(Communication dated June 4, 1998, addressed to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, from the City Clerk.)

City Council, at its meeting held on June 3 and 4, 1998, had before it Clause No. 13 of Report No. 5 of The Scarborough Community Council, headed AMorningside Heights Land Use Study and Related Development Applications@.

Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration, with requests that:

(1)the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services develop a protocol for the processing of planning matters and submit a joint report thereon to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team; and

(2)the City Clerk submit a report to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on a possible amendment to the Procedural By-law which would permit a Member of Council to put a motion to defer or refer a matter prior to the questioning of staff.

Sent to:City Clerk

Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

Urban Environment and Development Committee

c.Interim Contact, Scarborough Community Council

Interim Contact, Special Committee to Review the Report of the Toronto Transition Team

CITY CLERK

Clause embodied in Report No. 5 of the Scarborough Community Council, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on June 3 and 4, 1998.

13

Morningside Heights Land Use Study and

Related Development Applications and

Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study

(City Council on June 3 and 4, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for further consideration, with requests that: (1)the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services develop a protocol for the processing of planning matters and submit a joint report thereon to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team; and

(2)the City Clerk submit a report to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on a possible amendment to the Procedural By-law which would permit a Member of Council to put a motion to defer or refer a matter prior to the questioning of staff.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that Council:

(1)endorse Phase 2 and Addendum and direct staff to complete Phase 3 of the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study;

(2)defer the redesignation of the lands south of the Hydro Corridor, east of Staines Road, currently designated Open Space to a later date, until the City has rectified the problems associated with the diversion structure and the stabilization of the stream north of the Corridor;

(3)adopt Option 2, i.e., retain employment uses west of the Tributary; permit Executive Residential uses east of the Tributary, with Significant Natural Area Centred on the Morningside Tributary, and:

(a)resolve that the existing land use designations west of the Morningside Tributary be retained as one of the largest remaining greenfield employment opportunities in the City of Toronto, and that staff be directed to initiate an official plan amendment to redesignate the lands east of the Tributary for Executive Residential uses; and

(b)direct staff to use the recommendations from the staff report on the Phase 2 Subwatershed Analysis and Addendum, submitted to Scarborough Council last fall, including a greenspace corridor centred on Morningside and Neilson Tributaries as the basis for preparing the Implementation Plan for the Subwatershed Study;

(4)endorse the position taken by the Scarborough Community Council that it does not support any road connection between Highway 407/the Markham By-pass and Highway 401 as it is detrimental and negative to the proper planning of the Morningside Heights area; and

(5)consider this matter at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 3, 1998.

The Scarborough Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested that the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

(1)recommend to Community Council, a strategy to proactively protect and preserve the natural environment for the areas that Council determines should remain designated as employment lands;

(2)request the applicant to submit a preliminary Plan of Subdivision based on a minimum average housing lot size of 12,000 square feet, such Plan to also include provision for neighbourhood commercial, parks, and any other community facilities necessary;

(3)more strictly refine the Employment Uses designation in the Official Plan; and

(4)report to Community Council with respect to the lands west of the Tributary to further refine the boundary between Industrial and Residential Uses.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (March 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

This report responds to a status report request by Scarborough Community Council regarding the previous positions of the former Scarborough Council (see Appendix 1) with respect to the Morningside Heights Land Use Study Area, an area as shown on Figures 1 and 2, and the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study as shown on Figures 4, 5 and 6. The report presents three options for Council to consider.

It is essential that Council determine its preferred Option in order to provide clear direction to staff, landowners and the community regarding the future of the Morningside Heights Area.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Option 1 has major unbudgeted financial implications. These are set out within that Option on Page 2 of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council determine its preferred Option from among the three:

Option 1 -Acquire Most of Morningside Heights Land Use Study Area

for Parkland and Renaturalize the Morningside Tributary

 (a)resolve that the areas identified by Save the Rouge Valley System (SRVS) be purchased to implement the SRVS recommendation that most of the Morningside Heights Land Use Study Area become a natural area and authorize funding of $200,000.00 for technical studies to re-do the Phase 2 subwatershed analysis and $25,000.00 for real estate appraisals, to provide technical data required; and

 (b)direct staff to initiate an amendment to the Scarborough Official Plan to redesignate all the Industrial lands within the Morningside Heights Land Use Study area to Open Space uses.

 The long term funding implication of choosing Option 1 will not be known until the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study Implementation Plan is prepared. Work to date indicates the cost of acquiring land may be $57,000,000.00 to $80,000,000.00 and the cost of replacing stormwater mangement facilities could be as much as $100,000,000.00.

 If Option 1 of the recommendations is adopted, the immediate financial implication is $225,000.00 ($200,000.00 for technical studies and $25,000.00 for real estate appraisals). Funding for this is not included in the previous or 1998 Capital Budget. Two projects previously approved, but for which funds have not been spent, are:

 Project No. 8012 - Watermain Construction - Finch Avenue and Beare Road; and

Project No. 8571 - Wishing Well Park Sewers - pond inlet modifications.

 The Finch Avenue and Beare Road project extends a watermain to homes experiencing inadequate supply of water. The Wishing Well Pond project increases the level of protection against flooding for area residents; the current level of service already meets city standards. Without this funding, new funds would be required.

 Funds are also required for the City Solicitor for expert witnesses to defend Option 1 at the Ontario Municipal Board.

Option 2 -Retain Employment West of Tributary, Permit Executive Residential East of the Tributary, with Significant Natural Area Centred on the Morningside Tributary:

 (a)resolve that the existing land use designations west of the Morningside Tributary be retained as one of the largest remaining greenfield employment opportunities in the City of Toronto and that staff be directed to initiate an official plan amendment to redesignate the lands east of the Tributary for Executive Residential Uses; and

 (b)direct staff to use the recommendations from the staff report, on the Phase 2 Subwatershed Analysis and Addendum submitted to Scarborough Council last fall, including a greenspace corridor centred on Morningside and Neilson tributaries as the basis for preparing the Implementation Plan for the Subwatershed Study.

 Option 3 -Designate Morningside Heights for Residential Uses,

with Significant Natural Area Centred on Morningside Tributary:

 (a)resolve to amend the Official Plan for the lands within the Morningside Heights Land Use Study Areas west of the Morningside Tributary to provide for high quality low density and medium residential development in an enhanced natural setting, including a greenspace along the west boundary of the study area; and

 (b)direct staff to use the recommendations from the staff report, on the Phase 2 Subwatershed Analysis and Addendum submitted to Council last fall, including a greenspace corridor centred on Morningside and Neilson tributaries as the basis for preparing the Implementation Plan for the Subwatershed Study.

 The following recommendations are common to all three options set out above.

 (a)direct staff to report to the May 27, 1998, meeting of the Scarborough Community Council on whatever amendments are necessary to the transportation plan components of the Scarborough Official Plan and MetroPlan to support the adopted land use option and that all interested persons and agencies, including the Regional Municipalities of York and Durham and the Towns of Markham and Pickering to be advised; and

 (b)direct staff to bring forward Bills to amend the by-law for the Protection and Conservation of Trees (No. 25150) to extend coverage to all properties with single family homes in the Tapscott Employment District.

 Comments:

 (1)Morningside Heights Proposal:

 In 1985, the owners of the majority of the Morningside Heights Land Use Study Area, bounded by the CPR lines, Steeles Avenue and the Rouge Valley top-of-bank, submitted applications to change these lands from Industrial to Residential uses. The history of these applications and the study reports is detailed in Appendix 2.

Morningside Heights landowners appealed their amendment application because the former Scarborough Council did not make a decision on the application. The Board has scheduled a pre-hearing conference on July 2, 1998 and set October 19, 1998 as the hearing date.

 Staff has considered the environmental, land use and transportation matters which affect this area. Economic Development staff has recommended that it is desirable to retain this area for employment uses as this is one of the last remaining greenfield employment areas in Toronto.

 Planning and Buildings staff do not share this view. There has been a negligible uptake of land for industrial uses within Tapscott in recent years, even with the economic recovery now in full swing.

 Planning staff recognize the need to provide sites for the long-term employment needs in Tapscott after the existing supply of 21 hectares (51 acres) of serviced land is fully utilized. How can this best be done? In the view of Planning staff, the lands in the Passmore and Steeles area, 200 hectares (500 acres) either side of Markham Road and west of the CPR line (Figure 7) have a superior location for industry and better access to major roads than lands within the study area.

 Since the required sanitary and storm sewers must pass through Morningside Heights and will be financed by levies from its development, it makes sense to encourage development of the study area to occur as rapidly as possible. In the considered opinion of Planning staff this can occur much more rapidly with residential development in the Morningside Heights Study Area. Retaining the present industrial designations in the study area may have the unintended effect of seriously hindering the City=s ability to provide more attractive greenfield lands elsewhere for its future employment needs in the eastern part of the City.

 (2)Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study:

 (a)Background:

 Scarborough Council considered the Subwatershed Analysis last fall. (The terms of reference of the study are set out in Appendix 3.) SRVS argued there was an opportunity and a need to protect more land than staff recommended. The SRVS recommendations include specific directions to substantially alter the Subwatershed Study. The most significant is the removal of all existing stormwater management structures. Staff have not been able to determine whether this is technically possible. A preliminary review indicates a possible cost of removal and replacement with underground storage in the order of $100,000,000.00.

 Staff recommended an >ecological corridor= along the main branches of the tributary be acquired. The proposed corridor was to be at least 100 metres (330 feet) wide, widening to include forested areas at Passmore Avenue and Neilson Road. These corridors covered 120 hectares (290 acres) in Scarborough and a further 30 hectares (75 acres) in Markham. Within Morningside Heights Study area, the corridor covers 60 hectares (150 acres). It was expected that the required lands would be acquired by a combination of dedication and acquisition.

 SRVS supports a very long term plan, which might take 100 years to achieve. City staff recommended the Subwatershed analysis as a sensible plan to retrofit the Morningside Tributary, a plan which has the support of the technical agencies. SRVS advocate significant restoration of the watershed which is now two-thirds urbanized.

 (b)SRVS Recommendations:

 The SRVS recommendations are two-fold and significantly change the direction of the subwatershed study. Five of the recommendations call for physical changes to the subwatershed study directions (replace man-made stormwater management facilities with natural stream; achieve a natural hydrograph; locate stormwater management structures outside the floodplain/natural areas; prohibit road crossings of Morningside and target specific habitat). These recommendations can only be implemented by large-scale acquisition of private lands, in Toronto and Markham. Methods to acquire land include purchase and negotiation with the land owner leading to dedication.

 Staff evaluated the mechanisms to bring the lands recommended by SRVS into public ownership (see Appendix 4). The magnitude of the lands required necessitate purchase of not only the area recommended by SRVS but potentially all of Morningside Heights. While some acquisition is possible by methods other than purchase, dedication of all of the private lands is not likely if no development is permitted.

 SRVS recommendations cover about 230 hectares (570 acres) in Toronto and more in Markham. If these recommendations are implemented, staff believe that the land would have to be purchased at an estimated cost of $57,000,000.00. It is our considered opinion that this would, in fact, likely require purchase of up to 330 hectares (810 acres) at a cost in the order of $80,000,000.00.

 (c)Tree By-law:

 The City applied the Tree By-law to protection and conservation of trees on all properties except those properties with single family homes. Some of the wood lot properties within Tapscott have houses on them. As there is a strong interest in preserving existing trees in the subwatershed, the Tree By-law should be extended to apply to single family properties in Tapscott.

 (3)Land Use

 (a)Executive Residential Community Proposal:

 The Planning and Buildings Department has consistently supported Executive Residential uses east of the Morningside Tributary because it is adjacent to the Cedar Brae Golf and Country Club and Rouge Park. The new community would be virtually surrounded by golf courses and open space. Planning staff recognize employment uses could be viable west of the tributary, but support high quality residential uses here if developed in conjunction with a major amenity such as a championship calibre golf course. A Residential community west of the tributary must be designed and developed with such an amenity to give it character, to make it a place of distinction and to avoid becoming just another subdivision.

 Morningside Heights would be a highly attractive residential environment for business executives. These are the very people whose business and community leadership we need to attract and not lose to communities in the 905 region. The upscale housing to be created in Morningside Heights would fill a gap at the top end of the housing market which now exists in the east part of the City. This would implement both Scarborough=s Official Plan policy for executive housing and Metro Plan=s policy to provide a full range of housing types and unit sizes.

 The community plan would provide for a green space corridor as a buffer from the industrial lands to the west. In addition, many of the objectives of the subwatershed study, such as the dedication of the Morningside Tributary corridor, can be accomplished through development agreements and land dedications.

 (b)Reasons to Retain Employment Uses:

 Toronto needs greenfield employment lands now more than ever to accommodate relocations from older employment areas and to compete with neighbouring jurisdictions. Economic Development Staff recommends retaining existing industrial uses designations in the Morningside Heights area of the Tapscott Employment District. A review of the Tapscott Employment District found that the area is viable for industry. These findings were supported in principle by Scarborough=s Economic Development Committee in April 1997.

 Morningside Heights represents one of the largest contiguous greenfield employment area in the City of Toronto. Based on absorption rates for employment lands in Scarborough since 1990, a period which experienced a severe recession in our real estate market, Morningside Heights provides Toronto with less than a 20 year supply of lands for employment use. If converted to residential uses the opportunity to provide future employment is lost forever.

 Economic Development staff was prepared to compromise on its position to retain employment uses in Morningside Heights by supporting residential uses to the east of the Morningside Tributary. A report by the Acting City Manager, the Commissioner of Planning and the Executive Director of Economic Development supporting this position went to Scarborough Planning and Buildings Committee in June 1997. The compromise provides the ability to bring services to the employment areas to the Passmore/Steeles area while retaining lands west of the tributary for employment uses.

 Is it important to retain large tracts of land for future industrial development? Industrial businesses are the critical wealth generator providing high value jobs, export sales and employment spin-offs. The manufacturing sector alone, in the City of Toronto, employs 164,000 in 6,100 establishments (1996). Economists estimate that one manufacturing job generates three other jobs in the local economy.

 Retention of industrial/commercial realty assessment is important. While representing only 29 percent of total realty assessment it was responsible for 54 percent of property taxes collected in 1997. Redevelopment of industrial areas to residential erodes the commercial/industry assessment base. The conversion of office and industrial properties to residential is well documented and a trend that is expected to continue in our older employment districts. Morningside Heights represents one of the last areas in Toronto to capture business relocating out of our older employment/industrial areas. Over the long term, Morningside Heights has the potential to provide more than 13,000 jobs and generate $50 million in property taxes if allowed to remain an employment district.

 Converting employment districts to residential uses has a further financial impact to the municipality because housing in Toronto costs more to service than it generates in revenue. Only 75 percent of the local expenditures for housing are covered by the residential tax payer, the remaining 25 percent is subsidized by the industrial/commercial sector. The conversion of Morningside Heights to residential uses would incur an annual short fall in the range of $3 million to $8 million, depending on the actual number of residential units.

 As we emerge from the depressed real estate market of the early 1990's, inventories of existing available industrial and office facilities are diminishing. Toronto=s industrial vacancy rates were at a high of 12.8 percent in 1993. Today they are 6.9 percent with rental rates approaching levels required to support new and speculative construction. Greenfield locations like Morningside Heights offer cost effective solutions for business requiring new facilities.

 If the City of Toronto is unable to accommodate the growth of our businesses, we will increasingly face the loss of business to neighbouring jurisdictions. Ingram Micro, in their recent announcement identified the lack of available sites as the primary reason for their relocation from Toronto to Mississauga, a loss to Toronto of 900 jobs.

 The City of Toronto=s ability to accommodate future business growth is far from clear. The redevelopment of traditionally industrial lands to residential and retail uses in older districts has to be taken into consideration when examining the possible conversion of the largest tract of greenfield employment land to residential. On this basis, Economic Development would strongly encourage Council not to support the Morningside Heights ownership group application to designate these lands for residential. Economic Development staff recommend that a City wide employment and assessment review be undertaken to ascertain Toronto=s competitive position in the GTA and identify the related financial impacts in order to better determine Toronto=s ability to accommodate business growth and compete for new and expanding business.

 (4)Status of the Markham-Scarborough Link:

 The issue of a major north-south road located in the east end of the City, linking Highways 401 and 407, has been the subject of many reports over the past 20 years. The level of interest in this road is significant. The three neighbouring municipalities of York Region, Durham Region, and the Town of Markham have requested party status at the OMB hearing for Morningside Heights, stating that their interest relates only to the road link. Amendments to the Scarborough Official Plan, OPA 722, dealing with the deletion of the East Metro Transportation Corridor and OPA 990, the North-East Roads Study and the deferral of MetroPlan, which have been appealed by the Region of Durham and other municipalities, may be consolidated into this hearing. The following outlines the background to this important issue.

 (a)Provincial Policies in Conflict

 In 1990, the Province of Ontario announced the creation of the Rouge Park. Coincidently, the Minister of Transportation announced that there would be Ano new roads constructed south of Steeles Avenue in the Rouge Park.@ The policy statements precluded a number of planned inter-regional road connections that were included in the City of Scarborough Official Plan, including the westerly extension of Finch Avenue and Passmore Avenue. Council amended its Road Plan for the Rouge Park area (OPA 990) to implement this Provincial Policy. OPA 990 is currently awaiting approval at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

 The East Metro Freeway, planned to link Highway 401 and Highway 407 through what is now the Rouge Park, would also be precluded. Although the Province has confirmed on many occasions that the East Metro Freeway will not be constructed as originally planned, the Province has not sold any of the land that was assembled for this purpose. Provincial staff continue to protect the original planned interchange at Highway 401, securing and protecting land through the development process.

 By continuing to protect this alignment, now known as the East Metro Transportation Corridor, the Province is causing a great deal of uncertainty to the adjacent communities and environmental groups. Municipalities abutting Toronto continue to hope that a major road facility will be constructed as originally planned.

(b)The Environmental Assessment Proposal:

 In 1994, the Province agreed to finance an Environmental Assessment Proposal (EAP) study of a Markham/Scarborough Transportation Link. A public consultation process was conducted in early 1995 to receive public input to the draft EAP. Groups in Scarborough expressed strong concerns. They also questioned the need for a link and the elimination of other corridors from further study.

 In the fall of 1995, Scarborough Council resolved not to support the continuation of the Markham/Scarborough Link Environmental Assessment Proposal. Markham Council approved the EAP and gave strong support to proceed with the Environmental Assessment.

 (c)Morningside Heights Alternative Road Alignment:

 The Morningside Heights landowners propose an alignment for the extension of Morningside Avenue along the east side of the CPR tracks, crossing the tracks north of the HEPC corridor and continuing north to Steeles Avenue on land that is owned by other interests. The alignment is similar to some of the alternatives identified in the 1995 EAP study.

 While this alignment may be the only possible alignment given the many environmental and political constraints, there are many implementation problems associated with the proposal route. The following is a brief discussion of the salient reasons why this alignment is likely to be very difficult to achieve.

 (i)Grade Separations:

 The City of Scarborough commenced an environmental assessment of the Morningside/Finch/CPR grade separation in 1997. The study is currently on hold due to many factors including the uncertainty caused by lack of a land use decision regarding the Morningside Heights area. Finch Avenue between Neilson Road and Morningside Avenue is currently handling more traffic than the broken two lane cross-section was designed to carry. In addition, the narrow/low existing grade separation must be replaced to allow for safer more efficient handling of traffic including transit buses. The alignment suggested by the Morningside Heights group would have to be capable of accommodating this future grade separation.

 The suggested alignment crosses the CP Rail line between the Ontario Hydro Corridor and Passmore Avenue, requiring an expensive grade separation and the co-operation of more land owners.

 The intersecting point with Steeles Avenue would have to be located far enough west of the CP rail line to allow for the ultimate CP/Steeles Avenue grade separation. The new road would also have to cross the environmentally sensitive Morningside Tributary south of Steeles Avenue.

 (ii)Markham By-Pass Connection:

 The new road must make a direct connection with the Markham By-pass to be of any value to the future north-south travel demand. The proposed intersection of the Markham By-pass and Highway 7 is located just west of 10th Line on the east side of the planned Cornell Community. This is approximately three kilometers east of the suggested intersection point at Steeles Avenue. If the road were aligned as proposed it would be circuitous in the extreme (Figure 9).

 A direct connection with the Markham By-pass would require a crossing of the Parkview Golf Course in a north easterly direction. This route would be extremely expensive as it would have to diagonally cross the Rouge River flood plain. Depending on the environmental constraints, the new road may require a bridge one kilometer long to satisfactorily cross the Rouge Valley. This is more than twice the length of the Bloor viaduct. The construction problems associated with the route are further exacerbated by the need to be grade separated at the CN rail line and then somehow cross 9th Line south of the Box Grove Community.

 To avoid the expensive crossing of the Rouge River Valley north of Steeles Avenue, the Town of Markham may propose to extend the Markham By-pass south to Steeles east of 9th Line. If a road was ended in this location, opposite the Rouge Park, it would dump a very large volume of traffic onto Steeles Avenue. This would also put further pressure for a southerly extension through the northwest portion of the Rouge Park.

 (iii) Impact on Malvern Community:

 In addition to the already noted concerns, the proposed alignment depends on funnelling regional commuter traffic through an existing road link within a built up community. If the road is successful as a regional transportation link, the increased traffic volumes and possible access restrictions may well have the effect of isolating Malvern=s Neighbourhood 3 from community facilities in the Malvern core on which this neighbourhood depends.

 (iv)Future Land Use of Morningside Heights:

 The ultimate land use within Morningside Heights will have a bearing on the future road requirements. If the area is developed for executive residential uses, there will not be the demand to require the capacity provided by a

north-south arterial road. If, however, the area is developed as an employment district, potentially more major roads would be required to accommodate future travel demand and make the district more attractive for businesses to locate.

 (v)Funding:

 Provincial staff have confirmed that the new road would be funded by the local municipalities and not the Province. These costs would have a tremendous impact on the capital programs of the City of Toronto and York Region, given the number of grade separations and river crossings required.

Conclusions:

 Council needs to enunciate its vision for the future of the Morningside Heights Study Area. Does Council want the lands to become a major natural area through public acquisition, effectively removing 230 hectares (570 acres) from any future urban developments? Alternatively, does Council want urban development with a natural corridor centred on the Morningside Tributary and Neilson Creek as proposed in the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Analysis Report and Addendum and as supported by staff?

 If Council supports urban development, Council then must consider whether to retain the employment designations west of the Morningside Tributary or support the redesignation of these lands to provide for a high quality residential community with a significant natural feature.

 While the component parts of this decision are complex, a clear direction from Council is essential to provide direction to staff, landowners and the community.

 This report has the concurrence of the Executive Director of Scarborough Economic Development Department and the Commissioner of Works and Environment.

 Contact Names:

 David Beasley, MCIP, RPPAnn Rexe, MCIP, RPP.

Principal PlannerAssistant Director

Urban Planning and Development ServicesWorks and Emergency Services

Phone:396-7026Phone:396-7156

Fax:396-4265Fax:396-5681

E-mail:beasley@city.scarborough.on.caE-mail:rexe@city.scarborough.on.ca

 Bruce Graham, Manager,Rod McPhail, Acting Director

Community and Economic Development ServicesStrategic Planning and Legislation

Phone:396-7066Phone:396-7018

Fax:396-4241Fax:396-4265

E-mailgraham@city.scarborough.on.caE-mail: mcphail@city.scarborough.on.ca

 CCCC

 Appendix No. 1

 Summary of Council Directions

 (1)Scarborough Community Council requested a status report, on Morningside Heights, with input from all departments, for April 1, 1998.

 (2)The former Scarborough Council tabled the land use recommendations for the Morningside Heights land west of Morningside Tributary and requested staff to report on the extension of Morningside Avenue in Morningside Heights (Clause No. 16 embodied in Report No. 17 of the Planning and Buildings Committee, considered by Council September 30, 1997).

 (3)The former Scarborough Council requested a report on the methods and mechanisms to implement Save The Rouge Valley System Inc. (SRVS) recommendations. Council also directed staff to prepare the implementation plan for Morningside Tributary Subwatershed, incorporating ten recommendations made by SRVS. (Clause No. 1, Report No. 16 of the Works and Environment Committee, adopted as amended by Council September 30, 1997).

 CCCC

 Appendix No. 2

 History of Morningside Heights Applications, Studies and OMB Appeals:

 In 1994, Council approved terms of reference for the Morningside Heights Land Use Study to determine whether or not the industrial designations should be changed. Council approved Official Plan Amendment 974 which identified this as a Special Study Area This amendment was subsequently appealed by the landowners.

 In May of 1997, Scarborough Planning and Buildings Committee considered a Preliminary Evaluation report on the Morningside Heights landowners' application for a new residential community of 3,150 single and attached dwelling units, and applications by the Cedar Brae Golf Club for 105 cluster residential units and Kaposi and Raponi for high density residential and commercial uses.

 The report recommended that Phase 1 of the Morningside Heights Land Use Study be concluded by Council supporting low density Executive Residential uses for that part of the study area between the Morningside Creek and the Rouge Valley. The report also recommended that residential uses be supported for the balance of the study area conditional on a commitment by the owners to a full scale 18 hole golf course and substantial reduction of the proposed residential densities.

 Economic Development staff in a report entitled Morningside Heights Employment Review stated that this area is a desirable employment area and the largest remaining greenfield development opportunity in the City of Toronto. Economic Development Committee supported this position in principle on April 2, 1997.

 Planning and Buildings Committee then directed that a joint report be prepared by the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings and the Executive Director, Economic Development, with input from the Acting City Manager, specifically addressing the viability and desirability of retaining the existing industrial uses designations.

 This joint report was considered by Council on June 10, 1997, in conjunction with previously prepared reports. The recommendations were to support Executive Residential uses east of the Morningside Creek, retain the existing industrial designations to the west, refuse the Kaposi and Raponi applications, give conceptual support to part of the Cedar Brae application, and report in September 1997 on progress on Phase 2 of the study.

 Council supported Executive Residential uses east of the Morningside Creek. Rather than reconfirming industrial uses west of the tributary, Council directed that staff review whether these lands were appropriate for executive housing. A community information meeting was directed, which was subsequently held and reported to Council.

 In response to Council=s direction, planning staff, with the assistance of an expert golf course designer, explored the potential of the study area for executive housing. The resulting planning concept was set out in the report AMorningside Heights: An Executive Residential Golf Course Community in Scarborough@.

 On September 30, 1997, Council considered Planning and Buildings Department recommendations to implement this vision, including resolving Phase I of the Land Use Study in favour of an Executive Residential community, golf course and clusters of golf villas and proceeding with Phase 2 with input from the Subwatershed Study and all interested parties.

 Council considered this report in conjunction with a report by the Executive Director of Economic Development on AThe Financial Impact - Conversion of Industrial Land to Residential, Morningside Heights@. This report provided an analysis of the higher municipal costs related to servicing residential as opposed to employment land uses in Morningside Heights.

 Council also considered the SRVS submission recommending retaining much of Morningside Heights as either undeveloped or forested at this time. When Council considered the matter, Planning staff supported an Executive Residential Golf Course Community. Economic Development staff recommended retention of this area for employment. Council tabled the Planning and Buildings report with a direction that staff report back on the extension of Morningside Avenue as part of the Land Use Study.

 In October 1997, the Morningside Heights landowners appealed their official plan amendment application to the OMB.

CCCC

 Appendix No. 3

 Purpose of Subwatershed Study:

 Scarborough has been preparing the subwatershed study to provide an environmental plan for Morningside Tributary, in Markham and Toronto. The Study objectives were to:

 (1)provide a balance between urban development and protection of the ecosystem;

 (2)protect, restore, enhance historic, cultural, recreational and visual amenities;

 (3)minimize flooding or reestablish natural floodplain hydrologic function where possible;

 (4)prevent pollution;

 (5)link strategy to land use approvals; and

 (6)avoid liability for the City.

 CCCC

 Appendix No. 4

 Methods of Implementing the SRVS Recommendations

 and Techniques to Bring Land Into Public Ownership

 (1)Review of Methods of Implementing the SRVS Recommendations:

 (1)That the entire existing floodplain (known as the Regional Floodline) be protected, renaturalized and brought into public ownership:

 Method of Implementing: Acquire

 (2)That all streams, and their headwater areas, be protected, renaturalized and brought into public ownership:

 Method of Implementing: Acquire

 (3)That all natural vegetation in the area be given a Level One status, so that it cannot be destroyed:

 Further discussion with SRVS indicated that the term >natural vegetation= meant woodlots. The Subwatershed Analysis created three levels of protection. The only way to ensure that all woodlots remain will be to acquire them and put in place a management plan.

 Method of Implementing: Acquire

 (4)That a protective 30 metre, publicly owned buffer be established along all streams and natural areas

 There are alternatives to public acquisition, such as conservation easements and stewardship agreements which may be equally effective without requiring public ownership.

 Most of the proposed buffer lands recommended by SRVS have been achieved by staff recommendation, the remainder would have to be acquired.

 The TRCA Full Authority have passed a resolution directing staff to consider the concerns raised by the Friends of the Rouge including a review of an increase of the 10 metre setback in the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study. TRCA staff have not reported back and we will advise Council accordingly.

 Method of Implementing: Acquire

 (5)That a 300 acre tableland forest be created to connect the Morningside stream to the Rouge River:

 This proposal suggests that the tableland between the Tributary and the Rouge River be acquired and a forest created on these lands. In Toronto the existing land uses on the proposed forest block are golf course (Brookside and the west half of the Cedar Brae Golf and Country Club). The total area of the proposed forest is about 230 hectares (568 acres) in Toronto alone. A further area is proposed in Markham.

 The existing use of the lands to the east should be examined before making a decision to acquire the lands between the tributary and the Rouge. The lands south of Steeles to approximately the Ontario Hydro corridor are occupied by the Cedar Brae Golf and Country Club, which is permitted to continue in the Rouge Park Management Plan and by official plan policy (Upper Rouge Secondary Plan). The Rouge valley south of the Hydro corridor is owned by the Province and is currently forested.

 This recommendation is based on a philosophical desire to expand forest cover in the Rouge watershed, possibly creating sufficient wide, mature woodlots which may provide habitat for birds like the Red Shouldered Hawk, referred to in Recommendation No. (10).

 Method of Implementing: Acquire

 (6)That existing energy dissipators and unnatural stream beds be replaced by natural stream beds:

 SRVS recommended replacement of all man-made structures. There are thirteen structures, including two energy dissipators, the Tapscott diversion structure and pond as well as many outfall structures. Each of these engineered structures serves a function that mitigates the impacts of development on water quality, and quantity. While we recognize the importance of regenerating the Morningside Subwatershed, there are serious (safety, property damage, economic) consequences if these structures were removed as both the north and south portion of the watershed in the Town of Markham and in Malvern have been developed based on these stormwater management facilities, being in place.

 Staff has done a preliminary investigation of the replacement of structures. We do not know if it is technically possible or feasible. A preliminary review indicated that it may cost in the region of $100,000,000 to provide stormwater storage facilities to replace the existing stormwater management facilities. This does not include stream restoration, or costs to undertake the studies to achieve this proposal.

 It should be noted that Morningside Creek Forest located at the mouth in the Morningside Tributary is an Environmentally Significant Area (ESA). The energy dissaptor at the Toronto Zoo and other stormwater management facilities are located in this ESA. It will be very difficult to remove existing stormwater management structures without damaging the existing natural areas of the watershed.

 There is some opportunity to modify the function of some of the stormwater management structures; but this should be done in the context of a long term strategy and study of each specific site. The Subwatershed Analysis clearly identified opportunities to improve and retrofit the existing stormwater management facilities.

 Method of Implementing: cost cannot be calculated without technical studies but could be more than $100,000,000.

 (7)That a natural hydrograph (the rate at which water moves through the area and into the stream) be achieved in the stream:

 A hydrograph is a representation of the rate of flow of water moving along a stream, expressed in graph form. In very general terms when a watershed is stripped of its natural forest cover to make way for agricultural activities, runoff volume increases by a factor of 3 to 4 times. Once this same watershed is urbanized, the runoff volume can increase ten-fold.

 Urbanization changes the whole hydrologic cycle of the watershed itself. The net effect of development also has a dramatic change in stream hydrology, was well as changes to groundwater infiltration and baseflow recharge.

 In addition to the hydrologic changes, urbanization also causes changes to instream water quality, to the riparian zone stream habitat and to the stream channel geomorphology. All these physical changes have consequential chemical and biological effects on the stream ecosystem.

 Once urbanization has taken place, the original or natural hydrologic cycle has been modified. Recent studies have shown that the current practice of 2 year storm >peak shaving= has not been effective in controlling downstream channel erosion. Even with  >over control=, by providing more storage, the extended duration of flows cause velocities well above critical erosive velocities that could not be prevented. Hence, control facilities alone, using additional storage, are not expected to prevent downstream channel erosion.

 However, in a greenfield situation, it is possible to model (simulate) the requirements to regenerate (recreate) the pre-development hydrologic cycle by implementing massive storage facilities in combination with source control and several other remedial measures that currently (to-date) have never been built and tested.

 It is theoretically possible to recreate the pre-development hydrologic cycle in an undeveloped area. Whether or not it is acceptable and economically feasible still has to be determined. We are still in the early stages of the understanding of the full implications of employing stormwater management to effectively match predevelopment hydrographs (i.e., to maintain predevelopment runoff volumes as well as peak flows).

 Method of Implementing: SRVS propose that their recommend acquisition areas will implement this recommendation. No technical work has been done to determine if this is possible.

 (8)That stormwater management structures be located outside the floodplain and natural areas:

 The Subwatershed Analysis does not discuss the location of stormwater ponds. Staff anticipate that if the >ecological corridor= set out in the Phase 2 report is achieved, there would be no need to locate stormwater management ponds in the corridor which is wider than the proposed floodplain and includes natural areas. Under these conditions the Phase 2 report recommendations would already achieve this SRVS recommendation.

 SRVS wishes all stormwater management facilities to be located outside the regional floodplain. The existing regional floodplain is caused by a combination of floodwaters moving down stream (because a dam was never constructed) and a backwater caused by the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) line, just north of Finch Avenue. The culvert under the railway acts as a dam, restricting flow downstream and causing a backwater upstream. The only way to ensure no stormwater management ponds are in the flood plain is to buy the existing regional floodplain as SRVS suggests.

 Method of Implementing: Purchase the existing regional flood plain.

 (9)That new roads will be prohibited from crossing the Morningside stream:

 The roads required to cross Morningside Tributary is a land use issue. There is one road crossing today, Staines Avenue. Provincial policy prevents new road crossing anywhere in Rouge Park but permits road crossings of the portion of Morningside Tributary north of Finch.

 Method of Implementing: Acquire the tablelands between the Tributary and the Rouge River.

 (10)That the watershed be managed to ensure the following species are present for future generations to enjoy:

 -Red Side Dace, Central Stoneroller and Rainbow Trout

-Red Shouldered Hawk

-Coyote and Deer

 We think that the fish species identified by SRVS are appropriate targets for the main Morningside Tributary and were recognized generally in the Subwatershed Analysis target to management Morningside tributary as a >cold-water= stream.. Coyotes and deer are not particularly sensitive species and will remain in the corridor as identified in the Addendum to the Phase 2 report.

 Red Shouldered Hawk is a less tolerant species and has very specific habitat requirements. Forest interior habitat is required for nesting, and adjacent wetlands are required for feeding. It is unclear even with the forest envisioned by SRVS if the other requirements of the Red Shouldered Hawk could be met. As a result to use this species as a target may not be appropriate.

 We could suggest many other species and suggest that species should be selected based on the opportunity for biodiversity and for supporting populations of species of concern. Some appropriate target species may be Bobolink, Woodcock, Northern Flying Squirrel or amphibians.

 Method of Implementing: The habitat for most species recommended by SRVS can be achieved by the originally recommended Subwatershed Analysis. It is not clear if the habitat for proposed target of Red Shouldered Hawk could ever be achieved. SRVS suggest that the tableland, between the Tributary and the Rouge be acquired and reforested so that it would, in the long run (80 years or more) provide appropriate habitat.

 (2)Techniques To Bring Land Into Public Ownership:

 (1) Purchase:

 Purchase can be achieved by either government or non-governmental organizations expending funds. There are a number of alternatives which do not necessitate public expenditure. These include land exchange and dedication of parkland or floodplain, during the development process. Other methods include using alternate development standards, density transfer, income tax deductions and charitable donations to acquire land without the need for outright purchase.

 Staff estimate that the cost of acquiring the lands identified by SRVS would be about $57,000,000. City Real Estate staff estimate that the land value would be $250,000 per hectare ($100,000 per acre) averaged over area recommended for purchase. Staff assumed future development potential based on the industrial designations which now apply to most of the lands. The value of any specific parcel will vary depending on many factors. A real estate appraisal will be required to determine the cost. This estimate does not include the lands in Markham which would also be required by the SRVS recommendations.

 The SRVS recommendation would only leave 76 hectares (187 acres) of Morningside Heights lands for development. The lands remaining available for development are small and of irregular shape, being the residue of lands which SRVS proposes should be acquired. Servicing and planning these remaining lands for any urban use would be inefficient and impose significant additional costs to the developers, costs which could likely not be recovered in marketing the developed lands. Given this result, the land owners would probably ask that all of lands in Morningside Heights be acquired. Upstream corridor lands outside Morningside Heights in Toronto constitute a further 30 hectares (75 acres). The final acquisition cost of the 330 hectares (810 acres) could in the order of $80,000,000. These estimates do not evaluate implications for Markham.

 As a comparison the estimated land costs are 80 times the 1997 Scarborough Capital Budget for watercourse land acquisition.

 (2)Parkland Dedication:

 The parkland dedication from the development of the remaining lands would be so small as not to be an effective means of acquiring lands. The Planning Act provides for dedication of land for active parkland - 5 percent for residential lands or 2 percent for commercial/industrial development. As the parkland dedication would be based on land available for development, this measure would provide only 1.6 hectares (4 acres) to 3.6 hectares (9 acres) of dedicated land.

 (3)Dedication of Flood Plain Lands:

 Normally developers are expected to pay for flood control measures benefiting their lands and regional flood plain lands are deeded to a public agency. Tapscott landowners have already paid for the diversion structure and an Environmental Assessment approval is in place to divert stormwater so that there will be no flood plain downstream of it. These landowners cannot be expected to freely dedicate the same lands which this facility was intended to free up for development.

 (4)Land Exchange/Density Transfer:

 Given the extremely low Aas of right@ residential density existing on these lands, most of which are zoned for agricultural uses, transfer of density rights is not a realistic way to acquire land.

 Concentrating higher density residential development on small Aislands@ of development surrounded by a Asea@ of public open space, would require small lot sizes and/or multiple and apartment housing forms. This would totally change the development concept to one that neither City staff nor the landowners could support.

 Placing community facilities like schools or parks located next to the proposed corridor would be ineffective as a land acquisition technique because few, or none, will be required to serve development on the residual lands.

 Reduced road rights-of-way, with an area equivalent to the Asaved@ area being dedicated as corridor, are possible. It is likely, however, that use of Arural@ road cross-sections to allow ditches and increased storm water infiltration may require full-width rights of way.

Existing roads allowances and other publicly owned lands constitute 12 hectares (25 acres) in the Morningside Heights, for example. These lands might be exchanged for the dedication of additional corridor lands.

 (5)Tax Deduction for Dedication of Property:

 The Income Tax Act allows tax relief for owners dedicating lands to public agencies for conservation purposes to conservation organizations, with charitable status. This example is dependent on whether the developer is willing to negotiate this and would find the tax deduction beneficial.

   Appendix No. 5

 Economic Impacts of the SRVS Proposal

 The SRVS proposals would reduce the area for employment uses in the Morningside Heights study area to approximately 76 hectares (187 acres) net developable land. By comparison, the Morningside Tributary Watershed Study identifies approximately 190 hectares (468 acres) of net developable land in the Morningside Heights Study Area. Based on this difference alone, the economic potential under the SRVS development proposal would provide less than 40 percent of the development potential of the Morningside Tributary Watershed Study Phase 2 recommendations.

 The resulting economic impact of the SRVS proposal would be approximately 8,000 fewer jobs than could otherwise be generated. Potential annual property taxes would be reduced from $50 million to only $20 million.

 The SRVS proposal also brings into question the feasibility for servicing and developing approximately 200 hectares (500 acres) of industrial land to the north and west of Morningside Heights, as this would be financed, at least in part, by contributions from benefiting developers. The recommendation will render relatively small, isolated and oddly shaped developable parcels requiring significantly higher servicing. The end result is a higher price to users and may have a significant negative effect on their marketability. Jobs and property tax revenue to the municipality is further at risk if the remaining lands are undevelopable because of excessively high per acre costs to service.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (May 15, 1998) from the Commissioner, Works and Environment, Scarborough:

 Purpose:

 Scarborough Community Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Environment, Scarborough, in conjunction with the Law Department, to compare the Subwatershed Study findings with the Memorandum of Understanding, between Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. and the Morningside Heights Landowners Group. Council also asked that we report on financial means of achieving the environmental attributes in Morningside Heights. The last matter was the status of the Tapscott sewer program in the Capital Budget and how to expedite servicing west of Morningside Heights.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 We require funding in the amount of $200,000.00 to prepare reports on the technical and financial implications of extending trunk sewers to the remainder of Tapscott Employment District and prepare detailed stormwater management reports on how to implement more natural stormwater drainage. We will charge this to Account No. 57794-00000-84330-xxx, which is for Project No. 711, Tapscott Industrial Area Sewers.

 Recommendations:

 (1)It is recommended that Council:

 (a)endorse the Phase 2 Report and Addendum of the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study and those portions of the Memorandum of Understanding consistent with the Subwatershed Study and endorse the revised corridors (except on Neilson Creek), the revised stormwater management methodology which attempts to avoid use of the Tapscott Diversion Structure in the end, the added woodlot on Pitchfork Creek and the proposed trust fund;

 (b)direct staff to prepare the Implementation Plan for the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study;

 (c)direct staff to forward the Phase 2 of the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study and Addendum to the Council of the Town of Markham with a request that the Town authorize their staff to work with the City staff to prepare the Implementation Plan, for Markham=s portion of Morningside Tributary Subwatershed; and

 (2)direct staff to bring forward a Bill to amend the by-law for the Protection and Conservation of Trees (No. 25150) to extend coverage to all properties with single family homes in the Tapscott Employment District.

 Council Reference/Background/History:

 Council has considered the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study Phase 2 report since last June. In February 1998, the Ontario Municipal Board held a pre-hearing on the land development applications in the Tapscott portion of the Subwatershed Study area. Following the pre-hearing Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. (SRVS) and Morningside Heights Landowners Group held private discussions to see if they, as two parties to the OMB hearing, could develop a joint agreement on their positions on both land use and subwatershed planning issues. This agreement was presented to Community Council on April 1 as a AMemorandum of Understanding@ (MOU). At the same meeting, City Staff also responded to Scarborough Council=s request from September 1997 for a response on the ten point recommendations of SRVS. As the Memorandum of Understanding was a modified position by both SRVS and the landowners, Community Council asked staff to report further with a comparison of the various positions.

 Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

 (1)Comparison of Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study

to the Memorandum of Understanding

 The Memorandum of Understanding is a contract between SRVS and the Landowners Group expressing their joint support for residential development of Morningside Heights, in the Tapscott portion of the subwatershed. This agreement specifies areas to be protected and regenerated, and requires specified stormwater management techniques. Some aspects of the MOU are not related to the subwatershed study issues such as the number of road crossings permitted and preferred land use.

 Is the Memorandum of Understanding a good compromise for the Subwatershed Study? Yes. In general terms several key areas support and exceed the Subwatershed recommendations. The MOU also includes methods to carry out the subwatershed study, ahead of the Implementation Plan being prepared, which appear to achieve more than staff anticipated.

 The key findings which support the Subwatershed Study are:

 (a)creation of a corridor on Morningside Tributary, and dedication of these lands to the City. The Subwatershed Study recommended the corridor but staff expected to have only a portion dedicated;

 (b)dedication of four woodlots. The Subwatershed Study recommended three woodlots be protected and that these would have to be purchased;

 (c)dedication of a corridor on Neilson Creek from Neilson Road to the CPR rail line on a corridor which the subwatershed study anticipated would likely be piped;

 (d)dedication of one corridor of Pitchfork Tributary (connecting to the upstream woodlot) which the subwatershed study anticipated would likely be piped;

 The MOU also reduces some corridor widths to less than the subwatershed recommendation. South of Ontario Hydro, the Morningside corridor is reduced from 100 metres to 80 metres, but an additional 20 metres next to the top of the bank of the Rouge River will be deeded. This fulfils a Rouge Park Management Plan objective, which is a reasonable alternative.

 There is a floodplain on Neilson Creek, which is as much as 90 metres wide. The MOU only shows dedication of a 20 metre wide corridor. The MOU is reasonable subject to further technical studies (at the plan of subdivision stage) to show whether any floodplain reduction is achievable using passive stormwater management techniques. If not, additional land will have to be acquired on Neilson Creek.

 The Memorandum of Understanding also contains a significant undertaking to implement the Subwatershed Study in the form of a $1 Million Trust Fund for regeneration of Morningside Tributary in Morningside Heights, through the auspices of SRVS and the Landowners Group. Such a fund will greatly assist the implementation process. The proposal also shows linkages which provide walking trail access throughout the area. The linkages support subwatershed objectives but may not be sufficient to meet other municipal planning needs.

 The Landowners Group has agreed to a more stringent stormwater management process which will, as much as practicable, utilize natural processes and to protect cold water fisheries in the watercourses. Morningside Heights Landowners and SRVS, also agree that development of Morningside Heights will not present a barrier to long term removal of the Tapscott Diversion structure. This intent paves the way for the removal of the diversion structure within 50 years, as a target for the city to adopt.

 (2)Comments on Memorandum of Understanding

 We have reviewed the MOU with the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study Technical Steering Committee, the Public Advisory Committee and the staff Technical committee. The MOU is consistent with the Subwatershed Study Phase 2 report and Addendum. in principle but it is not acceptable for the MOU to pre-commit Council to residential land use.

 The MOU anticipates elimination of the Diversion Structure within 50 years. There is not sufficient technical analysis to determine if such a target is achievable. All parties agree it will be a tough, patient process to retrofit Morningside Tributary to avoid the need for the diversion structure. Working toward this long-term goal is very positive but additional stormwater management reports will be required.

 At the Council meeting, there was concern that a >binding= agreement between SRVS and Morningside Heights Landowners Group would effectively bind other parties, including the

City. The Law Department notes that the Memorandum of Understanding is an agreement which is only binding on the parties that sign it, SRVS and the Morningside Heights Landowners. If the MOU is registered on title, and they ultimately deed those lands to the city, current policy requires that any lands be conveyed to the city to be free and clear of all encumbrances, including any private agreements. However, if Council supports certain aspects of the MOU, Council may accept whatever encumbrances deemed desirable.

 (3)Means to Expedite Acquisition of Environmental Attributes in Morningside Heights

 The MOU sets out a way of achieving the protection and enhancement of natural areas in Morningside Heights. The parties agree that the lands should be approved for residential development and the landowner will deed most of the lands for natural purposes if their development is approved.

 The proposal represents a larger area of public dedication than was anticipated when staff recommended the subwatershed study last September. At that time, staff anticipated that we could expect dedication of a portion, but not all, of the 100 metre widths. We expected to have to purchase most of the woodlots.

 If Council deems Employment as a preferred land use, the existing land use may remain. Under that scenario, to find the natural areas, the City would have to negotiate either acquisition of the natural areas, or a stewardship agreement in which the owner would agree to keep lands in a natural state.

 The subwatershed recommendations would be more easily achieved by fostering development approval which is a win-win situation for all parties.

 (4)Status of the Capital Budget for Tapscott Sewers

 About 600 hectares (1,500 acres) of land between the CPR rail line at Neilson Road and Passmore Avenue and the area at Passmore Avenue and Markham Road have been zoned as an employment area for some years. In 1990, Scarborough Council endorsed a concept to service these lands based on:

 (i)extending trunk sewer services from Staines Road, at the Ontario Hydro corridor, to west of Markham Road and Passmore;

 (ii)financing construction through debentures and recovering the cost through an area sewer levy, according to the Municipal Act;

 (iii)adding this project to the 5 Year Capital Works Program;

 (iv)negotiating the acquisition of necessary easements.

 (Clause 7 embodied in Report No. 31 of the Administrative Committee, adopted as amended by Council November 14, 1990)

 In 1994, $600,000.00 for studies for the Tapscott Industrial Area Sewers were included in the approved Capital Budget (at an estimated cost of $6.93 Million for construction future funding). The study funds have been spent on subwatershed studies. The route for the trunk sewers through Morningside Heights requires an agreement on a road pattern, which in turn is based on land use.

 The MOU requires the city to make greater use of existing natural drainage, than was planned in the subwatershed study. As a result, a detailed stormwater management plan to provide specific stormwater management techniques and recommendations for extending the storm sewer, particularly west of the CP rail line is now required over and above the implementation plan.

 Based on Scarborough Council approval in 1990, staff has been trying to negotiate a route for the sanitary sewer and storm servicing concept through Morningside Heights lands. Ideally the sanitary and stormwater routing follows existing and/or proposed watercourses and roads As we have not been able to agree on a route, our only option would be to expropriate the land for the servicing scheme. We prefer to continue negotiations to obtain the route through the development process at no cost to the City.

 An alternative is for staff to consider corridor routes and options outside the land holdings of the Morningside Heights Landowners Group and report back on the projected cost of land acquisition and servicing scheme recommended.

 In 1998, the Tapscott Industrial Area Sewer Capital Project No. 711 (formerly Capital Project No.8433) is shown in the City of Toronto Capital Budget as a future capital project (in 1999). Funding for the above reports can come from this capital project.

 Other Issues:

 Tree By-law

 In our previous report, we recommended that the Tree By-law be extended to apply to single family homes in Tapscott Employment District to protect and conserve existing trees.

 Jim Robb/The Friends of the Rouge Watershed

 Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed, has submitted a letter requesting consideration of several matters in the implementation plan process. The letter specifically notes that the implementation plan address protection and improvement to habitat for specified fish, improved water quality and stream flow stability which we agree will be key areas to address in the next phase of this study. Another point is that there should be a 30 metre buffer adjacent to the floodplain, north of the

Ontario Hydro. This has largely been achieved by both the subwatershed study and the MOU.

 Jim Robb also makes a recommendation that road crossings of Morningside Tributary be restricted to one road. While we have said in the subwatershed study that road crossings should be kept to a minimum, this is a land use matter. There is also a suggestion that about 30 hectares (75 acres) east of Staines Road be purchased to protect flood-prone and ecologically sensitive lands as part of Rouge Park. These lands will no longer be in the floodplain if the findings of the subwatershed study are implemented. While it may be nice to acquire more lands for Rouge Park, the subwatershed study did not recommend this.

 Conclusions:

 The Memorandum of Understanding is largely consistent with the recommendations of the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study Phase 2 Report and Addendum. There are a few matters like preferred land use, which are related to the secondary plan and development approval process, not the subwatershed planning process. The MOU is an agreement only between SRVS and the Morningside Heights Landowners Group and would only bind the City, if the City chooses. The MOU is successful in obtaining a greater degree of dedication on corridor lands and woodlots than was expected when staff reported on the Phase 2 findings originally. If Council prefers a land use other than residential, it will likely require a new round of negotiations to purchase the corridors and woodlots or make stewardship arrangements with landowners.

 A further issue was the status of the capital budget to extend services to the unserviced lands in Tapscott Employment District. This project was approved in concept in 1990, at an anticipated cost of $6.93 Million. Staff have been negotiating a route for sanitary and storm servicing concept through Morningside Heights, but the sewer route has not yet been secured. The only option would be to expropriate the land needed for the servicing scheme. Continued negotiation to obtain the route through the development process, at no cost to the city is preferable.

 It is also necessary to carry out a detailed stormwater management plan to provide specific techniques and recommendations for storm sewer location. Staff requires Council=s direction so we can complete Phase 3 of the Study which is a detailed implementation plan for the Subwatershed.

 Contact Name:

 Ann L. Rexe, RPP, MCIP

Assistant Director, Environment

Works and Emergency Services

Phone:396-7156

Fax:396-5681

E-mail:rexe@city.scarborough.on.ca

 The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following memorandum (May 27, 1998) addressed to Councillor Bas Balkissoon, which was before the Community Council at its meeting held on May 28, 1998:

 This memorandum is prepared in response to your request for follow-up on issues raised by Friends of the Rouge Watershed at the City Community Information Meeting held at the Toronto Zoo on May 20, 1998.

 In particular, you asked staff if the agreement between land owners and the city regarding funding the Tapscott Diversion structure is a commitment to allow development in the existing floodplain on the lands east of Staines Road.

 Council Reference/Background/History:

 History of the Agreement Related to the Diversion Structure:

 The Diversion Structure and Relationship to Lands East of Staines Road

 The City built Tapscott Diversion Structure in the mid 1980's to permit development within the Tapscott Employment District and the Malvern Community, downstream of Tapscott. There was lengthy consideration about how to permit development while protecting significant natural areas in the Morningside Tributary subwatershed, to the south. There has always been a floodplain on Morningside Tributary north of the CPR rail line, northeast of the intersection of Staines Road and Finch Avenue. The Brodie Report, 1980 clearly showed that the constriction of flow caused about 40 percent of the floodplain, east of Staines Road south to the CPR rail line at the CPR culvert. Even today the restriction at the culvert causes a backwater effect, which augments the extent of the floodplain.

 The diversion structure was designed to eliminate the floodplain in Tapscott Employment District and on the lands east of Staines.

 In the early 1980's, the lands east of Staines Road and north of the CPR rail line were not in a secondary plan area. By the late 1980's the lands east of Staines north of the CPR rail line were added to Tapscott Employment District.

 Implications of Brodie Report, 1980

 In 1980, the Borough retained Andrew Brodie Associates Inc. to prepare Tapscott Industrial District Stormwater Management Implementation Report for Tapscott and Malvern. The Brodie report recommended a diversion of stormwater to the Rouge River and that the Morningside Tributary be channelized through both Tapscott and the lands east of Staines Road to allow for development. Council then approved proceeding with the design of the Morningside Tributary diversion structure.

   Environmental Assessment 1981

 The Environmental Assessment (EA) for Stormwater Management in the Morningside Tributary Watershed of the Tapscott Industrial District was prepared in 1981 and approved in 1982. The EA recommended retaining baseflow in the Morningside Tributary and diverting all other flows up to the regional storm to the Rouge River. This alternative removes all of the floodplain, south of the diversion structure, including the lands east of Staines Road.

 Special Agreement No. 576, 1982

 The City required an easement for the diversion structure and pond on Morningside Heights lands and the Ontario Hydro corridor. The City also needed funds to pay for this structure. To obtain prepayment of levies and an easement for the diversion structure, Special Agreement No. 567 was prepared in 1982. Attached is a copy of the special agreement between the city and certain land owners, within the Tapscott Employment District. Those who signed the agreement were only some owners of land between Staines Road and Middlefield Road. This agreement did not include the land east of Staines Road, presumably because these lands were designated for Aagricultural areas uses@ not development.

 Why is there an Existing Floodplain today?

 We designed the berm, required to ensure the diversion of all stormwater flows from Morningside Tributary, but we did not build it. We had expected that Morningside Heights would be developed shortly and that the extension of McNicoll Avenue would have acted as a berm to complete the planned diversion. As a result, there is an existing floodplain today (as shown in the Phase 2 report) in the event of a regional storm.

 Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

 Diversion Structure

 Council acted, in 1982, to build the diversion structure. As a result, the City is committed to eliminate the floodplain on Morningside Tributary, downstream of the diversion structure both east and west of Staines Road and in Malvern Neighbourhoods 2, 3 and 6.

 Friends of the Rouge Watershed Comments

 Friends of the Rouge Watershed raised four concerns at the May 20, 1998 City Community Information meeting:

 (1)Increased Risk of Flood Damage:

 Friends of the Rouge Watershed (FRW) suggest that Council is in a liability position if it allows development of the existing floodplain, east of Staines Road. Council committed to eliminate the floodplain in 1982 by constructing the diversion structure. This action protects the lands which FRW suggests should be acquired as floodplain. The diversion structure protects the lands downstream up to the regional flood level, which is a higher level of protection than normally found in the rest of the City where storm sewers are designed to protect up to a 25-year storm event.

 (2)Back-sliding on Ecosystem Protection Objectives

(from the September 1997 Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. proposals)

 The Memorandum of Understanding is a compromise between two parties at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. This compromise is less than Save the Rouge Valley Inc. (SRVS) proposed in their 10 point proposals of September 1997. In our report of May 15, 1998, we note that the Memorandum of Understanding is largely consistent with the Subwatershed Study recommendations.

 (3) Too Many New Roads

 Friends of the Rouge Watershed argue those three road crossings on the Morningside tributary are too many, but do not say how many they prefer.

 The Addendum to the Phase 2 report of the Subwatershed Study does say that road crossings are a necessary component of development but these crossings should be kept to a minimum. The matter is appropriately part of the development approval process.

 (4) Inadequate Community Consultation.

 Friends of the Rouge Watershed assert that there has been inadequate public consideration of the reduction of the floodplain, new roads and other parts of the development process.

 The reduction of the floodplain was considered in the Environmental Assessment process for the Tapscott Diversion Structure in 1982. There was a public process at the time. It should be noted that the Subwatershed Study process aims to reintroduce a floodplain and meander belt for the Morningside Tributary in the range of 50 metres to 80 metres in width, while the Environmental Approval process resulted in the elimination of the floodplain.

 The Subwatershed process has held a public information process since 1993 and has been advised by a Public Advisory Committee. SRVS have been a participant in the Public Advisory process for interest groups. All meetings of the Steering Committee of agencies and the Public Advisory Committee meetings have been open to the public, who indicated an interest. Jim Robb, of Friends of the Rouge Watershed has attended many meetings. Within the last year, during consideration of the Phase 2 report of the Subwatershed Study, the Planning and Buildings Department have convened two community information meetings about land use issues. Works staff have attended to present the findings of the subwatershed study and answer questions. Over 10,000 people have been invited to each of community information meetings of June 1997 and May 1998. The most recent meeting was held on May 20, 1998 at the Toronto Zoo and all aspects of land use and the subwatershed study were discussed with about 70 people present.

 Conclusion:

 The construction of the diversion structure represents a commitment by the City to eliminate the floodplain, south of the diversion structure, including the lands east of Staines Road.

 The recommendations contained in my report dated May 15, 1998 are still valid.

 Michael A. Price

Commissioner

Scarborough Works and Environment Department

  The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following report (May 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

 Purpose:

 Scarborough Community Council on April 1, 1998, requested a report on the definition of AExecutive Housing@. Also requested was a report on the appropriate planning process to develop a Secondary Plan for Option 2 (partly employment and partly residential) and Option 3 (all residential), specifically relating to high quality housing.

 The report also describes a new option for the future land use of the study area which takes into account the objections raised by the Regions of York and Durham at the Ontario Municipal Board and the landowners= recent proposals as set out in their memorandum of understanding with Save the Rouge Valley System (SRVS).

 Recommendation:

 It is recommended that Scarborough Community Council direct the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings to investigate the feasibility of the Option 4 package, as presented in this report, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Environment and the Director of Economic Development, through discussions with the Morningside Heights landowners, SRVS, the Regions of York and Durham, and other community stakeholders, environmental groups and agencies, and to report on progress to the June 24, 1998, meeting of Scarborough Community Council.

 Secondary Plan for Morningside Heights:

 Issues:

 The Morningside Heights Land Use Study Terms of Reference calls for two stages of reporting. The first stage is to determine the future land use for the Study Area; the second stage is to prepare a Secondary Plan setting out in greater detail the land use(s), facilities servicing and road pattern to implement the selected land use option.

 The Secondary Plan must address a wide range of important factors, some of which are the focus of other studies:

 -environmental issues, particularly the enhancement and protection of the Morningside Tributary and other natural features of the area, which are being studied by the Morningside Subwatershed Study;

 -road issues, both interregional, such as the proposed Cornell/407/401 link, and local, such as the Morningside/Finch Road intersection study being undertaken for the City;

 -the Rouge Park, which includes both the valley of the Rouge River and the Morningside Tributary corridor, particularly with respect to trail linkage and adequate buffering between residential and employment uses;

 -mechanisms to ensure that the vision of a high quality community is implemented; and

 -extension of sanitary and water services, and environmentally appropriate stormwater services, through the Study Area and west to service 200 hectares (500 acres) of vacant industrial land in the Steeles-Passmore-Markham area.

 If it is determined that Option 2 is the preferred Option, then the lands west of the Morningside Tributary would remain within the Tapscott Employment District. Planning of this area would focus on employment strategies and integration of this area with the lands west of the CPR line.

 Consultation Process:

 Because of the importance and sensitivity of this area, there is a need to involve many individuals, groups and agencies in the consultation process.

 The Study Area landowners, residents of Malvern and the Upper Rouge area, and members of the business community in the eastern part of the Tapscott Employment District are important stakeholders.

 Representatives of environmental groups such as Save the Rouge Valley System and Friends of the Rouge have shown a strong and continuing interest.

 Agencies and City Departments, such as the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the Ministries of Natural Resources (MNR) and Transportation (MTO), the Boards of Education, the Toronto Zoo and City and parks staff need to be involved.

 The May 20, 1998 community information meeting, to be held at the Metro Zoo can serve as an important step in this consultative process. The meeting, called by my Department, will include presentations by the Planning and Buildings, Economic Development and Works and Environment Departments. Dialogue between the various stakeholders will be encouraged.

 If so directed by Council, staff can continue this process of consultation, leading to a draft of the Secondary Plan in the fall of 1998.

 Under normal circumstances, staff would then report to the Scarborough Community Council with this draft and request direction to give notice for a Public Meeting for the Secondary Plan.

 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing

 The Ontario Municipal Board process has commenced and will, when the hearing commences on October 19, 1998, take the matter out of the hands of Council. Pre-hearing conferences are scheduled for May 19 and July 3, 1998. The latter date is of particular importance, as the Board will attempt to narrow the issues to be heard. It is in the City=s interest to have a clearly defined position on the principal issues, particularly for the chosen land use option and the Markham-Scarborough road connection.

 As would be expected, the Morningside Heights landowners= group is preparing intensively for the hearing. Depending on how close the City=s position is to the owners= position, staff may be able to work with the owners= consultants to resolve some of the outstanding issues, with appropriate consultation with other stakeholders.

 Discussion - Executive Housing

 Scarborough Council on June 10, 1997, affirmed that the lands within the Morningside Heights area east of the Morningside Tributary should be developed for low density Executive Residential uses.

 Executive Housing is a term contained in both the General Policies and Land Use Sections of the Scarborough Official Plan. To date this designation has been utilized only in the Rouge Community Secondary Plan.

 The General Policy is as follows:

 2.4.3.4Council shall encourage the provision of housing for consumers at the upper end of the income scale, in order to attract and accommodate the needs of the executives of Scarborough=s industries, businesses and institutions.

  The designation is described in the Land Use Designations as follows:

 3.1.2The Executive Residential designation shall be applied to selected areas of the City to promote the development of Aprestige@ residential accommodation. It will also be applied to retain and enhance such development where it already exists. Single detached dwellings shall be the only housing form to be permitted within this designation. In this designation, single detached dwellings may include domestic help quarters. Lot sizes and house sizes will generally be larger than within the Low Density Residential designation. Design and construction will be of a quality and nature to accommodate consumers at the upper end of the income scale.

 The Rouge Community Secondary Plan contains the Executive Residential designation along the top of bank of the Rouge and on both sides of Sheppard Avenue (Figure 4.26). A Council policy adopted in 1984 sets out guidelines for development in this area and specifies a minimum frontage of 18 metres (59 feet) frontage for Executive Residential lots.

 Plans of subdivision and lot divisions where this designation applies have followed these guidelines.

 The City has also utilized other planning approaches to achieve high standards of residential development. The Port Union Village Community Secondary Plan, for example, contains general urban design objectives, which are expanded on in a comprehensive set of Council-adopted guidelines appended to the Plan. Statements regarding the importance of the character of the community are also set out in the Port Union Village Community Plan.

 Subdivision agreements have been utilized by the City to achieve high standards of streetscape design, including landscaping, lighting and street furniture. The Coscan subdivision in Port Union Village is a recent example. Architectural control of house siting, design and materials has also been utilized in Bridlewood and other areas, and can be enforced by inclusion through the subdivision agreement, if the developer concurs.

 Bayview Hill: Richmond Hill

 Bayview Hill in Richmond Hill, planned for 3,000 single detached dwellings, comes close to staff=s vision of what can be achieved in Morningside Heights. Figure 1 illustrates the quality of housing in this community.

 Although the Bayview Hill Secondary designation is ALow Density Residential@, the policies of the Plan are clear in their intent regarding executive housing.

 AThe Bayview Hill Planning District has a number of locational advantages which make it most suitable for the provision of executive housing. The physical features of the area, with its extensive valleylands associated with the Beaver Creek, its attractive woodlots, and its scenic views, lend themselves to housing of this character.@

 The objectives for housing in this community are:

 (a)to create a very high quality, low density residential community; and

 (b)to provide for a range of medium and large lot sizes for single detached dwellings on full services on a community scale, thus providing an inventory of large homes not provided elsewhere in the Town on a comparable scale.

 The implementing zoning sets out the following lot sizes.

 The Secondary Plan for Bayview Hill establishes design criteria for development, e.g.,

 AAesthetically pleasing streetscapes shall be encouraged through the careful use of architectural styles, varied setbacks, building materials and colours, and special landscaping particularly where collector streets intersect.@

 ASpecial care shall be taken to design, develop and maintain visually significant entrance features.@

 AResidential development adjacent to arterial roads shall be designed to be aesthetically pleasing and sensitive to road conditions.@

 In the opinion of staff, these policies and zoning standards have achieved a high quality residential community, with the larger lots constituting a substantial executive housing component.

 Angus Glen: Markham

 A more recent development with executive housing is Angus Glen in Markham at Kennedy Road and Major Mackenzie Road. It is located adjacent to a major valley feature, the Bruce Creek, and the Angus Glen golf course.

 A detailed Design Guidelines document sets out the results of deliberations between the developer, his consultants and Town staff covering urban design and amenities, streetscape, an open space master plan and an implementation strategy. It provides a framework for implementing the project, utilizing a variety of techniques.

 These include a process in the subdivision agreement whereby a Control Architect and Control Landscape Architect, appointed by the developer with the approval of the municipality, review and approve all low and medium density housing plans. In addition, the developer has undertaken to enter into private agreements with builders to ensure a high quality of house design.

 The Design Guidelines include housing types which, in the opinion of staff, qualify as Aexecutive housing@. Lot types A and B, shown on Figures 2 and 3, are described in the Design Guidelines as Awide lots with generous (and variable) front yard setbacks and side yards to create gracious streetscapes in an estate residential setting.@

 The largest of these lots are over 21 metres (70 feet) in frontage. These lots are planned adjacent to the golf course. Other large lots of 18.2 metres to 21.4 metres (60 feet to 70 feet frontage) back onto or are close to the valley and front onto the main collector road. These are the most visible locations in the community and set the Atone@ for the rest of the project.

 These housing types would qualify as Aexecutive housing@ in the opinion of staff.

 Other Greater Toronto Area Municipalities:

 Large residential lots on full services are provided for in other Greater Toronto Area municipalities.

In Stoney Creek, the Lakeshore-Area Secondary Plan requires residential development in an area east of Fifty Road to be Alow profile@, not to exceed 10 units per net residential hectare

(4 units per acre). The plan requires a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres (60 feet) within a large part of the area.

 Although Oakville does not specifically provide for large lots in its Official Plan, it does have a large lot category in its Zoning By-law.

 All the examples noted so far are on full municipal water and sanitary sewer services. Residential development in Morningside Heights would be on full services. Numerous municipalities also provide for large residential lots with servicing by septic tanks and communal or individual wells. These Aestate lots@ range in area from .3 hectares to .8 hectares (3/4 to 2 acres). Examples include Deer Creek and Fawn Brook in Ajax. Houses on estate lots are typically built for the executive market.

 Attached housing in high amenity locations such as the Beacon Hall golf course in Aurora also cater to the executive market.

 Discussion: A Fourth Option:

 Markham - Scarborough Road Link:

 At the February 20, 1998, pre-hearing conference of the Ontario Municipal Board on Morningside Heights, the Regions of York and Durham made strong representations that no decision should be made by the OMB with respect to the future land use of Morningside Heights without provision for a north-south transportation link through the study area, and the undertaking of an environmental assessment of this link.

 The road would provide a high capacity arterial connection between the Markham by-pass, near the new community of Cornell, and Highways 407 and 401.The Province=s declaration with respect to the Rouge Park leaves no alternative route through the former City of Scarborough for this link.

 The two Regions and the Town of Markham requested party status at the hearing for the purpose of arguing this position. York Region has also asked for the consolidation of OPA 722, the deletion of the East Metro Transportation Corridor, and OPA 990, the North-East Road Study, into the hearing. In my opinion, OPA 990 implements the Provincial Government=s policy of "no new roads south of Steeles Avenue in the Rouge Park (1990)" and should not be included in the current hearing.

 The Board Chairman has recognized the importance of the transportation issue and raised the possibility of segmenting the hearing, with the first part dedicated to transportation issues.

 The landowners have proposed reserving a narrow corridor for an arterial road alignment along the western boundary of the study area from north of the HEPC corridor to Morningside Avenue for a

three-year period. This proposal has been rejected by York Region.

 Lack of any resolution on the issue of the north-south road link can effectively prevent any progress toward resolving the future land use for Morningside Heights. The Ontario Municipal Board may well be receptive to a request by the Regions for a study, given the already-documented need for such a connection.

 I am still of the opinion that there is great merit to the goal of a high quality executive housing community in Morningside Heights, taking advantage of the area=s great natural amenities. I continue to believe this is also the most expeditious way of bringing the Morningside Creek Corridor, the woodlots and top of bank of the Rouge Valley into public ownership and

extending services through the study area to open up the 200 hectares (500 acres) of presently unserviced employment lands in the Markham-Passmore area.

 Several developments in the past few weeks strongly suggest that Community Council may be well advised to consider an alternative approach to achieving the City=s objectives in the Study Area.

 These include the insistence of the Regions with respect to the road link and the withdrawal of support of the owners for a golf course, which would have ensured the prestigious character of the community and acted as a buffer from the industrial uses to the west. Recognition of the enhanced accessibility and visibility for employment uses which the proposed road link would bring to this area, should it prove feasible and desirable, is an additional consideration.

 This alternative, Option 4, is shown on Figure 4. It would incorporate the following package of elements:

 (1)Retaining the existing industrial designations on the following areas:

 -north of the HEPC, west of Neilson Road; and

-south of the HEPC, west of a line between Neilson Road and the Tributary.

 (2)Special policies for these industrially designated areas indicating that they may be affected by the findings of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Scarborough Markham Road Link and that no plan of subdivision will be processed prior to completion of the EA.

 (3)Agreement by York and Durham Regions to equitably share the cost of the Environmental Assessment and to remove their request to consolidate OPA 990 into the hearing.

 (4)Agreement by the Regions and the Town of Markham not to oppose amendment of the Metro and Scarborough Official Plans to delete Staines Road as an arterial link

(this is strongly supported by the findings of the Subwatershed Study) or to the land use amendments indicated below.

 (5)Public dedication of the Morningside Tributary Corridor, woodlots, 30 metres (100 feet) top of bank of the Rouge Valley south of the HEPC and other natural features in the area proposed for residential development, through the subdivision process..

 (6)Redesignation of the areas shown in Option 4 for residential uses, including a significant Executive Housing component.

 (7) Expedited extension of sanitary sewers and storm drainage facilities through the area proposed for residential uses through the subdivision process, to serve the 200 hectares a (500 acres) employment area to the west of the study area.

 Conclusions:

 With respect to Option 4, it is my recommendation that Scarborough Community Council instruct me to commence negotiations with the landowners, environmental interests, the Regions of York and Durham and the Town of Markham, in consultation with the Works and Environment and Economic Development Departments, to achieve the elements comprising this plan and to report on progress to Scarborough Community Council at its meeting on June 24, 1998.

 The present Executive Residential definition in the Scarborough Official Plan provides a good starting point for defining Aexecutive housing@. If Council wishes to expand this definition by adding a minimum lot size, the examples of the Rouge Community, Bayview Hills and Angus Glen further would suggest a minimum frontage in the order of 18 metres (59 feet).

 The requirement of a high standard of community design and the use of planning tools such as architectural, landscaping and streetscape design control through the subdivision approval process, would be useful additions to the definition.

 An executive housing community need not be limited to detached houses on large lots but can also include a wider range of lot sizes and housing forms, including high-end detached housing, in a quality community setting.

 Many of the urban design guidelines and the implementation procedures which are important aspects of executive housing are likely to be specific to a particular development or community. Any further refinement or expansions of the definition of the term AExecutive Housing@ be considered within the context of the Secondary Plan process for Morningside Heights.

 Contact Name

 David Beasley, MCIP, RPP.

Principal Planner

Urban Planning and Development Services

Phone:396-7026

Fax:396-4265

E-mail:beasley@city.scarborough.on.ca

   The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following report (May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

 Purpose:

 Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting of April 1, 1998, directed staff to hold a Community Information meeting at the Toronto Zoo administrative offices on May 20, 1998 to discuss Morningside Heights. This report summarizes the presentations and records the comments made at the meeting.

 Recommendation:

 It is recommended that Scarborough Community Council receive this report for information.

 Discussion:

 Staff sent out almost 13,000 notices by postal walk and advised by first class mail all those who had previously indicated that they wished to be notified of any subsequent meeting. Save the Rouge Valley System Inc. also distributed flyers advising of the meeting. The meeting was attended by approximately 75 persons.

 The format of the meeting included presentations by City staff, representatives of SRVS and Friends of the Rouge and the owners= planning consultant.

 The focus question was: AWhat values does the City need to hold in making decisions for the future urban use of this land?@

 A facilitator recorded comments by the audience, which are attached to this report. The consensus of the meeting was that these comments be reported in full and not summarized. Only one comment sheet and one letter, also attached, were received. Several community representatives expressed satisfaction with the meeting despite its four hour length.

 Conclusions:

 The great majority of the audience indicated concurrence for the SRVS position and most, with some exceptions, supported residential as opposed to employment uses as the basis for the future development of Morningside Heights. Several indicated concerns about specific provisions of the memorandum of understanding between the landowners and SRVS, notably with respect to the piping of minor watercourse and SRVS agreement not to oppose an arterial road south of Steeles Avenue.

 Contact Name

 David Beasley, MCIP, RPP.

Principal Planner

Urban Planning and Development Services

Phone:396-7026

Fax:396-4265

E-mail:beasley@city.scarborough.on.ca

  The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following report (May 25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development:

 Purpose:

 The purpose of the report is to undertake a City-wide review, as directed by Scarborough Community Council, on the impact of redesignating Toronto=s largest remaining greenfield employment area to residential. The review includes the impact on employment, assessment and long-term supply of land for employment uses. The municipal financial implications and the competitive position to attract and retain business are included.

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 (1)the existing industrial land use designations west of the Morningside Tributary in the Morningside Heights study be retained to preserve the largest remaining greenfield employment opportunity in the City of Toronto;

(2)staff report to Scarborough Community Council at its meeting June 24, 1998 with costs and options for trunk sewer and water extension to complete servicing of Tapscott Employment District to Middlefield Road; and

 (3)Council, in considering development east of the Morningside Tributary, consider as a condition of approval of the development that the land owners in Morningside Heights be required to grant to the City all necessary easements to permit the extension of storm, sanitary and water services through the Morningside Heights Study Area to complete the servicing of Tapscott Employment District.

 Comments:

 Hemson Consulting Ltd. was retained to prepare a report for Economic Development, Culture and Tourism responding to the Scarborough Community Council=s request. The report has the following key conclusions and will be presented to Community Council.

 The City has limited remaining supply of undeveloped greenfield employment land, about 1,500 acres. Morningside Heights is about one-third of the City=s greenfield supply.

 Until recently, the market for new employment lands has been very sluggish not just in the Tapscott area, but across the GTA. Conditions in the employment land market are rapidly improving in the GTA. There is every indication the market is improving within the City as well.

 New land is needed to help compensate for the continued loss of industrial uses from older dysfunctional brownfield lands.

 In today=s real estate market, greenfield employment lands are virtually the only basis on which the City can compete with suburban regions for new industrial-type assessment and employment growth.

 Tapscott is a relatively new and competitive employment area with reasonablely good road and public transit access. It can compete well with many locations in York and Durham Regions.

 The problem of the property tax differential between the City and the Regions has affected the competitiveness of the City=s greenfield land in the past. The announced 50 per cent reduction in the provincial industrial education tax will make significant progress in narrowing the tax gap with the Regions, thus improving the competitive position of the remaining City greenfield lands.

 Employment use in Morningside Heights will be more fiscally beneficial to the City than the residential alternative. The new assessment and tax system does not affect this conclusion. At full development, employment use would produce an estimated $5.5 million net property tax revenues annually to the City compared to a $700,000 annually for the residential alternative.

Based on analysis to date, the need for the north-south transportation link between Highways 401 and 407 does not appear to be dependant on the choice between employment and residential development in Morningside Heights.

 The protection of the Rouge River watershed is not dependent on the choice of land use, since any development will need to meet the standards set out by the TRCA in the Rouge watershed plan.

 In addition to the above broader market considerations, the Economic Development, Culture & Tourism department has also received a number of letters from existing occupants of the Tapscott area expressing their concerns about the possibility of residential redesignation. These letters are attached as Appendix 1.

 To ensure that greenfield employment land is available as soon as possible, we recommend that staff continue investigating the cost and options for servicing the remaining lands in Tapscott and that the landowners in Morningside Heights provide the necessary easements in the Morningside Heights Study Area as a condition of approval for development east of Staines Road.

Conclusions:

 The Morningside Heights area is the largest remaining greenfield employment area in the City. It is important to keep this area designated for employment uses to assure future employment opportunities, to gain the financial benefit of non-residential development and to provide the City with a land supply that can compete with the 905 Regions.

 Finally determining the land uses in the Morningside Heights area may also provide the opportunity to provide servicing through Morningside Heights to the north part of the Tapscott District, which is the second largest concentration of greenfield employment land in the City.

 Contact Names:

 Bruce Graham, Manager, Business Development

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism

Phone:396-7066

Fax:396-4241

E-mail:graham@city.scarborough.on.ca

  Appendix I

 Letters of Support from Existing Occupants of the

Tapscott Employment District and Others

 (1)Renown Steel (A Division of Slater Steel Inc.);

 (2)Cinram International Inc.;

 (3)Audio Products International Corp.;

 (4)Craftwood (A Division of Sonnenberg Industries Ltd.);

 (5)Black & McDonald Limited;

 (6)IPSCO Ontario Inc.;

 (7)Sunlike Juice Ltd.;

 (8)Columbia House;

 (9)CB Commercial Real Estate Group Canada Inc.;

 (10)Toronto Real Estate Board; and

 (11)Realcor Commercial Realty Inc.

  In addition to the foregoing, communications were also received from:

 -Magna Developments; and

-Colliers International.

 Copies of all of the above were provided to all Members of Scarborough Community Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

   The Scarborough Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having received the following request from the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and having deemed that the Community Council=s comments, as requested, are contained in the foregoing recommendations to Council:

 The Urban Environment and Development Committee on May 19, 1998:

 (1)directed that the Scarborough Community Council be advised that the redesignation of lands in Morningside Heights from Employment to Residential may have City-wide economic development implications;

 (2)requested the Scarborough Community Council to submit any comments on economic development issues related to the redesignation of lands in Morningside Heights to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998.

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

 (a)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit all documentation pertaining to the redesignation of lands in Morningside Heights to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998;

 (b)directed that, in the meantime, the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development Services consult with all interested parties and submit a report thereon to the Urban Environment and Development Committee; and

 (c)received the communication from Mr. Michael Melling, Davies Howe Partners.

 Background:

 The Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it the following communications and report:

 (i)(May 14, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council, at its meeting held on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted, without amendment, a Motion moved by Councillor Mahood, seconded by Councillor Saundercook, regarding the redesignation of undeveloped industrial lands in Scarborough; the operative paragraphs of such Motion being as follows:

 "NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Interim Functional Lead, Economic Development, be requested to report on this application and its impact from an economic development perspective to the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee scheduled to be held May 19, 1998;

 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Urban Environment and Development Committee be requested to advise the Scarborough Community Council of any interest, from an economic development perspective, regarding this application at its meeting scheduled to be held on May 27, 1998.@.

 (ii)(May 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing a status update on City-wide economic implications of the proposed redesignation of the largest concentration of greenfield employment and open space land (approximately 733 acres) located in the north-east of Scarborough to low and medium density residential; advising that real estate market conditions, property tax legislation, municipal finance considerations and redevelopment pressures on the City's older employment districts are factors which have an impact on the future land use in Morningside Heights; that these factors have also seen significant changes since the former City of Scarborough reviewed the Morningside Heights application in the fall of 1997; stating that Economic Development staff expect to be able to provide a report to Scarborough Community Council which will shed new light on the value of Morningside Heights as a location for future employment uses; and recommending that this report be received for information.

 (iii)(May 15, 1998) from Mr. Michael Melling, Davies Howe Partners, advising that his firm is Counsel to 554056 Ontario Limited, the Neilson Development Corporation, M & R Holdings, the Staines Development Corporation and Silvercore Properties Inc., which are the owners of the bulk of the lands known as "Morningside Heights"; and setting out two requests for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

  The following persons appeared before the Scarborough Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

 -Ray Simpson, Hemson Consulting, who made a presentation with respect to the report entitled: ARetaining Employment Lands - Morningside Heights@, dated May 1998, a copy of which was provided to all Members of Scarborough Community Council and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk;

 -Michael Bowman, Solicitor, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt;

 -Angelina Macri, Solicitor, Magna Developments;

 -John MacKenzie, Save the Rouge Valley System;

 -Glenn de Baeremaeker, Save the Rouge Valley System;

 -Jeffrey L. Davies, Davies, Howe Partners, representing Silcore Properties, who also introduced the following spokespersons for various landowners in the area:

 -Barry Morrison, Barry J. Morrison & Associates Limited;

 -Frank Clayton, Clayton Research;

 -Randy Grimes, IBI Group, for M. & R. Holdings, who provided to Community Council, a report entitled: AKey Points and Preliminary Response to Hemson Report@, and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk;

 -John Bousfield, Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler & Smith, for Staines Development;

 -Gary Watchorn for Brookside Golf Course, who made a presentation with respect to the document entitled: AA Community Vision - Morningside Heights@, a copy of which was provided to all Members of Community Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

 -Jim Robb, for Friends of the Rouge Watershed;

 -Michael Melling, Davies, Howe Partners, responding to Mr. Robb=s comments; and

 -Lois James, in support of Save the Rouge Valley System.