July 9, 1998

 To:Toronto Community Council

 From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

 Subject:Final Report on Application No. 197031 - Site Specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments - 8 York Street and 200 Queens Quay West, Parcel YQ-4, Harbourfront (Downtown)

 Purpose:

 The purpose of this report is to recommend that City Council approve the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to add residential to the list of permitted uses on the lands at 200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street. This would be subject to the submission of a further report on certain outstanding issues and the owner entering into an Agreement with the City to secure certain matters .

 Source of Funds:

 Not applicable.

 Recommendations:

 (1)That, subject to the Further Report referred to in the Conclusions section of this report, the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to amend the Harbourfront Official Plan Part II generally in accordance with the draft Official Plan amendments contained in Appendix B of this report.

 (2)That, subject to the Further Report referred to in the Conclusions section of this report, the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to amend the Harbourfront Zoning By-law (By-law No. 289-93, as amended) generally in accordance with the draft zoning amendments contained in Appendix C of this report.

 (3) That prior to the introduction of Bills in Council, the owner be required to enter into an Agreement with the City, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to secure the matters summarized in Section 3(c) of this report.

(4)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioners of Corporate Services and Economic Development, Tourism and Culture, report on the timing of the payment of the parks contribution to the City in respect of Parcel YQ-4.

 (5)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services invite the Harbourfront and Harbour Square community to a meeting during the Development Concept stage in order to receive their input on building concepts and details for 200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street.

 (6)That the owner shall submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site-specific exemption by-laws, if required, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

 (7)That the owner shall immediately conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the subject site. This report should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health, for review prior to the issuance of a building permit.

 (8)That the owner shall conduct a site audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on site. The removal of these materials should be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Labour and Ministry of the Environment and Energy Guidelines. A report on the site audit should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

 (9)That the owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposes remediation options to be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health, for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit.

 (10)That the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

 (11)That the owner shall prepare a Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Medical Officer of Health for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit.

 (12)That the owner shall implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

 Comments:

 (1)Site and Surroundings

 The site is located at the northwest corner of Queens Quay West and York Street, bounded on the west by Simcoe Street and on the north by Harbour Street, Lakeshore Boulevard and the Gardiner Expressway (refer to the location map attached to this report). The parcel, referred to as "YQ-4" in the Harbourfront Official Plan Part II and Harbourfront Zoning By-law, has an area of 15,731 m2 (169,327 ft²). Currently, it contains a surface parking lot on its southern frontage (Queens Quay West), and the seven storey York Quay Garage on its northern frontage.

 (2)Proposal

 The applicant, Queens Quay West Land Corporation (QQWLC), proposes to add residential uses to the list of non-residential uses already permitted on the site. At this time, no building design has been submitted, and site plan approvals have not been sought, because QQWLC intends to sell the site. What has been applied for is this one use change to the underlying planning controls.

 Under the current Official Plan and Zoning By-law provisions for Harbourfront (Official Plan Section 19.19 and By-law No. 289-93), the uses currently permitted on Parcel YQ-4 include offices, retail and service shops, institutional uses, community services and facilities and other specified non-residential uses. Currently, residential uses are not permitted. Therefore, adding the permission for residential use requires site-specific amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

 (3)Planning Controls on YQ-4

 (a) Background

 YQ-4, along with the rest of Harbourfront, came into Federal ownership in 1972. Harbourfront did not have Official Plan and Zoning controls until 1980, as the culmination of an eight-year process of review by the City, the Province, and the Federal Government.

 The original Part II Plan, approved by the OMB in 1980, was a loose set of controls that left most planning concerns to be dealt with on a site-specific basis. It envisioned YQ-4 as a site with a high intensity of development (i.e. high density), of a mixed commercial-residential nature, something that would be an extension of the Financial District in scale and character.

 Zoning By-law No. 569-80, also approved by the OMB, permitted 184,361 m2 of total gross floor area on YQ-4, of which a maximum of 164,212 m2 could be non-residential and/or a maximum of 103, 715 m2 could be residential. No height limit appears to have been specified.

 In January 1987, City Council began a formal review of Harbourfront and imposed a freeze on development. This led to several years of public review at the City, Provincial and Federal levels, including a Zoning Order imposed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1989 to forestall new draft Official Plan and Zoning provisions that the City had intended to adopt.

 In May of 1990, the Minister advised the City that a comprehensive development should be permitted on YQ-4, with a 18-storey tower at the north-east corner (no heights specified otherwise), and a density reduction to 104,500 m2.

 In November of 1990, a Federal review endorsed the Provincial recommendations, but with increased density, height, and zoning "compatible with the commercial core extending south from Bay and King".

 Subsequently, the City and Harbourfront worked out terms of settlement that were presented at and approved by the OMB (at the hearing resulting from Minister's zoning order). The Board order gave rise to By-laws No. 288-93 (the Part II Plan) and 289-93 (the area-wide Zoning By-law for Harbourfront), which are still in force and effect. The site is also subject to a Letter Agreement between Harbourfront and the City.

 (b) Current Official Plan and Zoning Provisions

 The new Part II Plan, approved by the OMB in 1993, continues to envision YQ-4 as a site with "a high intensity of development and activities reflecting the character of the Central Core...". The major change from the 1980 Plan was the elimination of residential uses from the site, and the reduction of permitted density from 184,361 m2 to 116,000 m2 of non-residential gross floor area. Residential uses were left off the list of permitted uses at the request of the property owner in response to the perceived market conditions at the time.

 Zoning By-law No. 289-93 (the Harbourfront Zoning By-law):

 -permits offices, retail and service shops, community services and facilities, and recreational parking. Residential uses are excluded (a change from 1980);

-permits a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 116,000 m2;

 -requires a minimum of 531 m2 dedicated to a Community Services and Facilities use, and minimum of 297 m2 dedicated to an outdoor play space use;

 -requires 2 distinct buildings at grade separated by a publicly accessible open space corridor at grade at the approximate mid-point of the lot; and

 -imposes height limits of 102 metres, 66 m, 50 m and 22 m on the site.

 Accompanying the 1993 Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for Harbourfront is a Letter Agreement between the City and Harbourfront which stipulates:

 -that, upon closing of the sale or long-term lease of YQ-4 by Harbourfront, Harbourfront will pay the City $10.5 million for parks design and construction purposes; and

 -the obligation of the owner of YQ-4 to provide a Day Care Centre for 52 children, of at least 580 m2 indoor space and 350 m2 outdoor space, both for exclusive use by the Day Care.

 (c) Proposed Amendments

 This report proposes amendments to the Harbourfront Official Plan Part II, on a site-specific basis, to add residential to the list of permitted uses and to permit a surface parking lot on the site on a temporary basis. The following matters are to be secured in an Agreement with the City:

 -establishment of the owner's obligation to produce a Development Concept Plan addressing issues of built form and urban design, such plan to be submitted prior to the first Site Plan application;

 -establishment of the required contribution of monies for community services and facilities if residential units are built;

 -provision of day care on the site;

 -improvement of the facades of the existing parking garage if it is retained on the site;

 -the procurement of provisions relating to the consideration of proposals from the Toronto District Heating Corporation; and

 -a reiteration of the owner's existing obligations regarding parking on the site.

 This report also proposes amendments to the Harbourfront Zoning By-law, on a site-specific basis, to:

 -reflect the Official Plan Amendments noted above;

 -reflect changes to the permitted envelopes on the site (a new building setback on Queens Quay West, a build-out of the York Street/Queens Quay West corner, and the potential retention of the parking garage);

 -permit parking structures above grade as part of the overall permitted gross floor area, subject to certain design conditions;

 -amend the calculation of residential recreation space (for consistency with the standard in the General Zoning By-law);

 -establish " build-to" requirements for the lands; and

 -secure grade-related retail requirements.

 (4) Public Review Process

 Urban Planning and Development Services held a public meeting to discuss Application No. 197031 on April 28, 1998. Minutes are attached as Appendix D. Neighbours expressed concerns about the potential for traffic generated by development on the subject site, the nature and content of the traffic study that was being prepared by the applicant, and the potential scale of development. Some residents expressed the view that there had been a lack of public consultation on Harbourfront development matters prior to this meeting.

 At the end of the Public Meeting, a Working Committee was formed to examine the issues that had been raised.

 Prior to the first Working Committee meeting, a general information session on Harbourfront development was organized by the building manager for One York Quay and held on June 3^rd. City staff spoke at this session, which was attended by approximately 120 residents.

 The Working Committee was chaired by Councillor Chow's office and met three times (on June 9^th, 16^th and 23^rd) to discuss two main issues, built form and traffic, and the potential impact of residential use permissions on them.

The built form implications of the proposed Official Plan and zoning amendments are discussed in Section 5(b) of this report. The traffic impacts are discussed briefly in Section 5(c) of this report. However, since the group did not conclude its traffic discussions on June 23^rd, two more meetings have been scheduled to continue the discussions (on July 15^th and 20^th), and I will be reporting further on the outcome of these discussions, along with the comments of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

 I have included the Terms of Reference in Appendix E. The final recommendations of the Working Committee, will be included in a further report on July 22^nd to Toronto Community Council.

 (5)Planning Considerations

 (a) The Desirability of Residential Uses

 Adding residential to the list of permitted uses on this site is desirable in the context of the City's overall residential intensification and housing goals. Currently, the potential for new office construction in this location is not high. Given the mixed-use nature of Harbourfront, the increasing services for neighbourhood residents, and the adjacency of over 40 acres of parkland and open space, the potential for residential use is reasonable.

 (b) Built Form Implications

 (i) Organization of uses

 The proposed Official Plan and zoning amendments would permit purely commercial or residential development, or any mix thereof, with a mandatory amount of street-related retail fronting onto York and Simcoe Streets and Queens Quay West. One possible scenario could involve the location of residential uses in the tower elements, with the base building used for retail and commercial purposes.

 (ii) Height

 The existing site-specific height limits for YQ-4 were set in 1993, and were coordinated with height limits in the Harbourfront area and adjacent Railway Lands. I am recommending that the existing height limits on YQ-4 be retained.

 (iii) Massing

While the site is large and no building proposal for it has yet been tabled, the massing options for the full 116,000 m2 of density are quite predictable. Given that commercial and/or residential towers have certain requirements for floor-plate size, dimensions and placement, there are relatively few ways that the massing can be deployed on the site. The development options are limited even further if the existing above-grade parking garage is retained on the site.

City staff and the applicant undertook three-dimensional massing exercises to study the effects of adding residential use permissions on the overall building bulk. The studies indicated that:

 -residential uses have lower floor-to-floor heights and demand more slender floor plates than office or other commercial uses; and

 -adding residential to the use list and, as a consequence, building residential units on this site, would have the positive effect of shrinking the overall mass of the development.

 Maps 2 through 6 highlight the comparison between a purely commercial development (which is permitted as-of-right) and the potential built form impact of a residential development with retail at grade.

 (iv) Pedestrian amenity - setbacks at grade

 Under the current by-law, there is no building setback required from the Queens Quay West property line (refer to Map 1). Under the proposed amendments, a setback of 2.0 metres would be established, creating a wider sidewalk on the north side of Queens Quay West when development occurs on the site.

 The existing 10.0 metre building setback requirement on York Street would remain, but the setback notch at the corner of Queens Quay West and York Street would be squared off.

(v) Building stepbacks above grade

 No changes are proposed relative to the current by-law. Current provisions, which were devised at the same time as provisions in the Railway Lands, are acceptable, i.e. a 22 metre base building, with towers set back 7.4 metres along Queens Quay West, 6.0 metres along York Street and 3.0 metres along Simcoe Street.

 (vi) Street wall conditions

 Currently, the Harbourfront By-law does not require development on this site to be built out to the street frontage, although the Harbourfront Design Guidelines (adopted in 1991) mandate that, on YQ-4, "at least 65 percent of the first five storeys of the building frontage should be built to the setback line on Queens Quay, and on York Street... [and that any] development on Parcel YQ-4 may build to the north lot line".

 I am recommending the by-law be amended to require a "build-to" condition for 90% of the building frontage on this site (an increase from the number given in the Guidelines noted above).

 The "street wall" to be secured by the by-law is a minimum of 20 metres and a maximum of 22 metres in height. This is similar in scale to the original warehouse portion of Queens Quay Terminal, directly across the street. The 20 metre street wall height is also respectful of the base building conditions of several other approved developments along the north side of Queens Quay West, and along York Street in the Railway Lands.

 (vii) The existing above-grade parking garage

 The applicant has proposed that the option be left in place to either retain the existing seven storey parking garage at the north end of the site, or replace it in a below-grade facility. Planning staff have reviewed the design implications of retaining the existing above-grade structure, and find that the proposal to retain the parking structure is generally acceptable, on condition that the portions of the structure within public view are refaced, and retail is added at grade along street frontages, when the lands are redeveloped. These matters would be secured in an Agreement with the City, and further elaborated on in the Development Concept Plan. Detailed requirements are being discussed with the applicant and will be considered by the Working Committee at its final two meetings.

 I will report further to Toronto Community Council (for its meeting of July 22^nd) on the outcome of these discussions.

 (viii) The Development Concept Plan

 The site is large and will probably be developed in phases. The first phase of development will set the stage for the development of the rest of the block. Therefore, it is imperative that the owner commit to a sound urban design and built form concept for the entire block when the first development application is made. Accordingly, I have included policies in the Official Plan Amendment that would require the owner to submit, to the satisfaction of the City, a Development Concept Plan for the entire YQ-4 parcel as part of, or prior to, the first Site Plan Approval application.

 The purpose of the Development Concept Plan will be to:

 -provide a context for coordinated, phased development of the uses and density permitted by this Part II Plan and in relation to adjacent site conditions;

 -demonstrate how the York Quay Parking Garage, if retained, is appropriately screened from the public realm and integrated into the objectives for development of this Site; and

 -assist Council in evaluating the conformity of the proposed development with the relevant provisions of the Part II Plan, including site plan applications submitted for review under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

 The Development Concept Plan will illustrate and describe the following:

 -setback and/or build-to lines including minimum and maximum vertical dimensions for building walls which are sufficient to establish the continuity and scale of building frontages;

 -built form envelopes, demonstrating how the development potential permitted on the block is to be distributed, in sufficient detail to indicate how potential building massing achieves the objectives of the Official Plan Amendment, including the feasibility of development on or over the York Quay Parking Garage site;

 -the location, dimension and character of interior and exterior publicly accessible private open spaces showing their continuity and complementary relationship to adjacent public spaces and their pedestrian amenity including seating, lighting and weather protection;

 -the location and dimension of any arcades, canopies and other weather-protected routes and their relationship to the public pedestrian system;

 -the general location of parking facilities and service access areas and their relationship with other access areas which are of sufficient detail to assess the overall impact of such areas on the public sidewalks; including the potential for consolidation of access from Simcoe Street to one access point;

 -the general locations of principal pedestrian entrances and their relationship to street frontages to ensure that such entrances reinforce the role of the street;

-the general location of public pedestrian routes including the primary system of public street and alternative secondary routes and their relationship;

 -the location of public street-related uses; including the base of the York Quay Parking Garage along Simcoe Street and, in the event that the F.G. Gardiner Expressway is dismantled in this vicinity, along Harbour Street;

 -the manner in which linkages to adjacent planning areas could be accomplished and treated; and

 -the general location of community services and facilities, such as a day care centre, to ensure:

 (i)exterior play-space which is suitably weather protected and landscaped to facilitate year-round use and is located adjacent to the interior play space;

 (ii)acceptable wind and sunlight conditions; and

 (iii)acceptable noise and air quality levels.

 Harbourfront residents are interested in the physical appearance of any development on this site. Given the Harbourfront community's interest in the detailed development of a building on the site, I am recommending that a meeting with the Harbourfront and Harbour Square community be held at the Development Concept stage.

 (c) Traffic Impacts

 The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has advised that the revised Traffic Impact Study and supplementary material received on June 30^th and July 6^th, 1998 are generally acceptable. As a result, he advises that the proposal to add residential uses on the site can be managed from a traffic operations point of view, subject to ensuring that certain principles are achieved in the design of the site related to access, vehicular circulation and servicing, and parking.

 The traffic-related principles and objectives to be secured will be set out in a further report to the Toronto Community Council for its July 22^nd meeting.

 In addition, the existing above-grade parking garage on the site carries a number of parking obligations (for recreational, visitor and miscellaneous needs) for other sites in Harbourfront. The Agreement required by Recommendation 3 of this report will ensure that the existing parking obligations continue to apply.

(d) Community Services and Facilities

 The 1992 Harbourfront Agreement sets out Harbourfront's (and successive land owners') obligation to contribute funds for parks development and day care.

 My preliminary report on this application identified the need for financial contributions toward Harbourfront community services, schools and parks. The community services for Harbourfront were planned by taking into account the existing residents and a projected number of future residents, based on the total number of residential units approved in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Residential permission on YQ-4 could add several hundred housing units, adding to the demand for community services beyond that originally contemplated. Therefore, if residential use permissions are added to YQ-4, the applicant should contribute funds toward the development of community infrastructure.

 The applicant has agreed to contribute the following:

 (i) $403.00 per unit toward community infrastructure such as the Harbourfront Community Centre; and

 (ii)$277.00 per unit toward the provision of a future public library.

 These would be secured through a Section 37 Agreement prior to Council's consideration of the by-laws. This approach and the dollar amounts to be secured are consistent with Council's treatment of Parcel YQ-8 (226-230 Queens Quay West) when it obtained an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning to add residential permissions to its use list last year.

 The current obligation to provide a day care on the site, cited in the Letter Agreement between Harbourfront and the City, would remain, and would be enshrined in a new Agreement.

 (e) Parks Payment

 The Letter Agreement between the City and the Federal Government requires the payment of $10.5 million upon the closing of the sale or long-term lease of Parcel YQ-4. Representatives of Queens Quay West Land Corporation have raised the issue of delaying such payment, or phasing the payment over time, in order to provide for variously structured purchase transactions. This is a matter of some concern to the City, in view of the need to develop the parkland which has recently been conveyed to the City in an unimproved state.

  I am recommending that I report further on this matter, in consultation with the appropriate Civic Officials, and that the resolution of this issue be secured to the satisfaction of City Council prior to the introduction of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

 (f) School Board Comments

 The application has been circulated to the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic School Board. Both School Boards have advised me that they require the payment of an Education Development Levy, calculated on a per residential unit basis, in respect of the proposed rezoning application for the provision of educational facilities or services.

 The applicant has agreed to contribute funds on a per unit basis toward the provision of public and separate schools. The contribution will be secured by an educational development levy agreement between the applicant and the School Boards.

 (6)Comments of Civic Officials

 The Medical Officer of Health has requested that a number of studies and measures be undertaken on YQ-4 prior to the issuance of a building permit. These matters are described in Appendix E, and set out in the Recommendations section for Council's approval.

 Conclusions:

 I will be reporting further on the following matters directly to the Toronto Community Council meeting on July 22, 1998:

 (a)the final recommendations and outcome of the Working Committee process; and

 (b)a further discussion on traffic issues, including comments of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Working Committee, and recommended actions.

 Based on the applicant entering into an agreement to secure the matters summarized in Section 3(c) of this report, and subject to the further report described above, I am recommending that Council approve the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment which would allow this site to be developed as mixed commercial-residential.

 I believe that remaining concerns of residents can be addressed through the Development Concept Plan approval process. This report provides guidance as to what issues can be expected through that process and recommends that a public meeting be held when the Development Concept Plan is submitted.

Contact Name:Anne Milchberg

Telephone: (416) 392-7216

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-mail: amilchbe@city.toronto.on.ca

 Beate Bowron

Acting Director, City Planning, Toronto Community

(p:\1998\ug\uds\to981667.pln) - aa

Appendix A

 APPLICATION DATA SHEET

 Confirmed Municipal Address:8 York Street and 200 Queens Quay West.

 PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

 PROJECT INFORMATION

  Appendix B

 Proposed Amendments to the Harbourfront Official Plan Part II

 (1)Part II of the Official Plan for Harbourfront (contained in Section 19.19 of the Part I Official Plan) is amended by:

 (a)deleting from Section 5.3.2 the word "workplace" where it appears in the second line following the term "non-profit";

 (b)adding to Section 5 a new paragraph 5.2.3 as follows:

 "5.2.3It is the policy of Council that a financial contribution should be made by the owner of Parcel YQ-4 to the Toronto School Boards on a per unit basis in respect of the provision of public and separate schools in connection with any residential development on Parcel YQ-4.";

 (c)deleting the first complete paragraph of Section 8.1.2 and replacing it with the following:

 "8.1.2With regard to Parcel YQ-4, Council may pass by-laws to permit buildings containing residential uses, offices, retail and service shops, institutional uses and the existing parking garage provided:

 (i)the combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area, including the floor area of any above grade parking structures, does not exceed 116,000 square metres;

 (ii)the residential gross floor area does not exceed 111 935 square metres;

 (iii)any non-residential gross floor area used for the purpose of community services and facilities shall be exempt from the calculation of density;

 (iv)the owner is required:

 (a)to provide a daycare facility in accordance with Section 5.3.2 of this Plan and the existing Harbourfront Implementation Agreement;

(b)to submit additional plans and information addressing matters contained in and in accordance with Section 8.1.2.1 of this Part II Plan;

 (c)to adhere in any site plan application to Design Guidelines as adopted by City Council and the Concept Plan referred to in Section 8.1.2.1;

 (d)to undertake improvements to the existing parking garage in accordance with the aforesaid Concept Plan;

 (e)to give consideration to any proposal made by the Toronto District Heating Corporation in respect of the development of the buildings;

 and that the owner enter into one or more Agreements to secure the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) above, and the agreement is registered on title to Parcel YQ-4;

 (v)the owner is additionally required in any by-law permitting buildings containing residential gross floor area:

 (a)to contribute $403.00 per dwelling unit to the City in respect of the provision of community services and facilities;

 (b)to contribute $277.00 per dwelling unit to the City in respect of the provision of a public library; and

 (c)to submit for the approval of the City a noise impact statement and a material recovery and waste reduction plan and to design and operate the buildings in accordance therewith;

 and the owner enters into one or more Agreements to secure the facilities, services and matters required under subsection (v), and the agreement is registered on title to Parcel YQ-4; and

 (vi)notwithstanding Sections 7.7 and 7.10, Council may also pass by-laws to permit surface parking lots on a temporary basis pending the redevelopment of Parcel YQ-4.".

 (d)adding a new Section 8.1.2.1 as follows:

 "8.1.2.1Development Concept Plan

 Council recognizes that residential and non-residential uses are appropriate on YQ-4 and may be combined in a mixed-use development, and that the future urban design and built form of development on the site is an issue that should be addressed when actual development applications are made. Accordingly, and to ensure that Council's general objectives for Harbourfront and that site-specific built form policies for YQ-4 are appropriately addressed, it is a policy of Council that:

 (a)The owner submit, to the satisfaction of the City, a Development Concept Plan for the entire YQ-4 parcel as part of, or prior to, the first site plan application. The purpose of the Development Concept Plan shall be to:

 (i)Provide a context for coordinated, phased development of the uses and density permitted by this Part II Plan and in relation to adjacent site conditions;

 (ii)Demonstrate how the York Quay Parking Garage, if retained, is appropriately screened from the public realm and integrated into the objectives for development of this Site; and

 (iii)Assist Council in evaluating the conformity of the proposed development with the relevant provisions of this Part II Plan, including site plan applications submitted for review under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

 (b)The Development Concept Plan submitted in accordance with Section 8.1.2.1(a) above, shall illustrate and describe the following:

 (i)setback and/or build-to lines including minimum and maximum vertical dimensions for building walls which are sufficient to establish the continuity and scale of building frontages;

 (ii)built form envelopes, demonstrating how the development potential permitted on the block is to be generally distributed on the block sufficient to indicate how potential building massings achieve the objectives set out in detail in Section 2.7 to 2.15, inclusive of this Part II Plan; including the feasibility of development on or over the York Quay Parking Garage;

 (iii)the location, dimension and character of interior and exterior publicly accessible private open spaces showing their continuity and complementary relationship to adjacent public spaces and their pedestrian amenity including seating, lighting and weather protection;

(iv)the location and dimension of any arcades, canopies and other weather-protected routes and their relationship to the public pedestrian system;

 (v)the general location of parking facilities and service access areas and their relationship with other access areas which are of sufficient detail to assess the overall impact of such areas on the public sidewalks; including the potential consolidation of access from Simcoe Street to one access point;

 (vi)the general locations of principal pedestrian entrances and their relationship to street frontages to ensure that such entrances reinforce the role of the street;

 (vii)the general location of public pedestrian routes including the primary system of public street and alternative secondary routes and their relationship;

 (viii)the location of public street-related uses; including the base of the York Quay Parking Garage along Simcoe Street and in the event the F. G. Gardiner Expressway is dismantled in this vicinity, along Harbour Street.

 (ix)the manner in which linkages to adjacent planning areas could be accomplished and treated; and

 (x)the general location of community services and facilities to ensure:

 (a)exterior play-space which is suitably weather protected and landscaped to facilitate year-round use and is located adjacent to the interior play space;

 (b)acceptable wind and sunlight conditions; and

 (c)acceptable noise and air quality levels."

    Appendix C

 Proposed Zoning By-law Amendments

 (1)The Harbourfront Zoning By-law, i.e, By-law No. 289-93, is amended by:

 (1)adding to APPENDIX "D" opposite the parcel designation YQ-4 in the column headed "Location in By-law", the number "13(1)" before "13(2)(a), (b), (c) and (d)"; and in the column headed "Permitted Uses", the words and comma "Residential Uses," before "Offices";

 (2)adding to APPENDIX "E" opposite the parcel designation YQ-4 in the column headed "MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA", the number "111,935"; and in the column headed "MAXIMUM COMBINED RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA AND NON-RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA", the number "116,000";

 (3)deleting Height Map 50G-313 contained in Appendix "B" and replacing it by a new Height Map 50G-313 and a new Alternate Height Map 50G-313 in the form attached hereto as Maps "A" and "B", respectively;

 (4)Section 20(1) is amended by inserting after the words "Appendix B attached hereto" the following:

 "including, in the case of Parcel YQ-4, the Alternate Height Map, in the event the Parking Garage existing on June 30, 1998 is retained."

 (5)by adding to Section 19 a new subsection (7) as follows:

 "(7)None of the provisions of Sections 19(1) and (2) shall apply in respect of any mixed-use or non-residential building erected or used on Parcel YQ-4.";

 (6)by deleting Section 15(4) and substituting therefor a new subsection (4) as follows:

 "4.Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, no person shall erect or use any building or structure on Block A or Block B of Parcel YQ-4

 (i)as shown on the Build To Line Maps contained in Appendix A in the event the Parking Garage existing on June 20, 1998 is retained; or

(ii)as shown on the Alternate Build To Line Maps contained in Appendix A, in the event the aforesaid Parking Garage is not retained, unless there is an area of the exterior face of such building or structure from grade to a minimum height of 20 metres above grade built within 1.2 metres of the heavy line identified as the Build To Line on the Alternate Build To Line Map or Build To Line Map as the case may be, measured to the interior of Parcel YQ-4, corresponding to the relevant Build To Line for either of Block A or Block B, which area is equal to at least 90 percent of the area determined by the product of the length of such Build To Line and the height.";

 For the purposes of this section, where the exterior face of the building or structure includes a colonnade or an unenclosed balcony, such exterior face shall be deemed to include:

 (i)the open area between any columns, measured along the exterior face of such columns; and

 (ii)openings for any unenclosed balcony, provided it is not greater than 5.0 metres in depth.

 (7)by adding to Section 18(iii) the following:

 "provided that in the case of Parcel YQ-4 at least 70% percent of the aggregate length of the portions of the exterior walls of the buildings fronting on Queens Quay West, York Street and Simcoe Street, abut non-residential gross floor area at grade containing those uses set out in Section 13(2)(b) of this By-law.

 (8)by adding to Section 21 a new subsection (6) as follows:

 "(6)(a)Paragraph (5)(I) does not apply to the type of structure listed in the column entitled "STRUCTURE" in the following chart, provided the restrictions set out opposite the structure in the column entitled "MAXIMUM PERMITTED PROJECTION" are complied with.";

 (b)Notwithstanding paragraph (a), no structure with the exception of doors, including revolving doors, light fixtures, ornaments, fences and safety railings, may be located within the YQ-4 setback area from grade to a height of 4.0 metres; and

 (9)by inserting, following the heading "Section 23", the number "(1)" and

 (i)inserting in section 23(1)(I) following the date "June 1, 1991" the phrase "or any alterations thereto:" and

 (ii)inserting a new Section 23(2) as follows:

 "23(2)None of the provisions of Section 23(1) shall apply to prevent the erection and use of a parking garage above grade on Parcel YQ-4, provided:

 (i)no part of any building or structure between grade and a height of 8 metres that is used for parking purposes, excluding stairways, driveways or ramps used for access, is erected closer than 10 metres to a lot line that abuts a street;

 (ii)the permitted uses listed in Appendix "D" in respect of Parcel YQ-4 are provided in a building or structure between any part of a building or structure containing parking spaces and a lot line that abuts a street."; and

 (iii)the floor area of any above-grade parking structure is included in the calculation of gross floor area.

 (2)Despite Sections 13 and 14 of By-law No. 289-93, as amended, the density of residential uses set out in Section 13(1) of By-law No. 289-93 is permitted subject to compliance with all other requirements of By-law No. 289-93 and in return for the provision by the owner of Parcel YQ-4 of the following facilities, services or matters to the City, namely:

 (a)a contribution of $403.00 per dwelling unit to the City in respect of the provision of community services and facilities;

 (b)a contribution of $277.00 per dwelling unit to the City in respect of the provision of a public library;

 (c)the provision of a daycare facility in accordance with Section 5.3.2 of this Plan and the existing Harbourfront Implementation Agreement;

 (d)the submission of additional plans and information addressing matters contained in and in accordance with Section 8.1.2.1 of the Harbourfront Part II Plan;

 (e)adherence in any site plan application to Design Guidelines as adopted by City Council and the Concept Plan referred to in Section 8.1.2.1 of the Harbourfront Part II Plan;

 (f)the undertaking of improvements to the existing parking garage;

 (g)the submission for the approval of the City of a noise impact statement and a material recovery and waste reduction plan and to design and operate the buildings in accordance therewith;

 (h)the consideration of any proposal made by the Toronto District Heating Corporation in respect of the development of the buildings; and

 (3)The owner of Parcel YQ-4 is required, pursuant to Section 37(3) of the Planning Act, to enter into one or more agreements with the City to secure the facilities, services and matters referred to in Section 2 of this By-law and the agreement or agreements are to be registered on title.

(4)For the purposes of this by-law each word or expression which is italicized in this by-law shall have the same meaning as each word or expression as defined in By-law No. 289-93, as amended.

Appendix D

 Minutes of the Public Meeting

 Regarding: OPA and Rezoning Application No. 197031 for 200 Queens Quay West

and 8 York Street

 Held by:Urban Planning and Development Services

Date:Tuesday, April 28th, 1995 at 7:00 p.m.

Location: Harbourfront Community Centre

 In Attendance:

 Anne Milchberg - City of Toronto

Leo deSorcy - City of Toronto

Bruce Scott - Councillor Chow's office

Deborah Cowen - Councillor Chow's office

David Smith - Fraser and Beatty

Craig Hunter - IBI

Scott Pottruff - IBI

Sandy Acchione - Queens Quay West Land Corporation

 and approximately 26 members of the public.

 Introduction - Planner's presentation

 Anne Milchberg described the physical attributes of site, its location and context. She described current Official Plan and Zoning provisions for the property. She explained the purpose and intent of the OPA and rezoning application: to add residential to the list of approved uses. 116,000 m2 overall GFA would be retained, as well as the current height restrictions that break the development up into two blocks.

 She reiterated the planning and urban design issues set out on page 3 of the Preliminary Report, copies of which were supplied to the meeting attendees.

 Applicants' presentation

 Craig Hunter (of IBI) introduced Sandy Acchione of Queens Quay West Land Corporation, his client. He stated that his client's intent in making the OPA and rezoning application was to add flexibility of uses to the site. He explained that this request for a wider range of use was consistent with the mixed commercial zoning ("CR" designation) in the rest of the City. He described the as-of-right zoning envelopes, and explained that no precise development was being proposed now - that a specific design would be forthcoming at the Site Plan Review stage.

C. Hunter stressed that applicant would accept the obligation to provide financial contributions for community service and facilities, schools, and a day care centre, and that any prior obligations regarding the day care centre would be preserved and honoured.

 C. Hunter stated that the traffic study was nearly complete, finding that residential uses generate only half the traffic of commercial uses. He suggested that in Harbourfront, vehicular access should occur from streets other than Queens Quay West wherever and whenever possible, especially on weekends.

 C. Hunter suggested that residential buildings have a smaller appearance than commercial buildings with the same area, because residential floor plates are smaller (commercial floor plates are typically 2,000 m2).

 General Discussion - questions and comments from the public

 A member of the public asked if the proposed change (the addition of residential uses) was due to the fact that the current market for commercial development was poor.

 Craig Hunter of IBI confirmed that this was his client's view.

 A member of the public asked " If the she site's zoning was approved in 1980 and re-approved in 1993, can it be "disapproved" now?

 A. Milchberg responded that downzoning is not likely unless there is a compelling planning reason to do so.

 A number of residents expressed the view that recreational amenity would be destroyed with "so many development sites... a wall along the waterfront".

 A. Milchberg explained that development has been pulled away from the south side of Queens Quay West, and, on the north side of the street, the height limits drop substantially, moving west from this site.

 Diana Birchall, the former planner for Harbourfront, was also in attendance at the meeting. Referring to a map, she indicated the locations of approved parks and open spaces all along Queens Quay West, and explained how they had been created by the shift of density to the north side of the street.

 One resident expressed the view that planners must recognize that you can't put all kinds of people on top of each other, traffic is bad, and emergency vehicles can't get through. She also expressed concern respecting narrow streets, and windy conditions.

 A number of residents asked who would be conducting the traffic study.

A. Milchberg responded that IBI would be doing this work.

 Several residents expressed dissatisfaction with the notion that the developer's consultant

would be doing the study, and asked what recourse they would have if they did not agree with the study submitted to the City.

 A. Milchberg responded that the study would be undertaken by a Professional Engineer, and would be subject to the scrutiny and rigorous review of the City's own Professional Engineers who specialize in traffic. If residents did not agree with the outcome of the study or with City Council's actions based on the study, they could appeal to the OMB.

 One resident expressed the view that the traffic should have been reviewed 10 years ago, that she couldn't drive uptown now due to traffic conditions, and that, if the Gardiner were to be dismantled, the waterfront would become a wall of concrete. She asked if the traffic study would examine extreme conditions, such as after a fireworks display or baseball game.

 A Milchberg stated that the traffic study would consider the "peaks" and "valleys" of the traffic conditions.

 A resident stated that he would not be consoled by the traffic studies, and that he does not welcome developers or new development to Harbourfront. He asked if the outcome of this application was a "fait accompli".

 A. Milchberg explained that residential development is not yet approved on this site, but that the property owner had a legal right to build a commercial development of 116,000 m2 within a defined envelope.

 D. Birchall gave a brief history of public process 1990-1993 leading up to the 1993 zoning provisions for Harbourfront, which set out the use and density permissions for this site. She explained that in examining the suitability of residential use on this site, one would look at the impacts on (a) building bulk; (b) community services and facilities; (c) traffic; and (d) parks and open space. She stated that this area could not possibly or credibly be viewed as park-deficient.

 Several residents asked about the steps involved in processing this application.

 A. Milchberg outlined the steps involved in review, by-law preparation, reporting, further public meetings, and the roles of Community Council and City Council.

 One resident then stated that there should be no more development in Harbourfront and this site should be turned into a park.

 One resident from Harbour Square stated that she and her husband chose to live here because of the water and recreation, but that it took her husband 1/2 hour to drive from home to his job at Sick Kids Hospital.

 Another resident expressed his opinion that "the optics of this look so bad. You [the planners] have come to the meeting with the developers. I came here with no preconceptions. I am open to your comments, but the optics look very bad."

 Bruce Scott, Councillor Olivia Chow's assistant, replied that no improprieties exist between City planning staff and the developers, and that planning staff were present at the meeting along with the developers because they were instructed by Council to hold a public meeting to hear public concerns.

 One resident asked Mr. Scott if he has ever tried to drive and park in Harbourfront in the summer.

 B. Scott replied that he doesn't have a car, and that he uses a bicycle, or the TTC, or travels on foot.

 The resident then rephrased her question: "Have you observed other people having trouble driving and parking in Harbourfront?"

 B. Scott replied that he had observed this in many downtown communities.

 A resident suggested that all development should be stopped until there is a good traffic study for all of Queens Quay.

 A resident from Harbour Square presented a petition signed by numerous residents there who opposed development of the subject site, citing concerns such as parking, noise, impaired view from Harbour Square, and anticipated lower property values for their units.

 A building manager on Queens Quay stated his concern that, during major events such as the Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire, fire and emergency vehicles won't be able to move along Queens Quay, and that the traffic study should address this point.

 Another resident noted that traffic accidents sometimes occur on the ramps connecting York Street to and from the Gardiner Expressway, and that this had the potential for further aggravating traffic conditions in the vicinity.

 A resident expressed his concern that, once Air Canada Centre is built, the traffic conditions would get even worse.

  A resident suggested that the LRT line on Queens Quay West should be put completely underground, since it further aggravated traffic conditions.

 A resident stated that a cumulative traffic study was needed, one that included all of the approved development in the vicinity.

 Another resident noted that it is difficult to look at this application without looking at the whole of Harbourfront and its problems. He suggested that each new development compounded the existing problems. He asked if an information meeting could be set up, one in which Planning staff could talk about other development activity in Harbourfront.

 A. Milchberg offered to set up a separate information meeting dealing with Harbourfront as a whole.

 A resident from Harbour Square then suggested that a working group with all of the stakeholders be formed to examine this application, and also area-wide problems in Harbourfront.

 B. Scott agreed to set up a working group regarding 200 Queens Quay West, but only on condition that its participants accept, from the outset, that there are development rights on the site, and that the property can't simply be turned into a park.

 A resident asked B. Scott what Councillor Olivia Chow's opinion of this proposal is, and what her vision of Harbourfront is.

 B. Scott replied that Harbourfront is a downtown neighbourhood, and people want to live downtown. It is dynamic, and full of people. What is true for all downtown neighbourhoods that there is tension between density and livability. It's a constant balancing act.

 Marilyn Roy, introduced herself as a Bathurst Quay resident and community activist. She noted that Harbourfront residents have never formed an area-wide residents' association, adding that it is not enough to complain and tell planners that they are not trustworthy. She offered to work with the residents at this meeting to help them understand the planning and political processes that can help them. She assured them that they have the power to make things better, but that they need to commit it is hard work and a lot of time to understand the process.

 A resident asked about emergency measures for tall buildings (she lives on the 34th floor)

C. Hunter and A. Milchberg explained that, under the Building Code, all buildings have to meet life safety concerns.

 A resident asked if a building permit has been issued for 200 Queens Quay West.

A. Milchberg replied that none has been issued - that there were currently no building plans.

 A resident wanted to know when buildings would be built on the site.

 C. Hunter replied that the applicant has nothing in mind now, and that the site would be sold off to a developer who would make those kinds of decisions.

 M. Roy stated that she was on the Railway Lands Task Force, and that the time frame for building much of the approved development there was estimated at 10-15 years. Therefore, she thought that this site could be a long way off from construction.

 A resident suggested that, if the 2008 Olympics is awarded to Toronto, development in this area could happen faster. Other residents agreed with the observation.

 Bruce Scott asked for a show of hands and then a sign-up for those individuals who wanted to be part of a Working Group.

 The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m.

Appendix E

 Comments from Civic Official - Toronto Public Health - July 8, 1998

 Further to my letter of June 16, 1998, the applicant has requested that the recommendations be amended so that the reports are not required prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council. Our requirements can be captured during the Site Plan Approval Process, therefore, I am providing the following revisions.

 Recommendations:

(1)That the owner shall immediately conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the subject site. This report should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health, for review prior, to the issuance of a building permit.

 (2)That the owner shall conduct a site audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on site. The removal of these materials should be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Labour and Ministry of the Environment and Energy Guidelines. A report on the site audit should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

 (3)That the owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposes remediation options to be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health, for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit.

 (4)That the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

 (5)That the owner shall prepare a Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Medical Officer of Health for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit.

 (6)That the owner shall implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

 Please inform the applicant in respect to this matter and provide them with a copy of this letter. If you have any questions contact me at 392-7685.