CITY CLERK

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

REPORT No. 1

For Consideration by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999

2 Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication

3 Body Shops/Automobile Service Centres - Regulation of Hours of Operation

4 Recognition of Rouge Park and Deletion of East Metro Transportation Corridor - Appeal of Scarborough Official Plan Amendments 722 and 990 (W94073) Malvern, Rouge and Upper Rouge Communities and Rouge Employment District (Scarborough Malvern - Ward 18)

5 Delegation of City Clerk's Authority to Sign Statements as to Licensing Status

6 Federal Bus Deregulation

7 Other Items Considered by the Committee

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 1

OF THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

(from its meeting on June 14, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Joanne Flint, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999

1

Road Modifications Required for Private Sector -

Various Locations (Black Creek, North York, Spadina,

Seneca Heights and Scarborough Agincourts - Wards 7, 8, 12 and 17)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that a by-law, in the form of the following draft by-law as amended by Council's action taken at its meeting on June 9, 1999 (Clause No. 8 of Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee refers) be enacted, and that authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto.

The Committee reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause No. 8 of Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, titled "Road Modifications Required for Private Sector - Various Locations (Black Creek, North York Spadina, Seneca Heights and Scarborough Agincourt - Wards 7, 8, 12 and 17)" which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on May 21 and 28 and June 1, 4 and 11, 1999.

The Committee submits the draft by-law:

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To authorize the alteration of Keele Street at Pond Road, Steeles Avenue East between

Victoria Park Avenue and Woodbine Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue just south of Steeles Avenue East.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1999 and it is appropriate to permit the alteration.

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

1. Keele Street at Pond Road is altered by:

A. The construction of centre median modifications on Keele Street at Pond Road to provide for an exclusive northbound left-turn lane on Keele Street and widening of south side of Pond Road at Keele Street to provide an eastbound right-turn lane.

2. Steeles Avenue East between Victoria Park Avenue and Woodbine Avenue is altered by:

A. The widening of both sides of Steeles Avenue East from Woodbine Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue to provide for one additional eastbound through and one additional westbound lanes, a westbound left-turn lane to a development access named Call-Net Drive and centre lane for left-turns traffic to access premises on Steeles Avenue East.

B. The construction of a development access named Call-Net Drive; a new road connection to the south side of Steeles Avenue East and the installation of new traffic control signals approximately 220 m west of Victoria Park Avenue.

3. Victoria Park Avenue south of Steeles Avenue East is altered by:

A. The widening of east and west sides of Victoria Park Avenue from Steeles Avenue East to approximately 430 m south to provide for a northbound left-turn and a southbound right-turn lanes to a development access named Sprint Canada Drive.

B. The construction of a development access named Sprint Canada Drive; a new road connection to the west side of Victoria Park Avenue and the installation of new traffic control signals approximately 230 m south of Steeles Avenue East.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of, A.D..

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits Clause No. 8 embodied in Report No. 8 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee titled, "Road Modifications Required for Private Sector - Various Locations (Black Creek, North York Spadina, Seneca Heights & Scarborough Agincourt - Wards 7, 8, 12 and 17)", adopted as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999:

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause :

(1) to provide that the centre median modifications on Keele Street at Pond Road be subject to substantive landscaping treatment on the medians, within the limits of this project, the cost of such landscaping to be borne by the applicant; and

(2) by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to determine the type and design of the landscaping in consultation with the community.")

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the report (April 28, 1999) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services.

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

(1) in view of the tight time schedule for construction, authorized the advertising for road improvements to commence the week of May 17, 1999 to allow deputations to be scheduled before the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting on June 14, 1999 and enactment of the By-law at Council's July 6, 1999 meeting; and

(2) noted that the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services would be submitting a status report by August 1999 to the Planning and Transportation Committee regarding discussions with York Region.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following report (April 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is:

(1) to obtain Council authority to construct various development related road modifications on City of Toronto arterial roads; and

(2) to advertise the required construction By-laws.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for these road modifications is the responsibility of the developers.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) to facilitate development of Seneca College at the York University campus, approval be given to proceed with the construction of centre median modifications on Keele Street at Pond Road to provide for an exclusive northbound left-turn lane on Keele Street and widening of south side of Pond Road at Keele Street to provide for an eastbound right turn lane;

(2) to facilitate development of the headquarters for Call-Net/Sprint Canada, approval be given to proceed with

(a) the widening of north and south sides of Steeles Avenue East from Woodbine Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue to provide for one additional eastbound and one additional westbound through lanes, a westbound left-turn lane to a development access named Call-Net Drive and centre lane for left-turns traffic to accesses of the premises on Steeles Avenue East;

(b) the construction of a development access named Call-Net Drive; a new road connection to the south side of Steeles Avenue East and the installation of new traffic control signals approximately 220 m west of Victoria Park Avenue;

(c) the widening of east and west sides of Victoria Park Avenue from Steeles Avenue East to approximately 430 m south to provide for a northbound left-turn and a southbound right-turn lanes to a development access named Sprint Canada Drive; and

(d) the construction of a development access named Sprint Canada Drive; a new road connection to the west side of Victoria Park Avenue and the installation of new traffic control signals approximately 230 m south of Steeles Avenue East;

(3) the appropriate City of Toronto By-law(s) be amended accordingly; and

(4) the introduction of any necessary Bills be authorized.

Background and Discussion:

As a condition of approving developments abutting City of Toronto arterial roads and allowing accesses to them, developers are required to fund road modifications to accommodate the traffic generated by their new developments. Funds for the design, construction, supervision and administration of this work have been received from the proponents of both projects. Details of the road modifications required at each location are provided in Table No. 1 and are briefly discussed below. Sketches showing these modifications are appended to this report.

(1) Keele Street at Pond Road - Seneca at York

Seneca College is proposing a campus at the York University site on the north side of Pond Road, west of Keele Street. This proposal was approved by the City as Site Plan Control Application No. SPC-95-74 and is in conformance with the York University Secondary Plan. The developer, York University, will construct and convey Pond Road to the City of Toronto (formerly City of North York) as a public road. In accordance with the York University Secondary Plan and as a condition of site plan approval, the developer is also required to fund the centre median modifications and widening of the south side of Pond Road by 4.5 metres in order to provide for an exclusive northbound lane left-turn on Keele Street and an exclusive eastbound right-turn lane on Pond Road. After the construction, the pavement will be 12 metres wide at the throat of Pond Road at Keele Street. This widening and median modifications will provide bicycle friendly lanes on Pond Road and Keele Street. Since Keele Street is a City arterial road, these road improvements within the Keele Street road allowance require the approval of the City Council.

(2) Steeles Avenue East at Victoria Park Avenue - Telefirma (4000VP) Inc. (Call-Net)

Telefirma (4000 VP) Inc. is proposing a corporate centre for Call-Net, the parent company of Sprint Canada, on its 18.4 ha property located at the southeast corner of Steeles Avenue East and Victoria Park Avenue. This proposal was approved by the City as Site Plan Control Application No. SPC-98-128. As a condition of the site plan approval, the developer, Telefirma (4000 VP) Inc., is required and has agreed to fund the required transportation infrastructure to accommodate the traffic demand associated with the development. Since Steeles Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue are City arterial roads, the road improvements within the road allowances require the approval of the City Council.

(i) Steeles Avenue East

The work will consist of:

construction of development access (Call-Net Drive); installation of new traffic control signals and medians at Call-Net Drive to provide for eastbound and westbound left turn lanes at this intersection; construction of a new continuous eastbound lane from Woodbine Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue; an extension of the westbound right-turn/through lane from Woodbine Avenue eastward, and ending in a taper at Call-Net Drive; construction of a new westbound curb lane from Woodbine Avenue which exits onto the on-ramp of Highway #404; construction of a new eastbound right-turn lane at Victoria Park Avenue.

(ii) Victoria Park Avenue

The work will consist of:

construction of development access (Sprint Canada Drive) ; installation of new traffic control signals and medians to provide for a northbound left-turn lane at this intersection; construction of a new southbound lane commencing 70m north and ending 50m south of Sprint Canada Drive; widening of the east curb lane from 100m north of Sprint Canada Drive to 30m south of the southerly access to the development.

Pedestrian and Cycling Issues:

In any road modifications required to accommodate traffic generated by new developments, pedestrian and cycling issues are always taken into consideration. In cases where road widenings are required, efforts are made to ensure that sufficient pedestrian walking times are provided at all signalized intersections. In addition to providing the required road modifications, developers are also required to improve adjacent boulevards through streetscape improvements such as tree and sod planting and the provision of transit shelters. In the case of the road modifications described in this report, all proposals conform with the Department's guidelines for the accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists.

Scope of Construction:

In view of the tight time schedule for construction, authority is being sought to have this Committee authorize the advertising for the road improvements to commence the week of May 17, 1999 to allow deputations to be scheduled before this Committee at its meeting of June 14, 1999 with the By-law to be enacted at Council on July 6, 1999.

To construct the above modifications the following work will be undertaken:

(a) removal and reconstruction of concrete curbs, gutter, sidewalks and medians;

(b) construction of concrete road base and asphalt pavement;

(c) construction of concrete medians;

(d) removal and reconstruction of catch basins and connections;

(e) installation of underground traffic signal ducts, handwells and pole bases;

(f) alteration and/or addition of traffic control devices;

(g) planting of trees; and

(h) utility relocations.

These modifications have been developed using current department standards for cyclists and pedestrians and no compromises have been made with respect to the space allocated to these users.

Conclusions:

As a condition of approval of development abutting City of Toronto arterial roads, various modifications are required to the road system. All costs will be borne by the developers.

Contact Name and Address:

Dev Tyagi, P. Eng.,

Director, Engineering Services, Districts 3 & 4

Tel. No. 416-395-6243, Fax No. 416-395-6200, E-Mail: dtyagi@city.north-york.on.ca

Raffi Bedrosyan, P. Eng.

Manager, Development Services, District 3

Tel. No. 416-395-6307, Fax No. 416-395-0349, E-Mail: rbedrosy@city.north-york.on.ca

--------

Table 1

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Road Modification Location Maps

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Road Modification Location Maps

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Road Modification Location Maps

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Road Modification Location Maps

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Road Modification Location Maps

Insert Table/Map No. 6

Road Modification Location Maps

Insert Table/Map No. 7

Road Modification Location Maps

Insert Table/Map No. 8

Road Modification Location Maps

2

Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated

from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on July 27, 1999.)

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, contained in Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, appended to the communication (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, be adopted as an interim policy pending the adoption of a further report from the Commissioners on an adjustment to the policy which would build in initiatives for acquiring parkland in park deficient areas of the City.

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

(1) referred the reports from the Community Councils which were before the Planning and Transportation Committee to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development with a request that they report jointly to Council for its meeting on July 6, 1999 on the comments and recommendations made therein and to also address the comments raised by the Committee on this matter; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development to report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the feasibility of developing a plan for each district and/or neighbourhood to rectify park deficiencies by creating additional parkland.

The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk:

City Council, at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication".

Council directed that this Clause be struck out and referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999.

Council also directed that:

(1) a copy of the Clause be forwarded to the Community Councils with a request that they submit their comments thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at its meeting on June 14, 1999;

(2) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a report to the Planning and Transportation on a policy and mechanism, in the context of planning applications, of identifying parks deficiencies and allocating funding therefor through the budget process;

(3) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on all concerns expressed by Members of Council in regard to park deficiencies, by district and community; and

(4) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on mechanisms for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parkland deficient.

(Clause No. 5 embodied in Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, titled "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication" which Council, at its meeting on May 11 and 12, 1999, struck out and referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Planning and transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999.

Council also directed that:

(1) a copy of the Clause be forwarded to the Community Councils with a request that they submit their comments thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at its meeting on June 14, 1999;

(2) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a report to the Planning and Transportation on a policy and mechanism, in the context of planning applications, of identifying parks deficiencies and allocating funding therefor through the budget process;

(3) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on all concerns expressed by Members of Council in regard to park deficiencies, by district and community; and

(4) Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on mechanisms for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parkland deficient.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends that the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted as an interim policy pending the adoption of a further report from the Commissioners on an adjustment to the policy which would build in initiatives for acquiring parkland in park deficient areas of the City.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee submits the following joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to City Council's November 12, 1998 request for a joint report from the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development applications.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications, and Impact Statement:

Financial Implications relate to the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication in conjunction with development applications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to establish a city-wide reserve fund for cash-in-lieu of parkland collected by the City;

(2) as of January 1, 1999, funds accruing from revenues for cash-in-lieu of parkland be allocated in the Capital Budget Program for the years 2000 and 2001, as follows:

(a) 50 percent for the purpose of acquisition of land for park purposes:

(i) of this amount, half of these funds (25 percent of the total) to be retained to acquire land for park or open space purposes in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified; and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (25 percent of the total) to be allocated on a city-wide basis to purchase land for park or open space purposes in other areas of the City where deficiencies have been identified; and

(b) 50 percent for the development and upgrading of parks and recreation facilities:

(i) of this amount, half of these funds (25 percent of the total) to be retained for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified; and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (25 percent of the total) to be allocated for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities on a city-wide basis, in areas where deficiencies have been identified;

(3) the Budget Committee be advised with respect to Council's action resulting from this report;

(4) this report be forwarded to each Community Council as a communication item; and

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

Council Reference:

At its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, City Council struck out Clause No. 4 in Report No. 3 of The Economic Development Committee and referred this Clause to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, with a request that they submit a joint report thereon to Council, through the appropriate Committees.

Comments:

Both the September 8, 1998 report of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and an earlier report (March 30,1998), to the Budget Committee, entitled, "Parkland Dedication and Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Funds" recommended criteria for allocating revenues obtained from cash payments in-lieu of parkland conveyances for approval of development applications. These criteria were as follows:

(1) that any outstanding cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payments relating to developments which had obtained planning approval but had not yet received building permits, be allocated for local expenditures, provided the payments were received by December 31, 1998; and

(2) as of January 1, 1999, funds accruing from revenues for cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication be allocated through the budget process and restricted as follows:

(i) 50 percent for the purpose of acquisition of lands for park purposes, on a city-wide basis, having regard to both local and city-wide priorities; and

(ii) 50 percent for the development and upgrading of parkland and parks and recreation facilities on a city-wide basis, having regard to both local and city-wide priorities.

At its November 12, 1998 meeting, Council did not adopt this recommendation, but referred this matter to both the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services for a joint report.

Difficulties with Current Allocation of Cash-in-lieu Funds:

The criteria for the use of cash-in-lieu revenues obtained in 1998 was largely based on the historic allocation of these funds by the six former municipalities that comprise the City of Toronto. Accordingly, the 1999 Capital Works Program included projects in the former municipalities that were offset by cash-in-lieu funds generated in those municipalities.

This system was manageable for the 1999 Capital Budget due to the availability of cash-in-lieu reserve monies in some of the former municipalities to fund earlier identified projects, as well as, fund new projects. However, this system is unworkable over the longer term, particularly for the implementation of large scale projects that have a city-wide draw, such as city -wide parks. It will also hamper our ability to achieve the goal of service harmonization in stable areas that are identified as being deficient in park and recreational infrastructure but which cannot generate sufficient revenues from development projects.

There are differing views on how these funds could be allocated. Some Councillors, who are experiencing growth in their Wards, would like to retain some or all of this money in their Wards to finance park land acquisition and/or recreational facility development to meet the needs of their existing and future residents. Others, particularly those in relatively stable areas that are deficient of park land or recreational facilities, would like to achieve service harmonization through some redistribution of these funds to areas that have historically been under serviced.

There are several inherent problems with allocating all of these revenues within the Wards in which they are generated. Some slower growing Wards may never be able to generate enough funds from development or redevelopment to buy parkland or provide recreational amenities to meet the needs of their communities. Any projects in these areas would have to compete for other Capital Budget funds. Others may be able to generate enough funds to provide small park and facility improvements, such as new playground equipment or water spray pads, but not enough to fund larger projects, such as district parks, community centres or indoor pools, which may be deemed as high priority needs for the area.

Additionally, many of these larger projects serve communities outside the Wards in which they are located, so more pooling of these resources is needed to ensure better access and use of these facilities, in order to achieve the City's goal of service harmonization for all of its residents. A primary goal of amalgamation is to share resources and avoid duplication of services. This goal can only be achieved through some pooling of these monies both at the local and city-wide level.

It is recognized that areas that are experiencing rapid growth through intensification or green field development will require retention of some of these cash-in-lieu funds in order to provide adequate services to meet the needs of existing and future populations. Rather than retaining a portion of these funds in the Ward in which they are generated, which in many instances, would restrict their use to smaller scale projects or create duplication, it would be much more cost effective and beneficial to retain a portion of these funds for pooling within the district (East, West, North, and South ) in which they are generated, for either the acquisition of new parkland (if it is determined that there is insufficient parkland in that district) or the development of park and recreational facilities that have been identified as priority items in the Capital Budget.

The East District would include all of the Wards within the Scarborough and East York Community Council jurisdictions. The West District would include all of the Wards within the boundaries of the Etobicoke and York Community Councils, while the North District would include all of the Wards within the North York Community Council jurisdiction and the South District would encompass all of the Wards within the Toronto Community Council boundaries.

This money could be spent annually or left to accumulate for future land acquisition, park upgrading or recreational facility projects, as determined by the needs of the district - East, West, North and South - which would be identified by both staff and the local Community Councils. For example, in the East District, both staff and the Scarborough and East York Community Councils would determine the local priority projects in that district, based on needs assessment studies. These projects would be identified and prioritized in the Capital Budget process.

We are recommending that the remainder of these funds be allocated on a city-wide basis in order to facilitate larger scale projects, which may be of city-wide significance, such as a waterfront park system or which may serve several communities and possibly more than one district, e.g. a large community centre. The city-wide pool of funds could also be used to achieve service equalization opportunities, such as, the acquisition of new park land or the development of recreation facilities in relatively stable areas where the needs are greatest.

In some cases, projects could receive funding allocations both from district and city-wide sources, if they have city-wide significance, serve more than one district or provide services in a high priority area that has been identified as under serviced. (City-wide projects would be identified by studies and would be reviewed through the Capital Budget process).

Some pooling of funds would be beneficial to all as opportunities and efficiencies may be maximized both at the local (district-wide) level and at the city-wide level. Community Councils in each district would also have a greater role in determining how these monies are spent locally.

Policy Framework

A brief overview of the parkland dedication and cash-in-lieu mechanisms available to the City are presented below, along with an update on the development of a new city-wide Parkland Dedication By-law . The policy context upon which longer term criteria will be developed for determining how cash-in-lieu of parkland revenues will be allocated is also outlined.

Parkland Dedication By-law:

Section 42 of the "Planning Act" gives the City the authority to require either a parkland dedication or a cash-in-lieu payment for the subdivision, severance, development or redevelopment of land. Implementation of Council's policy regarding parkland dedication is accomplished through the enactment of a Parkland Dedication By-law and through policies and procedures related to the implementation of the By-law.

At present, the existing Parkland Dedication By-laws of the six former municipalities are still in effect. Staff are currently working towards the harmonization of these by-laws into one city-wide Parkland Dedication By-law. At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, City Council adopted the report of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (July 9, 1998) which recommended principles for inclusion in a Parkland Dedication By-law.

The City Solicitor, in consultation with staff in the Departments of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services, is currently preparing a draft city-wide Parkland Dedication By-law that will harmonize all of the provisions of the existing parkland dedication by-laws and will include exemptions that are currently permitted in these by-laws. This draft by-law will be submitted to the appropriate Standing Committees in April or May of this year.

New City-wide Official Plan:

Staff in Urban Planning and Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism are also working together to develop policies and criteria in the new Official Plan that will identify growth areas and any parkland deficiencies, based on current and future population projections. The Plan will include policies to protect and manage the City's green space system, including environmentally sensitive lands, ravines, valleys, waterfront corridors, utility and rail corridors, public rights-of-way, etc. and creating or restoring links between elements of the green space system, including other public and privately owned green spaces. Some of the studies that will be undertaken in the development of Official Plan policies pertaining to open space and recreation amenities include:

- development of new City of Toronto parkland objectives;

- review of Official Plan parkland standards (both quantitative and qualitative);

- identification of open space and parkland deficiencies:

- review of land use implementation tools and criteria for use;

- review of open space, parkland and recreational amenity policies.

Community Centre Needs Assessment Study:

Staff in the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department are also conducting a Needs Assessment / Feasibility Study of new community centres in five areas of the City that have been identified as deficient in recreational facilities. A report on the results of this study, which will include recommendations on the feasibility of these facility requirements, will be submitted to the Economic Development Committee by late summer, 1999.

As a result of these assessments, more detailed funding allocations can be determined in the Capital Budget Program. Upon completion of this work, other areas of the City will be reviewed in terms of deficiencies in park and/or recreational facilities.

Land Acquisition Strategy:

In addition, staff in the Departments of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services are working towards the development of a city-wide land acquisition strategy, in conjunction with the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority and others, which will include criteria for the acquisition of land for park, conservation and natural heritage open space areas. This study will be completed in the last quarter of 1999.

All of these efforts will assist us in developing a five year Capital Works Program and refining our allocation of cash-in-lieu funds to maximize the provision of park and recreational services in priority areas where needs have been identified.

Next Steps

The process of developing the new Official Plan for the City will involve incorporating the results of the various needs assessment studies and the land acquisition strategy that will provide a clear policy framework for identifying servicing opportunities and priorities that could be included in the development of the five year Capital Budget. These Official Plan policies will be based on population growth projections, desired service levels and identification and prioritization of areas in need of parkland and/or recreation facilities. The Plan will include strategies for fulfilment of the goals of service harmonization and the expansion, protection and enhancement of the City's open space system.

Proposed Interim Criteria for Use of Cash-in-lieu Payments

Interim Solution:

As a guiding principle, all new funding either for parkland acquisition or for major park and recreational facility developments should require the approval of needs assessment studies, based on an inventory of existing parks and recreation facilities. This work will take some time to complete, so in the short term, it is recommended that interim criteria be established for how this money should be allocated in 1999 for the 2000 and 2001 Capital Budget Programs. These criteria would take into account the need to provide sufficient parkland and recreational facilities in areas where new growth is occurring, as well as, providing this infrastructure in areas of the City that have been identified as under serviced at the time of amalgamation. In this way, it is anticipated that over time, the goal of service equalization throughout the City can be achieved.

In order to provide a system that is fair and equitable to all areas of the City, including those areas where growth is occurring, as well as, stable areas which are identified as being under serviced in terms of parkland and recreational facilities, the following revised criteria are proposed for how cash-in-lieu funds should be allocated. These interim criteria will be embodied in the proposed Capital Budget program for the years 2000 and 2001, until all of the needs assessment studies are completed.

As of January 1, 1999, funds accruing from revenues for cash-in-lieu of parkland be allocated in the Capital Budget Program for the years 2000 and 2001, as follows:

(a) 50 percent for the purpose of acquisition of land for park purposes:

(i) of this amount, half ( 25 percent of the total) of these funds to be retained to acquire land for park or open space purposes in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified; and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (25 percent of the total) to be allocated on a city-wide basis to purchase land for park or open space purposes in other areas of the City where deficiencies have been identified; and

(b) 50 percent for the development and upgrading of parks and recreation facilities:

(i) of this amount, half (50 percent) of these funds to be retained for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified; and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (50 percent) to be allocated for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities on a city-wide basis, in areas where deficiencies have been identified.

The above noted interim criteria are intended to balance the need to provide parkland and recreational services in areas of the City where new growth is occurring and which are not adequately serviced, with the need to equalize the service provision in those areas that have been historically under serviced and have been identified as priority areas. In an effort to ensure fairness and equity across the City, these interim criteria would be reviewed on an annual basis by staff and any deviations would be reflected in the Capital Budget reports submitted for the years 2000 and 2001, in order to ensure that any high priority needs or unique opportunities are addressed appropriately.

More permanent criteria will be developed for the five year Capital Budget Program, once all of the aforenoted studies and plans are completed. At that time, a report on these criteria will be submitted for consideration by the appropriate Standing Committees.

Other Revenue Sources

Development Charges:

An additional source of revenue for the development of park and recreational facilities may become available if a Development Charge By-law is enacted by City Council. This by-law would be subject to the provisions of the "Development Charge Act", 1997, which stipulates that only charges for net capital costs due to increased service needs resulting from growth can be applied. Eligible charges include capital costs to: improve land; acquire, lease, construct or improve buildings or structures; acquire, lease or improve facilities; costs to conduct studies associated with capital projects eligible for development charges; and pay interest charges on money borrowed to pay for the aforementioned costs.

However, there are restrictions on how this money can be spent. While this money can be pooled city-wide, it must be spent on specific growth related projects and cannot be used for the acquisition of new parkland, except as part of a project development site, e.g. for a recreational complex or community centre. There are also restrictions on the calculation of need and the level of service that the City wants to provide. The service level for each service cannot exceed the average level that was provided by the municipality over the last ten years. This average service level may be lower than the desired service level that Council would like to achieve in the future.

Therefore, although a Development Charge By-law would provide an additional source of revenue to offset some of our park and recreational servicing costs related to growth, there are certain restrictions in the calculation of the charges and the use of these funds. Because the needs of existing populations cannot be included in the calculation of a development charge, the goal of service equalization in older, relatively stable areas cannot be fulfilled by this funding mechanism.

A joint study on development charges is currently being conducted by the Chief Financial Officer, in conjunction with the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Corporate Services and the City Solicitor. A report is expected to be submitted to the appropriate Committees later this spring.

Section 37 Agreements:

Section 37 agreements provide another source of revenue for certain types of development applications. Section 37 of the "Planning Act", RSO 1996, authorizes the City to include policies in the Official Plan that would enable it to pass by-laws to increase the height or density of development in return for certain facilities, services or benefits.

Section 37 agreements are only applied in securing parkland benefits that are in excess of what can be secured through the use of Section 42 provisions. Although these types of agreements have been very successful in obtaining benefits for the City, the number of these agreements may fluctuate from year to year, depending on market forces and are, therefore, quite variable as a revenue source.

Conclusions:

The proposed interim criteria for the allocation of cash-in-lieu payments for parkland are needed to determine the Capital Budget process for the year 2000 and 2001. This proposal is both fair and equitable and recognizes the need to provide parkland and recreational facilities in growth areas that require this infrastructure, along with the need to raise services levels in stable areas where deficiencies have been identified and prioritized.

The new Official Plan's reinvestment policies and priority goal setting will guide the five year Capital Budget process in sustaining, improving and enhancing the quality of life of the residents of the City, which will include a review of the interim funding criteria for land acquisition and facility development at both the district-wide and city-wide levels. Upon completion of the Official Plan process and the various needs assessment studies for parks and recreational facilities, these interim criteria will be reviewed and updated, as needed.

Contact Names:

Frank Kershaw Barbara Leonhardt

392-8199 392-8148

Diane Stevenson Ann-Marie Nasr

395-6065 392-0402)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 27, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

That the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Background:

At its meeting on April 23, 1999, the Economic Development Committee gave consideration to the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development applications, and recommending that:

(1) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to establish a city-wide reserve fund for cash-in-lieu of parkland collected by the City;

(2) as of January 1, 1999, funds accruing from revenues for cash-in-lieu of parkland be allocated in the Capital Budget Program for the years 2000 and 2001, as follows:

(a) 50 percent for the purpose of acquisition of land for park purposes,

(i) of this amount, half of these funds (25 percent of the total) to be retained to acquire land for park or open space purposes in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified and,

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (25 percent of the total) to be allocated on a city-wide basis to purchase land for park or open space purposes in other areas of the City where deficiencies have been identified; and

(b) 50 percent for the development and upgrading of parks and recreation facilities,

(i) of this amount, half of these funds (25 percent of the total) to be retained for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities in the district where the funds are generated and deficiencies have been identified, and

(ii) the remaining half of this amount (25 percent of the total) to be allocated for the development and upgrading of parks and recreational facilities on a city-wide basis, in areas where deficiencies have been identified;

(3) the Budget Committee be advised with respect to Council's action resulting from this report;

(4) this report be forwarded to each Community Council as a communication item;

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

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also considered this matter at its meeting on April 19, 1999 and its recommendations in this respect are contained in Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 which is before Council for its May 11, 1999 meeting. The Economic Development Committee's recommendations are as noted above.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 22, 1999) from H-JEH Becker, Toronto, in support of the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development applications.)

--------

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the following report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide information on the allocation of parkland in the City of Toronto and to comment on mechanisms for securing parkland and/or cash-in-lieu of parkland.

Source of Funds:

There is no financial impact at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999, City Council considered Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee (Planning and Transportation Committee) considered a joint report from the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and Urban Planning and Development Services titled "Further Report on the Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication". Council referred the Clause back to the June 14, 1999 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee (and thus to Council for its meeting of July 6, 1999). Council also directed that the report be forwarded to the Community Councils with a request that they forward any comments thereon to Planning and Transportation. In addition, Council approved a number of recommendations requesting reports on: all concerns expressed by Members of Council with regard to parks deficiencies (by district and community); a policy and mechanism of identifying parks deficiencies and allocating funding for parkland through the budget process; and mechanisms for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parks deficient.

Given the relationship of the above-described parkland adequacy and acquisition report requests, a joint response has been prepared for Council's consideration.

Comments:

Parkland Adequacy Assessment

Staff in the Departments of Urban Planning & Development Services and Economic Development, Culture & Tourism are currently studying parkland adequacy in Toronto as one of the key areas in the development of the City's new Official Plan. This work will include:

(1) the development of Official Plan policies to reinforce the City's existing parks and open space system and set out the framework and objectives of Council with respect to the provision of new parkland;

(2) the establishment of consistent City-wide parkland adequacy standards; and

(3) the identification of preferred parkland acquisition tools, including land use planning tools used in the development approval process.

Staff are working towards the development of a needs based approach to the provision of parkland. This approach will involve the assessment of parkland adequacy using an accurate and comprehensive City-wide parks inventory and a series of detailed maps (that are currently being generated for the new City). Specific parkland acquisition policies will be developed to meet the unique needs of different communities and physical environments across the new City. Work on this substantial exercise has begun.

For the purposes of this report, an initial review of the existing parkland by Ward is presented in Table 1. The Table sets out the amounts of parkland available to serve the residents of each Ward based on the parks data available at the start of the amalgamation process and the 1996 Census data. While the Ward boundaries provide a clear and identifiable boundary for analysis, they do not take into account the arterial roads, highways, rail lines, or other barriers to access. The definition of geographical areas to be used in the determination of parkland adequacy must recognize that major physical barriers may limit access to some parks and open spaces. These geographic areas to be considered for the deficiency analysis, may include, but are not limited to: neighbourhoods, districts, or communities.

Currently, over 30 different standards for the provision of parkland (see Table 2) remain in effect pending the establishment of new harmonised standards for measuring parkland adequacy on a City-wide basis and identifying which areas of the City are in need of additional parkland. Staff in both Departments are also working together towards the establishment of consistent criteria for classifying the types of parkland available.

Policies and Mechanisms for Acquiring Parkland

Throughout the former municipalities, staff apply a range of mechanisms to secure new parks. A number of mechanisms are related to the development approval process, including parkland dedication (Section 42), plan of subdivision agreements, and Section 37 agreements. New parkland has also been secured through the Capital Budget process, supplemented by Section 42 revenues. From time to time, land is also obtained jointly with outside agencies and from private contributors.

Staff will be making recommendations to Council about the future use of the above-mentioned tools in the context of:

(1) a Parks and Natural Environment Implementation Plan which will support the policies contained in the Official Plan and provide strategic direction and guidelines regarding parkland acquisition; and

(2) a Land Acquisition Strategy which is to address specific parkland inadequacies and acquisition opportunities on a City-wide basis.

In the context of addressing planning applications the Official Plans, Parks Master Plans, and Parks Dedication By-laws of the former municipalities provide staff with a varied set of guidelines upon which to rely in processing planning applications. Until such time as the parks deficiency study is complete and Council has adopted a City wide strategy, the existing policies remain in effect. A city wide approach to resolving park deficiencies through the planning approval process will be addressed in the Official Plan and Land Acquisition Strategy.

Conclusions:

Staff are working towards the development of a needs based approach to the acquisition and development of parkland.

The main and pressing objective of the original report recommending interim criteria for the use of Section 42 funds is to obtain Council direction on the allocation of revenues in support of the 2000 and 2001 Capital Budget program of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism. Without an interim policy there is less certainty around the implementation of priorities established in the Department's Capital Budget program. This would include local priorities in areas of the City where development does not generate sufficient funds to support local needs with respect to the acquisition and development of parkland.

The comments expressed at Council and at the recent Community Council meetings provided staff with valuable input in the formulation of new parkland adequacy and acquisition policies as well as a related new policy implementation framework. Staff will be reporting further on these subjects as part of the Official Plan review and the development of a Land Acquisition Strategy to implement the policies developed for the Official Plan.

Contact:

Frank Kershaw Barbara Leonhardt

392-8199 392-8148

Diane Stevenson Ann-Marie Nasr

392-8692 392-0402

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Park acreages per ward population & standards for the provision of parkslands

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Park acreages per ward population & standards for the provision of parkslands

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the report (May 31, 1999) from the City Clerk, Scarborough Community Council:

Recommendations:

The Scarborough Community Council recommends:

(1) that the Planning and Transportation Committee defer its decision on this matter to permit Scarborough Community Council an opportunity to give further consideration to the recommendations for the following reasons:

(a) recommendations 2(a) and (b) seem to allow double dipping and Scarborough Community Council would wish to explore another model;

(b) the definition of a District is not clear;

(c) to determine how the monies will be allocated; and

(2) that a further report be submitted to the Community Councils prior to finalization of this process.

Background:

The Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting on May 27, 1999, had before it a communication (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the City Council, at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999, directed that Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, be referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration; and that it be forwarded to the Community Councils for comments thereon and report back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on June 14, 1999.

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the report (May 31, 1999) from the City Clerk, Etobicoke Community Council:

Recommendation:

The Etobicoke Community Council at its meeting held on May 26, 1999, during consideration of a communication (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, embodying Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication", recommended to the Planning and Transportation Committee that when potential parkland allocations between the Etobicoke and York Districts are being considered, a joint meeting of the two Community Councils be held at the appropriate time and in an appropriate venue.

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the report (May 31, 1999) from the City Clerk, York Community Council:

The York Community Council on May 26, 1999 had before it a transmittal letter (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee; and that Council directed that this Clause be struck out and referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999.

The York Community Council on May 26, 1999, in view of time constraints at this meeting, directed its members caucus to discuss this matter and to decide on a position, prior to the June 14, 1999 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee.

Mr. Frank Kershaw, Director, Policy and Development Division, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the aforementioned matter.

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the report (May 31, 1999) from the City Clerk, North York Community Council:

Recommendation:

The North York Community Council on May 26, 1999 reports having referred the following recommendations to the Planning and Transportation Committee:

(1) Recommendation (2) embodied in the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended by adding thereto the following:

"(2)(c) That notwithstanding the above, Community Councils. if they so choose can allocate monies from Recommendation No. (2)(b)(i) to Recommendation No. (2)(a)(i);

(2) when reviewing amendment applications in areas that are deficient in parkland, the City attempt to acquire parkland, where possible, either on site or in adjoining neighbourhoods, rather than accepting cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payments;

(3) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to make offers for up to 10 percent over the appraised value for properties that may be for sale and can be used for parkland purposes; and further, that expropriation be considered as a last resort.

(4) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to :

(a) prepare maps of park deficiencies within the boundaries of the North York Community Council area, and within each Ward; with such maps having isometric lines and clearly indicating the calculations that were used to support the deficiencies;

(b) report further on what plans are in place to address the parkland deficiencies in the area bounded by Yonge Street, Bayview Avenue, Finch Avenue and Sheppard Avenue; and

(c) bring forward an aggressive policy for requiring parkland in areas that are parkland deficient.

Background:

The North York Community Council had before it a report (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that, City Council, at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999, directed that Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication", be struck out and referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999; and further directed that:

(1) a copy of the Clause be forwarded to the Community Councils with a request that they submit their comments thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at its meeting on June 14, 1999;

(2) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a report to the Planning and Transportation on a policy and mechanism, in the context of planning applications, of identifying parks deficiencies and allocating funding therefor through the budget process;

(3) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on all concerns expressed by Members of Council in regard to park deficiencies, by district and community; and

(4) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Planning and Transportation Committee for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parkland deficient.

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a chart (May 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, entitled "Park Acreages Per Ward Population and Standards for the Provision of Parkland".

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the report (June 2, 1999) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council:

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee, and Community Councils, on all concerns expressed by Members of Council in regard to park deficiencies, by district, community and Ward;

(2) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a joint report to the Planning and Transportation Committee, and Community Councils, on mechanisms for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parkland deficient; and

(3) the Commissioners, in their joint report, include population density and other measures as mechanisms to identify parkland deficiencies.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, on May 26 and 27, 1999, had before it a report (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication", which was referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration at its meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held on July 6, 1999.

The Toronto Community Council recommendations are noted above.

The Planning and Transportation Committee also submits the report (May 28, 1999) from the City Clerk, East York Community Council:

Recommendation:

The East York Community Council on May 26 and 27, 1999 endorsed the interim policy respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development projects as outlined in the joint report (May 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services embodied in Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication".

Background:

The East York Community Council had before it a communication (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication" which was struck out by City Council at its meeting on May 11 and 12, 1999, and referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration; advising that Council also directed, among other things, that a copy of the Clause be forwarded to the Community Councils with a request that they submit their comments thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at its meeting on June 14, 1999.

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following joint report (July 5, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To respond to the request by the Planning and Transportation Committee for a joint report on the recommendations of the Community Councils and comments of the Planning and Transportation Committee concerning the proposed interim policy for the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues, as outlined in Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee.

Financial Implications:

There is no financial impact at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting of June 14, 1999, the Planning and Transportation Committee recommended that the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioners of Economic, Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services, contained in Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban Environment and Development Committee appended to the May 18, 1999 communication from the City Clerk, be adopted as an interim policy (for the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues) pending the adoption of a further report from the Commissioners on an adjustment to the policy which would build in initiatives for acquiring parkland in park deficient areas of the City.

The Planning and Transportation Committee also requested the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the July 6, 1999 meeting of City Council on the comments raised in the reports of the Community Councils at their May 26 and 27, 1999 meetings, as well as, the comments raised by the Committee on this matter.

A further request was made to the Commissioners to report back to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the feasibility of developing a plan for each district and/or neighbourhood to rectify park deficiencies by creating additional parkland.

Comments:

Throughout the lengthy discussion on this topic, it has been difficult to keep the issues associated with the proposed interim policy for the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues separate from those associated with the larger topics of parkland adequacy and acquisition. Staff recognize that the allocation of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues is central to the larger task of allocating resources for the acquisition of parkland in parks-deficient neighbourhoods throughout the new City of Toronto. The proposed policy for the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues outlined in the March 17, 1999 joint report is meant as an interim arrangement until a policy framework can be established for the larger issues of parkland adequacy and acquisition. This interim arrangement is needed to provide direction on the allocation of revenues for the 2000 and 2001 Capital Budget program for the Parks and Recreation Division of the Department of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Staff in the Departments of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services have reviewed the comments of the various Community Councils and the Planning and Transportation Committee. In response, this report comments on direction related to the larger policy framework, as well as, those pertaining to the proposed interim policy related to the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues.

It is noted that the Etobicoke, York and East York Community Councils did not have specific concerns or requests for information. East York Community Council endorsed the proposed interim policy respecting the use of funds received by the City from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements associated with development projects, as outlined in the joint report (March 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Etobicoke Community Council recommended that when potential parkland allocations between the Etobicoke and York Districts are being considered, a joint meeting of the two Community Councils be held at the appropriate time and in an appropriate venue.

The York Community Council took no position on this matter, at its May 26 meeting.

Toronto Community Council:

The Toronto Community Council requested that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on all concerns expressed by members of Council in regard to park deficiencies, by district, community and Ward. The joint Supplementary Report (June 3, 1999) of the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services, to the Planning and Transportation Committee addressed the concerns expressed by City Council at its meeting of May 11 and 12, 1999, which included statements about the new policies and standards that will be developed in the new Official Plan and the Land Acquisition Strategy.

The work that is currently being conducted for these studies will be used for evaluating parkland inadequacies. The Toronto Community Council's request that park deficiencies by district, community and Ward be taken into account will be included as part of this work.

The Toronto Community Council's request for a joint report from the two Commissioners to the Planning and Transportation Committees and the Community Councils on mechanisms for acquiring additional parkland in areas that are parkland deficient echoes the fourth recommendation of City Council from its May 11 and 12, 1999 meeting and will be included in the Official Plan and Land Acquisition Strategy, as indicated in the June 3 Supplementary Report.

The further request by the Toronto Community Council that this work include consideration of population densities and other measures as mechanisms to identify parkland deficiencies will be fulfilled.

North York Community Council:

The North York Community Council made several recommendations, including: a recommendation that the district level monies may be reallocated from park and recreation facilities improvements to land acquisition for park and open space purposes at the discretion of the Community Councils. The Community Councils have the ability to make recommendations on the allocation of funding earmarked for both parkland acquisition and development through the Capital Budget process.

Staff agree with Recommendation 2 of the North York Community Council, which states that, when reviewing development applications in areas that are deficient in parkland, the City attempt to acquire parkland rather than accepting cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payments.

It is the current practice of staff in the Department of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to recommend acquiring land from development applications in cases where sufficient land can be conveyed through dedication of land for new parks or the land parcels can be linked to existing parks to expand the existing network.

The Official Plan and Land Acquisition Strategy work will study the larger set of tools used for acquiring parkland, including the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland reserve funds. This work will provide more detailed recommendations regarding the acquisition of land for parks and open space, including land in park deficient areas of the City. The above-mentioned studies will take several months to complete.

City Council will have to consider Recommendation 3, which states that, "the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to make offers for up to 10 percent over the appraised value for properties that may be up for sale and can be used for parkland purposes; and further, that expropriation be considered as a last resort."

With respect to the fourth recommendation of the North York Community Council, staff have the following comments:

(1) staff of the Departments of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services are in the early stages of addressing the issues of parkland adequacy and acquisition in the new City of Toronto. As part of the Official Plan and Land Acquisition Strategy work, staff are currently mapping all of Toronto's parks and open space resources and identifying areas of the city which are deficient of parkland. Maps indicating parkland and open space service areas and service gaps will be prepared as part of this work;

(2) the Official Plan and the Land Acquisition Strategy will examine mechanisms to address parkland deficiencies throughout the City; and

(3) in providing policy recommendations in both the Official Plan and Land Acquisition Strategy related to parkland acquisition in areas that are parkland deficient, staff will provide Council with a range of approaches, for acquiring land.

Scarborough Community Council:

The request by the Scarborough Community Council that the Planning and Transportation Committee defer its decision on this matter to permit Scarborough Community Council an opportunity to give further consideration to the recommendations in the March 17 report was not adopted by the Planning and Transportation Committee. Rather, the Planning and Transportation Committee requested the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services to prepare this report to Council, at its July 6, 1999, meeting in response to the comments and recommendations of the Community Councils and to address comments raised by the Committee on this matter.

The specific concerns of the Scarborough Community Council are addressed below.

The Scarborough Community Council has expressed some concern about "double-dipping". As stated in the March 17, 1999 report, monies can be allocated from both the district and the City-wide funds for parkland acquisition in areas that were deemed to be priority under serviced areas at the time of amalgamation, in rapidly growing areas or in circumstances related to parks and open spaces which are City-wide in significance.

Also, a critical mass of funding, accumulated at a City-wide level, can have a greater impact in achieving spending priorities, as defined by Council through the Capital Budget process.

The Official Plan and Land Acquisition Strategy will provide a policy framework for balancing local versus City-wide funding priorities in the longer term. This framework will address the benefits of local decision-making, as well as, the benefits of City-wide pooling -- the integrity of the larger open space system, attention to natural heritage features and maximization of service equalization.

The Scarborough Community Council indicated a concern about the definition of the term "district". In the March 17 report, "district" is defined per the administrative operational districts, which includes the Community Council boundaries of Etobicoke and York in the West District, the North York Community Council boundaries in the North District, the Toronto Community Council boundaries in the South District and the Scarborough and East York Community Council boundaries in the East District. Staff recommended the operational district model because our administrative structures, staffing and operating budgets are based on this system.

Scarborough Community Council also requested that a further report be submitted to the Community Councils prior to finalization of this process. However, direction on the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication revenues is needed for the start of the year 2000 Parks and Recreation Capital Budget cycle. Also, Council, the Community Councils, and the public will have many opportunities -- through the public process associated with the Official Plan, for example -- to comment on the work that will be done in the near future with respect to parkland adequacy and acquisition.

Planning and Transportation Committee:

In response to the comments raised by the members of the Planning and Transportation Committee, there were some questions raised about how the deficiency analysis would be done, what standards for the provision of parkland would be applied and whether these standards would be applied on a district or neighbourhood basis. The Committee also asked about the feasibility of developing a plan for each district and/or neighbourhood to rectify park deficiencies by creating additional parkland.

Staff are reviewing all of these comments and requests in developing the Official Plan policies, which will include mechanisms for acquiring park land in areas of need. The Land Acquisition Strategy will apply these policies and standards on a more detailed basis, at the local level and will include mechanisms for acquiring land in areas where deficiencies exist or in areas that are experiencing rapid growth and change.

Conclusions:

As stated in the June 3, 1999 joint report of the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services, staff are working towards a needs based approach to the acquisition and development of parkland in the development of the Official Plan and the Land Acquisition Strategy. These studies, which include a park adequacy assessment, are underway and will take a number of months to complete.

The primary objective of the original (March 17) report recommending interim criteria for the use of cash-in-lieu of parkland funds is to obtain Council direction on the allocation of revenues for the 2000 and 2001 Parks and Recreation Capital Budget program. Without this direction, the recommended allocation of these funds for high priority projects and land acquisition will be difficult to achieve.

Staff support the June 14, 1999 recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Committee, which recommends that the March 17 report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be adopted as an interim policy pending the adoption of further reports (i.e., the Official Plan and the Land Acquisition Strategy) from the Commissioners on an adjustment to the policy which would build in initiatives for acquiring parkland in park deficient areas of the City. These latter reports are in progress and will take some months to complete.

Contact Names:

Frank Kershaw Barbara Leonhardt

392-8199 392-8148

Diane Stevenson Ann-Marie Nasr

392-0098 392-0402)

3

Body Shops/Automobile Service Centres -

Regulation of Hours of Operation

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that Section 104(2) of the Procedural By-law be waived in order to permit the Committee the authority to appoint to the Licensing Sub-Committee beyond the membership of the Planning and Transportation Committee.

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

(1) established a Licensing Sub-Committee reporting to the Planning and Transportation Committee by way of a consent agenda with a mandate to deal with matters related to municipal licensing, and consisting of the following members of the Planning and Transportation Committee:

Councillor Moscoe - Chair

Councillor Berger

Councillor McConnell

(2) determined that the matter of regulating service station hours of operation of body shops/automobile service centres and similar operations remain under the jurisdiction of the Planning and Transportation Committee, and that other issues such as classification and licensing matters relating to these operations be considered by the Licensing Sub-Committee, when established, and the hearing of public deputations in this respect;

(3) noted that the matter of harmonization of zoning by-laws remain under the jurisdiction of the Planning and Transportation Committee as it relates to the official plan; and

(4) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development, in consultation with the City Clerk, to report to the Committee's next meeting on Terms of Reference, staffing resources and identification of any financial resources which may be required to administer the Licensing Sub-Committee.

The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (May 19, 1999) from the City Clerk, Emergency and Protective Services Committee:

Recommendations:

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee on May 18, 1999:

(1) referred to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration the concept of harmonization of all by-laws pertaining to the zoning and hours of operation of body shops/automobile service centres, car washes and similar operations, referred to in the attached reports, communications and briefs; and

(2) requested that the Planning and Transportation Committee give special attention to establishing a separate classification to define autobody shops in Licensing By-law No. 20-85.

Background:

The Emergency and Protective Services Committee had before it the following reports, communications and briefs:

(i) (May 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services responding to the request of the Committee on February 9, 1999, to report further with respect to the regulation of hours of operation of body shops/automobile service centres, and on the results of a canvassing of the Members of Council with respect to any problems in their wards as a result of hours of operation of such shops/service centres; and recommending that:

(1) should the Committee wish to recommend that the hours of operation of body shops, automobile services centres, car washes and similar operations located within residential zones or within 122 metres of residential zones be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. (Monday to Friday inclusive) and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Saturday and Sunday), the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be authorized to prepare and introduce in Council a by-law to amend Schedule 24 of By-law No. 20-85 (the Licensing By-law); and

(2) prior to the introduction of the bill in Council, this matter be scheduled for public deputations before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee, or any successor committee, at its next meeting;

(ii) (January 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that:

(1) the report of the City Solicitor, entitled "Body Shops/Automobile Service Centres - Regulation of Hours of Operation/Ventilation", be amended to increase the prohibited area in which body shops/auto service centres cannot locate to within 122 metres of a residential zone; and

(2) East York By-law No. 112-92 be rescinded;

(iii) (November 25, 1998) from the City Solicitor recommending that:

(1) should the Committee wish to recommend that the hours of operation of public garages used as car washes, motor vehicle repair shops and automobile service stations located within a residential zone or within 100 metres of a residential zone be restricted to prohibit their operation except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. (Monday to Friday) and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Saturday and Sunday), the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare and introduce in Council an amendment in substantially the form attached to this report to amend Schedule 24 of Licensing By-law No. 20-85;

(2) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to prepare a report to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee concerning the impact of these amendments on Chapter 199 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code and East York By-law No. 112-92, which impose early closing hours on gasoline outlets also potentially affected by the amendments proposed in this report, to be considered at the next meeting of the Committee;

(3) prior to the introduction of any bills in Council, this matter be scheduled for public deputations before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee at its meeting with appropriate notice of the meeting to be advertised and given to affected licensees; and

(4) the General Manager of the Toronto Licensing Commission be directed to provide a 60-day "grace period" prior to enforcing any by-law which may be passed by Council against affected licensees;

(iv) (December 29, 1998) from Mr. Bill Davis, Director, Government Relations, The Ontario and Toronto Automobile Dealers' Association, requesting the opportunity to address the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on restricting the hours of operation of the auto repair service centres and body shops;

(v) (January 18, 1999) from Mr. John Norris, spokesperson, Collision Industry Action Group, on behalf of the Toronto Collision Repair Society, requesting the opportunity to appear before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee on restricting the hours of operation of the auto repair service centres and body shops;

(vi) (February 8, 1999) from Mr. Lawrence Eisenberg, President, The Toronto Taxicab Owners and Operators Association;

(vii) (February 8, 1999) from Ms. Victoria A. Masnyk, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association;

(viii) (February 8, 1999) from Mr. V.R. Braun, Ripley Area Residents Group; and

(ix) (February 9, 1999) from Mr. Mike Wines, Independent Auto Repairer's Association.

The following persons appeared before the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Victoria Masnyk, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association, and submitted a brief in regard thereto, as well as a brief from Mr. V.R. Braun, Ripley Area Residents Group;

- Mr. Andrew Paton, Q.C., on behalf of the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute;

- Mr. John Norris, on behalf of the Collision Industry Action Group;

- Councillor John Adams, Toronto-Midtown; and

- Councillor Mike Tzekas, Scarborough-Wexford.

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it the following reports/ communications, appended to the foregoing report, which were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting of June 14, 1999, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (May 5, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

- (January 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

- (November 25, 1998) from the City Solicitor

- (December 29, 1998) from Mr. Bill Davis, Director, Government Relations, The Ontario and Toronto Automobile Dealers' Association

- (January 18, 1999) from Mr. John Norris, spokesperson, Collision Industry Action Group,

on behalf of the Toronto Collision Repair Society

- (February 8, 1999) from Mr. Lawrence Eisenberg, President, The Toronto Taxicab Owners and Operators Association;

- (February 8, 1999) from Ms. Victoria A. Masnyk, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association;

- (February 8, 1999) from Mr. V.R. Braun, Ripley Area Residents Group; and

- (February 9, 1999) from Mr. Mike Wines, Independent Auto Repairer's Association.

4

Recognition of Rouge Park and Deletion of East Metro

Transportation Corridor - Appeal of Scarborough Official Plan

Amendments 722 and 990 (W94073) Malvern, Rouge and Upper

Rouge Communities and Rouge Employment District

(Scarborough Malvern - Ward 18)

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To consider a settlement offer by the Province of Ontario to withdraw its appeals in return for certain modifications to the underlying designations in Official Plan Amendment 722.

Figure 1 illustrates the areas affected by the two appeals. The Malvern parcel lies south of Finch Avenue and Sewells Road, the Sheppard site is on the south side of Sheppard Avenue west of Meadowvale Road, and the Conlins site is on the north side of Highway 401, all shown in dark shading.

Financial Implications:

None at this time.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council:

(1) agree to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) proposal to replace the EMTC designation on the larger portion of the Malvern parcel with Regional Natural Environment, instead of Low Density Residential Uses as proposed through Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 722;

(2) endorse the withdrawal of Ministry of Transportation (MTO) objections to OPA 722 on the Sheppard site (Rouge Employment District);

(3) modify OPA 722 as it applies to the Conlins site (Rouge Community) to allow for a possible future interchange between Highway 401 and the Morningside Extension, by deleting all references to the EMTC and replacing numbered policy 2 with the following:

"2. North Side of Highway 401, East of Conlins Road

If the subject lands are not required for transportation purposes in the future, the land may be used for Low Density Residential purposes without further amendment to this plan."

(4) direct staff to consider appropriate revisions to the Roads Plan and the affected Secondary Plans to address both the adoption of OPA 990, which deletes the Finch Realignment, and the preferred road pattern in the Morningside-Finch-Staines area arising from the Morningside Heights Draft Plan of Subdivision; and

(5) direct the City Solicitor to support this position at up-coming hearings of the Ontario Municipal Board and during negotiations with the parties to the hearings.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Figure 2

History:

Figure 2, taken from the Markham-Scarborough Transportation Link Environmental Assessment Proposal draft report of 1995, illustrates the regional context and major land holdings in the area.

During the 1970's, the Province of Ontario was very active in planning land use and making provision for housing and development. The Malvern Project was designed and built, and the Toronto Centred Region Plan was developed to encourage growth east of Metropolitan Toronto. In conjunction with Federal Government plans for an airport in northern Pickering, the North Pickering Project was defined. The Province purchased and expropriated 25,000 acres (10,000 hectares) of rural land in northeast Scarborough, eastern Markham and north Pickering to be administered by the North Pickering Development Corporation. A Ministerial Zoning Order, Ontario Regulation 20/74, was enacted to restrict land use basically to the uses existing at the time. (This Order was intended to be temporary until local plans and zoning by-laws were in place to protect the Provincial planning goals.)

In the same era, the Parkway Belt Plan provided for Highway 407 as far east as Highway 48 (Markham Road), and the North Pickering Project - Summary of Recommended Plan the extension of Highway 407 east from Highway 48 into Durham Region, and an alignment for the East Metro Freeway through the Provincial land assembly to Highway 407 and continuing southward, ending in an arrow pointing south between the eastern edge of the Malvern Project limits and the western edge of the Metro Zoo site. Scarborough Council gave conditional support to the proposed road, on condition that it was built by 1985. Detailed design drawings were produced in 1980 for the MTO.

In recognition of Provincial planning for the freeway, the East Metro Transportation Corridor (EMTC) was designated in the 1980 Metro Official Plan, although the Metro Plan also included a policy stating that the Corporation did not support construction of any additional expressways (apart from an extension to Highway 427). The Plan also designated northeast Scarborough as a Special Study Area with uses restricted to those permitted under Ontario Regulation 20/74.

The Malvern Project was incorporated into the Scarborough Official Plan, and in 1983, the Malvern Community Plan was revised to recognise the EMTC along the eastern part of Neighbourhood 3, as well as the then proposed realignment of Finch Avenue to follow the south side of the CPR as designated in the Metro Plan.

Background:

In 1984, Scarborough initiated the North East Scarborough Land Use Study "to establish the long-term land use for this provincial land bank and environmentally sensitive area". The study was completed after 4 years of intensive work on a variety of topics including transportation, archaeology and natural environment. The existing Roads Plan was reviewed and some changes suggested which would achieve arterial road links into Markham and Pickering while having the least possible impact on the environment.

In April 1988 Scarborough Council voted to no longer support the retention of the EMTC within the City's boundary, as a result of a staff review of the Provincial Environmental Assessment Study for the proposed freeway. Scarborough staff found no justification for a freeway to be built in the proposed location, and expressed concern that the preferred alignment would have crossed the Rouge River at the Finch Meander, which is one of the most environmentally significant areas of the Rouge River System. The Province did not proceed further with the EA at that time.

The North East study culminated in the adoption on August 24, 1988 by Scarborough Council of OPA 721 which sought to create the Upper Rouge Secondary Plan with associated policies and land use designations. Most of the land was to be designated Regional Natural Environment. At the same meeting, OPA 722 was also adopted which would have deleted all references to the EMTC from the relevant Secondary Plans.

OPA 721 was referred to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) by several development companies with land holdings within the affected area, and by Durham Region. OPA 722 was referred to the OMB by Durham Region and more recently by York Region as well.

Comments:

Rouge Park

All of the land use planning and land assembly carried out by the Province during the 1970's for another purpose ultimately allowed the establishment of Rouge Park in 1990. At that time, the Minister announced that there would be no new roads south of Steeles Avenue through Rouge Park within its boundaries as defined on March 26, 1990.

Rouge Park is currently administered by the Rouge Alliance, which is a body represented by members drawn from the affected municipalities and agencies and supported by a small staff. The park is operated under the Rouge Park Management Plan which was released by the Province in May 1994. This Plan covers the area of the park from Steeles Avenue to the Rouge River estuary at Lake Ontario, while work continues on a plan for the proposed park expansion to the north. The plan recognises privately-owned lands located within the park boundaries, and its policies do not apply to them.

The OMB hearing for OPA 721 finally convened in 1995. Due to the establishment of Rouge Park in the intervening period since the adoption of OPA 721 in 1988, some of the policies had to be modified. As well, special arrangements were needed for some of the private landowners within the area. Transportation matters were not addressed. The decision was issued on September 15, 1995, which substantially approved the original OPA. Subsequently, a zoning by-law to implement the OPA was prepared and approved. The only outstanding matter on this file is the repeal of the Minister's Zoning Order 20/74, which is no longer needed. The necessary Cabinet decision has been pending now for several years.

The Province continues to support its 1990 policy of no new roads through Rouge Park south of Steeles Avenue.

Disposal of Surplus Provincial Lands

Meanwhile, the Province through its real estate arm the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) has begun to sell off portions of its holdings acquired in the 1970's and not required for Seaton or other public purposes. Lands in Markham are now being privately developed for the Cornell project. Parts of the Agricultural Reserve in Durham are also intended to be sold in parcels smaller than the 40 acre minimum currently required by the Regional Official Plan, and Durham's refusal to waive the lot size limit due to concerns with development pressure on the farming area is also before the OMB. However, the MTO continues to hold onto its EMTC lands.

Transportation Facilities

The Durham Official Plan supports a "north-south freeway connection between Highway 401 and Highway 407 in the City of Scarborough and the Town of Markham". Several studies have quantified the travel demand in terms of vehicle trips in the morning peak hour. In 1994, the MTO conducted two reviews of travel demand between Highways 401 and 407 within the "Morningside Corridor". All studies have concluded that more capacity is needed.

In 1995, Scarborough and Metro Toronto participated with Markham and the MTO in an Environmental Assessment Proposal study for a possible Markham/Scarborough Transportation Link. The purpose of the study was to define the scope of a follow-on EA Study by eliminating possible alignments which would be infeasible or unacceptable for various reasons. The Provincial policy on roads through Rouge Park led to the elimination of several otherwise technically sound alignments.

The study report came before Scarborough Council in September, 1995 with staff recommendations to arrange for wide public consultation on the findings and report further on any required changes to the study document. Council tabled the report and requested further information on the position of the Province concerning funding for the continuing process, the status of Seaton and Cornell, and possible modifications to the design of Highway 407. In March 1996 the decision was made not to proceed any further with a 401/407 link as it became clear that there would be little or no Provincial funding available for the follow-on EA Study and the construction costs. By way of contrast, the Town of Markham endorsed the EA Proposal study in 1995.

Discussion:

Morningside Heights

At the time of the decision not to support the 401/407 link, it was known that a decision would be required on applications to develop the lands known as Morningside Heights, and that road access issues would be part of the assessment. The City-initiated OPA 974 (January 1997) imposing a Special Study Area designation on the Morningside Heights lands was appealed to the OMB by the landowners. The hearing, which was held in the Fall of 1998, dealt with the land use and transportation issues in the area. Due to their concerns with the 401/407 link alignment options around Morningside Avenue, York and Durham Regions and the Town of Markham were parties to the hearing, as was the Province of Ontario.

The decision rendered in February 1999 provided for a Morningside Avenue extension in a 36 m right-of-way through part of the Morningside Heights lands, dead-ending at a point within the Secondary Plan area, and with no extension beyond that point permitted without further study. One condition was that an Environmental Assessment Study for the northerly extension to Steeles Avenue be submitted for approval by December 31, 2005, or Terms of Reference for such a study be submitted for approval by December 31, 2004. Failing such submissions, the further extension of Morningside Avenue to Steeles Avenue may be completed through the plan of subdivision process.

(See Figure 3).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

figure 4

Official Plan Amendment 990

The North East Scarborough Land Use Review had reached certain conclusions with respect to roads in the area and the consequent changes required to the Roads Plan of the Scarborough Official Plan. However, only the land use recommendations were brought forward at that time to become OPA 721, due to uncertainty surrounding some major transportation initiatives in the area. With the decision on OPA 721 in September 1995, which designated the lands Regional Natural Environment, together with Provincial policy on Rouge Park and the conclusion of the 401/407 link matter, Scarborough Council in early 1997 agreed to a review of the Roads Plan in the north east.

The conclusion of this review was that to respect the nature of Rouge Park and its recreational functions, the existing roads should remain as they are constructed today: narrow, winding, with rural cross-sections and several at-grade rail crossings or narrow bridges. Previously planned links, grade-separations and bridge improvements should not be completed. However, wider rights-of-way (27 m) should be retained to accommodate walking and cycling lanes or trails along the road alignments. This conclusion was endorsed by Scarborough Council through its adoption of OPA 990 in June 1997.

The neighbouring municipalities appealed this OPA to the OMB, again due to concerns with protection of options for the 401/407 link, as well as the perceived loss of potential cross-boundary road capacity. This matter has been consolidated by the OMB with the appeals of OPA 722.

Meetings of the Parties to Date

The OMB ordered that a pre-hearing conference be held on October 27, 1998 to identify the parties and participants, explore the issues, and begin to organise the hearing procedure. The meeting was attended by representatives of York and Durham Regions, MMAH, City of Toronto, Morningside Heights Landowners Group and two environmental groups.

In March 1999, a staff-level meeting was held, including MMAH, MTO, the Rouge Alliance chair and City Planning staff, to discuss options for a settlement. While some land exchange ideas were explored, no agreement was reached.

Later, on March 29, 1999, the OMB reconvened and new parties were recognised, namely the Town of Markham, Anndale Properties Limited and McAsphalt Industries Limited. Markham supports the York Region position in seeking a 401/407 link through the area. As illustrated on Figure 4, Anndale owns land immediately abutting the EMTC to the east. Through the OMB decision on OPA 721 the property received some limited development rights. Over half of the property is located below the top of bank of the Rouge valley, while compensation has been paid for the loss of development potential on the south table land. Only the north part with frontage on Finch Avenue is in contention. McAsphalt owns land north of Sheppard Avenue between Conlins Road and Dean Park Road, which would be impacted by the southerly portion of the EMTC or any Morningside Avenue Extension to a new interchange with Highway 401 near Conlins Road. A mixed industrial and office subdivision was approved on the property in 1993, but has not been developed so far. The site has been improved with a portion of one of the new roads and a golf practice facility.

At this second pre-hearing, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, on behalf of all Provincial interests, submitted a letter to the City of Toronto offering a new position. It has no objection to OPA 990, and has no further interest in the Sheppard site included in OPA 722. The Ministry wishes to continue to protect the Conlins site for transportation uses related to a possible connection of Morningside Avenue to Highway 401, but is prepared to accept the deletion of the EMTC notation. For the Malvern parcel included in OPA 722, the Ministry will accept the deletion of the EMTC notation in return for both:

1. a Regional Natural Environment designation rather than a Low Density Residential designation, so that the lands may be transferred to Rouge Park; and

2. the retention of transportation uses on the Conlins parcel.

This is a significant improvement on the earlier Provincial position, and should be supported with reservations relating to the Malvern parcel.

The parties to the hearing met again on April 27, 1999 at the MMAH offices. One important fact which came to light was the private ownership, by McAsphalt, of the south part of the now abandoned CP rail spur running down the east side of Morningside Avenue and into the Miller Paving part of the McAsphalt lands. McAsphalt maintains strongly that if a road alignment is to be protected on the property, then it must be acquired by a public agency. Any such alignment would then affect the location of already-approved internal subdivision roads on the lands.

Anndale's property is "sandwiched" within Rouge Park, and any development on the tableland fronting on Finch Avenue would become an anomaly. Anndale would like to pursue a land exchange with the Province for part of the EMTC corridor contiguous to existing development, with a Low Density Residential designation in place, so that the park would enjoy a contiguous expansion and the new development could become part of the Malvern Community. City and Rouge Alliance staff support this planning rationale: the exact location of a suitable parcel for exchange has yet to be decided from among the options available, and the involvement of Rouge Alliance staff is necessary. A further question concerns the availability of other Provincial land which could be offered up for exchange. The settlement of funding for the purchase of the Glen Eagles site on the edge of Rouge Park further south has been cited as a precedent.

York and Durham Regions and the Town of Markham all support protection of a new arterial road in the Morningside Corridor. The Morningside Heights decision provided for an Environmental Assessment study to be undertaken for a route to Steeles Avenue, and the neighbouring municipalities may looking for a similar solution to the southerly link to Highway 401.

A further meeting, with Rouge Alliance staff present, is to be scheduled in mid-June, once a staff position on this report is available.

Conclusions:

The Province remains committed to the protection of Rouge Park and its position that no new roads are to be permitted through the park south of Steeles Avenue as defined in March 1990. This commitment was illustrated by the April 15, 1999, announcement by Minister Snobelen of an expansion of the park designation north of Steeles Avenue along the Little Rouge Creek and around the Milne Dam in Markham.

As well, in its letter of March 24, 1999, the Province agrees to the removal of the EMTC designation contemplated by OPA 722, and does not object to OPA 990, which protects the rural nature of the Rouge Park road network. The only remaining issue with the Province is the resulting designation of the Malvern and Conlins parcels. Pending a resolution of the Morningside Avenue extension, it is appropriate to continue to protect the Conlins parcel for transportation uses.

It is in the public interest to achieve the resolution of issues which can be agreed upon, in order to minimise, or even avoid altogether, the costs of a full OMB hearing later this year.

Contact Name:

Carolyn Johnson, MCIP, RPP, Program Co-ordinator, Transportation Division

(416)-396-5376, (416)-396-4265 Fax Number, cjohnson@city.scarborough.on.ca

The Urban Environment and Development Committee also had before it the communication (March 24, 1999) from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, appended to the foregoing report, which was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting of June 14, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication ( July 5, 1999) from Mr. Ronald M. Kanter, McDonald & Hayden, Barristers and Solicitors, commenting that the Clause contains errors with respect to the Anndale site and requesting that the Clause be referred back to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to correct these errors.)

5

Delegation of City Clerk's Authority

to Sign Statements as to Licensing Status

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide the necessary authority to the City Solicitor to prepare and introduce into Council a by-law to permit the delegation of the authority to sign section 323 statements to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the Executive Director of Municipal Licensing and Standards, the Director of Municipal Licensing and Standards, and the Director of Taxis. The delegation of this signing authority will expedite the provision of such statements which are required as evidence in licensing prosecution proceedings.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare and introduce into Council, a by-law delegating the authority to sign section 323 statements to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the Executive Director of Municipal Licensing and Standards, the Director of Municipal Licensing and Standards, and the Director of Taxis.

Council Reference/Background/History:

A large percentage of the charges issued by Municipal Licensing and Standards staff are charges against defendants for operating without a licence. In prosecuting that type of charge, one of the elements of the offence which must be proved is that the person charged did not hold a licence issued pursuant to the City's Licensing By-law. Another type of charge laid by staff is against licence holders for violating a requirement of the Licensing By-law. On those prosecutions, it is common to use licence information to prove the offender is licensed when licensing is an element of the offence.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Section 323 of the Municipal Act provides a simple procedure for proving that a defendant on a prosecution is or is not licensed. That section states:

"s. 323 For the purpose of any prosecution or proceeding under a by-law for licensing, regulating, governing, classifying or inspecting any trade, calling, business or occupation, a statement as to the licensing or non-licensing of any premises or person in respect of any trade, calling, business or occupation, purporting to be signed by the clerk of a municipality or of a regional or metropolitan municipality or by the chief administrative officer of a police services board or of a licensing commission, is, without proof of the office or signature of the said clerk or officer, receivable in evidence as proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, of the facts stated therein for all purposes in such prosecution or proceeding."

In trials of licensing charges the Legal Department has been using section 323 statements to prove that the defendant is or is not licensed. The statements presently being used are statements signed by the former General Manager, on the basis that the General Manager was the chief administrative officer of the Toronto Licensing Commission. Such statements are in hand for trials scheduled into the summer. However, sometime during the summer or early September there are trials scheduled for which statements will be required.

As a result of Council's decision and the new structure for the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department, there is neither a licensing commission nor a chief administrative officer of a licensing commission. Therefore, if section 323 statements are to be used in future, they will need to be signed by the City Clerk unless the Clerk's authority is delegated. Given the very large number of certificates used annually on prosecutions and that each one must be a signed original, the City Clerk may find it expedient if her authority were delegated. Further, given that Municipal Licensing and Standards staff have actual custody and control of the licensing records, it would be appropriate that such a delegation should be to one or more senior staff in the division.

Section 102.1 of the Municipal Act permits Council to pass by-laws delegating administrative powers to staff. That section provides:

"s. 102.1 (1) The council of a municipality may, by by-law, delegate to a committee of council or to an employee of the municipality any powers, duties or functions that are administrative in nature."

The authority to sign section 323 statements would appear to be a power or function which is administrative in nature.

Conclusions:

The by-law, if enacted, will delegate the authority to sign section 323 statements to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, the Executive Director of Municipal Licensing and Standards, the Director of Municipal Licensing and Standards, and the Director of Taxis.

Contact Name:

Frank Weinstock, Manager, Policy and Transition Unit, Municipal Licensing and Standards

(tel.) 392-0404; (fax) 392-3821.

6

Federal Bus Deregulation

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Planning and Transportation Committee recommends that Council forward a copy of Report No. 29 appended to the communication (May 12, 1999) from the Interim General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission to the Board of Directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) with a request that the FCM support the concerns of the Toronto Transit Commission in their discussions with the Federal Minister of Transportation respecting the opposition to federal legislation to deregulate extra-provincial bus transportation with respect to operations within urban areas.

The Planning and Transportation Committee submits the following report (May 12, 1999) from the Interim General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission:

At its meeting on Wednesday, May 5, 1999, the Commission considered the attached report entitled, "Federal Bus Deregulation."

The Commission adopted the Recommendation embodied in the above report and directed that the report be forwarded to the City of Toronto Planning and Transportation Committee and City of Toronto Council for the purpose of having this report forwarded to the Board of Directors for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities with a request that the Federation support the concerns of the Toronto Transit Commission in their discussions with the Federal Minister of Transportation relating to this matter.

The Commission also reports, for the information of the City Planning and Transportation Committee and City of Toronto Council, having taken the following action:

1. That the report be forwarded to the Federal Minister of Transportation with a request that Bill C-77 be amended so that it explicitly does not limit the ability of a province or combination of provinces to regulate extra-provincial bus undertakings when these undertakings are operating within one municipality or within a contiguous urban area, whether such contiguous urban areas are within one province or in more than one province;

2. That the report be forwarded to the Canadian Urban Transit Association advising that the Toronto Transit Commission supports their position with respect to this matter; and

3. That the General Counsel for the Toronto Transit Commission submit a further report on the paramountcy and ultra vires issues relating to this matter.

The foregoing is forwarded to the City of Toronto Planning and Transportation Committee and City of Toronto Council for the necessary action detailed above.

(Toronto Transit Commission Report No. 29 from its meeting on May 5, 1999)

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Commission support the position of Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) in opposing federal legislation to deregulate extra-provincial bus transportation with respect to operations within urban areas.

Background:

The federal Bill C-77 (an Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1997) as drafted, provides that unless the Minister of Transportation specifically extends time for which Sections 10 to 10.4 are in force, then commencing from two years after the legislation is passed, the province will have no ability to regulate intra-provincial transportation as performed by extra-provincial bus undertakings. Any carrier who performs any extra-provincial service would be covered by this deregulation and would be exempt from provincial law, including provincial legislation and regulations that give municipalities exclusive rights to provide urban transit services within their jurisdictions. If this occurs, extra-provincial bus undertakings will seriously detract from municipal transit agencies' ability to provide economic and comprehensive public transit service, and will seriously impair the efficiency and effectiveness of these important public services.

On January 1, 1998, the City of Toronto amalgamated, and pursuant to the City of Toronto Act (the Act), the Toronto Transit Commission was continued with all of its former powers and functions. In particular, Section 30 provides as follows:

30. (1) The commission,

(a) shall consolidate and co-ordinate all forms of local passenger transportation within the urban area, except railways incorporated under federal or provincial statutes and taxis, and shall plan for the future development of local passenger transportation in the urban area so as to best serve its inhabitants;

(b) has, with respect to the urban area, all the powers with respect to local passenger transportation that the former commission had with respect to any part of the urban area on December 31, 1953;

(c) has all the powers of a municipal council with respect to local passenger transportation systems.

Section 30 (3) of the Act, further expands on the powers and functions of the Toronto Transit Commission as follows:

(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), the commission has the following functions:

1. To construct, maintain, operate, extend, alter, repair, control and manage a local passenger transportation system in the urban area by means of surface, underground or overhead railways, tramways and buses, or any other means of local passenger transportation except railways incorporated under federal or provincial statutes and taxis.

2. To establish new local passenger transportation services in the urban areas and when required and to change, reduce or abolish any services if the commission considers that desirable.

3. If the commission considers it desirable, to establish, construct, manage and operate parking lots for the parking of vehicles in connection with its local passenger transportation system, and to charge fees for parking there.

4. Subject to section 31, to fix tolls and fares and establish fare zones so that the commission's revenue shall be sufficient to make all transportation facilities under its control and management self-sustaining, after providing for maintenance, renewals, depreciation, debt charges and reserves as the commission thinks proper.

5. To acquire, by purchase, lease or otherwise, and to use any real and personal property for its purposes, subject to subsection (5).

6. To make requisitions on the city for the money necessary to carry out its powers and duties. However, nothing in this Act divests the council of its authority with reference to providing the money for such works. When the council provides the money, the city treasurer shall pay it out on the commission's certificate.

Section 34 (1) and (4) addresses the exclusive authority of the TTC to provide local passenger transportation services as follows:

34. (1) No person other than the commission shall operate a local passenger transportation service within the urban area, except in accordance with an agreement made under subsection (4).

(4) If a person legally operated a local public passenger transportation service wholly inside or partly inside and partly outside the urban area on January 1, 1954, the commission may enter into an agreement with the person authorizing the person to continue to operate all or part of the service for the period and on the conditions specified in the agreement.

Both the Province of Ontario, as part of the amalgamation, and the City of Toronto have approved the power and the authority vested in the Toronto Transit Commission, as has the Commission itself.

Justification:

The Toronto Transit Commission is efficiently and effectively serving the transportation needs of Toronto. The passage of Bill C-77 as drafted could seriously undermine the economic viability of the Toronto Transit Commission, and could interfere with this efficient and equitable public transportation network.

It is recommended that the Commission strongly urge that Bill C-77 be amended so that it explicitly does not limit the ability of a province or combination of provinces to regulate extra-provincial bus undertakings when these undertakings are operating within one municipality or within a contiguous urban area, whether such contiguous urban areas are within one province or in more than one province.

CUTA has made an extensive submission to the federal government and we recommend that the Commission support this submission. It appears that the possible result outlined above is an unintended consequence arising from the current draft of Bill C-77 and the Commission should take steps to resist passage of that portion of this bill into legislation.

7

Other Items Considered by the Committee

(City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Environmental Governance.

The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having adopted the report (June 1, 1999) from the Chair, Environmental Task Force and requested that the Environmental Task Force be so advised of the Committee's action in this regard.

Councillor Jack Layton and Dr. David Bell, member of the Environmental Task Force gave a presentation.

(June 1, 1999) from Councillor Jack Layton, Chair Environmental Task Force recommending that:

(1) the attached recommendations from the Environmental Task Force to the July meeting of the Policy and Finance Committee be endorsed;

(2) the attached report entitled "The Proposed Governance Model for Advanced Environmental Decision Making for the City of Toronto" by the Environmental Task Force be received for information and comment; and

(3) any comments on the proposed governance structure, as outlined in the attached report, be forwarded to the Environmental Task Force before June 28, 1999 for consideration in the report and recommendations going to the Policy and Finance Committee in July, 1999.

(b) Changes to the City's Planning Documents to Permit Second Suites As-of-right.

The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having, in accordance with Council's directive of May 11, 1999, scheduled a statutory public meeting at its next meeting on July 12, 1999 for 2.00 p.m. to consider proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments which will allow second suites as-of-right in all single- and semi-detached houses, and directed that the appropriate City officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action to give effect thereto, including preparing and introducing any necessary bills and giving notice of the public meeting.

(May 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services updating the Committee on achieving Council's May 11, 1999 directive that within 60-days the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services amend the City's planning documents to permit second suites as-of-right in all single- and semi-detached houses and recommending that:

(1) the Planning and Transportation Committee schedule a statutory public meeting for July 12, 1999, to consider proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments which will allow second suites as-of-right in all single- and semi-detached houses; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action to give effect thereto, including preparing and introducing any necessary bills and giving notice of the public meeting.

(c) Harmonization of Zoning By-laws re: Determination of Building Height.

The Planning and Transportation Committee reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to bring forward to a future meeting of the Committee the appropriate zoning by-law amendment required to harmonize the manner in which building height is calculated.

Respectfully submitted,

JOANNE FLINT

Chair

Toronto, June 14, 1999

(Report No. 1 of The Planning and Transportation Committee, including additions thereto, was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on July 6, 7 and 8, 1999, having regard that consideration of Clause No. 2, embodied therein, was deferred to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on July 27, 1999.)