TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

 As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 3

1. Proposed Amendments to By-Law No. 60-1998 -The Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law

2. The Framework for the New Official Plan for Toronto

3. Official Plan Policies and Related By-Laws Regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing, and Status of Condition Survey of High-rise Rental Stock

4. A Rapid Transit Connection Between Pearson International Airport and Union Station - Supplementary Report

5. Contract EB9807RD Reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive North from Bloor Street West to Dundas Street West, Kingsway - Additional Expenditures for Increased Work - (Ward 3 - Humber)

6. Rail Safety Oversight

7. Installation of Traffic Control Signs at O'Connor Drive at Northridge Avenue; O'Connor Drive at Glenwood Crescent; and O'Connor Drive at Four Oaks Gate - (Ward 1 - East York)

8. Temporary Traffic Regulations for the Construction of the Sheppard Subway - Yonge Station(Ward 10 - North York Centre)

9. Revised Terms of Reference for the Toronto Cycling Committee

10. Noise By-law Exemption for Next Phase of Humber Bridges Project

11. Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 3

OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on February 8, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

1

Proposed Amendments to By-Law No. 60-1998 -

The Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Fire Chief be requested to submit a joint report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility and implications of installing Carbon Monoxide Detectors in schools in the City of Toronto.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1)the following proposals as contained in the joint report (January 29, 1999) from the Fire Chief and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Service to revise the Carbon Monoxide Detector By-law be endorsed, and that authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto:

(a)multi-unit residential buildings should be exempted from the requirements for carbon monoxide (CO) alarms with the following exceptions:

(i)multi-unit residential buildings with common fuel-fired forced air heating systems - all dwelling units within such buildings that are heated by a common fuel-fired central system should be required to have CO alarms;

(ii)multi-unit residential buildings with fuel-fired appliances in some or all of the suites - all dwelling units within such buildings that have any fuel-fired fireplaces, ranges, heating equipment, etc. should be required to have CO alarms;

(iii)multi-unit residential buildings where fuel-fired appliance rooms share common walls with dwelling units or are located directly above or below dwelling units, such dwelling units should be required to have CO alarms;

(iv)multi-unit residential buildings with attached garages - dwelling units sharing common walls with garages or that are located directly above garages should be required to have CO alarms;

(v)multi-unit residential buildings with fuel-fired appliances in rooms that are part of the building should have carbon monoxide alarms located in the room containing the fuel-fired appliance. The alarm should be connected in such a way that building supervisory staff are notified when the alarm is actuated; and

(b)maintenance requirements for all fuel-fired equipment (heating, cooking, etc.) should be made a part of the By-Law requirements. Appropriate maintenance standards as recommended by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority be referenced in the By-Law;

(c)in the "Definitions" section, the term "Boarding or Lodging House" should be revised to read "Boarding, Lodging or Rooming House" to match the terminology used in both the Fire and Building Codes;

(d)in the definition of "Boarding or Lodging House", the criteria that determines whether a particular building is affected should be changed. The phrase "for gain" should be changed to the Fire Code criteria "in return for remuneration or the provision of services or both";

(e)the term "electrically powered" in the definition of "Carbon Monoxide Detector" should be changed. A phrase such as "connected to the primary electrical supply for the building" is more accurate;

(f)the term "multiple occupancies" in Item 4 should be changed to "multiple dwelling units";

(g)revise the By-Law to require that carbon monoxide alarms conform to the most recent version of any of three available standards;

(h)revise the By-Law to require additional carbon monoxide detectors in boarding, lodging and rooming houses;

(i)revise the By-Law to confirm application to group homes, nursing homes and similar places of residence and to require protection for the occupants of hotels, hospitals, and similar places of temporary accommodation;

(j)revise the By-Law to clarify the responsibilities of owners and occupants of dwelling units with respect to the installation, maintenance and testing of carbon monoxide alarms; and

(k)revise the By-Law to clarify the audibility requirements for carbon monoxide alarms;

(2)the resolution from the Town of Newmarket contained in the communication (December 10, 1998) from the Director of Corporate Services/Town Clerk be endorsed subject to amending the first paragraph by adding the word "existing" before the word "residential", so as to read:

"That the Province of Ontario be requested to amend the Ontario Building Code to require the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in all existing residential dwelling units"; and

that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be so advised of Council's endorsement; and

(3)the Fire Chief be requested to communicate with all Fire Chiefs in Ontario to urge them to put pressure on the Province of Ontario to ensure that the installation of Carbon Monoxide Detectors is included in the Ontario Building Code.

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

(1)requested the Fire Chief and the Chief Building Official, to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the implementation of enforcing the by-law with regards to multi-residential buildings; and

(2)deferred consideration of the following Motion placed by Councillor Moscoe pending an in-camera report from the Fire Chief on this matter:

"That Nadine International be struck from the City's list of potential bidders".

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the joint report (January 29, 1999) from the Fire Chief and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To outline proposed amendments to the above by-law.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that proposals contained in this report for revisions to the Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law be endorsed and referred to staff to prepare an amending By-Law.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Six amendments to By-Law 60-1998 were proposed previously in the report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee dated November 16, 1998, titled, "Review of Requested Amendments to By-Law 60-1998 - "The Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law".

We continue to recommend the six proposed amendments from the above report. For convenience they are all set out below (numbered as they appeared in the previous report for continuity):

1.Multi-unit residential buildings should be exempted from the requirements for carbon monoxide (CO) alarms with the following exceptions:

A.Multi-unit residential buildings with common fuel-fired forced air heating systems - all dwelling units within such buildings that are heated by a common fuel-fired central system should be required to have CO alarms.

B.Multi-unit residential buildings with fuel-fired appliances in some or all of the suites - all dwelling units within such buildings that have any fuel-fired fireplaces, ranges, heating equipment, etc. should be required to have CO alarms."

C.Multi-unit residential buildings where fuel-fired appliance rooms share common walls with dwelling units or are located directly above or below dwelling units, such dwelling units should be required to have CO alarms.

D.Multi-unit residential buildings with attached garages - dwelling units sharing common walls with garages or that are located directly above garages should be required to have CO alarms.

E.Multi-unit residential buildings with fuel-fired appliance in rooms that are part of the building should have carbon monoxide alarms located in the room containing the fuel-fired appliance. The alarm should be connected in such a way that building supervisory staff are notified when the alarm is actuated.

2.Maintenance requirements for all fuel-fired equipment (heating, cooking, etc.) should be made a part of the By-Law requirements. Appropriate maintenance standards as recommended by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority should be referenced in the By-Law.

3.In the "Definitions" section, the term "Boarding or Lodging House" should be revised to read "Boarding, Lodging or Rooming House" to match the terminology used in both the Fire and Building Codes.

4.In the definition of "Boarding or Lodging House", the criteria that determines whether a particular building is affected should be changed. The phrase "for gain" should be changed to the Fire Code criteria "in return for remuneration or the provision of services or both".

5.The term "electrically powered" in the definition of "Carbon Monoxide Detector" should be changed. A phrase such as "connected to the primary electrical supply for the building" is more accurate.

6.The term "multiple occupancies" in Item 4 should be changed to "multiple dwelling units".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Since the previous report, more submissions on the By-Law have been received. In addition, several recent & significant carbon monoxide poisoning incidents have occurred. As a result, additional proposals for amendments to the By-Law are being made as follows (numbered in sequence after the above proposed amendments):

7.Revise the By-Law to require that carbon monoxide alarms conform to the most recent version of any of three available standards.

8.Revise the By-Law to require additional carbon monoxide detectors in boarding, lodging and rooming houses.

9.Revise the By-Law to confirm application to group homes, nursing homes and similar places of residence and to require protection for the occupants of hotels, hospitals, and similar places of temporary accommodation.

10.Revise the By-Law to clarify the responsibilities of owners and occupants of dwelling units with respect to the installation, maintenance and testing of carbon monoxide alarms.

11.Revise the By-Law to clarify the audibility requirements for carbon monoxide alarms.

Conclusions:

The recommended amendments listed in the "Comments" section above are intended to clarify the requirements of the By-Law as well as offer protection for other types of occupancies where there is a potential of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Contact Name:

Terry Boyko, Deputy Fire Chief

397-4302

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also submits the report (December 10, 1998) from Mr. Robert M. Prentice, Director of Corporate Services/Town Clerk Town of Newmarket, addressed to all Municipalities in Ontario with populations over 50,000:

The Town of Newmarket Council adopted the following resolution at its meeting held on December 7, 1998:

WHEREAS the use of carbon monoxide alarms has been proven to contribute to the reduction of carbon monoxide poisoning;

AND WHEREAS the incidence of carbon monoxide poisoning within buildings and its threat to the health and safety of the residents of Ontario has been clearly recognized by many municipalities through the introduction of public awareness campaigns and the adoption of different municipal by-laws requiring installation of detectors;

AND WHEREAS the Ontario Building Code currently only requires the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in new houses where there is a solid fuel burning device such as a fireplace or a wood burning stove and does not apply to homes built prior to 1994;

AND WHEREAS the use of carbon monoxide detectors in all buildings is an effective method to protect the residents of Ontario from the threat of carbon monoxide poisoning;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF NEWMARKET AS FOLLOWS:

THAT the Province of Ontario be requested to amend the Ontario Building Code to require the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in all residential dwelling units;

AND THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all municipalities in the Province of Ontario with a population over 50,00 or support.

Council of the Town of Newmarket respectfully requests your support of the above resolution and that you advise the Honourable Al Leach, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 17th Floor, 777 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2E5 of your support.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(January 6, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding the action of City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998 respecting Clause 5 of Report No. 14 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Proposed Amendments to By-law No. 60-1998 - 'The Carbon Monoxide Detector By-law' (All Wards), which Council struck out and referred back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration;

-(December 16, 1998) from Ms. Sandra Pavan, Beacon Hill Tenants Association, requesting that building standards be enforced in her apartment building; and

-(December 16, 1998) from Mr. Wilfrid Worland, Director, Asset Management Branch, Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, requesting clarification on the City of Toronto's municipal by-law No. 60-1998 - standards on carbon monoxide detector installations.

 2

The Framework for the New Official Plan for Toronto

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause :

(A)in accordance with the following recommendation embodied in the report dated February 22, 1999, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

"That:

(1)Council establish an Official Plan Council Reference Group as recommended in the report dated January 25, 1999 from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, rather than a Council Task Force;

(2)the formulation of additional lenses be considered as part of the process of developing the new Official Plan;

(3)Council amend the framework outlined in the report from the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(a)in order to direct staff to:

(i)ensure the Official Plan is written in plain language;

(ii)address Culture and Heritage issues in the Official Plan;

(iii)develop a working philosophy for public transit to be included in the Official Plan; and

(iv)include the City's school boards in the development of the Official Plan in a meaningful way; and

(b)by deleting the fifth point under the section headed 'Format and Scope of the Plan', and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

'ensure new development will enhance public streets, open space, and be environmentally compatible, and accessible to persons with disabilities.' "; and

(B)by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)sustainability be considered a key component of the integrating concept for the City of Toronto's Official Plan; and

(2)the Official Plan Council Reference Group and the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, in consultation with the Environmental Task Force, be requested to consider how the Official Planning process will address this objective.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1)Council endorse the framework outlined in the report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(2)an Official Plan Council Reference Group be established to guide the process, such Group to be comprised of 7 members of Council, one of whom shall be the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee who will Chair the Group, and that the City Clerk be requested to canvass members of Council for their interest and submit the names of interested persons to the Striking Committee; and

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the following motions placed at the Committee to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with a request that she report directly to Council for its meeting on March 2, 1999 on these motions and provide appropriate recommendations:

"(1)that the Official Plan Council Reference Group be renamed the "Official Plan Council Task Force" and that the City Clerk be requested to provide administrative support to this Task Force;

(2)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services prepare a pamphlet for distribution to interest groups and forward a copy to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(3)that an additional fourth and fifth lens be included in the framework for the Official Plan as follows:

-areas where the City wants to spark transformation;

-waterfront and green space;

(4)that the Official Plan and related material be written in plain language;

(5)that the Culture Plan be fully integrated into the Official Plan;

(6)that the Official Plan include the development of a working philosophy for public transit;

(7)that the City's school-boards be included in some meaningful way in the development of the Official Plan;

(8)that the 5^th point contained in the list on page 9 of the report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services under the paragraph headed 'Format and Scope of the Plan' be amended by adding the words 'and accessible to persons with disabilities', so as to read:

'ensure new development will enhance public streets, open space, and be environmentally compatible, and accessible to persons with disabilities'."

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The City is on the threshold of a new millennium, with great aspirations and prospects for an exciting future as an amalgamated city. This report is a first step in the development of a collective vision for our new City. It seeks Council endorsement for the scope of the work program, the process, timing and consultation strategy for developing a new Official Plan for the City of Toronto. The preparation of a new Official Plan will be a landmark event, and 1999 will see numerous opportunities for stakeholders and the public at large to help shape the City's future.

We are a new city, and the new Plan is about "reinventing" Toronto. That means reinventing the way we plan Toronto. What people care about in their daily lives, what other world cities envy about Toronto, and what corporations increasingly look for when making their investment decisions is quality of life. The quality of life enjoyed by this city cannot be taken for granted. It needs nurturing and it needs reinvestment on the part of both the public and the private sectors. The figure on page 2 suggests the cycle that sustains quality of life, and which should consequently be at the heart of the new Plan. The role of the Official Plan is to propel this cycle by setting objectives, identifying opportunities, and fostering reinvestment in the community, the environment and the economy. Reinvesting in our quality of life will be an organizing theme of the new Plan. The Plan will address social, economic and environmental objectives for reinvestment, and give direction to Council in its capital budget deliberations.

Quality of life also has an important spatial component. What happens "on the ground" affects our sense of well being, our enjoyment of urban life, and ultimately the quality of our lives. The Plan will break new ground in this area. It will have to if we are to make sense of the common values and interests of the diverse communities across the city. The current planning framework of seven official plans, comprising over 2000 pages, is not only a barrier to achieving the benefits of amalgamation, its sheer size and detail get in the way of understanding our common interests. What people value in their communities in Willowdale, Agincourt, Swansea, Leaside or Thistletown are very similar. The Plan should have "lenses" that can see past the superficial differences and bring into focus the important characteristics, qualities and needs that are shared by these different communities. These will need to be nurtured and invested in to promote quality of life. At the other end of the spectrum, areas like the Railway Lands, Morningside Heights, Downsview, or the Woodbine Racetrack Lands, also have more in common than they have differences. Seen through the right lenses, these commonalities can be understood. Finding the right "lenses" with which to view the City will be a process of discovery for all of us - staff, council, the community, other departments, the development industry and other stakeholders. At the end of that journey, we will all have a better understanding of this new City, and how we can collectively "grow" an even better one.

        Map 1

The new Official Plan will also need to build bridges to neighbouring communities. The City needs a healthy regional economy and a more sustainable plan for accommodating expansion of the urbanized part of the region. Communities throughout the rest of the Greater Toronto Area need a safe and healthy urban core to support their goals. It is important for Toronto's Official Plan to address the new regional context in which we plan for investment, physical and social change.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact:

There are no funding implications arising from this report. On December 8 and 15, 1998 respectively, Budget Committee and the Strategic Policy and Priorities Committee approved funds in the amount of $700,000.00 for 1999 as part of the 1999 Capital Transition Costs. At its meeting of February 1, 1999 Council will consider the Committee's recommendations.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council endorse the framework outlined in this report, the work program, process, timing and communication strategy for developing a new Official Plan for the City of Toronto;

(2)Council approve the establishment of an Official Plan Council Reference Group to guide the process. The Council Reference Group is to be chaired by the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and should be comprised of 6 members of Council; and

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

Council Reference:

On April 16, 1998 Council endorsed the preparation of a new Official Plan by its adoption of my report dated March 11, 1998. Budget Committee approved a budget of $700,000.00 for this project in 1999. This report sets out a new framework, work program, and consultative process for the development of a new Official Plan for the City of Toronto.

Context:

Toronto was the first large city in Canada to undertake a 'modern' comprehensive Master Plan in the 1940s. That plan is remembered as a precursor to the suburban expansion of the 1950s and 1960s as well as for laying out a blueprint for the subway system and the reservation of land for development of a civic centre. The endorsement of a bold vision in 1943, helped Council to set priorities for a number of important implementation plans and projects that followed.

The first Official Plan for the new City of Toronto should be equally visionary and strategic. It should speak to more than the administrative efficiencies of an amalgamated City. A new Official Plan will help Council, the diverse communities throughout the City, and the various City departments to engage in a unified city building process with a common purpose. The first Official Plan for this new City should represent a dynamic vision to carry the City proudly into the next century.

Enhancing Quality of Life - the Prime Objective

Toronto is at the heart of one of the most prosperous and dynamic urban regions in North America. The quality of life enjoyed by residents here is a reflection of:

-our economic prospects (employment, cost of living);

-the quality of the natural and built environment (pollution levels, quality of urban streets and buildings, parks and open space systems); and

-our sense of community (the degree to which we feel safe to enjoy our neighbourhoods, the level and quality of affordable housing, community services, education, health and social services, and the level of community spirit enjoyed by our citizens).

       Map 2

An improved quality of life is the key to the region's future economic competitiveness and prosperity.

Toronto is at a crossroads. It has been a success story among North American cities over the past 50 years, based on its position as the financial and manufacturing capital of Canada's economy. Toronto's success has also been a product of the high quality of life its citizens enjoyed. This high quality of life attracted people and businesses who contributed to the City's prosperity which in turn resulted in improvements to life in the City. Recently however, concerns have surfaced regarding our ability to sustain this cycle.

The recent recession compounded the effects of other aspects of societal change. A large number of jobs in the Toronto region were lost, partly due to the recession, but partly due to the introduction of new technology in the workplace. Many of these jobs are lost forever. Free trade has resulted in changes in the scope of economic activity, enhancing the international position of large segments of our economy. While the auto sector and other manufacturing industries are still mainstays of the regional economy, there is now significant trade in services internationally (particularly financial services). To be successful, the economy of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) must build on existing strengths and provide opportunities for new job creation.

People continued to come to Toronto throughout the recession, with 315,000 new immigrants choosing this City as their home between 1991 and 1996. The population of the City rose by 110,000 overall during those five years, more than had been anticipated in projections upon which the current Official Plans were based. Toronto continued to be cited internationally as a great place to live and to do business because of our affordable high quality of life. Locally, however, concerns were being raised about the condition of the social and economic fabric of the City.

                         A number of indicators suggest that we will have to work harder against emerging trends and invest more to maintain our quality of life:

-the GTA continues to grow and the lion's share of future growth in population and housing will take place in the surrounding regions;

-there is a significant difference in the income distribution picture between the City and the suburbs, with average household incomes in the City much lower than the surrounding regions;

-federal and provincial withdrawal from social housing programs has contributed to a serious shortage of affordable rental housing throughout the GTA;

-changes to the social assistance system have harmed the most vulnerable in the City, and have been felt by small businesses as millions of dollars have been removed from local spending;

-TTC ridership declined sharply from its peak in 1991 and is slow in recovering, reflecting in part the growth in jobs outside of the City which are difficult to serve with transit;

-a new property tax system and new financial responsibilities have added to the challenge of amalgamation; and

-an aging physical infrastructure with limited financial means to maintain or expand it poses a challenge in the face of already rising capital expenditures.

       Map 5Map 6

Today, residents of Toronto have a new civic administration which, in addition to dealing with the amalgamation of traditional municipal functions, must also deal with new responsibilities such as:

-full funding responsibility for social housing, transit and roads;

-the restructuring of social services; and

-cost-sharing for regional growth through the Greater Toronto Services Board.

We need a new planning framework to deal with the challenges of global economic competition, new municipal responsibilities, and the changing social fabric. In the words of Sir Christopher Ball: "Existing systems produce existing results. If something different is required, the system must be changed." The new Official Plan will break from the traditional policy framework to focus on opportunities for renewal and reinvestment, and how reinvestment can maintain and enhance the best qualities of Toronto.

Renewing Toronto

Toronto is almost fully built out, its urban structure by and large defined by large areas of relative stability and more dynamic areas characterized by either incremental change or significant transformation. As a mature City, virtually all development is redevelopment and renewal. Older parts of the City have experienced successive waves of reinvestment and rebuilding. Newer parts of the City have in the past decade or so come to see the first of such waves. Reaching a common understanding of the consequences of change across the City's landscape will be part of the "glue" of the new Official Plan.

As our recovery from the recession has progressed, we have seen renewed interest in development activity across the City, and employment has been rising. Our population rose primarily because we are still seen by immigrants as a desirable place to settle. We have also seen growth in the number of young children in older residential neighbourhoods as the character of these communities changes with demographic shifts. However, our future prospects cannot be taken for granted and we must put in place a policy framework to direct and foster renewal.

Successful cities have clear and strong functional linkages between their built environment and their natural features. The natural environments that are most regarded and best protected are those features that "belong" to a community. The City's waterfront, major river valleys, minor ravines and the escarpment define this City and distinguish it from others. Many cities have international style office towers, but no other City has our waterfront, or the Don, Humber and Rouge Rivers. These irreplaceable resources are to be treasured, protected and regenerated.

Reinvesting in the City's livability means more than promoting economic growth. A successful reinvestment plan must address priorities for improving the physical infrastructure of the City and reinvestment in the built environments through commitments to improving the quality of the place we live in. Every new development is an opportunity to enhance the City and create or contribute to a sense of place. For most people, the experience of a "good" development comes from what we experience at the street level. Our streets, parks and open spaces around buildings are Toronto's outdoor living rooms. The emphasis in the Plan must be on creating public spaces that people want to use, not because it gets them from here to there, but because the places are exciting, interesting, safe and enjoyable.

The new Plan will be a Plan for reinvestment in the pillars of the City's quality of life:

-community

-the economy

-our natural and built environments

A New Approach to Planning Toronto

"The world we have created today, as a result of our thinking thus far, has problems which cannot be solved by thinking the way we thought when we created them." Albert Einstein

We are a City of 240 square miles and a population of 2.4 million. While the previous approaches to planning may have served us well in the past, the challenges of a new City of this scale require that we take a fresh approach. If we approach planning the same way we have in the past, we will find ourselves again with 2000 pages of Plan, and an unworkable planning framework for a city of this scale. We need a plan that is easy to understand, gives clear direction, is read because it is meaningful and a pleasure to read, and is easy to administer.

The new Plan will need to break the mould, and will have to do so using new language that is engaging and resonates with the community. You cannot break with the past using the language of the present. The Plan will need to depart from the traditional land use approach and find new concepts and ideas to guide the physical, economic and social development of the City. The new framework must focus on those elements of city building that are valued and that collectively contribute to our quality of life.

To do this, we need to enter the planning process from an entirely different perspective, using reinvestment in the quality of life as the Plan's organizing policy framework. As noted earlier, Toronto is virtually built out, and its urban structure is by and large defined by large areas of relative stability and more dynamic areas characterized by either incremental change or significant transformation. There are large parts of the City that will not "change" - for example the extensive stable residential areas, our environmentally sensitive areas, and parks and open space systems. But these areas, while stable, are not static. They require renewal and reinvestment to maintain or enhance quality of life. The Plan needs to give direction about what kind of change and reinvestment is needed in such areas. Other areas, that over the years have become obsolete, need to be rethought and more significant change is both expected and tolerated. For these areas, we need a different approach than for stable areas where the thrust is to invest in order to protect what is there now.

The Official Plan will establish different lenses which will set out how different parts of the City share common features and share common potential for reinvestment. This will be done by examining the existing extent of development, the state of the physical and social infrastructure, and opportunities for renewal. In addition, the area's sensitivity to change and the potential consequences of change will be looked at.

This is pioneering work. A scan of other jurisdictions has not found any comparable approaches. We will be reinventing how we plan Toronto as we collectively discover this new City. We have taken a very preliminary stab at identifying three possible reinvestment lenses, or views of the city that make sense. As we move through the Official Plan process we will be making adjustments, refining these and discovering others that together will tell a story about the City. As starting points, the following three different types of areas can be described.

Stable Areas

Most of the City is characterised by relative stability. Such areas include residential neighbourhoods, the green space network, and employment districts where the built form is relatively stable. In these areas, the Official Plan should reinforce this stability, provide a high degree of certainty about the consequences of redevelopment, and suggest reinvestment strategies that support quality of life. The stable reinvestment lens must see beyond superficial differences and focus on the common expectations of change.

Areas of Incremental Change

Other parts of the City have more potential for change but the change will be incremental and will not alter the basic structure of the City or function of the area. The extent and form of development already there also suggests that new development must be carefully designed to fit the existing urban fabric. Examples might range from infill to the re-use of existing buildings for quite different activities. Mainstreets and arterial corridor areas where intensification is expected would also fit this description. Residents and businesses here look to the Official Plan to guide redevelopment activity within a range of alternative expectations. The Official Plan should not attempt to prescribe a defined mix for such areas. Rather, the Plan should provide the objectives for incremental change that, over time, will contribute to the new vision of the City.

Areas of Significant Transformation

Still other parts of the City may offer tremendous opportunity for reinvestment as part of a wholesale change in character. Examples such as King-Spadina, the Railway Lands and the federal Downsview lands are in the process of transformation. Other opportunities can be found in former industrial lands lying idle or in the remaining large tracts of "greenfield" lands. The Plan would guide the phased build-out of these large areas including investment in the physical and social infrastructure requirements.

There may be three, four, or five such reinvestment "views", or "lenses" of the City which will be explored during the course of developing the new Official Plan. The broad strategic objectives of the Plan will be realized in many ways as the vision for Toronto's future is focussed through these different lenses in different parts of the City.

 Format and Scope of the Plan

The Official Plan can guide Council's decision making and influence the quality of life in the City for years to come. To do so it must be relevant, accessible, readily understood and give clear direction as to the City's priorities. The Plan should also preserve and enhance the best of what we have while establishing the ground rules by which the benefits of physical change can be realized.

The Official Plan is also an opportunity to integrate the visions and the values of Council's Task Forces. There is a great deal of planning going on in this new organization, with leading edge thinking on a number of fronts that will need to feed into the new Plan. While specific goals may be incorporated in the new Plan, other objectives and strategies for action arising from the Task Forces may be more appropriately housed in the Corporate Strategic Plan or in implementation plans that will be associated with the Official Plan.

As a public guide to improving Toronto's prospects for the future the Plan will:

-be pro-active in identifying priority areas across the City for economic and community development;

-be strategic in setting priorities for the effective expenditure of capital funds to support development;

-contain meaningful indicators to measure progress in meeting the strategic objectives and impacts on our quality of life;

-establish a framework for partnerships in city building;

-ensure new development will enhance public streets, open space, and be environmentally compatible;

-employ high quality graphics, illustrations and photographs to articulate visions of a high quality urban form;

-be easy to read and understand as a policy framework; and

-be a living document with the flexibility to embrace social and economic change.

Other Corporate Planning Exercises

As noted above, Council has initiated a number of corporate planning exercises. The Corporate Strategic Plan will lay the groundwork for departmental priorities and multi-year program plans. The Social Development Strategy will set social program priorities and the Economic Development Strategy will guide programs for growing Toronto's economy. Beyond these departmental projects, the Environmental Task Force is developing an Environmental Plan, and other Council Task Forces will be releasing reports that will have an impact on City operations and policy.

How does the Official Plan relate to all of these other planning processes?

As a corporate policy tool the Plan will be a document that:

-provides geographic and urban structure priorities to inform the capital budget and Corporate Strategic Plan;

-provides a geographic and urban structure for the Social Development Strategy and the operations of the Community and Neighbourhoods Services Department for community development and service delivery; and

-provides the necessary infrastructure upon which the Economic Development Strategy can be realized.

These planning processes will result in visions for the City's future on specific topics. The realization of these visions will be dependent upon the benefits that flow from a strong economy and the investment that the private sector undertakes. They will also be dependent upon the community benefits that are the by-products of private investment, as well as the community benefits that are direct products of public investment, on the part of all levels of government. Priority areas for these two forms of investment will be found in the Official Plan. They will be articulated in more detail in implementation plans which will specify such things as improvements to the transportation networks; linkages in the green space network; environmental remediation actions; and community improvement plans.

Implementation Plans to Realize the Official Plan's Objectives

A Plan is only as good as its implementation strategies. Planning does not stop when a Plan is adopted. Some of the most significant planning in this City that changed the way we think about municipal planning and development and that changed the look and feel of the city, happened outside the Official Plan process. Living Room, which led to the establishment of Cityhome and the development of the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood in the former City of Toronto, for example, was not a formal part of the Official Plan process, but was an implementation Plan that realized the Plan's vision. The new Official Plan will set out a vision of the City that will take many years to achieve. To realize the vision will take the coordinated action of the new civic organization and the private sector. We need to invest manpower, time, energy and dollars in implementation strategies that build on the foundation of the new Plan.

The pace of redevelopment varies with economic conditions and reinvestment by the City will be affected by the City's financial health and competing demands on the capital budget. The processes for city building that are to be articulated in the Official Plan will tie into program initiatives through a portfolio of implementation plans. These implementation plans will be started in tandem with the Official Plan process this year, and will be one of the vehicles by which the general objectives of the Official Plan materialize on the ground.

If the Official Plan, with its strategic, long term vision, can be seen as "thinking globally", then the portfolio of implementation plans can be seen as "acting locally". Implementation plans will need to be more flexible than the Plan in order to be more responsive to change as community conditions evolve, to build on achievements, or to redress outstanding needs.

Monitoring and Evaluation

You cannot know if you are moving forward if you do not measure your progress along the way. Moreover, you get action on the things you measure. The new Official Plan must set out a road map for measuring success using meaningful measures that relate to the goals of the Plan for quality of life. Indicators associated with the broad strategic objectives of the Official Plan, must be developed that represent benchmarks for implementation strategies.

The indicators for the new Plan will be a major departure from traditional monitoring programs found in the existing plans. They must be measures that are meaningful in terms of the goals and objectives of the Plan but must also be understandable to the ordinary citizen. This will be a substantial body of work for the new Official Plan, but will be coordinated with other indicator projects underway both in the corporation (as part of the Corporate Strategic Plan) and in the community (e.g. the Toronto Indicators Project).

How Do We Proceed?

Like the new Plan itself, the process for its development needs to break new ground. The scale of the City, and the timeframe set by Council means that the conventional approaches to consultation will not be workable. We need to develop meaningful, targetted and high profile interventions to motivate people to engage in productive debate about the new Plan. We also need to take advantage of the work and consultation that others are doing elsewhere in the community and the corporation. We cannot afford to duplicate what others have already done or could do better. Summarized below are some of the main strategies that will contribute to the development of the new Plan.

Co-ordination with Council - the Council Reference Group

The Official Plan timetable is ambitious and is based on providing Council with the ability to adopt new policies and set priorities by June 2000. This is only do-able if we chart the course for a new Official Plan set out in this report, but we will need the assistance and guidance of Council as we pursue this pioneering venture. Staff recommend the establishment of a Council Reference Group comprised of 6 members of Council, chaired by the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Services Committee, to work with staff as we develop the Plan.

Innovation will drive the process of developing the Plan. Council members will need to be at the table, with sleeves rolled up, to learn along with staff and develop an understanding of the new approach as it evolves. The Council Reference Group will need to be small enough that it can be called together on short notice to keep the process on target. It will act as a sounding board and provide advice at key points in the process.

This Reference Group should include representation from each of the Community Councils and a cross section of Council members who are members of the various Committees, and involved in Council Task Forces or other corporate planning initiatives. This will ensure consistent political guidance for all corporate planning efforts.

Involvement in the Reference Group is not the only opportunity for Council members to contribute to the development of the Official Plan. Key milestones in the process ensure that all Council members are aware of the developing policies, have the opportunity for input, comment and decision making. The work program establishes key milestones when the public, Community Councils, and Council as a whole will have input in a formal manner. Communication throughout the process will ensure that members of Council are aware of the status of the Official Plan's development at all times. Staff will put together an "Official Plan Information Kit" for Council members. This kit will contain key material, publications, copies of pertinent research material, news releases and key data to ensure Council members have an up to date reference package related to the Official Plan.

Co-ordination with Other Initiatives

As mentioned above, the City is involved in a number of strategic initiatives including the development of Council's Strategic Plan, a Social Development Strategy, an Economic Development Strategy and an Environmental Plan. These initiatives relate directly to the development of the Official Plan. The Official Plan will provide the legislative authority to implement key components of these corporate planning initiatives and will integrate the objectives emerging from these plans in the development process. City Planning staff are working with other departmental staff involved in preparing these Plans and Strategies.

An inter-departmental working group is being set up for the Official Plan to ensure co-ordination with other Departments whose input will be important to the development of a new Official Plan. This group will include representation from the Chief Administrator's Office, Legal Division of Corporate Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Community and Neighbourhood Services and Works and Emergency Services.

Council has identified a number of priorities and established Task Forces to respond to these priorities. The Task Forces have either completed or are in the midst of their consultative processes. The issues identified, and concerns expressed through each of these consultative processes will be drawn upon as input into the Official Plan. In instances where community outreach has yet to occur, the City Planning Division will coordinate our communication efforts with these other initiatives. Council's adoption of the key recommendations resulting from its various Task Forces may result in directions or policy articulation in the Official Plan or the Implementation Plans associated with the Official Plan.

Keeping Participants and the Public Involved and Informed

A public participation process must provide diverse opportunities for public input throughout the process. It must also maximize public input in order to enable staff and Council to understand the collective communities' visions for this new City. As a result, a variety of consultation strategies will be employed to provide for input throughout the process. The following summarizes the key components which are intended to obtain the broadest possible public involvement in the development of the new Plan.

Launching the Official Plan Process

It is important for the new Plan to build momentum and start off on an exciting note, and so a major public event is planned to launch the Official Plan process. Scheduled for April 7, 1999, a City sponsored, one day public forum will bring together councillors, staff and the public with speakers from cities around the world and local experts to focus on what needs to be done to improve quality of life in cities generally and in Toronto in particular.

Like the new Official Plan, the theme of the forum will be strategies to encourage reinvestment in our quality of life. We will begin the process of learning from the experience of others and to begin to apply these lessons to Toronto. After hearing about specific initiatives in Europe and the United States, local experts will outline the challenges facing Toronto in putting in place a new approach to planning the City that encourages reinvestment.

Forums and Events

To reach a city of this size we will need a series of high profile events to bring interested stakeholders together to engage in constructive debate. Other forums, events and focus groups are planned, including a number arranged on specific topics such as transportation, housing, and the environment. This will enable members of both the public and key stakeholder groups to directly participate in specific areas of interest.

Publications and Announcements

At key steps along the process, information brochures will be distributed throughout the City and will be available in a number of languages to ensure outreach to minority populations occurs.

Maximum use of the City's print media will be needed to communicate what is happening and being planned. Press releases will be used to announce research findings to the major Toronto newspapers as well as all of the local neighbourhood newspapers and ethnic publications. We will also be looking for opportunities to sponsor events with the major dailies.

Public service announcements will be employed to promote opportunities for public input through public meetings, workshops and presentations. Taped coverage of both the initial launch and other forums will be provided. This will enable the cable channel to broadcast these forums in order to provide for a more complete and thorough communication. Copies of the videos of the forums will be made available to community groups and Council members, community and business groups, District Offices and special interest groups upon request.

A web site is being established to ensure that research results, policy reports and information about public meetings are available through this new medium. The public may use this site to e-mail feedback to staff.

Techniques to maintain participant involvement will be employed including regular update letters, a newsletter and briefing notes to Council and interest groups. Other outreach techniques will also be explored to increase public participation and reach under represented communities.

Work Program and Timing

The proposed schedule is ambitious and is based on providing Council with the ability to adopt new policies and set priorities by the middle of 2000. In order to achieve this target, the following time frames must be achieved:

-Consultation with Task ForcesMarch, April, May 1999

- Official Plan LaunchApril 7, 1999

- Public Forums / Focus Groupsthroughout 1999

-Consultation with Corporate Partnersthroughout 1999

- Draft Proposals to UEDC and CouncilFall 1999

- Draft Plan to UEDC and CouncilSpring 2000

Research and background studies will focus on establishing a new approach to planning for Toronto: one that is focussed on improving the quality of life for residents and businesses throughout the City. Their findings can be grouped under a few broad categories:

Understanding Toronto's Neighbourhoods and Communities

-Research will involve mapping the urban pattern and demographic and social change across the City, understanding how neighbourhoods have changed and will change and developing criteria by which the Plan can respond to the priorities of communities.

Toronto's Role in the GTA

-This Plan will present strategic objectives for Toronto's role in shaping the future of the Greater Toronto Area, by looking at:

-the state of the regional economy;

-scenarios evaluating Toronto's contribution to regional growth; and

-the future of transit and prospects for moving goods and people around the GTA

Toronto's Reinvestment Lenses: A New Approach to Planning

-The most important piece of the work program involves examining reinvestment opportunities to shape Toronto's future, and the constraints that need to be lifted to realize the benefits of reinvestment. This will lead to public objectives that should guide the pace and scale of reinvestment in different parts of the City.

 Meaningful Measures for Reporting our Progress

-Staff will work with experts and those involved in other specific indicator projects to develop measures for monitoring our accomplishments and assessing progress toward meeting the quality of life goals of the Plan.

Learning from Others

-Staff will, of course, be looking at recent planning exercises in a number of large cities to glean lessons for Toronto. The first step will be in hosting the Launch on April 7, 1999. This forum will offer the opportunity for local experts to dialogue with international experts, to help set a direction for the development of the Official Plan.

Conclusions:

This past year saw the integration of seven administrations into one. During this transition year staff in Urban Planning and Development Services were able to continue to process development applications while dealing with the largest reorganization of planning services ever undertaken in Canada. The experience of this past year, including feedback from the development community and others concerned for Toronto's quality of life, have reinforced the need for one strategic vision of Toronto's future. A new Plan will prepare the City to capitalize on strategic reinvestment opportunities. It will also express a clear and consistent position for the City in the new regional context emerging at the Greater Toronto Services Board. However, the City is not well positioned to capture growth and investment with seven Official Plans that provide no cohesive vision for the City's development priorities.

The first Official Plan for the new City of Toronto will identify these opportunities and map out how reinvestment can meet the strategic objectives that will improve our quality of life and enhance our competitive position. Implementation Plans will guide Council's decisions regarding stewardship of our natural and built form heritage, the financing of capital works, and the administration of specific programs. The work program is very ambitious, but staff and many public stakeholders are energized by the prospects of working toward the first Official Plan for Toronto. This tremendous opportunity needs the full support of Council and all corporate departments.

Contact Name:

Barbara Leonhardt, Director of Policy and Research, City Planning Division,

Tel: 392-8148

--------

Councillor Anne Johnston and Councillor Lindsay Luby appeared before the Urban Environment and Development Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

At its meeting on February 8, 1999, the Urban Environment and Development Committee considered my report of January 25, 1999 respecting the Framework for the new Official Plan for Toronto. The Committee endorsed the framework outlined in my report and asked that I report directly to Council on additional motions, and provide appropriate recommendations for dealing with the motions.

The purpose of this report is to provide direction and recommendations for Council with respect to the additional motions.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact:

There are no funding implications arising from this report.

Recommendations:

(1)That Council establish an Official Plan Reference Group as recommended in my January 25, 1999 report, rather than a Council Task Force.

(2)That the formulation of additional lenses be considered as part of the process of developing the new Official Plan.

(3)That Council amend the framework outlined in the report from the Urban Environment and Development Committee to direct staff to:

(i)ensure the Official Plan is written in plain language;

(ii)address Culture and Heritage issues in the Official Plan;

(iii)develop a working philosophy for public transit to be included in the Official Plan;

(iv)include the City's school boards in the development of the Official Plan in a meaningful way; and

(v)amend page 9 of my report (January 25, 1999) such that the fifth point of the "Format and Scope of the Plan" now reads:

"ensure new development will enhance public streets, open space, and be environmentally compatible, and accessible to persons with disabilities."

Council Reference:

On February 8, 1999 the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommended that Council:

(1)endorse the framework outlined in the report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(2)establish an Official Plan Council Reference Group to guide the process, such Group to be comprised of 7 members of Council, one of whom shall be the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee who will Chair the Group, and that the City Clerk be requested to canvass members of Council for their interest and submit the names of interested persons to the Striking Committee; and

(3)authorize and direct appropriate City Officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The Committee also referred the following motions placed at the Committee to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with a request that I report directly to Council for its meeting on March 2, 1999 on these motions and provide appropriate recommendations:

(a)that the Official Plan Council Reference Group be renamed the "Official Plan Council Task Force" and that the City Clerk be requested to provide administrative support to this Task Force;

(b)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services prepare a pamphlet for distribution to interest groups and forward a copy to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(c)that an additional fourth and fifth lens be included in the framework for the Official Plan as follows:

-areas where the City wants to spark transformation

-waterfront and green space;

(d)that the Official Plan and related material be written in plain language;

(e)that the Culture Plan be fully integrated into the Official Plan;

(f)that the Official Plan include the development of a working philosophy for public transit;

(g)that the City's school boards be included in some meaningful way in the development of the Official Plan;

(h)that the 5th point contained in the list on page 9 of the report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services under the paragraph headed "Format and Scope of the Plan" be amended by adding the words "and accessible to persons with disabilities", so as to read:

"ensure new development will enhance public streets, open space, and be environmentally compatible, and accessible to persons with disabilities"

Comment:

The following are my comments on the motions tabled at the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(a)Official Plan Council Reference Group be renamed "Official Plan Council Task Force"

There are a number of reasons for my suggestion of a "Reference Group" as opposed to a "Task Force". Most importantly, I see this group as interacting with staff on an ongoing basis in the development of policy. Given our very short time lines for completion of this project, I do not think it wise to establish a reporting framework subordinate to the UEDC; this would only delay our work. The nature of the task at hand is to come up with creative policies in a new framework for planning the City's future. This is quite different from the mandate of many task forces which are designed to respond to single issues in a very specific way. The integrative nature of the Official Plan process is that we, the Council Reference Group and staff, together will learn from our own research and the findings of Council's various Task Forces and integrate the emerging visions and directions into the long term growth strategy for the City. I do not have a formal terms of reference for this group. The role of the Reference Group is to ensure that a core group of Council focuses on policy directions providing feedback to staff at critical points in the development of the new approach. Clerical support is not required from the Secretariat Division as a reporting relationship for the Council Reference Group is neither warranted nor appropriate. Council should not endorse the recommendation that a Task Force be established.

(b)Prepare a pamphlet for distribution to interest groups

A general pamphlet on the Official Plan project is in preparation and will be published upon Council's endorsement of this framework. The pamphlet will be available at all Planning and general information counters in City Hall, Metro Hall and the five Civic Centres, as well as in libraries and recreation centres. It will also be available to residents and businesses through ACCESS Toronto. In addition, a more detailed newsletter is being prepared based on the framework report before you today. It is my intention to mail this newsletter directly to representatives of stakeholder groups. Copies of these publications will be tabled at the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(c)Fourth and fifth lenses be included in the framework for the Official Plan

While the discussion of three lenses in the framework report is just a starting point, it is premature to be adding lenses at this time and would end-run an important analytical process. The three lenses identified in the framework report help us to understand the concept, based on a high level understanding of the geography and character of various parts of the City. Finding the right lenses will be a process of discovery. As staff begin to explore how the three lenses "fit" across the City, and more information becomes available from research underway, other lenses will suggest themselves. It is an important part of the work of the Council Reference Group to work with staff to find the right lenses and the right "fit". Council should not endorse motions adding further lenses at this time.

(d)The Official Plan be written in plain language

It is my intention to produce a plan that is not only understandable but meaningful to the people of Toronto. With this in mind, it is important to get away from traditional planning jargon and to use high quality graphics, photography and drawings. Council should endorse this recommendation.

(e)The Culture Plan be fully integrated into the Official Plan

Culture and heritage will be addressed in the Plan and appropriate policies will be developed through consultation with the arts community, heritage interests and staff within the culture and heritage offices of the City. Furthermore, there will be a number of implementation plans associated with the Official Plan. The framework before you today strives to achieve a plan for strategic directions in the City's growth and development. We are trying to avoid the tendency of the past to include details of many corporate initiatives in the Official Plan. Rather, the principles and directions for other plans, like a Culture Plan, will find a home in the Official Plan, but the detailed strategies will remain in a separate action oriented implementation plan.

(f)The Official Plan include the development of a working philosophy for public transit

A critical part of improving the transit modal split in the City will be in improving transit service throughout the City. Toronto is very likely the only city in the world where public transit is totally funded by the property tax base and from the fare box. It is important for Council to set out a philosophy and strategy with respect to the maintenance, enhancement and expansion of this very important part of the City's fabric. A comprehensive transit improvement strategy will be needed and appropriate policy context provided by the Official Plan. Council should endorse this recommendation.

(g)The City's school boards be included in some meaningful way in the development of the Official Plan

Our schools are part of the glue that binds our communities together. They are a focal point for community life beyond the primary role of educating our children. It is most appropriate to include the school boards in discussions about the future of the City's neighbourhoods.

(h)Amend the 5th point on page 9 under "Format and Scope of the Plan" so as to read:

"ensure new development will enhance public streets, open space, and be environmentally compatible, and accessible to persons with disabilities"

Accessibility is a key issue as the City gets rebuilt through development activity. The guidance that the Official Plan provides that redevelopment will have to address this very important public priority.

Conclusion:

A number of helpful suggestions were brought forward at the UEDC meeting on February 8, 1999, and many more will surface as we begin our public consultation process and begin to work with the Council Reference Group. At the end of the day we hope to have one cohesive vision for one dynamic new city.

Contact Name:

Barbara Leonhardt, Director, Policy & Research

City Planning Division, Metro Hall, 22^nd Floor

Tel:392-8148.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (March 2, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair, Environmental Task Force:

Recommendation:

That sustainability be considered a key component of the integrating concept for the City of Toronto's Official Plan and that the Official Plan Council Reference Group and the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee consider how the Official Planning process will address this objective in consultation with the Environmental Task Force.

Background:

On October 26, 1998, Council adopted the following motion from Councillors King, Saundercook and Layton regarding Council's Strategic Plan:

That sustainability be considered a primary option for the unifying and integrating concept for the Council's Strategic Planning Process and that the Council Reference Group for Council's Strategic Plan and the CAO consider how Council's Strategic Planning process will address this objective in consultation with the Environmental Task Force.

Accordingly, the Environmental Task Force at its meeting on February 22, 1999 recommended that sustainability be considered the primary option for unifying and integrating concept for the City's Official Plan.

Sustainability is an excellent and proven integrative tool for planning. Also known as sustainable development, sustainability ensures that environmental, economic and social equity concerns are integrated by public and private decision-makers in a way that all three are met without sacrificing future generations.

The concept of sustainability became popular throughout the world in 1987 when the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission, introduced it in the now famous Our Common Future.

The sustainability approach can be a powerful, integrative planning tool for the City of Toronto. It can help identify those policies which simultaneously promote environmental protection, job creation and social equity issues. In other words, sustainability identifies win-win-win situations that can guide Toronto towards a prosperous and sustainable future.

Many cities throughout the world have used sustainability as an integrative concept for their planning exercises. For example, here in Ontario the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth published Implementing Vision 2020: Directions for a Creating a Sustainable Region in 1993. R.J. Whynott, the Regional Chairman, wrote in his introduction to this plan:

In order to ensure a viable future, sustainable development requires the integration of economic, environmental, and social factors in all decision-making. Sustainable development is a concept that can assist in guiding future decision making by elected officials, business leaders, community agencies, and individual citizens.

Seattle, Washington's Comprehensive Plan also uses sustainability as a central concept. Resolution 29215 amending Resolution 28962, the Vision for the City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan, adopted on November 27, 1995, explains the importance of sustainability and its use for strategic planning:

Seattle's commitment to sustainability is supported by this plan. Sustainable cities use resources efficiently and effectively. They reuse and recycle. They recognize constraints and build on assets. They use existing local resources where they provide physical and economic security, and they distribute these and other benefits evenly. They balance the need for growth with the needs for stability and prudent use of resources.

The plan's four core values - community, environmental stewardship, economic opportunity and security, and social equity - are key components of sustainability. Separately they are necessary but insufficient; taken together they become a solid foundation upon which to build a sustainable future for ourselves and the generations to follow.

Here in Toronto, the 1994 Metro Toronto Official Plan, The Liveable Metropolis, began the process of integrating sustainable development into the planning process. It noted that:

The Metropolitan Toronto Corporation can enhance the sustainable development of Metropolitan Toronto through programs designed to complement a reurbanized Metropolitan Toronto structure. These include programs influencing economic development, housing, cultural and recreational resources, community access and support, and environmental management. (p. 37).

Not surprisingly, sustainability has emerged as the defining framework within the Environmental Task Force as it helps develop advanced environmental decision making options for the City as part of its Environment Plan. This is due in part to the influence of Task Force members such as Elizabeth Dowdeswell, former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program and Dr. David Bell, Director of the York Centre for Applied Sustainability.

The January 25, 1999 report submitted to the Urban Environment and Development Committee from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services states: "The Plan will address social, economic and environmental objectives to reinvestment, and give direction to Council in its capital budget deliberations." Adopting sustainability as the primary integrative tool will ensure these objectives are addressed successfully.

Given the widespread acceptance of sustainability amongst the various stakeholders that make up Toronto as well as its success as a planning tool for other cities throughout the world, the Environmental Task Force decided at its February 22^nd meeting to ask City Council to use sustainability as an integrative tool for the City's Official Planning Process.

What does Sustainability Mean in Practice?

Operationalizing sustainability is not a difficult task. It simply means identifying opportunities and advocating programs that simultaneously promote economic, environmental and social equity goals. Toronto has already implemented many programs that are based on sustainability. For example, the Better Buildings Partnership (BBP), set up by the former City of Toronto, helps public sector and private sector building owners do energy retrofits which help the environment, create much needed employment and save building owners money. In fact, BBP retrofits have: reduced CO₂ emissions by 60,00 tonnes per year; created between 1,800-3,000 person years of employment; and reduced building owners' operating costs by over $6 million per year.

In short, operationalizing sustainability means operationalizing win-win-win policies. Also, it means that the Council's Official Planning process has an integrative tool that is designed for easy implementation.)

 3

Official Plan Policies and Related By-Laws Regarding the

Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing,

and Status of Condition Survey of High-rise Rental Stock

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause:

(1)by deleting the word "condominium(s)", wherever it occurs in the Clause, and inserting in lieu thereof the words "condominium(s) and/or co-operative(s)";

(2)by deleting the words "equity co-operative(s)" wherever they occur in the Clause, and inserting in lieu thereof the words "non-profit co-operative(s) and/or equity co-operative(s)";

(3)by inserting in policy 135.1, after the words "conversion of rental units to condominium", the words "and/or freehold", so that such policy, as further amended by Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) above, shall now read as follows:

"135.1to preserve, maintain and replenish the supply of residential buildings, and particularly rental buildings, across the City of Toronto by restricting the demolition of residential property and the conversion of rental units to condominium and/or co-operative and/or freehold, by discouraging the conversion of rental units to non-profit co-operative and/or equity co-operative, and by encouraging new rental housing production.";

(4)in accordance with the following recommendation embodied in the report dated February 18, 1999, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as further amended by Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) above:

"That policy 135.3 (b) of Option B embodied in the report dated January 21, 1999, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be replaced with the following:

'(b)despite policies 135.1, 135.2 and 135.4, to consider allowing the conversion of non-profit co-operative and/or equity co-operative buildings containing six or more rented residential units where:

(i)the co-operative was legally created prior to June 17, 1998;

(ii)50 percent or less of the units are tenanted;

(iii)66 percent of each of the tenant and shareholder households have expressed their support in writing for the conversion application in a manner prescribed by Council; and

(iv)an application for condominium and/or co-operative approval under the Planning Act has been made by the non-profit co-operative and/or equity co-operative corporation within two years following approval of this policy.' ";

(5)to provide that:

"WHEREAS the Official Plan for the former City of Scarborough does not contain policies respecting the conversion of rental housing; and

 WHEREAS the proposed new Official Plan policies recommended in Clause No. 3 of Report No. 3 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee provides a new policy context for the preservation of rental housing; and

WHEREAS an application for part lot control exemption for a property at 740 Kennedy Road which is occupied by 109 rental townhouse units was submitted in June, 1998;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council exempt this application (PL98005) from the conversion policies recommended in Clause No. 3 of Report No. 3 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, provided that the applicant has addressed all planning considerations for the proposed development of the site, including but not limited to:

(a)an acceptable strategy to ensure security of tenure for sitting tenants;

(b)provision for the right of first refusal to purchase units by sitting tenants;

(c)fulfilment of Toronto and Region Conversation Authority requirements;

(d)compliance with all applicable Council policies, in particular those pertaining to townhouse development on a private roads; and

(e)the provision of 25 percent affordable rental housing."; and

(6)by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to include, in the review of issues related to affordable housing policies, the matter of accessibility to public transit.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1)the report (January 21, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to:

(a)adopting Option B in Recommendation (1);

(b)amending Recommendation 135.3 (a) (ii) in Option B in Recommendation (1) by deleting the word ";and" at the end of that section, and inserting the word ";or", so as to read:

"135.3 (a)(ii)at least 66 percent of the tenanted households have expressed their support in writing for the conversion application in a manner prescribed by Council; or"

(2)all planning reports involving applications for demolition be required to detail any outstanding work orders against the property;

(3)notification of applications involving demolition of rental units be extended to all tenants and that an application fee be adjusted to cover the costs thereof;

(4)the Province of Ontario be requested to prohibit the demolition of rental housing; and

(5)that a maintenance protection enforcement strategy be developed to preserve and enhance the rental housing stock and protect tenants from neglected maintenance.

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

(1)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development to report directly to Council for its meeting on March 2, 1999 with a recommended date for the conversion of those units that may be included in the exemption category as outlined in Option B of the foregoing report in order to impose a time limited exemption; and

(2)received the report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services which responded to Committee's request for a report on preliminary study results which assessed the physical condition of high rise rental buildings in the (former) City of Toronto.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (January 21, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban, Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To respond to the motions made at the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting of November 30, 1998 concerning the original and subsequent planning reports on new condominium conversion and demolition control policies (October 15, 1998, and November 23, 1998).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no additional funding or financial implications associated with this follow-up report.

Recommendations:

(1)Council adopt new official plan policies to regulate the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing by adding either the new policies presented as Option A, or Option B, to the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan:

Option A:

Section 3.2.3 Conversion and Demolition of Rental Housing

It is the policy of Council:

135.1to preserve, maintain and replenish the supply of residential buildings, and particularly rental buildings, across the City of Toronto by restricting the demolition of residential property and the conversion of rental units to condominium, by discouraging the conversion of rental units to equity co-operative, and by encouraging new rental housing production.

135.2to restrict the conversion to condominium of any building, or any related group of buildings, including equity co-operatives, containing six or more rented residential units as it would be premature and not in the public interest, unless the vacancy rate in the City of Toronto, as reported by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for private rental apartments and townhouses, respectively, has been at or above 2.5 percent for the preceding two year reporting period.

135.3despite policies 135.1, 135.2, and 135.4, to consider allowing the conversion of buildings containing six or more rented residential units only where:

(a)the rents that were actually charged for each unit in the building or related group of buildings one year prior to the application, were at or above the average high-end rent level by unit type as prescribed by Council from time to time, and based on Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reports; and

(b)at least 66 percent of the tenanted households have expressed their support in writing for the conversion application in a manner prescribed by Council.

135.4to seek the retention of rented residential units, except where the whole or part of a building which contains such units is in the opinion of the Chief Building Official structurally unsound, and to consider, where appropriate, acquiring or leasing a property where such units are at risk of being demolished.

135.5(a)when considering redevelopment applications involving the demolition of rented residential units, to seek the replacement of the demolished rental units with rental units of a similar number, type, size, and level of affordability in the new development, and/or alternative arrangements, which in the opinion of Council are consistent with the intent of this policy; and

(b)when considering such applications in the context of an increase in height and/or density, to secure such replacement units and/or alternative arrangements through an appropriate legal agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act.

Option B

Should Council chose to provide an exemption for equity co-operatives under specific circumstances, it is recommended that policies 135.1, 135.2, 135.4 and 135.5 of Option A be adopted, and policy 135.3 be replaced with the following:

135.3(a)despite policies 135.1, 135.2, and 135.4, to consider allowing the conversion of buildings containing six or more rented residential units only where:

(i)the rents that were actually charged for each unit in the building or related group of buildings one year prior to the application, were at or above the average high-end rent level by unit type as prescribed by Council from time to time, and based on Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reports; and

(ii)at least 66 percent of the tenanted households have expressed their support in writing for the conversion application in a manner prescribed by Council; and

(b)despite policies 135.1, 135.2 and 135.4, to consider allowing the conversion of equity co-operative buildings containing six or more rented residential units: which were legally created prior to June 17, 1998; where 50 percent or less of the units are tenanted; and where 66 percent of each of the tenant and shareholder-occupied households have expressed their support in writing for the conversion application in a manner prescribed by Council.

(2)Council adopt the following changes to support and bring effect to the proposed policies set out in (1) above:

(a)add the following definitions under the Glossary of Terms, Section 1.4.4 of the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan:

"related group of buildings"

buildings that are under the same ownership and on the same parcel of land as defined in the Planning Act.

"rented residential units"

means premises used for rented residential purposes, and includes premises that have been used for rented residential purposes and are vacant.

(b)delete the following sections dealing with conversions:

sections 2.5.6, 4.5.3, 4.5.4 and 4.5.5 in the East York Official Plan;

sections 2.2.13 and 11.15.2 and the words "or conversion of existing rental accommodation" in sections 11.15.3 and 11.15.4 in the Etobicoke Official Plan;

sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 in Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan;

section 6.18 in the Toronto Official Plan; and

section 9.7(b) and item 6. in Part (B) in Appendix I of the York Official Plan;

(c) deleting the following sections dealing with demolitions:

section 2.6.3 in Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan;

section 2.2.15 in the Etobicoke Official Plan;

section 9.8 in the York Official Plan;

section 6.19 in the City of Toronto Official Plan; and

sections 4.10 and 4.10.1 in the East York Official Plan;

(d)deleting the following sections dealing with the replacement of housing:

section 2.6.4 in Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan; and

section 2.2.16 in the Etobicoke Official Plan; and

(e)making any related technical amendments to the Official Plans listed in Recommendations Nos. (2)(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) to reflect the amendment and deletion of the sections.

(3)Upon adoption of the Official Plan policies outlined in Recommendation Nos. (1) and (2), Council delegate the responsibility for hearing deputations on condominium conversion applications to meetings of the respective Community Councils and authorize the amendment of the Procedural By-law as necessary, and repeal the interim policies and procedures that Council adopted in Clause No. 4 of Report No. 7 of the Urban Environment Development Committee on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998;

(4)Council adopt the application, notice and meeting requirements for condominium conversion and demolition applications detailed in Appendix A;

(5)Council adopt as policy that for any official plan amendment application and/or zoning by-law application that, if approved would result in the demolition of rented residential units, at minimum notice shall be given in accordance with:

a) Subsections 2.(2) 1. and 2.(2) 2. of Ontario Regulation 198/96 as amended by Ontario Regulation 506/98 (notice of public meeting for official plan amendment by mail to owners within 120 metres and posting a notice on the subject property visible from a public road); and/or

b)Subsections 3.(2)1. and 3(2)2. of Ontario Regulation 199/96 as amended by Ontario Regulation 507/98 (notice of public meeting for zoning by-law by mail to owners within 120 metres and posting a notice on the subject property visible from a public road); and

the applicant shall be requested to post a notice of the application in a manner prescribed by the City in a central area of the property.

(6)Council resolve that for the purposes of defining "high-end rental units" in accordance with Policy No. 135.3 (refer to Recommendation No. (1)) the factor of 1.5 times the City's average rent (by bedroom size) as detailed in Appendix B shall be used.

(7) Urban Planning and Development Services staff be requested to review the demolition control by-laws of the former municipalities with respect to, among other matters, the scope and coverage of the various by-laws, as well as the delegation procedures, conditions, penalties and enforcement issues, and report back to the Committee on harmonizing the by-laws;

(8)As an interim measure, Council enact a by-law in the form of the attached draft Bill (Appendix C) which designates the former City of Scarborough as a demolition control area pursuant to section 33 of the Planning Act, requires Council to approve the issuance of demolition permits for residential properties containing six or more units, and delegates to the Chief Building Official the authority to issue demolition permits for residential properties containing five or fewer dwelling units;

(9)Authority be granted to apply to the Province for special legislation on demolition control substantially in the form of the draft Private Bill contained in Schedule A of Appendix D which would extend the former City of Toronto's special legislation to all of the new City; and

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

  Background:

On November 30, 1998 the Urban Environment and Development Committee (UEDC) held a statutory public meeting under the Planning Act to consider comments on two planning reports on the proposed official plan polices on condominium conversion and demolition control (dated October 15, 1998 and November 23, 1998). After hearing deputations, the Committee recommended to Council the adoption of several policies, and also requested staff to report back to the UEDC's meeting on February 8, 1999 on a number of related matters.

At its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, Council referred the Clause, including the proposed policies, back to the UEDC to be considered along with the further reports from staff.

This report addresses both the amendments to the proposed policies which were forwarded to Council, and the requests made by UEDC for reports on specific matters. Based on the motions made by the UEDC, a number of changes are suggested to the proposed policies.

The timing of this report coincides with the recent release of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force report: Taking Responsibility for Homelessness - An Action Plan for Toronto, on January 14, 1999. The Task Force document strongly emphasized the importance of preserving rental housing in the City, and in particular, the need for municipal (and provincial) action to restrict losses due to the conversion and demolition of rental properties. To help stem the rise in homelessness, preservation of the City's rental housing stock (475,000 units) is critical, especially in light of the currently low vacancy rates, and lack of new affordable housing construction. The specific recommendations of the Task Force on condominium conversion and demolition control are consistent with the proposed policies set out in this report.

1.UEDC's Recommended Policies to Council

The UEDC, after considering the deputations and the planning report dated November 23, 1998, at its meeting on November 30, 1998 recommended that the report be adopted subject to several specific wording changes to a number of the proposed policies. These changes were intended to strengthen the policies in two areas: the conversion of rental units to equity co-operatives; and the possible acquisition or leasing of rental properties subject to demolition.

With respect to the first area, the UEDC recommended that the proposed policy 135.1 be amended by deleting the word "discouraging" and inserting in its place, the word "prohibiting" so that the section would read as follows:

"135.1to preserve, maintain and replenish the supply of residential buildings, and particularly rental buildings, across the City of Toronto by restricting the demolition of residential property and the conversion of rental units to condominium, by prohibiting the conversion of rental units to equity co-operative, and by encouraging new rental housing production."

As stated in the earlier planning report of November 23, 1998, I am quite concerned about such a significant change being made to the policy. At present, the City has no authority to regulate the establishment of equity co-operatives. The Province simply registers these corporations under the Co-operative Corporations Act. As no special municipal approvals are required to create equity co-operatives, we cannot prohibit them.

As well, the Province in a letter dated December 24, 1998 to the Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning Division has indicated that, while they are supportive of municipal conversion and demolition policies being adopted, they "would not be supportive of measures for which the municipality does not have any legislative authority." It would also be misleading to the public to adopt a policy without the appropriate authority, and would raise expectations that the City could not meet. Furthermore, the approval of a policy by Council which purports taking action beyond our authority (i.e. prohibiting the conversion of rental units to equity co-operative) would be vulnerable, and could possibly put all of the policies at risk, if challenged at the Ontario Municipal Board.

On the other hand, the City can "discourage" the conversion of rental units to equity co-operative, sending a clear message to property owners considering such a conversion, by restricting the subsequent conversion of the equity co-operative (containing rental units) to condominium. The subject of equity co-operatives is discussed in more detailed under section 2 (a) of this report.

UEDC's second amendment to the proposed policies concerned the deletion of the words "where appropriate" which appeared after the words "to consider", so that the policy would read as follows:

"135.4to seek the retention of rented residential units, except where the whole or part of a building which contains such units is in the opinion of the Chief Building Official structurally unsound, and to consider, acquiring or leasing a property where such units are at risk of being demolished."

The use of the term "where appropriate" was intended to offer Council greater flexibility and discretion when considering the acquisition or leasing of a private rental property subject to demolition. Both the East York and North York Community Councils had expressed some concern over the City's ability to purchase such properties, given the many demands now being placed on the municipal budget. Due to financial constraints, I agree that the City could only exercise this option in very unique circumstances. Therefore, I am recommending that the words "where appropriate" should be retained, to ensure that Council has full discretion in applying this part of the policy.

2.UEDC's Requests for Further Staff Reports

The Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting of November 30, 1998 had also requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report back to the Committee on the following matters. Each of these matters will be presented and addressed in the following sections.

(a)Address a number of specific issues pertaining to Equity Co-operatives

At the November 30, 1998 public meeting, a number of equity co-operative shareholders and solicitors working on behalf of equity co-operative corporations spoke in opposition to the proposed policy to restrict the conversion of equity co-operatives to condominium. The argument in support of the proposed policy to restrict the conversion of equity co-operatives was put forward by representatives of Parkdale Legal Services and Etobicoke Legal Services.

To help reconcile these differing opinions, the UEDC requested that staff report on:

"addressing the problem of shareholders trapped in co-ownership or equity co-operatives, as it relates to co-ownership and equity co-operative buildings established prior to The Rental Housing Protection Act, without deterioration of the protection intended for existing rental units"

Equity co-operatives and co-ownerships have presented a number of key problems. While I realize there are certain differences between the two tenure forms, they both generally involve individuals having a share in a corporation or a percentage interest in a property, and exclusive occupancy rights to a particular unit. For the sake of simplicity, the term "equity co-operative", as defined in Appendix E, will be used to refer to both tenure forms.

In my November 23, 1998 and October 15, 1998 planning reports, I outlined some of the main issues surrounding equity co-operatives. We estimate that there are approximately 5,000 equity co-operative units in the new City, and that in aggregate about 35 to 45 percent of these units are rented.

The vast majority of equity co-operatives were created in the mid to late 1980's through the conversion of rental buildings. Many of them were established as means of bypassing the municipal policies and provincial legislation (RHPA, 1986) which restricted the conversion of rental properties to condominium. In 1989, the RHPA was tightened up to prohibit any further conversions to equity co-operative from taking place without municipal approval. This legislative change essentially brought an end to the creation of new equity co-operatives.

In most instances, the original proponents of the equity co-operatives have divested their interest in the buildings to the shareholders. Many shareholders have stated that they are now experiencing a number of difficulties including:

i)problems in obtaining bank financing (only four known lenders in the City);

ii) financing that is available is generally provided as a personal loan (rather than a mortgage), typically at a relatively high interest rate;

iii) substantial costs in redrafting their legal documentation to the satisfaction of financial lenders;

iv) a depreciation in the market value of their units (although, other tenure forms such as condominiums have also seen a significant reduction in market value since the late 1980's); and

v) difficulty in selling their units owing to the above problems.

Conversion to condominium has been seen by many equity co-operative shareholders as the answer to resolving their dilemma. My concerns about the conversion of equity co-operatives were presented in the November 23, 1998 report, and are summarized as follows:

i)Security of Tenure. Tenants in equity co-operatives have more security of tenure than tenants in condominiums as in most cases, they cannot be evicted for the owner's use. While the TPA allows existing equity co-operative tenants to stay in their units when a building is converted to condominium, any future tenants in the condominium building can be evicted for the owner's personal use.

ii) Potential Increase in Units Costs/Rents. Condominium buildings typically have a much higher market value than equity co-operatives. Although the exact amount may vary depending on a number of factors, when an equity co-operative building is converted, the market value of each unit increases. Starting with the first sale of the units, it is anticipated that there would generally be upward pressure on the rents of the tenanted equity co-operative units, in order to cover the expected higher unit purchase price and carrying costs.

iii) Two Step Conversion Process. Permitting the conversion of equity co-operatives to condominium would likely encourage a two-step conversion process in future, whereby existing rental buildings will be converted to equity co-operative and later condominium. Proponents of equity co-operative conversions have argued that existing co-operatives could be "grandfathered" to allow only pre-TPA buildings to be converted. While there may be merit in assisting the current pool of equity co-operative shareholders who are experiencing hardship, if this approach were employed, the City would risk facing similar requests in the future to convert to condominium, equity co-operatives which had been created through the conversion of rental units since the TPA came into effect.

In an effort to help resolve the current financing dilemma faced by some equity co-operatives and avoid the need for conversion, City staff have worked in conjunction with solicitors for the equity co-operative shareholders, and with representatives from the lending community. Unfortunately, lenders have been reluctant to offer conventional mortgage financing to the shareholders. One reason is that there is no mortgage insurance available for equity co-operative units. While the CMHC has indicated that the National Housing Act may be changed to extend mortgage insurance to this tenure form, the amendments have not yet materialized.

In an effort to help relieve some of the problems faced by equity co-operatives, the UEDC, at its meeting on November 30, 1998, also asked staff to respond to the option of:

"amending Recommendation No. 2 of the York Community Council report by deleting from paragraph 135.2 the words "or more" and inserting in lieu the words "or less" so that the revised policy shall now read as follows:

135.2to restrict the conversion to condominium of any building, or any related group of buildings, exclusive of equity co-operatives where 33 percent or less of the units are tenanted, as it would be premature and not in the public interest, unless the vacancy rate in the City of Toronto, as reported by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for private rental apartments and townhouses, respectively, has been at or above 2.5 percent for the preceding two year reporting period."

While I understand the intent of the above proposed change, the policy as worded would result in some unintended results. Policy 135.2 as stated in the recommendations of this report would "restrict the conversion to condominium of any building, ... including equity co-operatives, containing six or more rented residential units." The amended York Community Council recommendation would effectively replace the last part of the original policy (beginning with the word "including") with "exclusive of equity co-operatives where 33 percent or less of the units are tenanted." This change would delete the minimum unit threshold of six or more rented units for all buildings with rental units (not just equity co-operatives). If Council wanted to consider permitting the conversion of some equity co-operatives, a better approach would be to create a separate policy to deal with this specific tenure form, similar to the policy exemption proposed for the high-end market units.

Another possible concern with the amended York Community Council policy is that it limits the conversion permission to equity co-operatives where 33 percent or less of the units are tenanted. I agree that restricting conversions to those buildings with the fewest number of tenants is an important consideration, and would help to minimize the number of tenants affected. However, I should point out that this qualification would not address the concerns of most of the shareholders in attendance at the November 30, 1998 meeting. Equity co-operatives such as 123 Strathcona Avenue or 30 Gloucester Street, have about 50 percent of their units rented, and consequently would not be eligible for the York Community Council's proposed exemption.

Simply stated, there is no easy or clear means of eliminating the problems associated with the conversion of equity co-operatives to condominium. To avoid the drawbacks associated with conversions, as outlined above, I am recommending that the policy previously put forwarded, as stated in recommendation 1) Option A of this report, be adopted.

However, should Council wish to provide an exemption for equity co-operatives, I have drafted an alternative policy, which may serve to minimize the number of conversions that take place. This new policy could help to address the problems with the existing units, while possibly acting as a disincentive to future "two stage" conversions. It would also help to ensure that existing tenants are fully informed of the proposal and given some choice as to its outcome. Specifically, I am suggesting the following wording could be adopted:

135.3despite policies 135.1, 135.2 and 135.4, to consider allowing the conversion of equity co-operative buildings containing six or more rented residential units: which were legally created prior to June 17, 1998; where 50 percent or less of the units are tenanted; and where 66 percent of each of the tenant and shareholder-occupied households have expressed their support in writing for the conversion application in a manner prescribed by Council.

(b)Extended Protection to all Rental Units in Multiple Residential Zones

It appears that the Committee's intent was to capture all rental units which are usually allowed in multiple unit zoning designations. However, each of the former municipalities has its own zoning by-laws which treat multiple unit residential zones differently. For example, in East York, North York, Toronto and York, all of the lower density residential uses such as single family detached dwellings, townhouses, and plexes are also allowed in zones designated for apartments. However, in most instances in Scarborough only one use is permitted in each of the residential zones (e.g., single detached, street townhouses and multi-family residential are not permitted in an apartment zone). In Etobicoke, a range of uses including single detached and apartment buildings are permitted in the R5 zone, while only apartment buildings are allowed in the R6 designation. Given these current disparities, it would not be possible to apply the conversion and demolition policies consistently across all multiple unit zones. This approach would also fail to capture rental units in commercial/residential mixed-use zoning districts.

The most straightforward means to ensure a consistent City-wide approach would be to apply the policy to buildings with a minimum number of units, regardless of the zoning attached to the property. I have suggested that six units could serve as a minimum number of units in the new policies primarily because it is consistent with several policies and by-laws of the former municipalities (e.g. the former City of Toronto's special legislation on demolition control), and is similar to the five and more units used under the former Rental Housing Protection Act (RHPA). The intention has been to exempt single and semi-detached homes, and some smaller converted houses and plexes (duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes).

The threat to the conversion of smaller buildings may not be considerable. Between 1986 and 1996 (while the RHPA was in effect), only 21 units in smaller buildings in the City (all in former Toronto) were converted. However, applications (conversion and renovation) involving buildings with a smaller number of units were found to be labour intensive to administer.

The main emphasis under both the proposed policies and the RHPA has been to protect the greatest number of units (i.e. apartment buildings) while permitting some flexibility for smaller buildings. In particular, it was considered that owner-occupants should be permitted to alter their premises and create (or delete) accessory units, without subjecting them to excessive regulatory requirements. The need to provide owners with the flexibility to create accessory apartments was also put forward by the Mayor's Task Force in its recent report. In this respect, I consider that applying the policies to six or more units is appropriate.

(c)All Rental Units, Regardless of Market Rent, be given Protection of the Official Plan Provision

The proposed policy 135.3 would permit Council to consider the conversion to condominium of buildings where the rents that were charged for each unit were above a specified level one year prior to the application being made. I have recommended that this level be set at 1.5 times the average rental rate for each unit type across the City as reported by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

At the November 30, 1998 public meeting held by the UEDC, a representative from the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations (FMTA) had expressed concern that a significant number of tenants in higher-rent buildings may be adversely affected by any conversions permitted under this policy. In response, the UEDC had asked staff to consider applying the conversion policy to all rental units regardless of the market rent charged.

The partial exemption for high-end units was first discussed in the October 15, 1998 planning report. It was felt that the City's primary concern should be the protection of the majority of the housing stock, which would serve relatively lower and moderate income households. Generally, this segment of the population is more vulnerable, and has fewer alternative housing options available to them.

However, protection of the higher-rent stock is also important. The conversion of high-end buildings could result in displacement of some tenants who may compete with lower-income households for the remaining rental units. As well, many tenants in these buildings have chosen to live in rental apartments for specific reasons (e.g. not enough disposable money for a down payment, no interest in long-term mortgaging commitments, conventional rental units offer more security than rented condominium units). In this respect, I agree with the FMTA staff who has suggested that some additional choice and protection should be provided to the tenants of high-end buildings.

One way to offer more choice to tenants while permitting the limited conversion of high-end buildings, would be to require that a certain percentage of tenant households be in favour of such conversions. To implement this, I am recommending the addition of a further qualification to policy 135.3 to allow the conversion of high-end buildings, only where at least 66 percent of the tenanted households are in support of the application. Tenant support should be expressed in writing and submitted at the time the application is made.

With respect to Policy 135.3 I am also recommending that the word "actually" be inserted prior to the word "charged". This merely adopts the same terminology used by the Province, and helps to clarify that staff should consider the rent that was actually charged for the unit when reviewing the request for a partial exemption, rather than the legal maximum rent allowed under the Tenant Protection Act (TPA).

(d)Planning Notification be extended to All Tenants

The November 23, 1998 planning report considered by the UEDC at the November 30, 1998 public meeting recommended (recommendation no. 4 of this report) that Council adopt specific application, notice and meeting requirements for condominium applications, and demolition applications which are subject to the City's special legislation (see Appendix A of this report). The recommended notice requirements are as follows:

The applicant shall be requested to post a notice of the application in a manner prescribed by the City in a central area of the property; and

The City shall, at least fourteen (14) days before the City's meeting to hear deputations on the application, issue notice of the meeting to (I) the tenants of the subject building by prepaid first class mail; and (ii) the general public by placing an advertisement in the local community newspaper.

These requirements have been recommended in an effort to ensure the tenants are notified of conversion and demolition applications, as the Planning Act does not prescribe notification requirements for such applications.

While the proposed notice requirements set out in Appendix A should provide adequate notice to tenants in the case of conversion applications, with respect to demolition applications, they would only apply to proposals subject to the City's special demolition control legislation. The special legislation, which at present is only in effect in the former City of Toronto, allows a demolition permit to be postponed for up to one year. This provides some additional time for Council to consider whether the tenants will be properly relocated, and whether the acquisition of the property is warranted. In this instance, notice and tenant input is appropriate.

However, until the Province approves the extension of the special legislation, notice of a demolition application is not recommended for tenants in all other former municipalities. The proponent would typically not apply for a demolition permit until all other planning approvals and building permits have been obtained. Once a building permit has been issued, under Section 33 of the Planning Act, the municipality must issue a demolition permit. It would then be too late in the process to seek tenant input.

Given the possible lack of advance notice for tenants in buildings to be demolished, the UEDC has requested that staff report on other means to advise all tenants of proposed applications involving demolitions earlier in the process. The Planning Act does set out notice requirements for development applications which would require an amendment to the municipal official plans and zoning by-laws. Typically, these types of approvals are needed for proposals involving the demolition of existing buildings and the redevelopment of a site.

With respect to notice requirements for public meetings regarding official plan amendment and zoning by-law applications, the Planning Act regulations provide two options: (1) personal service or prepaid first class mail to every owner of land within 120 metres of the area and posting a notice on the property at a location visible and legible from a public road other place to which the public has access; or (2) publication in a newspaper. Option (1) offers the benefit of requiring that notice be posted on the subject property, whereas notification by the newspaper (option 2) may not provide sufficient notice to tenants. Therefore, it would be appropriate for Council to adopt a policy that requires, for any official plan amendment application and/or zoning by-law application which involves the demolition of rented residential units, that notice shall be given in accordance with option (1) which is authorized under:

Subsections 2.(2) 1. and 2.(2) 2. of Ontario Regulation 198/96 as amended by Ontario Regulation 506/98 (notice of public meeting for official plan amendment by mail to owners within 120 metres and posting a notice on the subject property); and/or

Subsections 3.(2)1. and 3(2)2. of Ontario Regulation 199/96 as amended by Ontario Regulation 507/98 (notice of public meeting for zoning by-law by mail to owners within 120 metres and posting a notice on the subject property).

At the time the applicant is required to post a notice on the property visible from a public road, staff will also request the owner to place a notice of the application in a central area of the development (lobby for an apartment building and garbage collection area for a townhouse complex). This would fulfill requirements of the Planning Act and not preclude additional notice also being given in the newspaper under option (2) where warranted.

(e)All reports submitted to City Council include Complete Details on Outstanding Work Orders and the Condition of the Building at the Preliminary Application Stage

The UEDC had also asked staff to comment on the possibility of including, in all conversion and demolition reports to Council, information on any outstanding work orders and the condition of the building.

Details on outstanding work orders could possibly be generated and included in a preliminary report to Council. The orders, however, will not confirm that the building is absolutely in accordance with all regulations. It will only indicate whether inspections staff are aware of any contraventions.

As mentioned in my November 23, 1998 report, it would not be advisable for the City to refuse an application on the basis of outstanding work orders, as that action may be appealed to the OMB and would be vulnerable. When informed of the outstanding work orders through the preliminary report on the conversions or demolition applications, Council may advise staff to take further steps to ensure the compliance of the orders. The most appropriate means for dealing with outstanding orders would be through the enforcement of property standards by-laws and the Building Code Act.

Unlike details on outstanding work orders, information on the condition of buildings subject to conversion or demolition is not readily available to the City. Site visits at the preliminary application stage and detailed assessments of these buildings by Building Inspections staff would not be feasible, given their current workload. For this reason, the Application Requirements set out in Appendix A indicate that a proponent making an application for either condominium conversion or demolition (in areas subject to special legislation) "may be required to submit a report from a qualified consultant, agreeable to the City, evaluating the structural soundness and general condition and maintenance of the structures and associated facilities."

  The preparation of a condition report by the proponent may be costly, and not warranted in all situations. I am, therefore, suggesting that planning and building staff could comment on the need for a detailed assessment at the time when the preliminary report is submitted to Council. If considered appropriate the assessment could be completed prior to the preparation of the final staff report, and the Community Council meeting to hear deputations.

(f)The North York Community Council's recommendations A. & B., embodied in the report (November 17, 1998) from the City Clerk

The North York Community Council, at its special meeting on November 16, 1998 requested that staff report on the following motions that would provide for site-specific, area and general exemptions to the demolition and conversion policies:

"A.Moved by Councillor Feldman:

That a further clause 135.6 be added as follows:

135.6Council may consider exempting specific sites or areas from the restrictions imposed by policies 135.2, 135.3, 135.4 and 135.5, if the following conditions exist:

(i)the building is functionally obsolete;

(ii)it is no longer economically feasible to retrofit the building for the purposes of preserving the stock;

(iii)the existing building is a blight on the neighbourhood characteristic; and

(iv)the in-situ tenants want to buy the building; and

B.Moved by Councillor Flint:

That Council may exempt properties, generally, specifically, or in areas included in official plan amendments or detailed secondary plans, from the provisions of this official plan amendment whenever desirable for the purposes of good planning."

In my November 23, 1998 report which the UEDC considered at the public meeting on November 30, 1998, I reported on North York Community Council's suggestions and indicated that with the exception of a recommended change to policy 135.4 to permit the demolition of those buildings where is it no longer practical to consider the rehabilitation of the structure, Council should not adopt policies that permit the suggested exemptions.

   This section of the report is intended to provide further clarification to the UEDC as to my reasons for not supporting the exemptions. In addition to the reasons presented in my November 30 report, there are additional arguments for not adopting the proposed exemptions.

I am concerned that the exemptions may actually serve as an incentive to not maintain rental properties. Allowing a building to deteriorate could lead to it becoming functionally obsolete, no longer economically feasible to retrofit, or a blight on the community. Once the building has reached this point, it could then be exempted from the policies and be demolished or converted to condominium.

These conditions can be prevented through proper maintenance by the owner and enforcement of property and buildings standards by the City. The new TPA allows landlords greater flexibility to repair buildings and cover their costs through increased rents. These higher rents can be maintained even after the costs have been recouped.

There is evidence that landlords, in general, can afford to pay for needed improvements. In 1996, Russell Canadian Property Index, a highly respected gauge of investment activity, indicated that Ontario's apartment sector had delivered a 10-per-cent annual return on investment over the previous 10 years, outpacing all other sectors including retail, industrial, office and mixed-use projects.

A more recent study prepared, by Gerald R. Genge Building Consultants Inc., for the City and CMHC looked at the repair and replacement needs in the high-rise rental sector. Based on the findings of the study, it has been estimated that the average costs of required capital work per unit over a 10 year period would be about $7,500.00. If all the necessary work is done over the 10 year period, rents for sitting tenants would increase by only 3.8 percent annually (although this is subject to variations in unit costs between buildings and dependent on the initial rents). This is just 0.8 percent a year more than what the rents could increase under the statutory guideline, without any work having to be done. Although the actual cost of the capital work for older buildings is higher, there is greater likelihood that mortgages would have been retired for these buildings (depending on history of sales), leaving additional net funds for capital repairs. Additional details on this study are being presented in a separate report to the UEDC.

Another suggestion made by the North York Community Council concerned exempting a conversion proposal where in-situ tenants want to buy the building. I have suggested a change which could give tenants in high-end buildings some choice about proposed conversions, and have put forward an optional policy which Council may choose to adopt to provide an exemption for the conversion of some equity co-operatives, where tenants support the application. While I believe that this approach, in part, would address the North York Community Council's motion, I feel that above situations are very unique and deserve special attention. Given the tremendous pressures being placed on it, I would not recommend that such an exemption be provided for the bulk of the rental stock, where rents are relatively more affordable.

The condominium market is very vibrant with a wide range of prices. A Royal Lepage report indicates that in April-June 1998, the price of a standard two bedroom condominium apartment ranged from $93,000.00 in central Scarborough to $243,000.00 in the Annex. The Toronto Star advertised new condominium apartment prices ranging from $69,000.00 to over $2,000,000.00 in 1998. There are alternatives available to tenants if they want to purchase a condominium. Again, while home ownership is a worthwhile goal, it should not be achieved at the expense of the City's affordable rental housing stock, particularly given the lack of affordable housing now being produced.

Another point I'd like to stress concerns the Community Council's suggested exemption for the purposes of "good planning". Good planning pertains to both the physical development of a given site and its relationship to the local environment. Equally important is the City-wide implication of any development. Protection and preservation of the rental stock is a City-wide priority as clearly articulated by the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force. A loss of rental housing in communities throughout the City will undoubtedly have an adverse impact on the supply of rental housing in general. Given the extremely low vacancy rates we are facing, coupled with the increase in evictions and the number of people living on the streets, we cannot afford to consider further exemptions to the policies, at this time.

(g)Further Report on the High-Rise Maintenance Inventory

The UEDC had also requested that the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, report to its February 8, 1999, on the status of:

(i)the 'High Rise Maintenance Inventory' report (or formally known as the "Condition Survey of the High Rise Rental Stock in the City of Toronto), co-funded the CMHC and the City; and

(ii)the potential for developing a maintenance protection enforcement strategy to preserve and enhance the rental housing stock and protect tenants from neglectful maintenance.

This report has been submitted separately.

3.Other Suggested Changes

In a letter dated November 25, 1998 to the UEDC, Mr. Lawrence Zucker of Kagan, Zucker, Feldbloom, and Shastri suggested a minor change to the proposed policy 135.3. As this policy is intended to provide a partial exemption to allow the conversion of high-end rental units, he indicated that policy 135.3 should apply despite policies 135.1, 135.2 and 135.4 and not merely policy 135.2. I agree that this suggested change is appropriate, and have amended policy 135.3 accordingly.

4.Conclusions

This report has been prepared in response to motions made by the UEDC at a public meeting held on November 30, 1998. After careful consideration of the motions, I am suggesting that:

-the wording of policies 135.1 and 135.4 contained in the planning report dated November 23, 1998 be retained, and that no change be made to prohibit the conversion of rental units to equity co-operatives given the lack of municipal authority in this area;

-policy 135.2 not be amended to provide an exemption for equity co-operatives, however, should Council decide to provide such an exemption, I have provided the wording for a new policy 135.3 that may be adopted;

-the policies continue to apply to buildings with six or more rented residential units;

-policy 135.3 be amended to ensure that most tenants in high-end rental buildings are in support of a conversion to condominium before approval is granted;

-a policy be adopted to improve notice to tenants residing in rental buildings subject to demolition, where the site is proposed to redeveloped and requires an official plan amendment and/or a rezoning;

-a process be put in place to ensure that Council is advised of details on outstanding work orders and the condition of a building that is the subject of an application for condominium conversion or demolition; and

-the policies not be changed to allow for site-specific exemptions in certain areas of the City.

I believe that the recommended approach to the above issues preserves the intent of the policies, while offering some improvements where possible.

Contact Name:

Barbara Leonhardt

Director, Policy and Research (392-8148)

--------

Appendix A:

Application, Notice and Meeting Requirements for Condominium Conversion and Demolition Applications

A.1Condominium Conversion Applications

As part of an application for approval of draft plan of condominium which involves the conversion of existing rental accommodation in buildings with six or more rented residential units:

(a)the applicant shall be requested to satisfy the necessary submission requirements, including a list containing the names and addresses of tenants in the rental property;

(b)the applicant shall be requested to post a notice of the application in a manner prescribed by the City in a central area of the property;

(c)the applicant may be required to submit a report from a qualified consultant, agreeable to the City, evaluating the structural soundness and general condition and maintenance of the structures and associated facilities;

(d)the City shall hold a meeting to hear deputations on a condominium application which involves conversion of existing rental accommodation in buildings with six or more rental units;

(e)The City shall, at least fourteen (14) days before the meeting, issue notice of the meeting to (i) the tenants of the subject building of the public meeting by prepaid first class mail; and (ii) the general public by placing an advertisement in the local community newspaper; and

(f)the applicant will be requested to pay for the cost of providing notice of the meeting referred to in (e).

A.2Demolition Applications in Areas subject to special legislation (City of Toronto Act, 1984, as amended from time to time).

As part of an application to demolish buildings containing six or more residential units in an area subject to special legislation:

(a)the applicant shall be requested to satisfy the necessary submission requirements, including a list containing the names and addresses of any tenants in the residential property;

(b)the applicant shall be requested to post a notice of the application in a manner prescribed by the City in a central area of the property;

(c)the applicant may be required to submit a report from a qualified consultant, agreeable to the City, evaluating the structural soundness and general condition and maintenance of the structures and associated facilities;

 (d)the City shall hold a meeting to hear deputations on a demolition application which involves the demolition of existing accommodation in buildings with six or more residential units;

(e)The City shall, at least fourteen (14) days before the meeting, issue notice of the meeting to (i) the tenants of the subject building of the public meeting by prepaid first class mail and (ii) the general public by placing an advertisement in the local community newspaper; and

(f)the applicant will be requested to pay for the cost of providing notice of the meeting referred to in (e).

--------

Appendix B:

Interpretative Guidelines

Prescribed Rent Level Re: Condominium Conversions

Until changed by Council, the prescribed rent level above which conversions may be permitted is 1.5 times the average rental rate for each unit type across the City as reported by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

For example, 1997 rent levels for apartments are as follows:

1997 Apartment Rents by Unit Size

City of Toronto

Unit Type	1997 Average Rents	1.5x 1997 Average Rent	Estimated Number of Units Across City *
Bachelors	$555	$833	526
1-bedroom	$683	$1,025	2050
2-bedroom	$821	$1,232	4916
3-bedroom	$1,002	$1,503	1550
Total Units			9042

 Notes:-Rent levels pertain to CMHC's 1997 Rental Market universe of 248,905 units.

-CMHC's rental universe only pertains to privately rented apartment units containing 3 or more non-ground related dwellings.

-CMHC's rental market universe is 52 percent of the total occupied rental units or 474,605 units (1996 Census) in the City.

* Estimated Impact Across City is approximately twice the 1997 CMHC universe.

Source: CMHC's 1997 Rental Market Survey

Note:Average 1997 rents for townhouses are $864.00 for two bedrooms, $1,018.00 for three bedrooms and $1,125.00 for four bedrooms

--------

Appendix C: Draft By-Law

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To designate the area formerly known as the City of Scarborough as an area of demolition control under section 33 of the Planning Act and to authorize the Chief Building Official to issue certain residential demolition permits.

WHEREAS under section 33 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, when a by-law respecting standards for maintenance and occupancy of property is in force in the municipality, Council may by by-law designate any area within the municipality to which the standards and maintenance occupancy by-law applies as an area of demolition control;

AND WHEREAS under subsection 2(7) of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 1), the maintenance and property standards by-laws of the former Cities of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, Toronto and York and the former Borough of East York continue to apply to the part of the urban area to which they applied before the coming into force of section 28 of that Act;

AND WHEREAS By-law No.20483, being "a by-law prescribing standards for the maintenance and occupancy of property.", as amended, of the former City of Scarborough, applies to the area of the City of Toronto comprising the whole of the former City of Scarborough;

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

1.The area of the City formerly known as the City of Scarborough, as delineated by a heavy line on the map in Schedule A at the end of this by-law, is designated as an area of demolition control.

2.(1) The Chief Building Official is authorized to issue, without conditions unless subsection (2) applies, on behalf of Council, demolition permits for parts of residential properties in the area described in section 1, where the application to demolish falls within the following categories:

(a)demolition incidental to interior or exterior alterations, or both, or additions to a residential property for the same use;

(b)demolition incidental to alterations or additions, or both, to existing commercial portions of a residential property; or

(c)demolition of a residential property with less than six (6) dwelling units.

(2) If the application is for the demolition of a residential property with less than six (6) dwelling units where a building permit has been issued to erect a new building on the site of the residential property sought to be demolished, the permit shall be issued subject to the following conditions:

(a)that the applicant for the permit construct and substantially complete the new building to be erected on the site of the residential property to be demolished not later than two (2) years from the day demolition of the existing residential property is commenced; and

(b)that on failure to complete the new building within the two year period specified in clause(2)(a), the City Clerk shall be entitled to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) for each dwelling unit contained in the residential property in respect of which the demolition permit is issued and that such sum shall, until payment, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the permit to demolish the residential property is issued.

 ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of August, A.D. 1998.

  MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

 (Corporate Seal)

Appendix D:

Communication (June 10, 1998) to the Urban Environment and Development Committee from H.W.O. Doyle, City Solicitor on the feasibility of special legislation to provide that the former City of Toronto's 1984 special legislation respecting demolition control applies to the whole of the urban area of the new City.

Purpose:

To advise the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of amending the former City of Toronto's special demolition control legislation in the City of Toronto Act, 1984, so that the Act will apply to the whole of the urban area of the new City.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The costs of filing an application for special legislation includes a filing fee of $150.00, the cost of publishing a notice of application once a week for four weeks in the Ontario Gazette and newspaper, the cost of printing the Private Bill and the cost of printing the Act in the annual statutes. Based on 1996 costs for a similar sized Private Bill, costs are estimated at $6,000.00 with newspaper advertising costs being the largest component.

Recommendations:

If your Committee recommends an application for special legislation, it is recommended that:

(1)authority be granted to apply for special legislation substantially in the form of the draft Private Bill attached to this report.

Background:

The Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting held on May 19, 1998, had before it the May 1, 1998 report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development entitled: "City Powers, Policies and Procedures re: the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing before and after the proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act". As set out in Clause No 4 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, the Committee recommended, among other matters, that Council adopt the following recommendation:

(4)Council request the City Solicitor to review the former City of Toronto's special demolition control legislation and report back by June 1998 to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of amending the legislation in order to extend its provisions to the other former municipalities in the new City; ("Recommendation (4)")

Discussion:

There are six pieces of special legislation that apply in the former City of Toronto that have provisions dealing with residential demolition matters that the Commissioner will be considering in her overall review of demolition matters. The Commissioner has confirmed, as set out in section 2a) of her May 1, 1998 report, that the special legislation being referred to in Recommendation (4) is the City of Toronto Act, 1984, S.O. 1984, c. Pr6 (the "1984 Act"). A copy of the 1984 Act is on file with the City Clerk.

In the case of the demolition of a building containing six or more dwelling units and subject to certain exemptions, the 1984 Act permits Council to refuse to issue a demolition permit for up to one year, even though a building permit has been issued to erect a new building on the site. Under the 1984 Act Council also has the ability to acquire and maintain the property for residential use.

As noted in section 2 "Demolition Control" of the Commissioner's May 1, 1998 report, after the proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act Council will no longer have authority under the Rental Housing Protection Act to require an owner to apply to Council for approval to demolish a rental building. When dealing with demolition applications Council will have to rely on its powers under section 33 of the Planning Act (respecting demolition permits) and, in the case of the geographic area of the former City of Toronto, the 1984 Act and other special legislation.

An application can be made for special legislation to extend the application of the 1984 Act to the whole of the urban area of the new City. The final format of any new legislation is subject to the approval of the Provincial Legislative Counsel.

There are two matters that Council should be aware of in considering the merits of proceeding with an application for special legislation. The first consideration is time. Assuming a June, 1998 proclamation date, it is not possible to receive special legislation before the Tenant Protection Act, 1997, is proclaimed in force. In order to have its maximum effect in regulating the loss of rental housing due to demolition, the special legislation would have to be received before the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997. It is also expected that the House will rise for its summer recess on June 25, 1998, and return on September 28, 1998.

Under the rules of the Provincial Legislature on applications for Private Bills (which includes applications by municipalities for special legislation), a Private Bill will not receive first reading until after a declaration proving publication of the notices (once a week for four weeks in the Ontario Gazette and newspaper) has been received by the Clerk of the House. The rules also provide that applications for Private Bills that are received after the first day of September in any calendar may be postponed until the first regular Session in the next following calendar year. Under these circumstances it is unlikely that a successful application would be approved before the winter.

  The second matter for consideration, particularly in the case of a majority government, is whether or not the Minister of Municipal Affairs would support the application. After a Private Bill receives first reading it is referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills for hearings. The Committee has authority to amend the Private Bill and may also determine that the Private Bill should not be reported to the House, i.e., the Private Bill dies at the Committee. There is also the possibility that after the 1984 Act is specifically drawn to the Minister's attention, that the Minister may take action to have the 1984 Act repealed.

In order to expedite the overall processing of an application for special legislation and as encouraged by the Standing Committee's guidelines, the usual practice is to consult ahead of time with Legislative Counsel on the form of the Private Bill, and with Ministry of Municipal Affairs' staff on both the form and content of the Private Bill, before giving notice and filing the application for the Private Bill with the Clerk of the House. This process also permits the City Solicitor and applicable Commissioner to seek instructions from Council on any substantive changes to the draft Private Bill being recommended by the Province.

Attached to this report as Schedule A is a draft Private Bill.

Conclusion:

If your Committee wishes to recommend an application for special legislation to extend the application of the 1984 Act to the whole of the urban area of the new City, your Committee could recommend the adoption of recommendation (1) of this report.

Contact Name:

Christina M. Cameron

Legal Services Division, 392-7235

--------

SCHEDULE A

Bill Pr1998

An Act Respecting the City of Toronto

PreambleThe City of Toronto has applied for special legislation with respect to applying the provisions of the City of Toronto Act, 1984, respecting demolition control, to the whole urban area of the City and not just to the area of the former City of Toronto.

It is appropriate to grant this application.

Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

Definitions1. In this Act,

1997,c.2"city" means the City of Toronto incorporated by the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 1);

"urban area" has the same meaning as in the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No. 1).

Application2. Despite clause 2(5)(a) of the City of Toronto Act, 1997 (No.1), the provisions of the 1984, c. Pr6City of Toronto Act, 1984, apply to the whole of the urban area of the city.

Commencement3. This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.

Short title4. The short title of this Act is the City of Toronto Act, 1998.

--------

Appendix E:

Definition of Co-operatives Contained in the RHPA, R.S.O. 1990

"Co-operative" means a rental property that is,

(a)ultimately owned or leased or otherwise held, directly or indirectly, by more than one person where any such person, or a person claiming under such person, has the right to present or future exclusive possession of a unit in the rental property and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a rental property that is owned or leased or otherwise held in trust or that is owned or leased or otherwise held by a partnership or limited partnership as partnership property, where any trustee, beneficiary, partner, general partner, or limited partner, or other person claiming under such trustee, beneficiary, partner, general partner or limited partner, has the right to present or future exclusive possession of a unit in the rental property, or

(b)ultimately owned or leased or otherwise held, directly or indirectly, by a corporation having more than one shareholder or member, where any such shareholder or member, or a person claiming under such shareholder or member, by reason of the ownership of shares in or being a member of the corporation, has the right to present or future exclusive possession of a unit in the rental property,

but does not include a non-profit co-operative housing corporation as defined in the Co-operative Corporations Act.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it the following reports/communications, which were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting of February 8, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(January 6, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding the action of City Council on December 17 and 18, 1998 respecting Clause No. 2 of Report No. 14 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws Regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing (All Wards)", whereby Council directed that the Clause be struck out and referred back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on February 8, 1999, and the holding of a statutory public meeting if necessary, having regard that the Committee has requested further reports on this matter;

-(January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services responding to the Committee's request for a report on preliminary study results which assessed the physical condition of high rise rental buildings in the (former) City of Toronto; providing preliminary information about the Condition study and implications for policies outlined in the foregoing Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing report; informing the Committee that a presentation of the final Condition study results will be made to Community and Neighbourhood Services, spring, 1999 and that a process is under way to develop a consolidated, harmonized Property Standards By-law to replace those of the six former municipalities and a corresponding set of uniform practices, and recommending that this report be received for information;

-(January 20, 1999) from N. Jane Pepino, Q.C., Aird & Berlis, Barrister & Solicitor, forwarding clients' concerns to the proposed Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws regarding Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing;

-(December 16, 1998) from Ms. Cynthia A. MacDougall, McCarthy Tetrault, Barrister & Solicitor forwarding clients' concerns to the proposed Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws regarding Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing;

-(February 2, 1999) from N. Jane Pepino, Q.C., Aird & Berlis, Barrister & Solicitor, cancelling her previous request to be listed as a deputant for this item;

-(February 4, 1999) from N. Jane Pepino, Q.C., Aird & Berlis, Barrister & Solicitor, advising of their client's objection to the application of any proposed Official Plan policies to its property at 2-10 Wingreen Court in the Don Mills and Lawrence area;

-(February 3, 1999) from Jeff Usher, President, Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association;

-(February 4, 1999) from Phyllis Dutchak, Strathcona Mews Limited;

-(February 8, 1999) from Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti; and

-(February 8, 1999) from Peggy Moulder, Property Manager, Gloucester Gate Residences Co-Ownership.

--------

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

-David S. Alexandor, Q.C., Alexandor & Associates;

-Peter Stewart;

-Jim Davison;

-Phil Connell;

-Ainslie Shuve;

-Phyllis Dutchak;

-Peggy Moulder, Property Manager, Gloucester Gate Residences Co-ownership;

-Paulette Sander, Board of Directors, Co-op 78 Warren Road;

-Kim Beckman, Davies Howe Partners;

-Victor Armstrong, 550 Management;

-Kenneth Hale, on behalf of Tenants Advocacy Group;

-Richard Kuchynski, Director of Planning and Development, Goldlist Properties Inc.;

-Councillor Johnston;

-Councillor Mihevc; and

-Councillor Davis.

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To respond to the recommendation made by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting of February 8, 1999 on new condominium conversion and demolition control policies, this report recommends providing for a two year period to allow for existing equity cooperatives to come forward with an application for condominium approval.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no additional funding or financial implications associated with this follow-up report.

Recommendations:

(1)That recommendation no. 135.3 (b) of Option B of the planning report dated January 21, 1999 be replaced with the following:

(b)despite policies 135.1, 135.2 and 135.4, to consider allowing the conversion of equity co-operative buildings containing six or more rented residential units where:

(i)the co-operative was legally created prior to June 17, 1998;

(ii)50 percent or less of the units are tenanted;

(iii)66 percent of each of the tenant and shareholder-occupied households have expressed their support in writing for the conversion application in a manner prescribed by Council; and

(iv)an application for condominium approval under the Planning Act has been made by the equity co-operative corporation within 2 years following approval of this policy.

Comments:

At its meeting of February 8, 1999, the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommended to City Council the adoption of the planning report of January 21, 1999 subject to adopting Option B in recommendation (1). Option B provides an exemption for equity co-operatives only where: the buildings were legally created prior to the enactment of the Tenant Protection Act in June of 1998; 50 percent or less of the units are tenanted; and 66 percent of each of the tenant and shareholder-occupied households are in favour of the conversion.

The Committee also requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development to "report directly to Council for its meeting on March 2, 1999 with a recommended date for the conversion of those units that may be included in the exemption category as outlined in Option B... in order to impose a time limited exemption."

To establish a reasonable time-frame for the exemption to apply, it is necessary to consider the steps that would be involved in preparing and submitting an application for condominium approval to City Council. Shareholders of equity co-operatives wishing to convert would first be required to review their particular situation and determine whether they would comply with the policy exemption. This would involve a polling of the tenants and shareholders to determine if there is adequate support for the conversion. Assuming there was enough interest in the conversion option, preliminary meetings could be held with City planning staff to discuss the proposal. At that time, the proponent could offer written documentation, to the satisfaction of staff, indicating the support for and intention to proceed with the condominium approval application.

The proponent would also be required to speak with other staff (e.g., buildings and public works) to ensure that the proposal met other building, zoning, and parking requirements. A determination would be made as to what other types of approvals (e.g., site plan approval, minor variances) may be needed.

If a decision were made by the shareholders to continue with the preparation of an application, the necessary background work would have to be undertaken. This would involve hiring the appropriate consultants (e.g. legal and architectural) to draft any legal documents that may be needed to change the form of tenure, as well to prepare any surveys, drawings and plans that would be required to make a formal application for condominium approval under the Planning Act.

The entire process will require time and commitment on the part of the shareholders as outlined above. I am suggesting that up to 2 years after the approval of this policy be offered for this background work to be undertaken, before proponents would be required to submit their application for condominium approval to the City. It is also strongly suggested that the shareholders also consider submitting any other related planning applications that may be required within the same time period.

To ensure that shareholders have been properly notified of this time-limited exemption, it is my intention to include a description of the equity co-operative exemption in the notice of adoption of the amended official plan policies on conversion and demolition. As this is an important City-wide policy matter, I am recommending that the notice of adoption be placed in a major daily newspaper.

Contact Name:

Barbara Leonhardt

392-8148.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (February 5, 1999) from Ms. Julia Matthews, with respect to the Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws Regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing, and Status of Condition Survey of High-rise Rental Stock, as it relates to 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue.)

(Councillor Miller, at the meeting of City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, declared his interest in those portions of the foregoing Clause pertaining to equity co-operatives, in that his wife is the owner of a unit located in an equity co-operative building.)

 4

A Rapid Transit Connection Between Pearson International Airport

and Union Station - Supplementary Report

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on April 13, 1999.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1)the Mayor and Members of Council form a lobbying team to work with the Minister of Transport to achieve the objective of creating a direct rail link between downtown Toronto and Pearson International Airport;

(2)City Councillors appointed to the City's energy agencies, Toronto Hydro and the Toronto District Heating Corporation, initiate an exploration of the possibilities for electrification of the rail link with power to be provided by a co-generation facility; and

(3)the two City Council appointees to the Greater Toronto Airport Authority be requested to play a leadership role in achieving a direct rail link between downtown Toronto and the Pearson International Airport.

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

(1)received the report (January 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on passenger data with respect to Pearson International Airport and provide estimates of the anticipated number of trips expected between the airport and downtown via a direct rail link.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the report (January 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report summarizes Council's motions regarding the planning of a rapid transit connection to Pearson International Airport and provides an update to the report on this issue dated November 27, 1998 from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Financial Implications:

The recommendations of this report do not have any funding implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council receive this report for information

Background:

At its meeting on October 1 and 2, 1998 Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 10 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee entitled "A Rapid Transit Connection Between Pearson International Airport and Union Station". In doing so, Council adopted the recommendations in Appendix A.

Comments:

The following is an update on Council's request to other levels of government regarding the rapid transit connection to Pearson Airport.

GO Transit

In 1994 GO estimated the cost to upgrade the entire corridor to Georgetown at $238m (1992 dollars) and to upgrade the corridor to Bramalea at $132m (1992 dollars). The upgrades to Bramalea would provide the infrastructure necessary to accommodate all-day airport rail service. In response to Council's request, GO Transit has advised in a letter dated November 17, 1998 (attached) that their review of the improvements required to accommodate all-day rail service to the vicinity of Pearson Airport has determined that the estimated cost could be reduced to $100m. The earlier estimate was based on double tracking the entire corridor. The revised estimate is based on operating conditions with single trackage in some locations.

Transport Canada

Transport Canada staff are finalizing a report on rapid transit access to Pearson Airport. It is anticipated that the report will address options for providing transit access between Union Station and Pearson Airport including extension of the airport transit system to the CN Weston rail corridor and a dedicated airport shuttle service. It is also expected that Transport Canada will propose that the private sector be involved in the provision of the connection. In discussions with Transport Canada, City staff have indicated that the rapid transit connection to the airport should be compatible with the regional commuter services provided by GO Transit. Transport Canada staff are also engaged in discussions with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority regarding the protection for the rapid transit connection in the terminal redevelopment plans. On several occasions the federal Minister of Transport indicated that there may soon be an announcement about a transit link between downtown Toronto and Pearson Airport. Transport Canada expects to release the report in the near future.

Conclusions:

City staff are continuing discussions with GO Transit, the GTAA, and Transport Canada regarding the rapid transit connection between Union Station and Pearson Airport and will report further to Council as information becomes available.

Contact Name:

Rod McPhail

Director, Transportation Planning, Metro Hall

Telephone:392-8100

Fax:329-3821

--------

  Appendix A

Summary of Council Motions Re:

A Rapid Transit Connection Between Pearson International Airport and Union Station

Council (October 1 and 2, 1998) amendments to Clause No. 1 of Report No. 9 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

It is further recommended that:

(1)the federal Minister of Transportation be invited to make a presentation respecting this matter to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee to be held on November 2, 1998; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to Council in November 1998, if possible, or in December 1998, with an update on whether here has been any movement from the provincial or federal governments with respect to the foregoing matter, so that Council can be informed on the progress of this project.

Urban Environment and Development Committee (July 13, 1998) recommendations:

(1)the adoption of the following report (June 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, subject to Council's support being conditional upon the project including a portion of the financial cost of the required upgrades to the subway platform at Union Station; and

(2)that Council support the addition of a $1.00 airport fee to be used for the proposed rapid transit connection between Pearson International Airport and Union Station:

Staff recommendations (in report dated June 26, 1998):

It is recommended that City Council:

(1)endorse the concept of a rapid transit connection between Pearson International Airport and Union Station;

(2)endorse the conclusions of Provincial and Federal studies that the corridor adjacent to Highways 409 and 427, as shown in Figure 1, should be protected for a rapid transit connection between Pearson Airport and the CN Weston rail corridor, and request the Province of Ontario, Transport Canada, the City of Mississauga, Region of Peel, and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority to pursue measures to protect the corridor;

(3)support upgrading of the Weston rail corridor to accommodate a new station in the vicinity of the Woodbine Racetrack and all-day GO service from Union Station to the new station, and request GO Transit to advise on costs;

(4)support the extension of the internal airport transit system from the airport to upgraded GO rail service in the CN Weston rail corridor as the preferred rapid transit option in the five to ten-year time frame, and request Transport Canada (in conjunction with the City of Toronto, Ministry of Transportation, GO Transit, Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Region of Peel, and City of Mississauga) to conduct a physical, operational, and financial feasibility study for this extension;

(5)request the Greater Toronto Airports Authority to consider technologies for the internal airport transit system which would be capable of being extended into the CN Weston rail corridor for a transfer-free connection to Union Station;

(6)request the Province and GO Transit to ensure that the upgrading of the CN Weston rail corridor for all-day GO service to the airport is a high priority for GO Rail expansion;

(7)request the Greater Toronto Airports Authority to continue to plan for an internal airport transit system in a manner which serves passenger convenience, and to be prepared to build the transit system in conjunction with the upgraded GO rail service, or prior to, if demand warrants;

(8)request the Mayor and the Chair of the Urban Environment and Development Committee to meet with the Federal Minister of Transport to discuss Federal support for the feasibility study and for the early implementation of the rapid transit connection; and

(9)direct the City Clerk to distribute copies of this report to Transport Canada, the Ministry of Transportation, GO Transit, the Region of Peel, the City of Mississauga, the City of Brampton, and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the Toronto Olympic Bid Corporation, the Toronto Board of Trade, and Tourism Toronto.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it the following communications, which were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting of February 8, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(January 14, 1999) from the Chair, Urban Environment and Development Committee, inviting the Minister of Transport, the Honourable David Collonette, to give a presentation to the Committee's February 8, 1999 meeting;

-(November 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, providing an update on the status of the responses from the federal and provincial governments with respect to the proposal for a rapid transit connection between Pearson International Airport and Union Station, and recommending that consideration of this matter be deferred until the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting in January 1999 in order to allow additional time for responses from the Provincial and Federal Governments;

-(October 9, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding the communication addressed to the Minister of Transport enclosing a copy of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 10 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "A Rapid Transit Connection Between Pearson International Airport and Union Station", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998; and drawing the Minister's attention to the amendment by Council found at the beginning of the Clause, viz:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the federal Minister of Transportation be invited to make a presentation respecting this matter to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee to be held on November 2, 1998; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to Council in November 1998, if possible, or in December 1998, with an update on whether there has been any movement from the provincial or federal governments with respect to the foregoing matter, so that Council can be informed on the progress of this project."

-(November 17, 1998) from Mr. Richard C. Ducharme, Managing Director, GO Transit, responding to Council's action taken on October 1 and 2, 1998 (Clause 1 of Report 10 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee refers) in which GO Transit was requested to provide a preliminary cost estimate for upgrading the Weston Corridor to accommodate all-day GO Service from Union Station to a new station in the area of the Woodbine Racetrack and advising that improvements associated with this service would include a rail/rail grade separation at West Toronto; track additions (full extent of additions required subject to detailed analysis), and; a new station at the Woodbine Race Track. The preliminary cost estimate for these improvements is in the order of $100 million. This estimate is also based on the assumption that no major platform improvements/changes at Union Station would be required to accommodate this service;

-(January 28, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Don River Ward, recommending:

That the new City of Toronto Council formally endorse the creation of a direct rail link between downtown Toronto and the Pearson International Airport;

That the Mayor and Members of Council form a lobbying team to work with the Minister of Transport, David Collenette, to achieve this objective;

That Councillors sitting on the City's energy agencies, Toronto Hydro and Toronto District Energy Corporation, initiative an exploration of the possibilities for electrification of the rail link with power to be provided by a co-generation facility;

That the two City Council appointees to the Greater Toronto Airport Authority be requested to play a leadership role in achieving a direct rail link between Toronto's downtown and the Pearson International Airport;

-(February 4, 1999) from Harve Sokoloff, forwarding a copy of a letter to the Honourable David Collonette.

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (January 27, 1999) from the City Clerk, The Corporation of the City of Brampton, forwarding recommendations adopted by the Council of the City of Brampton on January 25, 1999, with respect to a rapid transit connection between Pearson International Airport and Union Station.)

5

Contract EB9807RD Reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive North

from Bloor Street West to Dundas Street West, Kingsway -

Additional Expenditures for Increased Work - (Ward 3 - Humber)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the joint report (January 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To obtain Council's authorization for additional necessary expenditures to cover the cost of increased activities, as a result of changed conditions during the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive from Bloor Street to Dundas Street, in the Etobicoke District.

Funding Sources:

This project is included in the approved 1998 Capital Budget. The total estimated cost including construction, contingencies engineering and project administration is $1,387,000.00. Funds are available in the 1998 Pavement Improvement Programme, including related Storm Sewers.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)additional expenditures in the amount of $92,500.00, including Goods and Services Tax, be authorized for the construction of additional contract item work on Contract EB9807RD for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive from Bloor Street to Dundas Street, in the Etobicoke District; and

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

Background:

By adoption of Clause No. 17 of Report No. 9 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, Council at its meeting of July 29, 1998 awarded Contract EB9807RD for the reconstruction of Prince Edward Drive from Bloor Street to Dundas Street. The contract was awarded to Il Duca Construction Inc., being the lowest tender received in the amount of $1,220,449.05, including all taxes.

This is a unit item contract where bid prices are submitted by the tenderer for various items of work. The quantity of anticipated units of work is estimated for each item and payment is made based on the number of completed work units.

Comments and Justification:

The section of Prince Edward Drive being reconstructed runs between Dundas Street and Bloor Street, in the Etobicoke District. The project has generated an unprecedented amount of public interest and participation and, during an environmental study in preparation for the final design, residents of the street were involved in every step of the process.

Public participation did not end with the preliminary design phase. In fact, modifications were requested in numerous areas during construction such as replacement of existing sidewalks or construction of additional segments which had not been anticipated. A provisional tender item was also included in the contract for the replacement and upgrading of water services which generated a response much greater than at first expected.

For these reasons, the tendered contract amount has been exceeded by $92,500.00. However, the overall amount is still within the Capital Budget estimate of $1,387,000.00.

Conclusion:

As a result of very extensive public consultations and to accommodate the wishes of the residents of Prince Edward Drive, additional work became necessary which has increased the tendered contract amount. Funds for the additional work are available in the 1998 Capital Budget for this project.

Contact Names:

T. Ellerbusch, P.Eng.,

Manager, Design and Construction.

Tel. (416) 394-8399

Fax (416) 394-894

6

Rail Safety Oversight

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to investigate and submit a joint report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the desirability of using the same, or a similar approach to an independent audit of public safety matters arising from freight and passenger rail operations by Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railways and GO Transit in the City of Toronto.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that the proposal to use the Rail Safety Audit Program provided by the American Public Transit Association be approved as the independent audit element for the Toronto Transit Commission public safety oversight process.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (December 4, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, December 2, 1998, the Commission considered the attached report entitled, "Rail Safety Oversight."

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

"It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)Receive for information the attached letters of concurrence associated with the use of the services of the American Public Transit Association as the audit agency, which, through its Rail Safety Audit Program can provide the independent audit element of the external oversight process of the TTC. Independent audit of the TTC was identified in Recommendations No's 1 & 2 of the Coroner's Inquest into the Russell Hill accident, August 11, 1995.

(2)Forward this report to Toronto City Council for approval."

The foregoing is forwarded to the City Urban Environment and Development Committee and Toronto City Council for approval of the aforementioned proposal to use the Rail Safety Audit Program provided by the American Public Transit Association as the independent audit element for the TTC public safety oversight process.

  (Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 24

titled "Rail Safety Oversight")

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Commission:

(1)Receive for information the attached letters of concurrence associated with the use of the services of the American Public Transit Association as the audit agency, which, through its Rail Safety Audit Program, can provide the independent audit element of the external oversight process of the TTC. Independent audit of the TTC was identified in Recommendations No's 1 & 2 of the Coroner's Inquest into the Russell Hill accident, August 11,1995.

(2)Forward this report to Toronto City Council for approval.

Background:

The Coroner's Report into the Russell Hill accident, August 11, 1995 recommended, in part, that a framework for an oversight agency of the TTC be established. This would include the conducting of safety audits by an independent agency. The audit service becomes one of the elements of overall public safety oversight of TTC rail operations.

Legislative groundwork for oversight commenced when it was moved by the Commission that the Province be requested to amend, at the appropriate time, Bill 148 "An Act to Deal with Matters relating to the establishment of the New City of Toronto" which would include;

-TTC hiring an external qualified person(s) to conduct safety audits every two years of the Commission's rail operations.

-Such audits be reported out, in public, at a public Commission meeting.

Discussions were held, over the past two and a half years, with the Ministry of Transportation, TTC Commissioners and the Regional Coroner (reference attached correspondence) to use the the Rail Safety Audit Program provided by the American Public Transit Association as the audit element of public safety oversight.

Discussion:

The conducting of audits under the Rail Safety Audit Program would be at the direction of the Commissioners and held every two years. The audit findings will be presented in a public forum to the Commission and provided to Toronto City Council.

TTC staff will provide a responses to each recommendation and provide updates every six months until full closure.

For reference:

Attachment #1 - letter dated December 3, 1997 from D. Gunn

Attachment #2 - response from Minister of Transportation dated August 14, 1998

Attachment #3 - TTC response dated September 28, 1998

Attachment #4 - letter dated October 14, 1998 from D. Gunn

Attachment #5 - response of Regional Coroner W. Lucas dated October 27, 1998

Justification:

The formal establishment of independent audits of the TTC, reported upon in the public forum, addresses the spirit and intent of Recommendations No's 1 and 2 of the Coroner's Inquest into the Russell Hill accident August 11,1995.

The independent audit process provides a key element in the public safety oversight process and sets the framework for the Province to amend applicable legislation.

It is recommended to use the Rail Safety Audit Program, as provided by the American Public Transit Association, as the independent audit element of public safety oversight of the TTC.

(A copy of Attachment #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Economic Development Committee for its meeting on February 8, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

 7

Installation of Traffic Control Signs at O'Connor Drive at

Northridge Avenue; O'Connor Drive at Glenwood Crescent;

and O'Connor Drive at Four Oaks Gate - (Ward 1 - East York)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on April 13, 1999.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that:

(1)the Police Chief be requested to increase radar enforcement along O'Connor Drive; and

(2)the Boards of Education be requested to increase education with respect to pedestrian crossovers and community safety zones.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports, for the information of Council, having referred the report (February 5, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services Division and Recommendations (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6) of the East York Community Council contained in the communication (December 21, 1998) from the City Clerk to East York Community Council to enable further community consultation to take place, and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to East York Community Council on the following:

(1)the feasibility of using red lights in place of amber lights at crosswalks;

(2)the system that is currently used in the City of Vancouver;

(3)possibility of creating a centre lane at the intersection of O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent to act as a holding lane; and

(4)if lights are to be installed, that studies be conducted three months before and three months after the installation, on westbound Glenwood from Rexleigh to Glen Gannon, and southbound on St. Columba, from 7.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (February 5, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services Division:

Purpose:

To provide staff input and background respecting recommendations of the East York Community Council, at its meeting of December 9, 1998, which have been forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee regarding proposed traffic control signals at the intersections of O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent and O'Connor Drive and Four Oaks Gate and a minor realignment of the former.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The funds associated with new traffic control signals are contained in the Works and Emergency Services Department's 1999 Capital Budget request. The estimated cost to install traffic control signals at the intersection of O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent is $53,000.00. The funds necessary to undertake the proposed curb realignment at this intersection, in the estimated amount of $40,000.00 can also be accommodated within the Capital Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the Urban Environment and Development Committee be advised that based on a technical assessment, staff concur with the recommendations of the East York Community Council with respect to the installation of traffic control signals at the O'Connor Drive/Glenwood Crescent intersection, coincident with the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover, and that traffic conditions on Glenwood Crescent be investigated 6 months after the installation of the traffic control signals to determine the degree of traffic infiltration during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, with the findings reported to the East York Community Council;

(2) that in order to implement the East York Community Council recommendation to "square-off" the corner of O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent, approval be given to realign the existing curbs at the northeast and southwest corners of the O'Connor Drive/Glenwood Crescent intersection, generally as shown on the attached Figure 2; and

(3)that the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Background:

East York Community Council, at its December 9, 1998 meeting, forwarded the following recommendations to the Urban Environment and Development Committee with respect to various traffic operations issues on O'Connor Drive (Clause No. 11 in Report No. 19 of The East York Community Council):

(1)the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent in the year 1999;

(2)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to conduct a review of traffic along Glenwood Crescent six months after the installation of the traffic lights to determine the degree of traffic infiltration during a.m. and p.m. rush hours and report such findings to the Community Council;

(3)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the East York Community Council on the following:

(a)the feasibility of using red lights in place of amber lights at crosswalks; and

(b)the system that is currently used in the City of Vancouver;

(4)that the Toronto Police Services be requested to increase radar enforcement along O'Connor Drive;

(5)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to "square off" the corner of O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent;

(6)that traffic control signals be installed at the intersection of O'Connor Drive and Four Oaks Gate; and

(7)that the Boards of Education be requested to increase education with respect to pedestrian crossovers and community safety zones.

This report addresses the recommendations concerning the intersections of O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent and O'Connor Drive and Four Oaks Gate (recommendations 1, 2, 5 and 6). The request to study the feasibility of using red lights in place of amber lights at pedestrian crossovers (recommendation 3) will be dealt within a subsequent report.

Comments:

O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent

A pedestrian crossover currently exists at the intersection of O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent. This intersection was the subject of a number of investigations over the past few years in response to repeated requests to replace the pedestrian crossover with traffic control signals. In 1997 our Department concluded that the pedestrian volume justified the need for some type of pedestrian crossing facility. However, the operating speed (85^th percentile) is 66 km/hr. on this section of O'Connor Drive and O'Connor Drive in this area carries approximately 46,600 vehicles per day. The speed and volume led to the conclusion that the existing pedestrian crossover should be replaced with traffic control signals. In light of the historical concerns with neighbourhood infiltration in this area, it was suggested that community consultation take place prior to proceeding with the installation of traffic control signals. A public meeting was held by East York Community Council on December 9, 1998 which resulted in the recommendation to proceed with the installation of the traffic control signals.

East York Community Council also recommended that traffic along Glenwood Crescent be investigated 6 months after the traffic control signals are installed to determine the degree of traffic infiltration resulting from the signal installation. Local residents expressed a concern that the proposed traffic control signals will increase traffic infiltration through the neighbourhood from motorists using Glenwood Crescent to access St. Clair Avenue. Various turn prohibitions are already present in the neighbourhood to mitigate traffic infiltration. Advisory signs are posted at O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent indicating that access to St.Clair Avenue is prohibited during the afternoon peak period. Notwithstanding the existing turn prohibitions in the area, the Transportation Division will review traffic movements in the area 6 months after the traffic control signals are installed in order to determine the effect the traffic control signals have had on traffic operations at the intersection and in the immediate neighbourhood.

   Minor Realignment of the O'Connor Drive/Glenwood Crescent Intersection

East York Community Council recommended that the corners of O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent be "squared-off" to a more typical intersection geometry. Local residents are concerned that the current radius allows motorists on O'Connor Drive turning into Glenwood Crescent to do so at a high rate of speed. Figure 1 shows the current geometry of the intersection.

The current radii at the northeast and southwest corners of the O'Connor Drive/Glenwood Crescent intersection are fairly generous, in the range of about 30 m. This is due, in part to the somewhat skewed angle of the intersection. The current configuration allows east and west bound right-turning vehicles to negotiate the corner at relatively high speeds.

In reviewing the geometry of this intersection, staff have concluded that it would be feasible to reduce the radii at the two above-noted corners, to approximately 15 m (exact dimensions will be determined during detailed design stage). This would encourage right turning vehicles from/to the arterial to make the turns at slower speeds and also reduce the expanse of pavement that pedestrians are now required to cross. The proposed intersection reconfiguration is illustrated in Figure 2.

The proposed realignment of the northeast and southwest corners of the O'Connor Drive/Glenwood Crescent intersection constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing (recommended to be a deputation item at a future East York Community Council meeting). This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

O'Connor Drive and Northridge Avenue/Four Oaks Gate

A pedestrian crossover is located between Northridge Avenue and Four Oaks Gate on O'Connor Drive. Figure 3 illustrates the location of the pedestrian crossover in the context of the surrounding area. East York Community Council has recommended that the pedestrian crossover be replaced with traffic control signals at Four Oaks Gate.

O'Connor Drive in this vicinity is a four-lane arterial roadway with a posted speed limit of 50 km/h and a two-way 24 hour volume of approximately 39,800 vehicles. Northridge Avenue is a local road and forms a "T" intersection on the south side of O'Connor Drive. A northbound stop sign on Northridge Avenue controls traffic at this intersection. Four Oaks Gate is also a local road and forms another "T" intersection on the north side of O'Connor Drive west of Northridge Avenue. Similarly, a southbound stop sign on Four Oaks Gate controls traffic at this intersection. The distance between Northridge Avenue and Four Oaks Gate on O'Connor Drive is approximately 35 metres. The pedestrian crossover (PXO) is located on the west leg of the O'Connor Drive/Northridge Avenue intersection. Adjacent traffic control signals are located approximately 450 metres to the west of Four Oaks Gate at Don Mills Road and 360 metres to the east of Northridge Avenue at Coxwell Avenue.

An eight-hour traffic control signal warrant study was conducted at both intersections and revealed that traffic conditions do not satisfy the warrants at either location. The warrant study results are detailed below:

 For the traffic control signal warrants to be satisfied, one of the "Minimum Vehicular Volume" or "Delay to Cross Traffic" warrants must be 100 percent satisfied or any two of the three warrants must be at least 80 per cent satisfied. The "Collision Hazard" warrant is based on the number of collisions that occurred at the intersection in a three-year period which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. At Northridge Avenue, collision statistics provided by the Toronto Police Service indicate three collisions were reported over a three-year period from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996 which were potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. All three of these collisions involved pedestrians who were hit by vehicles while crossing at the PXO. In all three cases the pedestrians sustained minor injuries. Similarly, at Four Oaks Gate, one collision was reported over the same three-year period which was potentially preventable by the installation of traffic control signals. The collision involved two vehicles: one was proceeding westbound and the other was making a southbound left turn. Based on the above information, the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are not close to being satisfied.

During the most recent study, only 39 pedestrians were observed crossing O'Connor Drive at the PXO over an eight hour period. Of the 39 pedestrians, there were 27 adults, 6 assisted children, 3 unassisted children and 3 senior citizens. In addition, the operational characteristics of the existing PXO were evaluated according to guidelines that were developed for the "Audit of Operational and Physical Suitability at Pedestrian Crossovers in Metropolitan Toronto". The results are as follows:

A review of the PXO environmental criteria which were not satisfied revealed that they are either conditions that are presently being addressed or ones that have minimal impact on public safety in this case. For instance, the current speed profile of vehicles on O'Connor Drive is a concern and the Police are conducting speed enforcement. Although there are several private driveways fronting on O'Connor Drive near the PXO, the volume from these driveways has a minimal impact on safety. Based on the low pedestrian volume and a review of the PXO environmental criteria, the location continues to be suitable for a PXO.

In order to address past safety concerns in the area, O'Connor Drive between Woodbine Avenue and Pape Avenue is a test site to determine the effectiveness of Community Safety Zones (CSZs). The basic purpose of CSZs is to provide for double the minimum fines upon conviction of various HTA offences. We will be reporting back on the effectiveness of the CSZs at a future Committee meeting.

Conclusions:

The Transportation Division has concluded that the installation of traffic control signals at O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent to replace the existing pedestrian crossover is warranted. We will also conduct a study to determine the effect that the traffic control signals have had on traffic infiltration in the immediate neighbourhood. With respect to "squaring-off" the intersection, realignment of the northeast and southwest curbs to reduce the existing radii would deter higher speed right turns from the arterial onto the local street and reduce the pedestrian crossing distance.

The technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals are not close to being satisfied at either O'Connor Drive and Northridge Avenue or at O'Connor Drive and Four Oaks Gate. O'Connor Drive at Northridge Avenue is a suitable location for a PXO. O'Connor Drive will be a test site to determine the effectiveness of increased fines through the newly approved "Community Safety Zone" legislation.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Bartos, P.Eng.

Manager, Traffic Operations, District 1, Transportation Division

397-4486

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Figure 1 - O'Connor Drive at Glenwood Crescent Proposed Traffic Control Signals

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Figure 1 - O'Connor Drive at Glenwood Crescent Proposed Traffic Control Signals

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Figure 1 - O'Connor Drive at Glenwood Crescent Proposed Traffic Control Signals

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (December 21, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The East York Community Council on December 9, 1998, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(1)the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent in the year 1999;

(2)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to conduct a review of traffic along Glenwood Crescent six months after the installation of the traffic lights to determine the degree of traffic infiltration during a.m. and p.m. rush hours and report such findings to this Community Council;

(3)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the East York Community Council on the following:

(a)the feasibility of using red lights in place of amber lights at crosswalks; and

(b)the system that is currently used in the City of Vancouver;

(4)that the Toronto Police Services be requested to increase radar enforcement along O'Connor Drive;

(5)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to "square off" the corner of O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent;

(6)that the traffic control signals be installed at the intersection of O'Connor Drive and Four Oaks Gate; and

(7)that the Boards of Education be requested to increase education with respect to pedestrian crossovers and community safety zones.

The East York Community Council reports for the information of the Urban Environment and Development Committee having received the following communications:

-(November 6, 1998) from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region;

-(September 18, 1998) to Councillor C. Ootes, from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region;

-(June 6, 1997) to Councillor C. Ootes, from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region; and

-(December 8, 1998) from Mr. Raymond White and Mrs. Mary Floro-White, East York.

Background:

The East York Community Council had before it the following communications:

-(November 6, 1998) from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, advising the East York Community Council that the installation of traffic control signals at O'Connor Drive and Northridge Avenue; and O'Connor Drive and Four Oaks Gate are not justified at this time and advising that the area of O'Connor Drive from Woodbine Avenue to Pape Avenue will be tested as a Community Safety Zone;

-(September 18, 1998) from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, advising the East York Community Council of the results of investigations regarding various safety-related issues on O'Connor Drive;

-(June 6, 1997) from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, advising the East York Community Council of the results of investigations regarding the installation of traffic control signals at O'Connor Drive and Northridge Avenue; and at O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent; and

-(December 8, 1998) from Mr. Raymond White and Mrs. Mary Floro-White, East York, opposing the installation of traffic control signals at O'Connor Drive and Northridge Avenue.

The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing:

-Mr. Paul Newton, East York;

-Ms. Sherry Aiken, East York;

-Mr. Christopher Stavrou, East York;

-Mr. Brian Barron, President, Ward 2 Property Owners Association of East York, East York;

-Mr. A. Baxevanidis, East York;

-Mr. Peter Krakus, East York;

-Mr. Dino Giardetti, East York;

-Mr. David Wright, East York;

-Mr. Allan Graham, East York;

-Mrs. May Achermann, East York;

-Mr. Gary Prentice, East York;

-Mr. Robert Lee, East York;

-Ms. Joyce Nelson, East York; and

-Mr. Anthony Labile, East York.

--------

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it the following communications, which were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its meeting of February 8, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(February 2, 1999) from Peter Krakus, supporting the installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Glenwood and O'Connor;

-(February 3, 1999) from Kevin Smart, requesting deferral of this matter until after the next meeting of the East York Community Council;

-(February 4, 1999) from Katherine and Darryl Parsons, objecting to the installation of traffic lights;

-(February 5, 1999) from Frank A. Tulipano;

-(February 5, 1999) from Dino Giardetti;

-(February 2, 1999) from Geoff and Rochelle Tupling

-(February 5, 1999) from Dr. and Mrs. B.J. Reilly;

-(undated) from Mr. and Mrs. Sterrett;

-(February 5, 1999) from Pam and Greig Holliday;

-(undated) from Brian Bates

-(February 5, 1999) from Laila Rintamaki

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

-Ken Bott;

-Cheri Aitken;

-Kathy Parsons;

-Ms. Rima Sterrett;

-Councillor Prue; and

-Councillor Ootes.

8

Temporary Traffic Regulations for the Construction

of the Sheppard Subway - Yonge Station

(Ward 10 - North York Centre)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (January 25, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the introduction of traffic regulations, as and when required, to optimize the management of traffic during the construction of the Sheppard Subway - Yonge Station.

Funding Sources:

The costs associated with this work will be the responsibility of the Toronto Transit Commission.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that authority be granted for the introduction of traffic regulations as outlined in Appendix I.

Background:

Construction of the Yonge Station for the Sheppard Subway commenced in September 1998. The new Yonge Station is located over the top of the existing Sheppard Station and beneath the intersection of Sheppard Avenue and Yonge Street. The main components are the station and running structure which are approximately centred within the Sheppard Avenue right-of-way, extending from Beecroft Road to Doris Avenue, and the southeast and southwest Wyes which connect the Yonge line south of Sheppard Avenue to the Sheppard line in order to bring trains in and our of service.

The location of the new station over the existing station makes it difficult, and in some locations impossible, to construct the new station roof under conventional timber traffic decking. Raised timber decking will be required along Sheppard Avenue east of Yonge Street, and a temporary closure of Sheppard Avenue west of Yonge Street to all but TTC and emergency vehicles will be necessary. Where the Sheppard Subway line actually crosses over the Yonge line a clear span structural element is required, which falls within the Yonge/Sheppard intersection. To facilitate construction of this element the existing intersection will be relocated to the south and west.

The TTC, in consultation with Transportation Department staff, developed a traffic management plan to mitigate the impacts of the station construction. The objective of the plan is to minimize the impact of construction on local residents and businesses, ensure safe movement of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles through the construction zone, to maintain traffic flow on Sheppard Avenue and Yonge Street and to construct the station in the most cost effective and timely manner possible.

The main elements of the plan can be summarized as follows:

(i)Identify for the Contractor a range of reasonable options for rerouting traffic around the construction work site.

(ii)Ensure accessibility for affected property owners, residents and transit patrons, particularly emergency access. Ensure that existing bus operations are maintained and operational costs to the TTC are minimized.

(iii)Recognize fully the relative merits of options which are slightly more disruptive but which significantly shorten construction time/ or reduce cost.

(iv)Maintain the effective north/south capacity of Yonge Street to the extent practical throughout the course of construction by providing a basic six lane cross-section and turning prohibitions where necessary.

(v)Capacity reductions in the Sheppard Avenue corridor should be minimized until the Wye Break-in traffic decking is complete on Yonge Street.

(vi)Provide for a minimum three lane cross-section on Sheppard Avenue East and temporary closure of Sheppard Avenue West by way of turning prohibitions and temporary diversion to alternate routes.

(vii)Maintain traffic movements on Sheppard Avenue to and from the east at Yonge Street at all times to minimize the potential use of local Avondale streets by regional traffic.

(viii)Encourage the use of alternate routes using the North York City Centre (e.g., Beecroft Road and Doris Avenue) and the regional road system by way of appropriate information signage.

The Traffic Management Plan was presented to the area Councillors, and was also the subject of three "Open Houses" that were held in the neighbourhood, prior to being finalized.

Discussion:

To assist in the efficient detouring of traffic around the work sites, reliance is being placed on Doris Avenue, Greenfield Avenue, Elmhurst Avenue, Beecroft Road, and Poyntz Avenue, for use by traffic diverting from Sheppard Avenue. To ensure maximum road capacity on these streets a large number of parking meters will be removed to allow two traffic lanes in each direction during all periods of the day on the above detour routes. The removal of the parking meters and compensation for lost revenue is the subject of a previous agreement between the TTC and the Parking Authority. A report on the required changes in the parking regulations will be submitted to North York Community Council in February.

Temporary geometric improvements have been made at Poyntz Avenue and Beecroft Road, and Poyntz Avenue has been temporarily widened between Beecroft Road and Yonge Street. Temporary traffic control signals are being provided at the Elmhurst Road/Beecroft Road and Beecroft Road/Poyntz Avenue intersections.

To improve the efficiency of the traffic detour arrangements, and to maximize the capacity of the signalized intersections along Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue, a number of traffic movements must be restricted for extended periods of time. The movements that are restricted can be accomplished by using the detour system or alternate property access/egress that will be provided.

The planned restrictions are detailed in Appendix I. It is proposed that the restrictions will be introduced when they can contribute to an improvement in traffic flow or enhance the safety of pedestrian movements, and will be rescinded as changes in the traffic detour pattern render them redundant. The implementation periods are based on the construction schedule as perceived at this time. This schedule could vary according to ground or weather conditions, or other factors beyond the contactor's control. Some key turning movements, such as northbound right turn and westbound left turn at Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue will be maintained to reduce the potential negative impact on the adjacent residential communities south and east of the Yonge Street/Sheppard Avenue intersection.

Conclusions:

The construction of the Yonge Station, affecting the intersection of two major arterial roads, will have consequences on traffic flows within the immediate vicinity and also on a regional basis. The Traffic Management Plan adopted by the Toronto Transit Commission has been designed to mitigate the impacts of the construction as wherever possible, without unduly constraining construction operations. The traffic movement prohibitions proposed in this report will increase the effectiveness of the measures outlined in the Traffic Management Plan and minimize overall disruption to the community and local businesses. A public information campaign will be initiated prior to the implementation of each major traffic stage and extensive use of paid duty police officers is planned. The extent of traffic infiltration into the local community resulting from the traffic management plan will be monitored and additional measures may be required in consultation with the local councillors and the community.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David Butler, Manager

Sheppard Subway Traffic Operations, (416) 392-5285

--------

Appendix I

Proposed Traffic Movement Prohibitions

Intersection	Direction	Movement Prohibited	Commence	End
Johnston Avenue and Yonge Street	Eastbound	Left	February 1999	May 1999
Glendora Avenue and Yonge Street	Westbound	Left	February 1999	May 1999
Glendora Avenue and Yonge Street	Southbound	Left	February 1999	May 1999
Driveway to 4711 Yonge Street and Yonge Street	Westbound	Through	February 1999	September 2001
Driveway to 4711 Yonge Street and Yonge Street	Westbound	Left	February 1999	September 2001
Driveway to 4711 Yonge Street and Yonge Street	Southbound	Left	February 1999	May 1999
Poyntz Avenue and Yonge Street	Northbound	Left	February 1999	May 1999
Bogert Avenue and Yonge Street	Northbound	Left	February 1999	October 2000
Bogert Avenue and Yonge Street	Eastbound	Left	June 1999	October 2000
Sheppard Avenue and Yonge Street	Southbound	Right	February 1999	October 2000
Sheppard Avenue and Yonge Street	Southbound	Left	February 1999	October 2000
Sheppard Avenue and Yonge Street	Eastbound	Left	February 1999	September 2001
Sheppard Avenue and Yonge Street	Westbound	Right	February 1999	September 2001
Sheppard Avenue East and westerly Willowdale Plaza Driveway	Westbound	Left	February 1999	September 2001
Sheppard Avenue East and westerly Willowdale Plaza Driveway	Northbound	Left	February 1999	September 2001

 9

Revised Terms of Reference for the Toronto Cycling Committee

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by deleting from the third paragraph of the proposed addition to the Terms of Reference for the Toronto Cycling Committee respecting Community Cycling Advisory Groups, the words "The City Clerk will provide Secretariat support to arrange meeting rooms for Community Cycling Advisory Groups", and inserting in lieu thereof the words "The Customer Support Centre, Facilities Management Division, will arrange meeting rooms for Community Cycling Advisory Groups", so that such paragraph shall now read as follows:

"The Customer Support Centre, Facilities Management Division, will arrange meeting rooms for Community Cycling Advisory Groups. Community Cycling Advisory Groups shall have limited support from other City staff, only as is requested specifically for an agenda item by any Community Cycling Advisory Group and as agreed to by staff.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendation of the Toronto Cycling Committee contained in the report (January 22, 1999) from the City Clerk.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (January 22, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Toronto Cycling Committee on January 18, 1999, recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that the Terms of Reference of the Toronto Cycling Committee be amended by inserting the following with regard to Community Cycling Advisory Groups, as recommended in the communication dated January 16, 1999, from Mr. Jack Becker, Co-Chair, Toronto Cycling Committee:

"(13)Community Cycling Advisory Groups:

The Toronto Cycling Committee encourages the creation of (and will work with local residents to establish) Community Cycling Advisory Groups to represent the interests of cyclists within communities, focusing on local needs and priorities, bringing such interests and needs to the Toronto Cycling Committee, and promoting the Toronto Cycling Committee's initiatives and programs as they apply to any community.

The location and frequency of Community Cycling Advisory Group meetings shall be at the discretion of the Chair of each Community Cycling Advisory Group. Composition and membership shall be determined by each Community Cycling Advisory Group.

The City Clerk will provide Secretariat support to arrange meeting rooms for Community Cycling Advisory Groups. Community Cycling Advisory Groups shall have limited support from other City staff, only as is requested specifically for an agenda item by any Community Cycling Advisory Group and as agreed to by staff.

The number of Community Cycling Advisory Groups may vary from time to time, as supported by the public within each community of the City of Toronto.

Groups wishing to fill the role of a Community Cycling Advisory Group shall apply to the Toronto Cycling Committee to be recognized. The Toronto Cycling Committee shall be responsible for monitoring the activities of any Community Cycling Advisory Group on an ongoing basis to ensure that the role of a Community Cycling Advisory Group is being met, otherwise the recognition shall be withdrawn."

Background:

The Toronto Cycling Committee had before it a communication (January 16, 1999) from Mr. Jack Becker, Co-Chair, Toronto Cycling Committee, advising that City Council, in adopting the Terms of Reference of the Toronto Cycling Committee, directed that "community cycling advisory groups be recognized in the Terms of Reference and be provided with minimal Secretariat support"; and that after consultation with the Co-Chairs of the Toronto Cycling Committee and departmental staff, he is recommending that the following new item respecting community cycling advisory groups be included in the Terms of Reference:

"(13)Community Cycling Advisory Groups:

The Toronto Cycling Committee encourages the creation of (and will work with local residents to establish) Community Cycling Advisory Groups to represent the interests of cyclists within communities, focusing on local needs and priorities, bringing such interests and needs to the Toronto Cycling Committee, and promoting the Toronto Cycling Committee's initiatives and programs as they apply to any community.

The location and frequency of Community Cycling Advisory Group meetings shall be at the discretion of the Chair of each Community Cycling Advisory Group. Composition and membership shall be determined by each Community Cycling Advisory Group.

The City Clerk will provide Secretariat support to arrange meeting rooms for Community Cycling Advisory Groups. Community Cycling Advisory Groups shall have limited support from other City staff, only as is requested specifically for an agenda item by any Community Cycling Advisory Group and as agreed to by staff.

The number of Community Cycling Advisory Groups may vary from time to time, as supported by the public within each community of the City of Toronto.

Groups wishing to fill the role of a Community Cycling Advisory Group shall apply to the Toronto Cycling Committee to be recognized. The Toronto Cycling Committee shall be responsible for monitoring the activities of any Community Cycling Advisory Group on an ongoing basis to ensure that the role of a Community Cycling Advisory Group is being met, otherwise the recognition shall be withdrawn."

--------

(Communication dated January 16, 1999,

addressed to the Toronto Cycling Committee

from Mr. Jack Becker, Co-Chair, Toronto Cycling Committee)

Purpose:

Suggested wording for Community Cycling Advisory Groups proposed to be added to the Toronto Cycling Committee's Terms of Reference has been drafted for your consideration, after consultation with a number of people.

Background:

Toronto Council adopted, at its November 25 to 27th 1998 meeting, the Terms of Reference of the Toronto Cycling Committee, amended with:

"(4) community cycling advisory groups be recognized in the Terms of Reference and be provided with minimal Secretariat support."

The matter at hand is to develop words reflecting this amendment that can be incorporated into the Committee's Terms of Reference.

Recommended Wording for Toronto Cycling Committee's Terms of Reference:

"(13)Community Cycling Advisory Groups:

The Toronto Cycling Committee encourages the creation of (and will work with local residents to establish) Community Cycling Advisory Groups to represent the interests of cyclists within communities, focusing on local needs and priorities, bringing such interests and needs to the Toronto Cycling Committee, and promoting the Toronto Cycling Committee's initiatives and programs as they apply to any community.

The location and frequency of Community Cycling Advisory Group meetings shall be at the discretion of the Chair of each Community Cycling Advisory Group. Composition and membership shall be determined by each Community Cycling Advisory Group.

City Clerk's staff will arrange meeting rooms for Community Cycling Advisory Groups. Community Cycling Advisory Groups shall have limited support from other City staff, only as is requested specifically for an agenda item by any Community Cycling Advisory Group and as agreed to by staff.

The number of Community Cycling Advisory Groups may vary from time to time, as supported by the public within each community of the City of Toronto.

Groups wishing to fill the role of a Community Cycling Advisory Group shall apply to the Toronto Cycling Committee to be recognized. The Toronto Cycling Committee shall be responsible for monitoring the activities of any Community Cycling Advisory Group on an ongoing basis to ensure that the role of a Community Cycling Advisory Group is being met, otherwise the recognition shall be withdrawn."

 10

Noise By-law Exemption for Next Phase of

Humber Bridges Project

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (February 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To obtain approval for an exemption from the Noise By-law for work under the Humber Bridges Project as outlined in this report.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that approval be granted for a noise by-law exemption for work under the Humber Bridges Project.

Discussion:

Under the recently completed phase of the project (Contract T-01-97), we applied for and received exemptions from the noise by-laws of the former Cities of Toronto and Etobicoke. As a result we were able to provide the contractor the assurance that their operations could continue until 11:00 p.m. at night on work days. The principal intent of municipal noise by-laws is to prevent objectionable noise in the evening and late at night rather than to prevent contractors from working outside of normal hours or on weekends. Therefore it is incumbent on contractors for the Humber Bridges Project to limit evening and late night operations to those that do not generate a great deal of noise. Contractors normally work from 7 a.m. until about 5 p.m. under a single shift. Under our double shift and noise by-law exemption scenario, they are permitted to work until 11:00 p.m. Exemptions from the normal noise by-law restrictions in cases of urgency and public benefit are common, subject to City Council approval. In the absence of a unified noise by-law across the City of Toronto during the amalgamation process we have assumed that it is reasonable to advise the tendering contractors that they will be subject to the same noise by-law provisions and exemptions adopted under the previous Humber Bridges contract. Therefore it is important to approve an exemption from noise by-laws for this contract to enable tenderers to plan their schedules on the following parameters:

(1)double shifting with work permitted until 11:00 p.m. on work days, typically Monday to Saturday;

(2)work permitted on Sundays but not commencing earlier than 9:00 a.m. nor continuing later than 10:00 p.m.; and

(3)special consideration, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services or his designate, for work to continue through the night for selected critical construction operations.

We have consulted with noise by-law staff of the Toronto and Etobicoke districts who advise that our intended approach is reasonable under the circumstances.

Tendering for the next phase of the HBP is expected to take place from February 16, 1999 until the end of March 1999 in accordance with the process approved by the former Planning and Transportation Committee on August 13, 1997, Report 17, Clause 33. As a result of this strategy, Contract T-01-97 for the Gardiner Expressway eastbound and westbound bridges, was completed in the exceptionally short period of one year.

Contract award by Council will be recommended in April 1999 with an intended start of construction in Spring of 1999. Depending on the contract schedule of the successful tenderer, we anticipate that the next phase of the HBP could be completed by the end of year 2000.

Conclusion:

The noise by-law exemption as requested in this report will ensure contract completion with a shortened construction schedule.

Council approval should be given for noise by-law exemptions, as outlined in this report, to facilitate this work.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

M. Chung, P. Eng., Manager of Structures, Metro Hall Office , Telephone: 392-8341.

11

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Proposal to 'Bury' the F.G. Gardiner Expressway Below Grade Between Dufferin Street and the Don River: Concept Review.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having deferred consideration of the joint report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the May 17, 1999 meeting of the Committee, and requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to that meeting on:

(1) the following motions which were placed at the Committee:

"(a)that Council be requested to approve, in principle, the proposal to bury the Gardiner Expressway subject to positive findings of the proposal;

(b)that in order to accomplish a significant modal shift toward public transit, further investigation include full integration of transit improvements and integrated road and transit fee structures;

(c)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services continue to discuss the CHIC proposal with the proponents so long as:

(i)the proposal is, in the opinion of the Commissioners, likely to contribute to an improved ability for the public to access and use the waterfront area;

(ii)the proposal, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is unlikely to result in unmanageable level of disruption to the traffic flow in the City;

(iii)the proposal, in the opinion of the Commissioners, contributes to the stated transportation goals of the City of Toronto in areas including air quality, transit usage and pedestrian friendly environments; and

(iv)the proposed toll policy, in the opinion of the Commissioners, works to promote the City's objectives and is subject to adequate controls to ensure that it continues to promote City objectives;

(d)the Commissioners begin a process to determine if the community is prepared to accepts tolls to travel downtown;

(e)the Commissioners explore the possibility and costs of an electronic toll system on the centre core lane of the Queen Elizabeth Way; and

(f)the Commissioners consider the possibility of introducing a modest toll from the 427 to the Humber on the centre core lane and that funds raised be utilized in a central transportation fund and for improvements along the lakeshore corridor";

(2)suggestions and comments expressed by the public with respect to this matter;

(3)the infrastructure west of Dufferin Street and what actions need to be started in order to upgrade it in an urban friendly manner;

(4)a detailed proposal and cost analysis for the retention of the expertise necessary to address the technical feasibility of redeveloping the Gardiner Expressway and the expertise necessary to assist staff in drafting an Request for Proposals for the re-development of the Gardiner Expressway;

(5)the economic impact of redeveloping the Gardiner, such report to also be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee;

(6)a list of objectives to meet the City's transportation, transit, environmental, economic and cultural needs along the waterfront and the City in general;

(7)an analysis of the economic costs involved in the construction exercise of burying the Gardiner; and

(8)a breakdown of the $1 million costs estimated to formulate the proposal call.

(i)(January 25, 1999) Joint Report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, requesting that guidance be given to staff regarding the direction to follow with respect to the proposal to reconstruct the F.G. Gardiner Expressway below grade.

(ii)(February 2, 1999) from James Alcock, Director and Transportation Planner, Citizens' Transportation Alliance.

(iii)(February 8, 1999) from Ontario Trucking Association.

(iv)(February 8, 1999) from Joan Doiron, co-chair, Toronto Pedestrian Committee.

(v)(Undated) from Deniz Yazici.

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

-Mitch Patten, Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Canadian Highways International Corporation;

-Stephen Laskowski, Assistant Manager, Government Relations, Ontario Trucking Association;

-Cathy Nasmith, Co-chair, Task Force on the Lakeshore Gardiner Corridor

-Bruce Bryer;

-Kevin Walters;

-Vince Bresher, Representative, Labourers International Union of North America Local 183;

-Joan Doiron, Member, Task Force on the Lakeshore Gardiner Corridor;

-Ben Smith Lea, Niagara Neighbourhood Association;

-James Alcock, Citizens Transportation Alliance;

-Deniz Yazici;

-Councillor Korwin -Kuczynski;

-Councillor Jakobek; and

-Councillor Fotinos.

(b)Summary of Winter Operations - January 1999.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having:

(1)received the report (January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for information;

(2)requested the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services to report further with a detailed report recommending a comprehensive winter maintenance plan for the City, for consideration at a special joint meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and the Works and Utilities Committee;

(3)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to also report to the special meeting on:

(a)when the written order was given to begin snow removal during the recent snow storm, and why it was given so late;

(b)when was the order given to utilize all existing staff, in particular the issue cited by CUPE 416 that staff from Parks Division were available to assist in snow removal, but were not used until later in the second week;

(c)when and how the decision was made to cancel garbage collection during the recent snowstorm and why it was cancelled on the same day as the pick-up;

(d)provide specifics of where the equipment was utilized and why, in some cases (for example the Lakeshore), it was not utilized for the conditions the equipment was designed for;

(e)why the transit routes along Queen Street East, Gerrard Street and Eglinton Avenue from Laird Drive to Yonge Street were not cleared;

(f)why former Metro streets and arterial roads on which street cars could not operate because of the snow, were not given the same priority for snow removal as others;

(g)provide a list of contractors which were brought in to assist with the snow clearing, list the equipment they brought and the exact dates they were engaged;

(h)why parking permit holders in Ward 26 - East Toronto, were ticketed despite having nowhere to park their vehicles because of the heavy snow fall;

(i)identification of unit costs of the former City of Toronto program for seniors and disabled persons;

(j)results of consultation with community care and access workers, such as Meals on Wheels and nursing home visitors, to gain their perspective on how to proceed;

(k)on capital costs of obtaining snow-rid equipment for all areas where wind row clearing is possible;

(l)the capital and operating costs of a universal sidewalk ploughing/sanding/salting program throughout the City with an emphasis on mechanical equipment;

(m)in consultation with the Chief Administrative Officer, on how efficiencies in the works operations might be applied to improvements in winter maintenance;

(n)when contractors from the former municipalities of North York and Scarborough were brought in to assist with snow removal in other parts of the City; and

(o)on the damage to roads and curbs caused by snow ploughs;

(4)referred the communication (February 3, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding the action taken by York Community Council on January 20, 1999 with respect to the Snow Link Program, to the Budget Committee for consideration; and

(5)referred all remaining material to the Special Joint Meeting.

(i)(January 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services providing an outline of the activities undertaken by Transpiration Services staff in preparation for the 1998-1999 winter road maintenance season, the courses of action taken during the severe winter storms in the first two weeks of January, 1999, and the actions taken subsequent to those storms and recommending that:

(1)this report be received for information; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prepare a detailed report for the March 31, 1999 meeting of Urban Environment and Development Committee recommending a comprehensive winter maintenance plan for the City.

(ii)(January 6, 1999) from Councillor Saundercook, Chair, York Community Council, requesting that Councillor Saundercook and Alana Butcher, Acting Executive Director of the George Syme Seniors' Centre appear before the Economic Development Committee to speak about the Snowlink program in the former City of York.

(iii)(November 23, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding the action of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee on November 19, 1998, and recommending that:

(1)Toronto City Council support the public funding for sidewalk clearance throughout the new City; and

(2)Joan Doiron, Co-Chair, be authorized to depute this matter at the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(iv)(January 5, 1999) from Councillor Berardinetti, Chair Scarborough Community Council, recommending policies and procedures be established City-wide for snow removal.

(v)(February 3, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding the York Community Council recommendation, that an amount of $25,000.00 be transferred to the appropriate budget of the Works and Emergency Services that funds the Snow Link Program, to provide for the increased costs associated with this program.

(vi)(February 5, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services Division, recommending that a comprehensive winter maintenance plan for the City, to be submitted by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to the March 31, 1999 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, address seniors and disabled persons sidewalk snow removal.

(vii)(February 8, 1999) from Mayor Mel Lastman, recommending that this report be forwarded to the Chair of the Greater Toronto Services Board and request the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to explore this opportunity and report back to the Committee as soon as possible.

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

-Ms. Alana Butcher, Acting Executive Director of the George Syme Seniors' Centre;

-Councillor Saundercook;

-Councillor Jakobek; and

-Councillor Adams

(c)Russell Hill Subway Train Accident on August 11, 1998 -

Due Diligence Checklist Update.

The Committee reports having received the report (December 4, 1998) from the Assistant General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission.

(December 4, 1998) from Mr. William Buffett, Assistant General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, forwarding, for the information of the City of Toronto, Report No. 28 of the Toronto Transit Commission, titled "Russell Hill Subway Accident of August 11, 1998 - Due Diligence Checklist Update, which provided a status report on the progress toward closing the Coroner's Jury Recommendations and the TTC's Internal Team Recommendations.

(d)January 13, 1999 Snowstorm Impact on TTC Operations.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having referred the report (February 1, 1999) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for report back to the Committee.

(February 1, 1999) from Vincent Rodo, General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, recommending:

(1)that City of Toronto Council be requested to provide additional project approval of $870,000 for the procurement of the following equipment, noting no increase in budget approval is requested:

-six rail non-powered single truck equipped with snowblower, brushes, deicing and compressed air equipment (approximately $850,000 Total) (See Appendix B for drawing); and

-two spare snowblower units ($20,000 Total).

(2)that City of Toronto Council take action as soon as possible to increase fines for obstructing the TTC streetcar rights-of-way to $500 from $20 and amend all necessary by-laws;

(3)that City of Toronto Council be requested to consult with the TTC in the development of a snow emergency plan;

(4)that City of Toronto Council consider implementing a universal municipal sidewalk clearing program for the City of Toronto, including front and rear door access at TTC bus stops; and

(5)request the City of Toronto Works Department to have the functioning of the TTC as its top priority in relation snow clearing and removal during snow emergencies.

(e)Seating of Committee Members.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee reports having made one revision to the proposed seating plan for members of the Urban Environment and Development Committee which was presented to the Committee and forwarded the plan, as revised to the City Clerk for appropriate action.

(February 5, 1999) from City Clerk, recommending that the Committee approve the seating plan, attached to the foregoing communication, for meetings of the Urban Environment and Development Committee and forward the plan to the City Clerk.

Respectfully submitted,

JOE PANTALONE

Chair

Toronto, February 8, 1999

(Report No. 3 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)