request that any comments from the Community Councils be forwarded to the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.";



(2) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:



(a) to modify section (3)(a), entitled "Community Projects--Local Area Studies and Implementation", of the 1998 Research and Policy Program as follows:



(i) review the wording of Project No. (7), Humber Bay Shores, with the appropriate Planning staff in the Etobicoke Civic Centre;



(ii) amend Project No. (9), Downsview Secondary Plan, by striking out the description embodied therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following:



"Responds to the closure of CFB Downsview and several specific applications, resulting in a Secondary Plan for the Downsview lands and vicinity."; and



(iii) amend Project No. (11), Allen Sheppard Study, by striking out the description embodied therein and inserting in lieu thereof the following:



"Primarily an urban design study addressing three corners on the north and south-east sides of Sheppard Avenue at the W. R. Allen Road. Design guidelines and possible changes to the permitted mix of uses at the corners are anticipated. An open process for the design of the City-owned land will be developed in consultation with the community and local Councillors."; and



(b) to identify whether the Standards for Row Housing study is underway and should be included in this Work Program; and



(3) referred the following Committee Transmittal (March 4, 1998) from the City Clerk of Toronto to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for consideration as part of the 1998 City Planning Work Program:



(i) (March 6, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that:



(1) the Urban Environment and Development Committee endorse the planning research and policy work program of Urban Planning and Development Services detailed in this report; and



(2) request the City Clerk to place this report on the April 1, 1998 agenda for all Community Council meetings with a request that any comments from the Community Councils be forwarded to the April 20, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee;



and advising that the work program seizes the opportunity produced by the creation of the new City to amalgamate the diverse planning activities of the seven former departments, and addresses both city-wide issues and local community concerns.



(ii) (March 4, 1998) from the City Clerk of Toronto advising that the Etobicoke Community Council on February 18, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to examine existing by-laws that give "as-of-right" church uses in Industrial zones because of the impact on the tax base.



(n) Proposal to Establish a Working Committee on the Conversion to

Public Transportation Systems of all Abandoned Railway Rights-of-Way.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having::



(1) referred the following communications from Mr. Bornstein and Mr. Snetsinger to the Interim Functional Lead, Planning, for consideration as part of the 1998 City Planning Work Program; and



(2) received the following report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:



(i) (January 26, 1998) addressed to Councillor Kyle Rae, Downtown, from Mr. Sam Bornstein, Toronto, suggesting that the City of Toronto, together with the Community Councils, officials of the federal and provincial governments, the railway companies and technical advisors establish a working committee on the abandonment of all railway rights-of-way for freight purposes in order to convert these rights-of-way into public transportation systems that provide frequent, reliable and convenient service; and that the foregoing be combined with the opportunity to use the vacant, abandoned and underutilized industrial land along the railway rights-of-way to create live/work/play space.



(ii) (March 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services responding to the communication dated January 26, 1998, from Mr. Sam  Bornstein; advising that the protection and future use of rail corridors within the City are important issues which are being addressed by Planning staff; that rationalization of the use of the rail corridors for freight rail traffic is the key to achieving significant City benefits; stating that since the support of the Federal Government is essential to successfully pursue this initiative, consideration of an inter-governmental working committee should be deferred until Planning staff have reported on the results of the discussions with federal officials; and recommending that this report be received for information.



(iii) (March 19, 1998) from Mr. Ross Snetsinger, Rail Ways to the Future Committee, Transport 2000 Ontario Inc., in support of the suggestion made by Mr. Bornstein for the establishment of a working committee on abandoned rail lines; suggesting that this excellent idea should be expanded to include the Greater Toronto Area and beyond; submitting a proposal, entitled "Route Banking: Using the Wealth of the Past to Create Wealth for the Future", which will have excellent economic and environmental benefits.



--------



Mr. Sam Bornstein, Toronto, appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.



(o) Contract No. T-20-98: Don Valley Parkway Bridge

Over Bloor Street Ramp, Structure Rehabilitation.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having recommended to the Budget Committee, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and Council:



(1) the adoption of the following report; and



(2) that this matter be forwarded to Council for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on April 16, 1998:



(March 3, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, recommending that:



(1) Contract No. T-20-98, for the rehabilitation of the bridge on the Don Valley Parkway over the Bloor Street Ramp, be awarded to Grascan Construction Ltd. and Torbridge Construction Ltd. who submitted the lowest price bid in the amount of $2,051,752.82;



(2) commencing the first day of construction on the Don Valley Parkway (expected to be May 1, 1998) and terminating on the last day of construction (expected to be September 29, 1998), the speed limit be lowered to 60 kilometres per hour at the following locations:



(a) northbound Don Valley Parkway from a point 400 metres south of the bridge over the Bloor Street ramp to a point 550 metres north of the bridge; and



(b) southbound Don Valley Parkway from a point 1 600 metres north of the bridge over the Bloor Street ramp to a point 450 metres south of the bridge;



(3) the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly;



(4) the appropriate City of Toronto officials be directed to take necessary action to give effect thereto; and



(5) in the event that the 1998-2002 Capital Works Program is not approved by Council at its April 15, 1998 meeting, pre-budget approval in the amount of $2,360,732.82 be granted for this project in order that the project may commence in May, 1998;



advising that Contract No. T-20-98 forms part of Project No. C-TRO29, Don Valley Parkway Rehabilitation, within the Transportation Department's proposed 1998-2002 Capital Works Program; and stating that the Treasurer has previously certified that financing can be provided under the updated Debt and Financial Obligation Limit and that it falls within Corporate Debt Guidelines.



(p) Prohibition of Advertising Signs Abutting the F. G. Gardiner Expressway

(Formerly The Queen Elizabeth Way), Eglinton Avenue West,

Highway No. 2, Highway No. 2A, and Highway No. 27.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the following matter until its next meeting, scheduled to be held on April 20, 1998:



(March 5, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, recommending that the former Metropolitan Toronto By-law No. 211-79 be amended to include the road sections shown in Table No. 1, entitled "Third Party Advertising (45m Prohibition)" attached to this report, and to authorize appropriate staff to take the necessary steps to give effect thereto; advising that the foregoing will prohibit the installation of third party advertising signs abutting those sections of former provincial highways transferred to the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto on April 1, 1997.



(q) 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets.



The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having taken the following action with respect to the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets under its purview:



Toronto Transit Commission:



(a) concurred with the recommendations proposed to date by the Budget Committee with respect to the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for the Toronto Transit Commission;



Transportation:



(b) (i) Operating Budget:



concurred with the recommendations proposed to date by the Budget Committee with respect to the 1998 Operating Budget for Transportation;



(ii) Capital Budget:



recommended to the Budget Committee that the 1998 Capital Budget for Transportation not be subject to the $18.4 million reduction suggested by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chief Administrative Officer, having regard for the importance of the transportation infrastructure within the new City of Toronto;



Urban Planning and Building:



(c) (1) concurred with the recommendations proposed to date by the Budget Committee with respect to the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for Urban Planning and Building; and



(2) advised the Budget Committee that this service area cannot withstand any further budgetary reductions;



Toronto Zoo:



(d) (i) Operating Budget:



recommended to the Budget Committee, with respect to the 1998 Operating Budget for the Toronto Zoo, that:



(a) Recommendation No. (1)(b) of the Budget Committee, embodied in the communication (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk, viz:



"(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget, subject to:





(b) there being no increase in the admission fee to the Toronto Zoo in 1998;"



be struck out and referred to the Board of Management of the Toronto Zoo, with a request that the Board submit comments thereon to the Budget Committee; and



(b) concurred with Recommendation No. (1)(a) of the Budget Committee, embodied in the communication (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk, viz:



"(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget, subject to:



(a) the net 1998 Operating Budget for the Toronto Zoo being established at an amount of $6,888,000.00;"; and



(ii) Capital Budget:



concurred with the recommendations proposed to date by the Budget Committee with respect to the 1998 Capital Budget for the Toronto Zoo;



Exhibition Place:



(e) concurred with the recommendations proposed to date by the Budget Committee with respect to the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for Exhibition Place;



Toronto and Region Conservation Authority:



(f) concurred with the recommendations proposed to date by the Budget Committee with respect to the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;



Toronto Harbour Commission:



(g) advised the Budget Committee that no officials of the Toronto Harbour Commission (Commission) attended the March 23 and 24, 1998, Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting to discuss the Commission's 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets; therefore, the Urban Environment and Development Committee has no comments to make on the aforementioned Budgets;





Toronto Parking Authority:



(h) recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for the Toronto Parking Authority;



Economic Development and Tourism:



(i) (1) recommended to the Budget Committee that $342,000.00 for the Economic Development Partnership Grants Program be reinstated in the 1998 Operating Budget for Economic Development and Tourism; and



(2) concurred with the remainder of the recommendations proposed to date by the Budget Committee with respect to the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for Economic Development and Tourism;



Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO):

(j) advised the Budget Committee that it took no action with respect to the 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO);



(k) requested the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on:



(a) the inclusion in the Transportation Capital Budget of $100,000.00 in 1998, and $1 million in 1999, for Project No. 703, Scarborough--Port Union Road Pedestrian Underpass (8604-1); and



(b) the possibility of an engineering study of Port Union Road;



(l) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, with respect to the 1998 Operating Budget for Urban Planning and Building:



(a) to give consideration to the centralization of the policy studies area as part of the amalgamated Department; and



(b) to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the contingency plans necessary to bridge the timing and funding gap resulting from the elimination of the "Urgent Hazards" Program, pending the new legislation under the Vital Services Act that would allow the utilities to continue with the program;







(m) requested the Toronto Harbour Commission to direct the appropriate officials to attend the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee scheduled to be held on April 20, 1998, in order to discuss the Commission's 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets;



(n) congratulated the Toronto Parking Authority for returning $20.0 million from the Parking Authority reserve to the City of Toronto; and



(o) requested the Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development, to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the status of the funding relationships with respect to Business Improvement Areas (BIAs), and whether or not the Province of Ontario is still involved in funding BIAs:



(i) 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for the Toronto Transit Commission;



(ii) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Operating Budget for the Toronto Transit Commission, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998;



(iii) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Capital Budget for the Toronto Transit Commission, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget, subject to the inclusion of Project No. 378 - Queen's Quay Streetcar connection; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998; and



(iv) (February 12, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, advising that the Commission on February 11, 1998, reaffirmed both the 1998 Operating Budget for the TTC and the 1998-2002 Capital Program Status;



(v) 1998 Operating Budget for Transportation; and



(vi) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Operating Budget for the Transportation Department, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget, subject to the amendments proposed by the Chief Administrative Officer as embodied in Section 'C'; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998;



(vii) 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for Urban Planning and Building;



(viii) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Operating Budget for Urban Planning and Building, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget, subject to the amendments proposed by the Chief Administrative Officer as embodied in Section 'C'; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998;



(ix) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Capital Budget for Urban Planning and Building, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998;



(x) 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for the Toronto Zoo;



(xi) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Operating Budget for the Toronto Zoo, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget, subject to:



(a) the net 1998 Operating Budget for the Toronto Zoo being established at an amount of $6,888,000.00; and



(b) there being no increase in the admission fee to the Toronto Zoo in 1998; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998; and



(xii) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998  Capital Budget for the Toronto Zoo, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget, subject to any interest accruing due to the insurance settlement, which amounted to $948,000.00, for the Zoo Monorail Ride, being allocated to the 1998 Capital Budget for the Toronto Zoo; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998;



(xiii) 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for Exhibition Place;



(xiv) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Operating Budget for Exhibition Place, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget, subject to the amendments proposed by the Chief Administrative Officer as embodied in Section 'C'; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998; and



(xv) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Capital Budget for Exhibition Place, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget, subject to:



(a) the deletion of $310,000.00 for Project 360 - Other Buildings - Relocation of the Ball Park Substation;



(b) the deletion of $175,000.00 for Project 350 - Equipment - PCB Transformer Replacement - Arts, Crafts, Hobbies Substation (2);



(c) the deletion of $30,000.00 for Project 001 - Pre-Engineering Studies;



(d) the deletion of $30,000.00 for the replacement of carpet - Project 290 - Queen Elizabeth Building; and



(e) the expenditure for the water meters, in the amount of $120,000.00, being allocated from the City of Toronto's Sewer and Water Budget; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998;



(xvi) 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;



(xvii) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Operating Budget for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget, subject to the amendments proposed by the Chief Administrative Officer as embodied in Section 'C'; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998; and



(xviii) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Capital Budget for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998;



(xix) 1998 Capital Budget for the Toronto Harbour Commission;



(xx) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Operating Budget for the Toronto Harbour Commission, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget, subject to the reduction of the subsidy request to the 1997 level in the amount of $2,775,00.00; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998; and



(xxi) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Capital Budget for the Toronto Harbour Commission, noting that the Budget Committee on March 10, 1998, deferred consideration of this budget to its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998;



(xxii) 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for the Toronto Parking Authority; and



(xxiii) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the communication dated March 11, 1998, from the Chairman, Toronto Parking Authority, noting that the Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, that the $20.0 million from the Parking Authority reserve be accepted; and stating that the Budget Committee requested the Chief Administrative Officer, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to submit a report to the Budget Committee for its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998, on the recommended use of these funds;



(xxiv) 1998 Operating and Capital Budgets for Economic Development and Tourism;



(xxv) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Operating Budget for Economic Development and Tourism, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget, subject to:



(a) the amendments proposed by the Chief Administrative Officer as embodied in Section 'C';



(b) the expenditures for conferences and travel being approved by the Economic Development Committee when it is established, prior to the funds being spent; and



(c) the allocation of funds in the amount of $4.3 million for Tourism Toronto being considered by the Municipal Grants Review Committee; and that this matter be referred to the Office of the Mayor, with a request that the Mayor meet with the appropriate staff of Tourism Toronto and the Economic Development Department to ensure a co-ordinated effort and no duplication of services; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998; and



(xxvi) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Capital Budget for Economic Development and Tourism, noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998;



(xxvii) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Operating Budget for the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO), noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998; and



(xxviii) (March 18, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee submits, for review and comment, the 1998 Capital Budget for the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO), noting that:



(1) the Budget Committee proposes to recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee for its meeting to be held on April 14, 1998, the adoption of such budget; and



(2) such budget will again be considered by the Budget Committee at its meeting to be held on March 31, 1998;



--------



The following officials appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the respective 1998 Operating and/or Capital Budgets under their purview:



- Mr. David Gunn, Chief General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission;



- Mr. Barry Gutteridge, Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and filed the following documents in connection with the 1998 Capital Budget for Transportation:



(i) Table 2 dated March 16, 1998, entitled "Proposed 1998 Capital Works Program: Major Roads and Expressways"; and



(ii) Table 3 dated March 23, 1998, entitled "Proposed 1998 Capital Works Program: Additional Deferrals--$18.4 million Reduction from Submitted Program";



- Mr. Doug Floyd, Interim Functional Lead, Transportation;



- Ms. Virginia West, Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and filed a summary document dated March 9, 1998, entitled "1998 Budget--Urban Planning and Development Services";



- Mr. Yaman Uzumeri, Interim Functional Lead, Building;



- Mr. Lorne Ross, Interim Functional Lead, Planning;



- Mr. Rick Tomaszewicz, Planning Department, East York Civic Centre;



- Mr. Cal White, Interim Functional Lead, Toronto Zoo;



- Councillor Raymond Cho, Chair, Board of Management of the Toronto Zoo.



- Ms. Dianne Young, Interim General Manager, Exhibition Place;



- Mr. Craig Mather, Chief Administrative Officer, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;



- Ms. Brenda Librecz, Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development; and filed the following:



(i) a summary document, entitled "Economic Development 1998 Budget"; and



(ii) a document, entitled "Appendix 'D'--Projects Helped by the Economic Development Partnership Program Since 1995".



(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of Item (b), headed "1998 Cycling Ambassador Program City-Wide", embodied in the foregoing Clause, a communication (March 26, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Metropolitan Cycling and Pedestrian Committee and the Toronto City Cycling Committee, at their joint meeting on March 25, 1998, endorsed the recommendations embodied in the report dated March 6, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting the 1998 Cycling Ambassadors Program.)















Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE,

Chair

Toronto, March 23 and 24, 1998





(Report No. 4 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on April 16, 1998.)





TABLE OF CONTENTS



REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES





As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on April 16, 1998




URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 4



Clause Page

1 Ward Boundary Review Process. 2059

2 Monitoring of Red-Light Violations
at Traffic Control Signals. 2059

3 Prevention of Suicides on the Bloor Street Viaduct. 2060

4 Proposed 1998 Fee Schedule for Planning Applications. 2066

5 By-law for Building Permits. 2081

6 Appointments to the Boards of Management for
Business Improvement Areas and Amendments to
the (former Toronto) Municipal Code Chapter 20,
Business Improvement Areas - Various Wards. 2106

7 Renewal of Agreement to Permit Molson Indy Race
at Exhibition Place for 1998, 1999 and 2000. 2113

8 Operation of the 1998 Molson Indy Race
at Exhibition Place. 2119

9 Toronto Transit Commission:
Sheppard Subway Bayview Station
Bus Loop and Commuter Parking. 2125

10 GO Transit: Year 2021 Plan. 2130

11 Foot and Bicycle Couriers--Revenue Canada Taxation. 2131

12 Contract No. T-9-98:
Dundas Street West Over Etobicoke Creek
West of Highway No. 427--Structure Rehabilitation. 2137

13 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:
Keele Street and Humberside Avenue. 2139

14 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:
Morningside Avenue and
Finch Avenue East/Old Finch Avenue. 2143

15 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:
Sewells Road and Brenyon Way. 2146

16 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:
Tapscott Road and Newgale Gate. 2148

17 Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals:
Doris Avenue at Empress Avenue. 2150

18 Duplicate Street Names and Emergency Response. 2152

19 Other Items Considered by the Committee. 2155

 

   
Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.

 

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links
© City of Toronto 1998-2005