1 The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. Annual Festivals - 1385 Warden Avenue Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

2 Request for an All-Way Stop Control on Nashdene Road and Dynamic Drive Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

3 Parking on Finchdene Square near Pullman Court Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

4 1999 Bus Passenger Shelter Installation Program District 4 (Scarborough) - All Wards

5 Request for Fence By-law Exemption Chris and Alexandra Frueh 726 Meadowvale Road (Formerly 3864 Ellesmere Road) Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

6 Request for Fence By-law Exemption Androulla Ioannou - 5 Tordale Crescent Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

7 Request for Fence By-law Exemption Peter Humble, 3 Spraywood Gate Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

8 Request for Fence By-law Exemption Larry and Gayle Handley, 22 Ingrid Drive Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

9 Condominium Application SCDM1999002 Stone Rogers (Scarborough) Inc. - 50 Markham Road Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

10 Condominium Application SC1999001 Aspen Ridge Homes (Markham Gardens) Inc. 19 Rosebank Drive, North of Milner Avenue, Between Markham Road and Parkborough Boulevard Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

11 Request for Direction - Minor Variance Appeal Minor Variance Application SA94/99 600839 Ontario Inc. - 780 Ellesmer Road Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

12 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing Appeal by the University of Toronto Scarborough Official Plan Amendment 988 Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

13 Provision of Litter Bins with Advertising

14 Comments on the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project Environmental Assessment Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

15 Nominations for 1999 Recreation Recognition Night Awards

16 Shell Canada Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board of Council's Refusal to Permit the Addition of A Drive-through Window and Retail Component to an Existing Gas Station on the Northwest Corner of Brimley Road and Sheppard Avenue East Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

17 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report, subject to the following amendments:

(1) delete all references to the year 2001;

(2) amend Recommendation No. 1(a)(iii) by striking out the words "85 decibels" and inserting in lieu thereof, the words "80 decibels" and adding thereto the words "and the limit during the day be 85 decibels";

so that the recommendations shall now read as follows:

"That City Council:

(1) grant an exemption from By-law 24389, The Noise By-law, to The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. for their annual Festivals for the periods June 30 to July 4, 1999, inclusive, and August 20 to August 22, 1999, inclusive, and for the subsequent year 2000, subject to the following conditions:

(a) that The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. and St. John's Greek Orthodox Church implement those actions recommended by S.E. Coulter Associates Limited in their correspondence dated April 14, 1997, to mitigate the effects of the noise to the adjoining neighbourhoods, and in particular:

(i) limit the number of loudspeakers to 4;

(ii) cease the noise at 12:00 midnight on June 30, July 1, July 4, 1999, and August 22, 1999, and on Sundays and weeknights during the Festivals in the year 2000;

(iii) on the remaining dates, reduce the sound level to 80 decibels at 11:00 p.m., and the limit during the day be 85 decibels;

(iv) progressively lower the volume of the noise after 11:00 p.m.; and

(v) cease the noise at 12:00 midnight;

(b) ensure the availability of rapid communications directly with someone with the authority to deal with unexpected contingencies, equipped with cellular phones, with numbers being given to the neighbours;

(c) direct Festival parking to the Price Club parking lot; and

(2) declare the 1999 Festivals of The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Incorporated for the periods of June 30 to July 4, 1999, inclusive, and August 20 to August 22, 1999, inclusive, and for the subsequent year 2000 to be of "Municipal Significance" and request the City Clerk to issue the appropriate letter to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario."

The Scarborough Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having:

(1) directed that a committee of the residents and The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. be formed and be requested to examine:

- a process for notification of residents for community meetings;

- a mechanism for measuring noise;

- a process for communicating with a representative of The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto in the event the noise is too loud;

(2) referred a motion by Councillor Tzekas "that staff be requested to attend the July and August Festivals, at random, equipped with a sound measuring device" to the District Manager, Municipal Licensing and Standards, with the request that he report to the Scarborough Community Council on June 22, 1999, respecting:

- the time that staff will attend the Festivals;

- the cost of such attendance;

- the equipment required; and

- a communication plan for staff to respond, on the Festival days, to any complaints from residents regarding noise levels.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (May  17, 1999) from the Manager of Municipal Licensing and Standards, East District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to grant an exemption from By-law 24389, The Noise By-law, to The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. for their annual Festivals for the periods June 30 to July 4, 1999, inclusive, and August 20 to August 22, 1999, inclusive, and for the subsequent years 2000 and 2001, subject to conditions.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Nil.

Recommendations:

That City Council:

(1) grant an exemption from By-law 24389, The Noise By-law, to The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. for their annual Festivals for the periods June 30 to July 4, 1999, inclusive, and August 20 to August 22, 1999, inclusive, and for the subsequent years 2000 and 2001, subject to the following conditions:

(a) that The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. and St. John's Greek Orthodox Church implement those actions recommended by S.E. Coulter Associates Limited in their correspondence dated April 14, 1997, to mitigate the effects of the noise to the adjoining neighbourhoods, and in particular:

(i) limit the number of loudspeakers to 4;

(ii) cease the noise at 12:00 midnight on June 30, July 1, July 4, 1999, and August 22, 1999, and on Sundays and weeknights during the Festivals in the years 2000 and 2001;

(iii) on the remaining dates, reduce the sound level to 85 decibels at 11:00 p.m.;

(iv) progressively lower the volume of the noise after 11:00 p.m.; and

(v) cease the noise at 12:00 midnight;

(b) ensure the availability of rapid communications directly with someone with the authority to deal with unexpected contingencies, equipped with cellular phones, with numbers being given to the neighbours;

(c) direct Festival parking to the Price Club parking lot; and

(2) declare the 1999 Festivals of The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Incorporated for the periods of June 30 to July 4, 1999, inclusive, and August 20 to August 22, 1999, inclusive, and for the subsequent years of 2000 and 2001 to be of "Municipal Significance" and request the City Clerk to issue the appropriate letter to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

Background/History:

By-law No. 24389, the Noise By-law, provides a procedure for the granting of an exemption from the By-law for a specified time period, not in excess of six months, and the exception may contain such terms and conditions as the Council sees fit.

Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting of April 28, 1999, set May 26, 1999 as the date for the public meeting to hear the request of The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc., and St. John's Greek Orthodox Church for an exemption of its 1999, 2000 and 2001 Festivals from the requirements of the Noise By-law.

As requested by the Community Council, The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc., and St. John's Greek Orthodox Church held a community meeting on May 10, 1999 at St. John's Greek Orthodox Church. It is understood that invitations to the meeting were distributed to the adjoining neighbourhood and that approximately eight to ten residents attended. In addition, the Ward Councillors and a representative of the Toronto Police Service were in attendance.

Justification:

Section 5 (1) of By-Law 24389, as amended, states in part that any person may make application to Council to be granted an exemption from any of the provisions of the by-law.

Contact Name:

Bryan Byng

East District Manager

(416) 396-7731

(416) 396-4266 Fax Number

byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca

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

- Mr. Nick Liodakis and Mr. Costas Menegakis, on behalf of The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc; and

- Mr. Jeffrey Cooper, area resident.

The Community Council also received a joint communication (April 1, 1999) from the President, Department of Associations, The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc., and the President, St. John's Church, respecting this issue, a copy of which was provided to all Members of the Community Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, Scarborough Civic Centre.

Request for an All-Way Stop Control on Nashdene Road

and Dynamic Drive Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends:

(1) that the recommendation contained in the following report be struck out; and

(2) that an all-way stop control be installed on Nashdene Road and Dynamic Drive.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (April 29, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To report on the results of studies conducted at the intersection of Nashdene Road and Dynamic Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the request of Councillor Balkissoon, Transportation Services is reporting the results of our investigations at the intersection of Nashdene Road and Dynamic Drive.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The intersection of Nashdene Road and Dynamic Drive is located in the industrial area north of Finch Avenue, west of Markham Road. Both of these roads are considered collector roads. Currently, stop signs exist on Dynamic Drive. A hidden intersection sign was recently installed eastbound on Nashdene Road in advance of this intersection. Because of the fall in the vertical curve on Nashdene Road, just west of this intersection, the sight lines are not as generous as at neighbouring intersections in this area. This sign advises eastbound motorists that caution on their part is also required in travelling through this area.

The justification for the installation of traffic control signals (TCS) and all-way stop controls (AWSC) is based on technical warrants established by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO). The analysis of these warrants is based on data compiled from an 8-hour traffic study. Traffic studies were conducted on Thursday, February 18, 1999.

Traffic Control Signals:

Study hours used in the warrant calculations are 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

To warrant the installation of traffic control signals, compliance levels of 100 percent are required in one of the above categories or 80 percent in both. In brief, these findings indicate that there is insufficient vehicular traffic entering the intersection on both the major and minor roads to satisfy the Traffic Control Signal Warrant at this time.

Collision History:

A review of the collision history for the latest period for which we have complete data, January 1, 1995 to May 31, 1998, reveals the following:

We are unable to review collisions after May 31, 1998 as the completed data is not yet available from the police.

All-Way Stop Control:

The justification for the installation of an all-way stop control is based on a technical warrant established by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), and adopted as the City Policy by the former Scarborough Council.

Traffic studies conducted on Thursday, February 18, 1999 produced the following results which illustrate that the Warrant's requirements for a collector road are not satisfied:

As illustrated in the above table, the minimum requirements are fulfilled in one hour (*) while the full warrant requires fulfillment of the minimum requirements in all eight hours.

In addition to the Warrant, the following outlines the main reasons why the installation of unwarranted all-way stop controls are not recommended:

(i) Most motorists are reasonable and prudent with no intention of maliciously violating traffic regulations. However, when an unreasonable restriction is imposed (such as an unwarranted all-way stop control) it can result in flagrant violations.

(ii) Unwarranted stop signs often result in an increase in speeds by motorists who try to make up lost time for what they perceive as unnecessary delays.

(iii) The City has an obligation to provide services in an environmentally conscious manner. The installation of unwarranted stop controls not only undermines the Warrant but contributes to unnecessary fuel consumption and higher levels of noise and air pollution. These pollutants most specifically impact those residents in the immediate vicinity of the intersection.

Conclusions:

In summary, our traffic studies reveal neither an all-way stop control nor traffic control signals are warranted at the intersection of Nashdene Road and Dynamic Drive. Based on the study results, this intersection is operating safely with the existing controls.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton, Supervisor, Traffic Engineering, Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844; Fax: 396-5681; E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Mr. David Moffat, Honeywell Limited, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 6, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To investigate the need to impose a parking prohibition on the south side of Finchdene Square, east of Pullman Court.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $500.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the parking prohibition signs is available in the Transportation Services 1999 budget, Account No. 100-TP0226.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the parking regulation identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and

(2) the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Transportation Services is in receipt of a request, from the business owner on the north side of Finchdene Square at Pullman Court, to prohibit parking on the street opposite the driveways to his business. The complaint is that parking on the south side of Finchdene Square impedes access and egress for heavy trucks at the driveways to 17 Pullman Court. This same situation also exists for trucks accessing 275 Finchdene Square.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Finchdene Square is an industrial road located north of Finch Avenue and east of Tapscott Road. At present, parking is prohibited on the north side of the section of Finchdene Square east of Pullman Court. On the south side of the street, immediately east of Pullman Court, parking is permitted with the exception of an area from Pullman Court to approximately 45 metres east thereof, which is signed as No Standing in the area of the TTC bus stop.

Our staff observed several vehicles parked on the south side of Finchdene Square, east of Pullman Court, on several occasions. The parking occurred from the east limit of the No Standing prohibition, to the other side of the driveway access to 270 Finchdene Square. This area provides parking for approximately 5 vehicles. It is evident that this parking interferes with trucks entering and exiting the driveway accesses to the businesses on the north side of the street.

Conclusions:

A parking prohibition is recommended on the south side of Finchdene Square from Pullman Court to a point 130 metres further east. This prohibition will improve access and egress for large trucks to area properties.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton, Supervisor, Traffic Engineering, Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844; Fax: 396-5681; E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"No Parking"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Highway Side From To Times or Days

Finchdene South Pullman 130 metres East Anytime

Square Court of Pullman Court

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 13, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To establish the District 4 (Scarborough) 1999 New Bus Passenger Shelter Installation Program consisting of 15 new bus passenger shelters at existing Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus stops.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No City of Toronto funding is required. Under the terms of the 1997 bus shelter advertising agreement between the former City of Scarborough and the bus shelter contractor, Mediacom Inc., these 15 new bus shelters are to be supplied, installed, and maintained by the contractor at no cost to the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the new bus passenger shelter locations identified in Appendix 1 of this report, numbered one to 15 inclusive, be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In 1997, the former City of Scarborough entered into an agreement with Mediacom Inc. Under the terms of this agreement Mediacom Inc. is allowed to install advertising panels in a specific number of existing bus shelters. In return, the City receives direct financial compensation, and Mediacom Inc. is obligated to repair and clean all existing shelters. Also, as part of the agreement, Mediacom Inc. installs a specific number of new bus shelters per year. The City, however, retains ownership of all bus shelters.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As in 1998, 15 new bus passenger shelters will be installed at existing TTC bus stops in 1999. The selection of these locations has been based entirely on the warrant criteria adopted by the previous City of Scarborough Council in 1982.

The attached Appendix 1, "Warranted Locations", lists 15 prospective locations and 5 alternative selections for consideration. The locations are ranked in descending order of the highest "Total Point Value", which is based upon the following primary factors:

(1) Daily On-passenger Usage; (must exceed 50);

(2) Peak and Off-Peak Waiting Times;

(3) Service Area; and

(4) Exposure to Weather.

The list of five alternative locations has been provided in the event that Council does not approve some of the first 15 locations. The selection of the specific location of each bus shelter is intended to minimize the impact on adjacent properties as much as possible. All of the proposed bus shelters are located on the boulevards of the public road allowances. No encroachments onto private property are required.

Public Response - Objections:

Registered letters were sent to each of the adjoining property owners to solicit their comments. Accompanying the letters was a sketch of the proposed bus shelter in relation to their property. We received written objections from four property owners. Two of these objections are in the top 15 locations, and two are in the alternative list. The locations and objections are as follows, listed in descending order of priority ranking, and staff comments are provided.

(1) Location #3, McNicoll Avenue and Kennedy Road - southwest corner Scarborough Agincourt

We received an objection from Tridel, The Residences At Bamburgh Gate Inc. to the installation of a bus shelter adjacent to the residential/ commercial development presently under construction on the southwest corner of McNicoll Avenue and Kennedy Road. The objection is as follows: "The shelter's location severely compromises the street line visibility of our retail facilities on the ground floor of our residential building, and in the free standing retail building to the west of the residential tower. We believe that any blockage of the retail facades from pedestrian and vehicular traffic will severely compromise its economic viability."

"We would like to note that we do not have an issue with the bus stop at this location, however, we would kindly ask that the bus shelter not be placed in the proposed location and would suggest that it be located west of our free standing commercial building".

Staff Comment:

The bus shelter should be in close proximity to the bus stop or else TTC patrons will not use it. The location proposed by Tridel is 106 metres from the bus stop. Staff also have concerns that moving this bus shelter and bus stop would increase the walking distance for pedestrians and may discourage ridership and encourage mid-block crossings. Usage of this stop is fairly high with the current daily on-passenger usage being 100 passengers.

(2) Location #15, Kennedy Road and Cardwell Avenue - southeast corner Scarborough Agincourt

We received an objection from Caber Management Services Inc. on behalf of York Condominium Corp. No.460, 2365 Kennedy Road, to the installation of a bus shelter adjacent to their property. Their objection is that a bus shelter installed at this location would increase problems associated with litter and that a bus shelter may become a hang out for youths.

Staff Comment:

Bus shelters provide an important service to TTC patrons and the added comfort provided by the shelters may encourage more TTC ridership. Even though there may be isolated incidents of abuse, the benefits of the shelters outweigh the disbenefits.

(3) Location #A1, Warden Avenue and Tower Drive - southeast corner Scarborough Wexford

We received an objection from the homeowner of 1311 Warden Avenue to the installation of a bus shelter adjacent to his property. He is concerned that the addition of a bus shelter at the existing TTC bus stop may contribute to an increase of litter. He is also suggesting the relocation of the bus stop to a far side location to the northeast corner of the intersection.

Staff Comment:

TTC and Transportation Services staff have conducted prior investigations relating to relocating this bus stop to a farside location. Staff have not supported this proposal because it would not benefit TTC patrons and it would cause delays to Warden Avenue through traffic.

(4) Location #A3, Warden Avenue and Manhattan Drive - southeast corner Scarborough Wexford

We received an objection from the homeowners of 1269 Warden Avenue to the installation of a bus shelter adjacent to their property. They are concerned that the installation of a bus shelter may affect the enjoyment of their property and the health of their family.

Staff Comment:

Bus shelters provide an important service to TTC patrons and the added comfort provided by the shelters may encourage more TTC ridership. The overall benefits of the shelters seem to outweigh the concerns of the home owners.

Conclusions:

Transportation Services staff continues to support the installation of bus shelters at the 15 locations as identified in Appendix 1.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton, Supervisor, Traffic Engineering, Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844; Fax: 396-5681; E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

TOTAL

RANK LOCATION/WARD POINT

VALUE

___________________________________________________________________

1 Progress Avenue @ Markham Road 125

Southeast Corner - Eastbound/Scarborough Malvern

2 Progress Avenue @ Kennedy Road 110

Southeast Corner - Eastbound/Scarborough Highland Creek

3 McNicoll Avenue @ Kennedy Road 105

Southwest Corner - Eastbound/Scarborough Agincourt

4 Birchmount Road 1st. Stop south of Scarden Avenue 105

West Side - Southbound/Scarborough Wexford

5 Midland Avenue 1st. Stop south of McNicoll Avenue 105

West Side - Southbound/Scarborough Agincourt

6 McCowan Road @ Milner Avenue 105

Northeast Corner - Northbound/Scarborough Malvern

7 Steeles Avenue @ CNR Level Crossing (east of Kennedy) 105

South Side - Eastbound/Scarborough Agincourt

8 Steeles Avenue @ Redlea Avenue 105

South Side - Eastbound/Scarborough Agincourt

9 Nugget Avenue @ Markham Road 105

Northwest Corner - Westbound/Scarborough Malvern

10 Tapscott Avenue 1st. Stop south of Newgale Gate 105

West Side - Southbound/Scarborough Malvern

11 Steeles Avenue @ Kennedy Road (east inter.) 105

South Side - Eastbound/Scarborough Agincourt

12 Progress Avenue @ Estate Drive (west inter.) 105

Northeast Corner - Westbound/Scarborough City Centre

13 Progress Avenue @ Rosebank Drive 105

Northwest Corner - Southbound/Scarborough Malvern

14 McNicoll Avenue @ Silversprings Boulevard 100

Southwest Corner - Eastbound/Scarborough Agincourt

15 Kennedy Road @ Cardwell Avenue 100

Southeast Corner - Northbound/Scarborough Agincourt

ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS - 1999

TOTAL

RANK LOCATION POINT

VALUE

___________________________________________________________________

A1 Warden Avenue @ Tower Drive 100

Southeast Corner - Northbound/Scarborough Wexford

A2 Midland Avenue @ Wolfe Avenue 100

Southeast Corner - Northbound/Scarborough City Centre

A3 Warden Avenue @ Manhattan Drive 100

Southeast Corner - Northbound/Scarborough Wexford

A4 Steeles Avenue @ Ferrier Street 90

South Side - eastbound/Scarborough Agincourt

A5 Morningside Avenue 2nd. Stop south of McLevin Avenue 90

West Side - Southbound/Scarborough Malvern

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 14, 1999) from the Manager of Municipal Licensing and Standards, East District:

Purpose:

The applicants are seeking an exemption to the By-law to allow the construction of a 1.8 metre (6 foot) board on board fence. It is proposed that the fence be erected so as to enclose the front.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Nil.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the City Council approve the application to erect a 1.8 metre (6 foot) board on board fence in the front yard portion of the street yard.

Background/History:

On April 3, 1999, the owners of property municipally known as 726 Meadowvale Road made application for permission to erect a 1.8 metre (6 foot) board on board fence which would enclose the front yard portion of their street yard.

The applicants indicated that they have two young sons and that the by-law's maximum permitted fence height of 1.2 metre ( 4 feet) would not be sufficient to keep them from climbing over. As such, the proposed height was viewed as more appropriate to ensure security. They also cited the fact that a bus shelter abuts their property and the proposed fence height would provide a degree of privacy while also acting as a barrier for traffic noise.

Comments:

The subject property is located at the north west corner of Ellesmere and Meadowvale Road and has been designated as a historic site. The Chairman of LACAC, Richard Schofield, was contacted and he advises that the applicant's proposal does not present any problems.

While the proposed location of the fence on the west side of the property abuts a driveway of the owners of 3862 Ellesmere Road, the distance between the sidewalk and the fence is deemed sufficient to provide adequate sight lines.

Justification:

Section 14 of By-law 24945 as amended, provides that any person may apply for an exemption to any provision of the by-law.

Contact Name:

Bryan Byng, East District Manager

Tel: (416) 396-7731; Fax: (416) 396-4266; Email: byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 3, 1999) from the Manager of Municipal Licensing and Standards, East District:

Purpose:

The applicant is seeking an exemption to permit a 1.8 metre (6 feet) section of fence at a height of 1.87 metres (6 feet, 6 inches) to remain as constructed in the street yard. The applicant also includes a request to retain a trellis constructed at a height of 2 metres (6 feet, 8 inches) attached to the fence section which is the subject of this report.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

NIL

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council approve the application to permit a 1.8 metres (6 feet) section of fence constructed at a height of 1.87 metres ( 6 feet, 6 inches) with the attached trellis constructed at a height of 2 metres (6 feet, 8 inches) in the street yard.

Background/History:

Acting upon a complaint received, an inspection was undertaken at property municipally known as 5 Tordale Crescent. The inspection revealed a 1.8 metre (6 feet) section of fence projecting into the street yard at a height of 1.87 metres (6 feet, 6 inches). Also noted was a trellis structure attached to the fence which measured 2 metres (6 feet, 8 inches) in height. As a result of these findings, a notice of violation under By-law 24945 as amended was issued to the registered owner

Androulla Ioannou.

Subsequent to the issuance of the notice of violation, a request for exemption to the height requirement of the by-law was received. The applicant noted that the fence was constructed at the current height so as to afford a degree of privacy for a patio area at the front of the house.

Comments:

The fence section and trellis which is the subject of this report is located on the south side of the subject property and abuts a driveway at 3 Tordale Crescent. Sight visibility for vehicles exiting the abutting driveway is not an issue as the section of fence in question is 12.5 metres (41 feet) from the front sidewalk.

Justification:

Section 14 of By-law 24945 as amended, provides that any person may apply for an exemption to any provision of the by-law.

Contact Name:

Bryan Byng

East District Manager

Tel: (416) 396-7731

(416) 396-4266

Email: byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca

Mr. Anthony Mangos, representing Mr. Steve Mangos, neighbouring resident, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 12, 1999) from the Manager of Municipal Licensing and Standards, East District:

Purpose:

The applicant is seeking an exemption to permit an existing 1.8 metre (6 foot) solid board fence to remain as constructed in the streetyard whereas By-law 24945, as amended, permits a maximum height of 1.2 metres (4 feet).

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Nil.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council approve the request for a fence exemption enclosing the rear yard at premises municipally known as 3 Spraywood Gate, and further, that a 1.8 metre sight triangle be incorporated into the fence design when the fence is replaced.

Background/History:

Acting upon a complaint received, an inspection of the property known municipally as 3 Spraywood Gate was undertaken on March 9, 1999. The inspection revealed a solid board fence 1.8 metres (6 feet) in height enclosing the rear yard of this corner lot. As a result of the inspection, a notice under Fence By-law 24945, as amended, was issued to the registered owner on March 12, 1999.

Subsequent to this notice, a site meeting between the owner and the area inspector was undertaken on March 23, 1999. At that time, the provisions of the by-law were explained. Following this meeting, a request for exemption from the by-law was received. The home owner noted that a fence at the current height has been in place for the past twenty-five years and was last updated approximately ten years ago.

Comments:

The subject property is located at the north-east corner of the intersection of Spraywood Gate and Slan Avenue. The fence involved with the application is of solid board construction and encloses the rear yard. A sidewalk runs parallel to the fence and is separated by 150 millimetres (6 inches) grassed area. Visibility towards the intersection is unobstructed while an existing boulevard provides adequate sight visibility of vehicles heading north on Spraywood.

The one concern is sight visibility for vehicles backing from the driveway in relation to pedestrians using the sidewalk. This problem could be eliminated through the creation of a 1.8 metre (6 foot) sight triangle.

The Division recognizes, however, that the fence has been in existence for a period of at least ten years and the current situation has not presented problems to this point. In light of this, the Division considers it reasonable to permit the fence to remain at the current height of 1.8 metres (6 feet) until a new fence is erected. At that point, a 1.8 metre (6 foot) sight triangle should be incorporated at the driveway to improve visibility.

Justification:

Section 14 of By-law 24945, as amended, provides that any person may apply for an exemption to any provision of the by-law.

Contact Name:

Bryan Byng, East District Manager

Tel: (416) 396-7731; Fax: (416) 396-4266; Email: byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 20, 1999) from the Manager of Municipal Licensing and Standards, East District:

Purpose:

The applicants are seeking an exemption to allow an existing 2 metre (6 foot, 8 inch) fence to remain in the street yard abutting Slan Avenue.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Nil.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council approve the application to permit the existing board on board fence to remain at a height of 2 metres (6 feet, 8 inches) located in the street yard of the south side of the property abutting Slan Avenue, and further, as a condition of approval, it is recommended that the fence be lowered to a height of 1.2 metres (4 feet) for a distance of 1.8 metres (6 feet) on either side of the driveway, when the fence is replaced.

Background/History:

Acting upon a complaint, an inspection of a fence was conducted at property municipally known as 22 Ingrid Drive. The inspection revealed a board on board fence approximately 2 metres (6 feet 8 inches) in height located in the street yard and along the south property line.

The owners subsequently contacted the Division and advised that the fence had been in place for approximately fifteen years. The fence was constructed so as to provide privacy and safety for the occupants and their pets. It was noted that lowering the fence to 1.2 metres (4 feet) would negate the original purpose of the fence while relocating the fence 2 metres (6 feet 8 inches) back from the property line would adversely diminish the amount of land available for the occupant's use.

Comments:

It is noted that the property is located at the intersection of Ingrid Drive and Slan Avenue. The fence in question does not project into the front yard portion of the street yard and as such, does not present any sight line difficulties for vehicular traffic at the intersection.

Access to the applicant's parking space is provided from Slan Avenue and the fence terminates on either side of the driveway. This situation raises some concern with respect to pedestrians using the sidewalk and caution is required when backing out of the property. To address this concern, consideration should be given to lowering the fence on either side of the driveway to 1.2 metres (4 feet) for a lineal distance of 1.8 metres (6 feet).

Owing to the fact that the fence has been in existence for fifteen years, with no apparent problem, it is considered reasonable to leave the lowering of these two sections of fence until the fence is replaced.

Justification:

Section 14 of By-law 24945, as amended, provides that any person may apply for an exemption to any provision of the by-law.

Contact Name:

Bryan Byng, East District Manager

Tel: (416) 396-7731; Fax: (416) 396-4266; Email: byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 30, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

To recommend approval of a draft plan of condominium for an 18 unit residential development of semi-detached and townhouse dwellings, presently under construction by Stone Rogers (Scarborough) Inc., as shown on Figure 2.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council approve the Draft Plan of Condominium by Stone Rogers (Scarborough) Inc., with respect to the lands on the west side of Markham Road, south of Kingston Road, being Part of Lot 79, Registered Plan 1734, known municipally as 50 Markham Road, subject to the following conditions:

(1) the Plan as stamped "Recommended" this date (see Figure 2); and

(2) the owner to satisfy all conditions of the Site Plan Control Agreement prior to registration, or enter into an agreement with the City, secured by a performance guarantee in a form and amount satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to guarantee completion of the site work if the owner chooses to register the condominium prior to completion of the project.

Background:

A Site Plan Control Application (S97122) indicating the location of the proposed dwellings, access and landscaping, was approved by the Director of Community Planning, East District, in 1998.

Comments:

The application was circulated to reporting Departments and Agencies involved in the review process, none of which indicated objections or requested any conditions to be fulfilled prior to release of the final plan for registration.

The application complies with the Medium Density Residential designation of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law provisions applicable to the site.

Contact Name:

Aristotle Christou

Senior Planner

Telephone: (416) 396-5228

Fax: (416) 396-4265

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

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 4, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

This report presents recommendations to grant approval of a draft plan of condominium for a 154 unit townhouse complex presently under construction by Aspen Ridge Homes Inc. The project represents the third phase of the residential development at the south-east quadrant of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue, as shown on the adjacent map. A total of 346 parking spaces are provided, comprised of 315 residential spaces (of which are 83 are tandem spaces) and a further 31 spaces are provided for visitors.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council support the Draft Plan of Condominium SC1999001 by Aspen Ridge Homes (Markham Gardens) Inc., with respect to the lands on the east side of Markham Road, at Rosebank Drive, being Block 4, Registered Plan 66M-2300, known municipally as 19 Rosebank Drive, subject to the following conditions:

(1) Plan as stamped "Recommended" this date (see Figure 2);

(2) the owner to complete all conditions of the Site Plan Control Agreement prior to registration, or enter into a financially secured agreement with the City secured by a performance guarantee in a form and amount satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to guarantee completion of the site work if the owner chooses to register the condominium prior to completion of the project; and

(3) prior to registration, the owner shall submit the final Condominium Description and Declaration for approval of the Director of Community Planning, East District, identifying areas of exclusive and common use.

Comments:

The development is comprised of a mixture of through and back-to-back units, with all units having direct access to the underground parking garage. A recreation building located on the adjacent block to the east will be available for use by the residents of this development.

This application has been circulated to various departments and agencies involved in the review process, none of which indicated objections. The proposed approval conditions reflect comments received from agencies.

The application complies with the High Density Residential Official Plan designation and the Zoning By-law provisions applicable to the site.

Contact Name:

Anna Czajkowski, MCIP, RPP

Senior Planner

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7022

Fax: (416) 396-4265

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

`

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, deferred consideration of this Clause, to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on July 6, 1999.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends:

(1) that the recommendation in the following report be struck out; and

(2) that City Council direct the City Solicitor to attend any Ontario Municipal Board hearing with respect to Minor Variance Application SA94/99 in support of this application.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (May 10, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

This report seeks direction from Council regarding the City Solicitor's role at a pending Ontario Municipal Board hearing on a current appeal, as further detailed below.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council direct the City Solicitor not to attend any Ontario Municipal Board hearing with respect to Minor Variance Application No. SA94/99.

Comments:

Craig Swirzon, on behalf of 600839 Ontario Inc., has applied to the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto for a variance from the provisions of the Dorset Park Community Zoning by-law No. 9508, as amended, to permit parking for restaurants to be provided on the basis of 8.2 parking spaces per 100 square metres (1,076 square feet) gross floor area, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum parking requirement for restaurants of 10.7 parking spaces per 100 square metres (1,076 square feet) of restaurant gross floor area.

The Committee of Adjustment's March 24, 1999 approval of the application has been appealed by Smith Lyons, on behalf of Midas (a tenant of the subject lands), and by three Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporations (MTTC Nos. 1171, 1191, and 1204) which together represent the first three phases of the Mondeo residential project to the north of the subject lands.

The appeal raises no issues of significant concern to the Corporation to warrant the City's participation in a Board Hearing. No hearing date has been scheduled.

Contact Name:

Joe Nanos, Acting Senior Planner

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7037

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: nanos@scarborough.on.ca

Ontario Municipal Board Hearing

Appeal by the University of Toronto

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that City Council receive the following report for information.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (May 13, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

On May 10, 1999, a public information meeting was held at the Highland Creek Elementary School to discuss the University of Toronto proposals which will be the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on May 31, 1999. The presentations and the comments by the public are the subject of this report.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

For the information of City Council.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, directed the Director of Community Planning, East District, to convene a community information meeting of community associations, residents and property owners within the area bounded on the north by Highway 401, on the south by the Highland Creek and 300 metres (1,000 feet) east and west of the subject lands.

This meeting was held on May 10, 1999 at the Highland Creek Elementary School. Over 2,600 notices were mailed out. Approximately 100 members of the public were in attendance, almost all from the Highland Creek Community. The University of Toronto was represented by Mr. S. Makuch, solicitor.

After brief comments from Councillor Ron Moeser and planning staff, Mr. Makuch made a presentation of the most recent draft of the official plan proposals for the Scarborough Campus and abutting lands owned by the University.

The most significant change from previous drafts is the introduction of height limits for four of the five "Special Use Areas". These range from 3 storeys adjacent to existing residential development to 7 storeys; no height limit is proposed for the Morningside-Ellesmere-Military Trail triangle. The previously proposed intensity limits of 1x, 2x and 3x site area are deleted.

Comments:

There were numerous questions from the public concerning:

(a) the University's immediate and long-term development plans;

(b) the process by which the University's proposals were going directly to the Ontario Municipal Board;

(c) opportunities for the public to participate in the process;

(d) land uses and density;

(e) the University's plans to deal with the future increase in enrolment;

(f) impact of the proposed retail development on the existing community retail centre;

(g) the history of lands previously expropriated by University of Toronto but not used for University purposes;

(h) preserving the character of the Highland Creek Community;

(i) the desirability of trees and greenspace in the area to be developed;

(j) traffic impacts;

(k) lack of details in the University of Toronto proposal;

(l) the process being unduly rushed;

(m) lack of height limit in the triangle, a visually prominent site;

(n) preference for single detached housing adjacent to existing developments;

(o) preference for a three storey limit elsewhere; and

(p) loss of property value, increased crime and the potential for assisted housing.

There were few concerns about the development of facilities and residences for University uses, even if this resulted in substantial intensification. Similarly, there were few concerns regarding Centennial College, public/private research facilities or "clean" industry.

Planning staff advised the meeting that Scarborough Community Council and Toronto City Council did not support the University's proposal. Staff further commented on several aspects of the current version of the proposals, in particular the absence of a central planning vision, the lack of density controls, the extensive permission for retail uses through most of the subject lands, and the process which would have the Ontario Municipal Board rather than Council approve plans for the subject lands.

Councillor Moeser commented on the Scarborough Campus Plan referring to the need to respect the City's planning process and undertake the planning of the peripheral areas of the University lands in consultation with the community.

Mr. Makuch noted that a number of meetings had been held with staff and the Highland Creek Community Association. In his view the need for community consultation was being met.

Professor Ted Relph, newly appointed Associate Vice Principal of Campus Development for the Scarborough Campus, responded to a number of questions regarding the University's plans to deal with future enrolment increases. He noted that enrolment projections and allocations between campuses were still under review but that an increase of 2,500 students, in addition to the present 4,500, could be accommodated in the "Inner Campus", i.e., south of Military Trail. He also said he supported a height limit such as five storeys throughout the subject lands.

Mr. Makuch indicated that there were no "concrete" proposals at the present time, but that the University was seeking the ability to respond quickly to any future possibilities. A number of residents questioned the urgency to approve the University's Official Plan proposals in the absence of any definite projects. Requests were made for the University to ask the Ontario Municipal Board to defer hearing the matter to allow time for meaningful community consultation.

Councillor Moeser undertook to advise those attending the meeting of the status of the proposals prior to the May 31, 1999 hearing.

Conclusion:

Community concerns focused on the rushed process, lack of opportunity for public consultation, the vagueness of the University's plans and proposed development controls. There was, however, a willingness to dialogue with the University to achieve consensus on a plan.

Contact Name:

David Beasley, MCIP, RPP

Principal Planner, Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7026; Fax: (416) 396-4265; E-mail: beasley@city.scarborough.on.ca

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

(1) in accordance with the following recommendations embodied in the report dated June 3, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

"It is recommended that:

(1) the Request for Proposals for the replacement of existing litter bins with new bins with advertising that is to be issued, in accordance with the terms of reference adopted as amended by Council, include all existing street allowance litter bin locations within the City except the Community Council areas of Scarborough and Etobicoke, Ward 19 - High Park, Ward 23 - Midtown and the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area; and

(2) Council approve all the recommendations of the Community Councils, with the exception of Recommendations Nos. (3) and (4) of Toronto Community Council which would result in increased costs to service the additional bin locations."; and

(2) by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Works Committee outlining a plan for the reallocation of the existing litter bins which will become available, including the financial implications.")

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that the entire Scarborough Community be excluded from this program at this time.

Recorded Vote:

Upon the question of the adoption of the foregoing motion of Councillor Balkissoon:

Yeas: Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Mahood, Moeser -6

Nays: Councillors Duguid, Kelly, Tzekas -3

Decided in the affirmative by a majority of 3.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (May 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To request the Community Council's direction on replacement of existing litter bins with new bins including an advertising component.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Provision of litter bins with an advertising component by the private sector would reduce or eliminate the cost to maintain, replace and clean existing City-owned bins and could potentially generate revenue from the sale of advertising space.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Community Councils, except Etobicoke, advise Toronto Council as soon as possible whether they support replacing existing litter bins with new bins with an advertising component and, if so, whether there are any existing bin locations in the Community Council Area that should be excluded.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, City Council approved a number of recommendations pertaining to issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the provision of litter bins with advertising.

At its meeting of April 21, 1999, the Works and Utilities Committee recommended to Council the adoption of the Terms of Reference for the Request for Proposals embodied in the report dated March 15, 1999, copy appended, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to:

(a) deleting the last sentence in No. (9) and striking out No. (17) of the Terms of Reference, as previously directed by the Works and Utilities Committee;

(b) providing that at least two firms be recommended for the program;

(c) any bin or furniture being proven, and including a multi-compartment component, so that recyclables can be separated; and

(d) the firm having at least one year of experience in the provision of such equipment.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The RFP will solicit proposals from the private sector to supply, install and maintain new litter bins with an advertising component, at no cost to the City, which will replace existing litter bins at various locations within the public road allowances in the City. Subject to Council approval, the new bins will have three compartments to accommodate litter and recyclables; i.e. litter, paper and containers. It is anticipated that Toronto will retain responsibility for emptying the containers. Proponents will also be requested to specify how much revenue will be paid to the City as a result of selling advertising space on the bins.

The RFP will be broken down into separate contracts by Community Council Area (except Etobicoke and a section of Danforth Avenue in Ward 25 which are currently involved in litter bin projects with OMG Media), and will include a detailed listing of the locations that the successful proponents can place the new bins. Therefore, in order to issue the RFP we need to know whether each Community Council Area, excluding Etobicoke, is interested in participating in the litter bins with advertising program and, if so, whether there are any locations within each Community Council Area that the Council do not wish included. A listing of the current litter bin locations, which are under consideration for new litter bins with advertising, is appended.

Business Improvement Areas and other interested parties that we are aware of have been notified that the issue of litter bins with advertising in their community will be on this meeting's agenda. Once this issue is dealt with by each Community Council, we would appreciate if the recommendations could be forwarded to Toronto Council for their consideration.

Conclusions:

An RFP for the provision of new litter bins with an advertising component will be issued after we receive direction from the Community Councils and Toronto Council as to which Community Councils would like to participate in the litter bins with advertising program and whether there are certain areas or locations that should not be included in the RFP.

Contact Name:

Tim Michael, Manager - Waste Diversion

Solid Waste Management Services, Metro Hall

Telephone: (416) 392-8506; Fax: (416) 392-4754; E-mail: Tim_Michael@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca

Mr. Dave Jackson, Glen Andrew Community Association, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the resolutions of the Community Councils related to the replacement of existing litter bins with new bins with advertising.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Provision of litter bins with an advertising component by the private sector would likely eliminate the cost to maintain, replace and clean existing City-owned bins and generate revenue from the sale of advertising space. Once responses to the Request for Proposals are received, we will be able to report on the financial implications of the various proposals.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1) the Request for Proposals for the replacement of existing litter bins with new bins with advertising that is to be issued, in accordance with the terms of reference adopted as amended by Council, include all existing street allowance litter bin locations within the City except the Community Council areas of Scarborough and Etobicoke, Ward 19 - High Park, Ward 23 - Midtown and the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area.

2) Council approve all the resolutions of the Community Councils, with the exception of resolutions (3) and (4) of Toronto Community Council which would result in increased costs to service the additional bin locations.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, City Council approved a number of recommendations pertaining to issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the provision of litter bins with advertising.

At its meeting of May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, Council adopted the Terms of Reference for the RFP embodied in the report dated March 15, 1999, copy appended, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, subject to:

(a) deleting the last sentence in No. (9) and striking out No. (17) of the Terms of Reference;

(b) providing that at least two firms be recommended for the program;

(c) any bin or furniture being proven, and including a multi-compartment component, so that recyclables can be separated;

(d) the firm having at least one year of experience in the provision of such equipment; and

(e) deleting the second sentence in No. (4) so that such item shall now read "Toronto will retain responsibility for emptying the containers".

Council also requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to "submit a report directly to Council for its meeting to be held on June 9, 10, and 11, 1999, on the results of the Community Council consultations on the Request for Proposals (RFP) for litter bins with advertising, in order that the RFP can be issued in June, 1999".

Comments and Discussion:

On May 26, 1999, the Community Councils (excluding Etobicoke which currently has a litter bin contract with OMG Media) had before them a report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dated May 3, 1999, requesting that the Community Councils advise Toronto Council as soon as possible whether they support replacing existing litter bins with new bins with an advertising component and, if so, whether there are any existing bin locations in the Community Council Area that should be excluded. Business Improvement Areas and other interested parties that we were aware of were notified by the Community Council Clerks that the issue of litter bins with advertising would be discussed at the May 26th meetings.

The following are the resolutions of the Community Councils related to litter bins with advertising:

East York

The East York Community Council advises Council that it supports replacing existing litter bins with new bins with an advertising component and recommends that the new litter bins be located near commercial areas and on major streets.

The East York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to Works Committee and the East York Community Council with respect to:

1) existing contracts between the former Borough of East York and private companies regarding the provision of litter bins and benches in East York; and

2) the possible re-use and/or recycling of the old litter bins.

North York

The North York Community Council recommends that:

1) the following report (May 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, be received;

2) replacement of the existing free-standing litter bins with new bins with an advertising component, be supported;

3) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, whose approval is required for the actual placement and orientation of these bins in the specified locations, take into consideration other advertising on the road; and

4) the Terms of Reference which will form the basis of the Request for Proposals for the provision of litter bins with advertising specifically include a clause that removal or replacement of the bins be at the discretion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Scarborough

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that the entire Scarborough community be excluded form the program at this time.

York

York Community Council received the report.

Toronto

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

1) all bin locations in High Park and Midtown wards be excluded;

2) bin locations for the west side of the Downtown ward be approved, subject to Councillor Chow's advice directly to Council, as a result of her consultations with the Community;

3) the City bins which will be made available as a result of being replaced by the new bins, be relocated to High Park; and

4) the new bins which are not being utilized in High Park and Midtown wards be relocated to Davenport ward and the east side of the Downtown ward.

It should also be noted that the Bloor-Yorkdale Business Improvement Area (BIA) has written Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair of the Toronto Community Council, subsequent to the May 26th meeting, requesting that their BIA be excluded from the litter bin with advertising program. While the majority of this BIA is in the Midtown ward, it also includes part of the Downtown ward.

Based on the resolutions of the Community Councils, we recommend that the RFP for replacement litter bins with advertising include all existing bin locations with the exception of the Community Council areas of Scarborough and Etobicoke, Ward 19 - High Park, Ward 23 - Midtown and the Bloor-Yorkdale Business Improvement Area. With respect to the resolution from the Community Council area of East York that the new bins be located on major streets or located near commercial areas, this is consistent with the intent of the RFP that the new bins with advertising will not be placed in residential areas.

There may also be some existing bin locations that may end up being unsuitable for the new litter bins with advertising. For example, some current locations have small litter bins mounted on poles and there may not be adequate space in the immediate vicinity for the larger 3-compartment bins. Another example of a location which could be deemed as unsuitable is if a new bin with advertising is to be placed in such close proximity to another advertising structure under contract with the City (such as the transit benches with advertising in North York) that it blocks the advertising message on the structure already there. The RFP contains a provision that requires the location of each and every bin to be approved by the Commissioner Works and Emergency Services prior to installation. Therefore, if certain locations listed in the RFP turn out to be unsuitable, the successful proponent(s) will be advised by the Commissioner to refrain from putting new bins with advertising in those locations.

Subject to approval of this report by Council at its June meeting, we will issue the RFP before the end of the month.

Resolutions (3) and (4) of Toronto Community Council recommend that some of the old litter bins that are being replaced by the new bins with advertising be relocated to the High Park ward and that some of the new bins that would have been utilized in the High Park and Midtown wards be relocated to the Davenport and Downtown wards. At this time, we recommend that these resolutions not be approved due to the additional costs that would be incurred. The purpose of the RFP is to replace existing City-owned litter bins as opposed to adding new locations. These resolutions would result in additional bin locations that would require regular emptying by City staff, thus increasing costs.

Conclusion:

Once this report is approved by Council, we will proceed with issuing the RFP for the replacement of existing litter bins with new bins with advertising.

Contact Name:

Tim Michael, Manager - Waste Diversion

Solid Waste Management Services, Metro Hall

Phone: (416) 392-8506; Fax: (416) 392-4754; E-mail: Tim_Michael@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca)

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 18, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To provide comments on the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project Environmental Assessment (a project of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) to be submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council endorse the comments contained herein on the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project Environmental Assessment;

(2) this report be submitted to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment as comments on the Environmental Assessment; and

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

Council Reference:

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has proposed an improvement project for the Scarborough waterfront, between Highland Creek and the Rouge River. The project requires an individual Environmental Assessment (EA) to be prepared and approved under the provincial Environmental Assessment Act.

The TRCA has prepared an Environmental Assessment document for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project which has been submitted to the Ministry of the Environment (the Ministry) for approval under the provincial Environmental Assessment Act. The City of Toronto, among other agencies, has been asked to comment on the EA by the Ministry as part of the review under the Act.

In response to the Ministry's request for comments on the Environmental Assessment, this report has been prepared for submission as the City's comments. The Ministry will publish a review of the Environmental Assessment, based on comments received from members of the public and various agencies. A minimum 30-day review period is required, during which any interested party may make submissions on the Environmental Assessment.

An executive summary of the Environmental Assessment (Appendix A) and a plan of the project area (Appendix B) are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, Scarborough Civic Centre .

In essence, the undertaking entails the creation of a greenspace corridor south of the Canadian National Railway tracks between Highland Creek and the Rouge River that is natural in character. The project will establish a land base sufficient for a trail and other amenities south of the tracks. This greenway south of the tracks will also link existing parklands in this sector of the waterfront, creating linkages that will contribute to both regional and local scale functions.

The undertaking's key features include:

• - 3.8 km of waterfront greenspace corridor and trail

• -The addition of 11.82 hectares of lakefill south of the railway tracks

• -The configuration of the shoreline will include two series of headland beach systems, a larger headland to function as a pedestrian node south of the tracks as an extension to the Village Common (described below) and two existing dynamic beaches at the western and eastern ends of the project. A portion of tableland in the centre section of the project, known as Chesterton Shores, would require only minimal shoreline work to maintain and enhance the existing land base.

• -Five linkage points to the waterfront:

• -a pedestrian underpass at the Port Union Village Common

• -a pedestrian underpass at Lakeridge Drive

• - a bridge across the mouth of Highland Creek (western limit of project area)

• -an existing level crossing at Chesterton Shores

• -an existing grade-separated crossing at Rouge Beach Park (eastern limit of project area)

Along the entire length of the project area, there is a high-speed railway corridor, which is part of the main GO Transit network. The majority of the railway embankment is higher than the inland areas, forming a barrier between the community and the Lake Ontario waterfront. The area north of the tracks has been undergoing redevelopment in recent years, particularly in the vicinity of Port Union Road.

At present, there are only two formal access points to the waterfront along the entire length of the project area. The first is at the level crossing at Chesterton Shores. The second is at the east end at the mouth of the Rouge River at Rouge Beach Park. The lack of safe access to the

waterfront is a safety issue and one of the main reasons for the undertaking.

Several existing plans and initiatives that encompass the project area provide a planning context for the undertaking. The Metro Toronto Waterfront Plan (1994) recognizes the waterfront's regional significance. The TRCA's 1996 Integrated Shoreline Management Plan (ISMP) builds on the Waterfront Regeneration Trust's Lake Ontario Greenway Strategy (1995). The goal of both these documents is to "provide an ecosystem-based framework to ensure that shoreline management activities result in a clean, green, accessible, diverse, connected, open, affordable, attractive and useable waterfront."

At a more local level, the former City of Scarborough's Port Union Village Community Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment 858) covers the area from Highland Creek to Chesterton Shores. It calls for a public greenspace, the Village Common, to be located at the foot of Port Union Road. The Village Common would extend into the proposed waterfront area by means of a pedestrian tunnel (to be constructed by the City of Toronto) at the foot of Port Union Road, becoming one of the principal access points to the waterfront.

The estimated budget for the Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project is $16.8 million in 1998 dollars (excluding property acquisition). The project will be implemented by the TRCA with equal funding proposed from the Federal and Provincial governments and the City of Toronto.

It is proposed that the Port Union Water Front Improvement Project be funded in two main components: Phase I, from Highland Creek to Chesterton Shores, would be constructed first and Phase II, from Chesterton Shores to the Rouge River, would follow. The timing for the completion of each phase will depend upon the acquisition of shoreline properties, project funding, and project approvals.

The waterfront area will be operated by the city as part of its parks system. The City, therefore, has an interest in the project both as an operator as well as a funding partner.

Comments on the Environmental Assessment:

The Policy and Development Division of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department requested and coordinated the submission of comments on the proposed undertaking from relevant city departments and services. Comments were received from Urban Planning and Development Services, the Economic Development division of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, the Works and Emergency Services -Technical Services division (verbal reply indicated support for the project), and emergency services providers (fire, police and ambulance). Appendix C includes copies of the replies received. Comments on the EA, including those received from other departments, are set out below in several main headings.

(1) Park Form and Program

The project is to create a linear greenway south of the railway tracks between Highland Creek and the Rouge River, which will be predominantly natural in character. This greenway will require the placement of lakefill to achieve the necessary land base for the proposed facilities (principally the trail and the pedestrian node) and shoreline structures needed to achieve a suitable stable beach.

While the placement of lakefill is acknowledged as an impact on the existing shoreline, the proposed project has been designed to require minimal filling for the identified park program. Furthermore, a significant stretch of the area has a history of fill resulting from the creation of the railway bed. Given the need and the opportunity to provide safe access to the waterfront, the proposed lakefill appears to be justifiable and acceptable.

The project is in accord with the waterfront policies of the former Metro Official Plan and the former City of Scarborough. It will further enhance the City's objectives of improving access and enhancing the recreation potential of the waterfront.

(2) Relationship to the Community

The project has particular significance for the Port Union Village Community, which is undergoing redevelopment. The Port Union Village Community plan promotes access to and use of the waterfront and encourages improvement of its amenity value. The linkage of the Village Common by a pedestrian underpass to a pedestrian node on the waterfront is an essential element in the Village Common concept.

The plans for the undertaking were also formulated with community involvement and consultation and therefore the plan is considered to be supported by the public.

The undertaking would provide an overall benefit to the City as it seeks to meet the greenway needs of the community, the city and the region.

(3) Safe Public Access to the Proposed Waterfront Area

Safe access to the waterfront is a principal basis for the undertaking and stems from the presence of the railway embankment that forms a physical barrier to the waterfront. Appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that all planned access points are included in the final implementation of the project and that people are discouraged from crossing the tracks (e.g., with fencing and signage).

(4) Provision of Emergency Services in the Proposed Waterfront Area

Based on the anticipated increased use and activity in this section of the waterfront due to the creation of the parkland, emergency services providers (police, fire and ambulance) have commented on the need for appropriate access for their vehicles, both with respect to access to/from the park and access within the park.

South of the tracks, the 3.5-metre wide trail runs the full length of the proposed greenway and should be designed to accommodate emergency service and maintenance vehicles.

With respect to access to and from the greenway, there are, as outlined above, five points of access across the railway tracks. From west to east, these are:

• - A bridge across the mouth of Highland Creek

• - A pedestrian underpass at Lakeridge Drive

• - A pedestrian underpass at the foot of Port Union Road (Village Common)

• - A level crossing at Chesterton Shores

• - A grade-separated crossing at Rouge Beach Park

The proposed pedestrian bridge across the mouth of Highland Creek, at the west end of the project area, will be able to accommodate the vehicles indicated (mini-pumper, ambulance, Chief's van) by emergency services providers. The pedestrian underpasses at Lakeridge and the Village Common will allow for a limited range of vehicles.

The level crossing at Chesterton Shores, slightly to the east of Port Union Road, should be able to accommodate a broad range of emergency vehicles. The same applies to the grade-separated crossing in Rouge Beach Park, at the east end of the project area, however, it should be noted that this park road is, at present, typically closed during the winter season.

As with any access road or facility, maintenance practices will be important to ensure that the access points remain serviceable as the park comes into public use. It appears that the access points identified in the EA provide the degree of access indicated in the comments from the emergency services providers.

Apart from the access comments, a number of other points were raised by emergency services providers to help ensure public safety on the waterfront greenway. These comments are outlined below. For the most part, they are most appropriately addressed in the detailed design and project implementation stages that would follow approval of the EA. They are included here in case of any potential implications they may have on the project that should be considered at this stage.

Emergency services providers indicated that adequate lighting should be installed for safety and security on trails and to assist emergency services staff. The EA states that park use at night, dusk and dawn would be discouraged in order to minimize disturbance to active fauna such as mammals and birds. This principle implies that lighting within the greenway may be limited to certain areas, e.g., the pedestrian node and lookout at the foot of Port Union where higher levels of use are anticipated.

The presence of lighting in the park in areas other than at the Port Union node should be considered with respect to resident flora and fauna and migrating birds as stated in the EA. Lighting may also provide a false sense of security to visitors using the park at night. Moreover, if use other than in the daytime is discouraged, then lighting should be limited to appropriate areas.

Emergency services providers indicated that public washrooms (with change rooms) should be incorporated in the park design. There are, at present, public washroom facilities at Rouge Beach Park and East Point Park (west of the project area). The plans for the Village Common also include public washrooms. As there are public washrooms in existence or planned within the greenway, this comment need not be addressed by the EA.

In their comments, emergency service providers suggested the following facilities and conveniences be considered for inclusion in the park:

• -Public rescue equipment such as floatation rings and rescue poles located at intervals along the shoreline to enable on-scene witnesses to provide rescue assistance to victims without endangering themselves.

• - Water fountains along the length of the park to prevent dehydration on hot days

Emergency telephones strategically placed along the length of the park; telephones should be marked with a number to which callers may refer when calling for help, in order to direct emergency services providers to a specific location more quickly.

The foregoing items can be addressed during the detailed planning and implementation stages for the project.

(5) Parking Provision and Access

The EA recognizes the importance of providing adequate parking but states that "no provision for parking facilities are being incorporated into the Project". This raises the concern of insufficient parking available for waterfront visitors. Inadequate

parking was also raised in the comments from the police.

The nature of the project area limits the ability to provide parking facilities south of the tracks within the project area per se. Nonetheless, the issue of adequate parking for the proposed waterfront greenway should not be underestimated. It is recommended, therefore, that opportunities for parking to serve the waterfront area be pursued as the project progresses (e.g., near the Village Common, in association with the GO Station, at Chesterton Shores). As well, existing parking spaces in or near the project area (e.g., at the east end of East Point Park and at Rouge Beach Park) should be maintained and managed as access areas for the greenway.

(6) Economic Development

The Port Union Waterfront Improvement Project can be expected to have a positive effect on tourism, not only at a local level but also at a regional level. The presence of the park may also create opportunities for tourist-related amenities in the area.

(7) Environmental and Natural Heritage Issues

Disturbance of sensitive vegetation by off-leash dogs and the potential introduction of invasive plants are a concern in a number of the City's parks and natural areas. However, the EA recognizes the importance of this issue and strategies to address these problems and minimize degradation should be addressed in the detailed design and implementation stages.

(8) Satisfaction of Terms of Reference

The Terms of Reference for the EA approved by the Ministry appear to be satisfied by the document.

Conclusions:

The proposed undertaking would benefit the City of Toronto in several ways. First, it would provide safe and enjoyable access to this sector of the waterfront. Second, the undertaking would realize a greenway and trail along the Scarborough waterfront that would eventually form part of the completely connected Lake Ontario Waterfront Trail. It would also improve the connection between the Highland Creek and the Rouge River to the waterfront and to each other, building upon the city-wide connected trail system.

Although some of the issues raised in the comments pose concerns for the City, they can be addressed in the detailed design and implementation stages of this project.

Contact Names:

Frank Kershaw Tel: 392-8199

Brian Rutherford Tel: 392-8179

A copy of the responses received, referred to as Appendix C in the foregoing report, was provided to all Members of the Community Council and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, Scarborough Civic Centre.

APPENDIX A

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix A (cont'd)

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Appendix A (cont'd)

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Appendix A (cont'd)

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Appendix A (cont'd)

Insert Table/Map No. 6

Port Union Waterfront - Preferred Decision Concept (Sheet A)

Insert Table/Map No. 7

Port Union Waterfront - Preferred Decision Concept (Sheet B)

15

Nominations for 1999 Recreation Recognition Night Awards

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the recommendations contained in the confidential report (May 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, respecting this matter, subject to changing the date for the event from Thursday, September 9, 1999 to Monday, September 13, 1999.

A copy of the confidential report has been distributed to all Members of Council under confidential cover.

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause the following confidential report (May 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To present to the members of the Scarborough Community Council the recommended award recipients for the 43rd Annual Recreation Recognition Night.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Appropriate funds in the amount of $18,000 have been allocated in the 1999 budget,

Account No. 100-PRO-3307.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council approve:

1.the Individual of the Year;

2.the Group of the Year;

3.the Recreation Citations; and

4.the Special Citations, as submitted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

For the past 42 years, the members of the Scarborough Community Council and the Parks and Recreation Division have acknowledged the significant contributions of our many volunteers by hosting an Annual Recreation Recognition Night and awards ceremony. Following the initial consideration of this matter by Community Council on March 30, 1999, a sub-committee was established to consider the motions put forward at that meeting.

The sub-committee recommends that the new date for this reception will be Thursday September 9, 1999 at Malvern Community Recreation Centre. The Individual and Group of the Year Awards will be presented along with approximately 24 Citation Awards for 1999.

This report identifies those proposed individuals and groups that are deemed worthy of recognition. The following appendices reflect the recommended changes from the sub-committee meeting of April 28, 1999. The list of nominations for Individual and Group of the Year are listed on Appendices "A" and "B". Appendix "C"; identifies the nominations for Citation Awards. Nominations that were not accepted for recognition are listed on Appendix "D". Appendix "E" represents this years Special Citation.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains material addressing personal matters about an identifiable individual and shall be considered "in camera" in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of information and Protection of Privacy act and Subsection 55 (5) (b) of the Municipal Act.

Conclusions:

Upon approval of this report, the Parks and Recreation Division, East District will proceed with the final preparations required for the 43rd Annual Recognition Night on Thursday September 9, 1999 at the Malvern Community Centre.

Contact Name:

Paul McNabney, Supervisor, Recreation and Facilities Special Events

Telephone: 396-7810.)

Appendix "A"

43 rd Annual Recreation Recognition Night

Nominations for Individual of the Year

Appendix "B"

43 rd Annual Recreation Recognition Night

Nominations for Group of the Year

Appendix "C"

43 rd Annual Recreation Recognition Night

Recreation Citations

Appendix "D"

43 rd Annual Recreation Recognition Night

Nominations Not Accepted

Appendix "E"

43 rd Annual Recreation Recognition Night

Special Citation

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the City Solicitor be directed to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of a Zoning By-law for the Shell station site which provides for automotive uses and retail sales, including on-site food preparation for consumption off-site, but excludes a drive-through pick-up window.")

The Scarborough Community Council reports having directed that the confidential report (May 14, 1999) from the City Solicitor, respecting this matter, be forwarded to Council without recommendation.

A copy of the confidential report has been distributed to all Members of Council under confidential cover; such report to remain confidential in accordance with the Municipal Act.

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, received this Clause, for information..)

(a) Election of Chair of Scarborough Community Council

The Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting on May 11, 1999, elected Councillor Bas Balkissoon as the Chair of the Scarborough Community Council for a term of office commencing the effective date of the governance structure, i.e., June 14, 1999, and expiring November 30, 2000, and until his successor is appointed.

(b) Traffic Calming on Fairfax Crescent, Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having:

(1) deferred the following report for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on June 22, 1999; and

(2) requested that the Director, Transportation Services, District 4, report on establishing a Community Safety Zone on Fairfax Crescent:

(May 11, 1999) from the City Clerk (Urban Environment and Development Committee) recommending that notwithstanding the community meeting and notification undertaken by Councillor Altobello, and given that a harmonized traffic calming policy has not yet been developed for the City of Toronto, in order for speed humps to be installed on Fairfax Crescent, staff recommend the following process:

(1) a poll or petition be conducted for the purpose of assessing consensus for the proposal;

(2) the poll or petition should include households on the affected street, or on streets directly accessing the affected street;

(3) the poll or petition must demonstrate that at least 60 percent of responding households are in favour of the proposal in order for the installation to proceed; and

(4) in the event the foregoing requirements are met, staff report back to Scarborough Community Council, where Committee/Council may authorize or decline the speed hump installation.

(c) Proposed Installation of Traffic Control Signals, Kingston Road & St. Augustine Seminary/Resthaven Cemetery, Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that the recommendations contained in the following report be approved, subject to adding a Recommendation No. (4), as follows:

"(4) coincident with the installation of the northbound left turn prohibition at the westerly driveway of the St. Theresa Shrine Elementary School, a left turn arrow priority feature be installed for eastbound Kingston Road traffic wishing to make left turns or U-turns at Brimley Road.":

(April 8, 1999) from the City Clerk (Urban Environment and Development Committee) advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting held on March 31, 1999, referred a report (March 3, 1999) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, respecting the proposed installation of traffic control signals at Kingston Road and the St. Augustine Seminary/Resthaven Cemetery driveways, to the Scarborough Community Council for comments thereon and report back to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(d) Proposed Modifications to Traffic Control Signals, Lawrence Avenue East at Crockford Boulevard andEllington Drive, Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(March 11, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4, advising Community Council of the feasibility of incorporating the intersection of Lawrence Avenue East and Ellington Drive within the existing traffic control signals at Crockford Boulevard, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(e) Parking on Painted Post Drive Immediately West of Markham Road, Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report, at the request of Councillor Duguid, to its meeting scheduled to be held on June 22, 1999:

(May 6, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4, recommending that:

(1) the stopping regulation identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and

(2) the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

(f) Preliminary Evaluation Report, Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ1999010, 1090011 Ontario Limited, Northwest Corner Comstock Road and Warden Avenue, Golden Mile Employment District, Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(May 3, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Scarborough Community Council direct staff to process the application in the normal manner and convene a Public Meeting to consider this application targeted for the third quarter of 1999, with notice of the Public Meeting to be provided to all properties within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property.

(g) Preliminary Evaluation Report, Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ1999009, Megael Limited, 757 Warden Avenue and 2-20 Malley Road, Golden Mile Employment District, Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(April 29, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Scarborough Community Council direct staff to process the application in the normal manner and convene a Public Meeting to consider this application targeted for the third quarter of 1999, with notice of the Public Meeting to be provided to all properties within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property.

(h) Preliminary Evaluation Report, Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ1999014, Infanti Auto Repair Ltd., 933 Warden Avenue, Golden Mile Employment District, Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report, subject to adding the following:

(1) that a joint community meeting be held respecting 929 Warden Avenue and 933 Warden Avenue with the Ward Councillors, the applicants and staff in attendance; and

(2) that the Director, Community Planning, East District, be requested to report to Community Council respecting the land use issues raised by the three rezoning applications on the east side of Warden Avenue, north of Ashtonbee Road:

(May 5, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Scarborough Community Council direct staff to process the application in the normal manner and convene a Public Meeting to consider this application targeted for the third quarter of 1999, with notice of the Public Meeting to be provided to all properties within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property.

Mr. Karl Jaffary, Solicitor representing Infanti Auto Repair Ltd., appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(i) Preliminary Evaluation Report, Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ1999012, Academy Security Services Ltd., 929 Warden Avenue, Golden Mile Employment District, Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report, subject to adding the following:

(1) that a joint community meeting be held respecting 929 Warden Avenue and 933 Warden Avenue with the Ward Councillors, the applicants and staff in attendance; and

(2) that the Director, Community Planning, East District, be requested to report to Community Council respecting the land use issues raised by the three rezoning applications on the east side of Warden Avenue, north of Ashtonbee Road:

(May 4, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Scarborough Community Council direct staff to process the application in the normal manner and convene a Public Meeting to consider this application targeted for the third quarter of 1999, with notice of the Public Meeting to be provided to all properties within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property.

(j) Preliminary Evaluation Report Official Plan Amendment Application SP1999003 Bellanada Holdings Limited and L. and E. Savella, 9, 15, 19 and 23 Craigton Drive, Clairlea Community - Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following reports for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on June 22, 1999:

(May 3, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Scarborough Community Council direct staff to process the application in the normal manner and convene a public meeting to consider this application targeted for the third quarter of 1999, with notice of the Public Meeting to be provided to all properties within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property; and

(May 26, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, amending the recommendations in his report, dated May 3, 1999, as follows:

(1) that the applicant provide to the City a strategy which addresses the retention and replacement of rental housing, accommodation of existing tenants, and that a strategy may include the use of Section 37 of the Planning Act; and

(2) that Scarborough Community Council direct staff to process the application in the normal manner and convene a public meeting to consider this application, targeted for the third quarter of 1999, with notice of the public meeting to be provided to all property owners within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property.

(k) Preliminary Evaluation Report, Official Plan Amendment Application SP1999005, Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ1999008, The T. Eaton Company Limited, Southwest Corner of Progress Avenue and Brimley Road, Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

The Scarborough Community Council reports having:

(1) amended Recommendation No. (2), to include a report on how the applicant will control the odour problems associated with the adjacent industrial use;

(2) requested that the Director of Community Planning, East District, report on the status of the City Centre study and its linkage with the potential recommendations in this application; and

(3) directed that this information be submitted to the Community Council meeting scheduled to be held on June 22, 1999:

(May 12, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Scarborough Community Council:

(1) direct staff to hold a Community Information Meeting with Notice for this meeting be provided to the nearby Community Associations, and property owners within 120 metres (400 feet) of the site, in consultation with the local Ward Councillors;

(2) require the applicant to submit the following in support of these applications: Site Plan Control Application, Traffic Impact Study, Wind and Micro-Climate Study and Hydrogeological Study;

(3) process the applications in the normal manner and work with the applicant to a achieve a high quality site plan appropriate for the City Centre, having regard for building location, massing, design and roof design to achieve the City Centre skyline.

(4) target the Public Meeting of Council in the fourth quarter of 1999, subject to the conditions listed above.

(l) Preliminary Evaluation Report, Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ1999015, 546958 Ontario Limited, 4711 Steeles Avenue East, Milliken Employment District, Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report, subject to adding a Recommendation No. (5), as follows:

"(5) that the total amount of retail, office and restaurant uses be reduced to a total of 80,000 square feet, with no more than 10,000 square feet being permitted for restaurant uses.":

(May 10, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Scarborough Community Council:

(1) direct staff to process the application in the normal manner;

(2) direct the applicant to submit traffic and parking impact and stormwater management reports;

(3) direct the applicant to clarify the ownership of the subject lands and abutting lands on the west side of Silver Star Boulevard, and to submit consent applications to create any mutual access easements as may be necessary; and

(4) convene a Public Meeting to consider the subject application, targeted for September 1999, with notice to be provided to all properties within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property.

Mr. Bruce McMinn, Solicitor representing 546958 Ontario Limited, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

The Community Council also received a communication (May 25, 1999) from Mr. McMinn, requesting the amendment described above, 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, Scarborough Civic Centre.

(m) Preliminary Evaluation Report, Official Plan Amendment Application SP1999007, Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ1999011, Tiffield Development Corporation and Yee Hong Centre for Geriatric Care, Southeast Corner of Middlefield Road and Finch Avenue, Marshalling Yard Employment District, Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved Recommendation No. (1) in the following report, dated May 21, 1999, subject to directing:

(1) that the staff report referred to in Recommendation No. (1) be presented to the Community Council meeting scheduled to be held on June 22, 1999; and

(2) that the Director of Community Planning, East District, work with the Ward Councillors and the applicant on addressing the concerns outlined in the report, and provide an analysis to the June 22, 1999 meeting as to how the applicant plans to address these concerns:

(May 10, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Scarborough Community Council direct the Director of Community Planning, East District to:

(1) defer agency circulation of the applications until City Council has had the opportunity of reviewing the findings of the Industrial/Employment Land Needs Study, currently being undertaken by the City Planning Division Policy and Research Section;

(2) in consultation with the Economic Development Division, assist the Yee Hong Centre for Geriatric Care to locate a suitable alternative site for geriatric centre; and

(3) report to Scarborough Community Council at a future meeting on the implications of the Industrial\Employment Land Needs Study for these applications and on the results of discussions with Yee Hong.

(May 21, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising that the foregoing Recommendations Nos. (1) and (3) have been consolidated, as follows:

"(1) defer agency circulation of the application until staff report to Scarborough Community Council at a future meeting on preliminary information from the Industrial Employment Land Needs Study;".

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

- Christopher J. Williams, Solicitor, on behalf of the applicant;

- Martin Rendl, Planning Consultant;

- Mark Guslits, Consulting Architect;

- Florence Wong, CEO, Yee Hong Centre for Geriatric Care;

- Mr. Nusserwanji Anklesaria, resident of Yee Hong Centre;

- Mr. Kai Mei Tsui, Treasurer of the Macrobian Club (a healthy senior program), translated by Mr. Chap Tung Sum, Chairman of the Evergreen Manor Tenant Association;

- Rev. Po-Wan Yeung, Pastor of the Hallelujiah Chinese Evangelical Free Church;

- Jenna Fong, senior's caregiver;

- Fred Lee, local resident; and

- Pauline Tong, President, Yee Hong Community Wellness Foundation.

The Scarborough Community Council received the following communications:

(1) (May 21, 1999) from Mr. Christopher J. Williams, Aird & Berlis;

(2) (May 21, 1999) from Councillor Cho;

(3) (May 21, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District; and

(4) (May 24, 1999) from Mrs. Florence Wong, Chief Executive Officer, Yee Hong Centre for Geriatric Care;

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, Scarborough Civic Centre.

(n) Petition Received - File No. SW19990001, Petition to Amend the Residential Parking Regulations, Maryvale Community, Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(May 11, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, responding to a 21-signature petition submitted by Maryvale Community residents living on Marchington Circle and Scotswood Road, requesting the City to amend the Zoning By-law to prohibit commercial vehicles, (specifically school buses of all sizes and multi-passenger commercial use vans) from parking on residential property, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(o) Food and Beverages in Recreational Uses in Scarborough's Employment Areas

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report, at the request of Councillor Mahood, to its meeting scheduled to be held on June 22, 1999:

(May 13, 1999) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official, East District, Manager, Municipal Standards, East District, and Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Scarborough Community Council of the City's current practices, with respect to food and beverage activities in recreational uses in employment areas and associated applications for Occasional Use permits; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(p) New Applications - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(May 12, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the new applications received during the four-week period ending May 5, 1999; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(q) Site Plan Control Approvals - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(May 10, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the Site Plan Control Approvals granted by the Director, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(r) Consent Applications - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(May 10, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the Consent Decisions granted by the Director, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(s) Ontario Municipal Board Hearings - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(May 12, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the status of current appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(t) O.M.B. Decision, Joanne Mizzi, 53 Minnacote Avenue, Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(May 5, 1999) from the City Solicitor advising of the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing held on February 25, 1999, respecting lands at 53 Minnacote Avenue, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(u) O.M.B. Decision, Eid Attia, the Highland Creek Highway Commercial Association, and Abel Van Wyk - Appeal of City-initiated OPA 988, Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(May 12, 1999) from the City Solicitor advising of the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing held on February 1, 1999, respecting the Official Plan Amendment 988, a modification to the Highland Creek Secondary Plan, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(v) O.M.B. Decision, Yellow Moon Homes, Southwest Corner of Lawrence Avenue East and Port Union Road, Appeal of Parkland Requirement in OPA 858, Port Union Village Secondary Plan, Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(May 10, 1999) from the City Solicitor advising of the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing held on February 22, 1999, respecting lands at the southwest corner of Lawrence Avenue East and Port Union Road, Yellow Moon Homes, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(w) Appeal and Review of O.M.B. Decision, Ontario Hydro Corridor - Graywood Investments Limited, Wards 14 and 17 - Scarborough Wexford & Scarborough Agincourt

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(May 5, 1999) from the City Solicitor advising of the Divisional Court's disposition of the application for leave to appeal the O.M.B. Decision respecting Graywood Investments Limited and the Board's response to the request to review that decision, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(x) O.M.B. Decision, Ontario Hydro Corridor -Maryvale Community, Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(May 5, 1999) from the City Solicitor advising of the Ontario Municipal Board Decision respecting the Norstar Development proposal for the Maryvale portion of the Ontario Hydro Corridor Lands, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(y) O.M.B. Decision, John Delic, Lands on the South Side of Lawrence Avenue, East of Crockford Boulevard. Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(May 6, 1999) from the City Solicitor advising of the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing held on February 11 and 12, 1999, respecting vacant lands located on the south side of Lawrence Avenue East, east of Crockford Boulevard, which form part of an abandoned CPR railroad line; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(z) Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, Loblaw Properties Limited, Deep Pocket Investments Inc., Bellanada Holdings and L. & E. Savella, Request to Include High Density Residential Uses on those Lands bounded by Eglinton Avenue to the South, Victoria Park Avenue to the West, Craigton Drive to the North and Pharmacy Avenue to the East, Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report, and the following motions, to its meeting scheduled to be held on June 22, 1999, with the request that the Director of Community Planning, East District, and the City Solicitor meet with the affected Ward Councillors and the applicants and report back on a possible resolution of this matter:

Motion of Councillor Ashton:

(1) that City Council reaffirm the position taken by the Council of the former City of Scarborough at its meeting held on June 24, 1991, embodied in Clause 2 of Report No. 14 of the Planning Committee, under "A. Official Plan" Recommendations Nos. (1) through (5); and

(2) that the Director of Community Planning, East District, be requested to report to Scarborough Community Council on the requirements of Section 37 as outlined in the June 24, 1991 decision.

Motion of Councillor Kelly:

That Recommendation No. (1) in Clause 2, Report No. 14 of the Planning Committee be amended to read as follows:

"(1) Non-residential uses to a maximum density of .6 times the area."

Motion of Councillor Tzekas:

That City Council authorize the retention of outside planning consultants in the event they are required.

(May 12, 1999) from the City Solicitor, recommending that the City Solicitor be given instructions with respect to the request for an Official Plan Amendment providing for high density residential uses at the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

Mr. Stanley Stein, Solicitor representing Loblaw Properties Limited, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(aa) Ontario Hydro Corridor Lands South of Highway 401, Wards 14 and 15 - Scarborough Wexford and Scarborough City Centre

The Scarborough Community Council reports having:

(1) advised the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee that the Scarborough Community Council reaffirms its previous position regarding the acquisition of land in the Hydro Corridor north of Ellesmere Road, south of Highway 401, subject to reducing the amount of land to be acquired to 2 acres, as opposed to the entire corridor, funding for such acquisition to be taken from the Scarborough Parks Reserve Fund;

Recorded Vote:

Upon the question of the adoption of the foregoing motion of Councillor Tzekas:

Yeas: Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Duguid, Kelly, Mahood, Tzekas -8

Nays: Nil

Decided unanimously in the affirmative.

(2) approved the request of Councillor Cho that the recommendations of the Budget Committee and the reports requested be deferred for consideration at the Scarborough Community Council meeting scheduled to be held on June 22, 1999, at 8:00 p.m.; and

(3) deferred the following motion by Councillor Kelly for consideration on June 22, 1999:

"That the Scarborough Community Council recommend that an amount of money be committed to purchase park lands north of Highway 401, equivalent to the amount expended in the Terraview-Willowfield community, funding for such purchase to be taken from the Scarborough Parks Reserve Fund.":

(May 5, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on May 4, 1999:

(1) referred the Recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication (April 30, 1999) from the City Clerk, to the Scarborough Community Council for review and recommendations thereon;

(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the next meeting of the Scarborough Community Council on how this acquisition fits in with the City's stated objective for pedestrian/bicycle paths in Scarborough, and on whether the funds being requested could be better spent in Scarborough to achieve that objective; and

(3) requested the Commissioner of Economic Development Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to submit a report to the aforementioned meeting of the Scarborough Community Council, on the original intent of the Beare Road landfill reserve.

The Scarborough Community Council also had before it a communication (May 17, 1999) from Councillor Cho requesting that Scarborough Community Council defer this matter to its meeting scheduled to be held on June 22, 1999; and further, that the matter be considered at 8:00 p.m. in order that deputants may be heard at that time.

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

- Ms. Lynda Wheeler, Terraview-Willowfield Community Association; and

- Mr. Elia Baldassarre, Area Resident.

(bb) Compost Give-away Days

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(April 21, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Works and Utilities Committee, at its meeting held on April 21, 1999, received a report (April 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting Compost Give-away Days, and directed that a copy thereof be forwarded to the Scarborough Community Council for its information.

(cc) Parks and Recreation - Status of Harmonization of Outdoor Pool Operations

All Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(May 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism forwarding for the information of the Community Council, a brief update and status on the harmonization of outdoor pool operations in the Parks and Recreation Division of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(dd) Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication

The Scarborough Community Council reports having recommended to the Planning and Transportation Committee:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ee) Harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law for the City of Toronto

The Scarborough Community Council reports:

(1) having received the following reports and associated staff presentation; and

(2) having made no recommendation to the Board of Health respecting this matter:

(May 6, 1999) from the City Clerk (Board of Health) advising that the Board of Health, at its meeting on May 6, 1999, adopted a report (April 28, 1999), from the Councillor John Filion, Chair, Board of Health, and having further requested the Medical Officer of Health to:

(i) report back to the next meeting of the Board on whether the Ontario Restaurant Association has responded to the request for specific details on the ventilation technology; and

(ii) circulate the final consolidate report on the ETS By-law in sufficient time to provide members of the Board the opportunity for review prior to the Board meeting on June 28 and 29, 1999.

(May 6, 1999) from the City Clerk (Board of Health) advising the options available for holding of a public meeting on the Environmental Tobacco Smoke By-law.

(April 6, 1999) from the City Clerk (Board of Health) forwarding reports of the Medical Officer of Health (March 26, 1999) to the Community Council for staff presentation and deputations on the policy options and recommendations paper attached thereto with respect to the community input for a harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law for the City of Toronto.

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

- Ms. Wendy Whittam, Toronto;

- Ms. Marion Boyce, representing The Council for A Tobacco Free Toronto;

- Mr. Chris Lund, General Manager, C.P. Hotel East, accompanied by Mr. Terence O'Brien, General Manager, Howard Johnson Scarborough Hotel, representing the hotel industry and its employees;

- Mr. Ryan Sellick, President of Local 582 OPSEU;

- Mr. Frank Dwyer, President, Canadian Council for Non-Smoking;

- Ms. Paola Scorziello, representing the Canadian Cancer Society, Scarborough Unit;

- Mr. Jim Park, Owner, Mark and Larry's Pub and Grill;

- Mr. Norman Hutchinson, President, International Air Technologies, who provided copies of material describing ventilation practices, 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, Scarborough Civic Centre;

- Mr. Louis Tzanis, Owner, Kalas Garden Restaurant;

- Mr. Robert McMullan, President, Abbeyfield Houses;

- Ms. Yolande Meloche, Toronto; and

- Mr. Rudy Leyk, Toronto.

The Community Council received the following written submissions:

- (May 6, 1999) from the Ontario Restaurant Association regarding the deputation procedures relating to this issue;

- (May 26, 1999) from the Ontario Restaurant Association inviting the Board of Health and all Councillors to a demonstration relating to the indoor air quality initiative;

- (May 14, 1999) from Leida Sepp, Toronto, in support of the by-law;

- (May 20, 1999) from five students at Winston Churchill Collegiate Institute in support of the by-law;

- (May 25, 1999) from Mr. Roger Marrelli, Vice President, Food and Beverage, Bowlerama Limited, on behalf of nine Bowling Centres in the greater Toronto area, expressing their views and concerns;

- (May 27, 1999) from Councillor Shaw forwarding a list of telephone messages received in her office supporting the by-law;

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, Scarborough Civic Centre.

The Community Council also received posters in support of anti-smoking initiatives from the students of Woburn Junior Public School.

Respectfully submitted,

LORENZO BERARDINETTI,

Chair.

Toronto, May 27, 1999.

(Report No. 6 of The Scarborough Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999.)