Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -

200 and 220 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street (Downtown)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)subject to the execution of the necessary Agreement, the Draft By-laws attached to the report (July 8, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto;

(2)the reports (July 9, 1998) and (July 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted; and

(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to conduct a comprehensive parking, vehicular and pedestrian traffic study on all land between Bathurst Street and Lower Jarvis Street, from Front Street to Queens Quay.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on July 22, 1998, and the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:

-Mr. Michael Lam, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Gil Nefsky, Toronto District School Board;

-Mr. Craig Hunter, IBI Group;

-Mr. Brian Dourley, Solicitor, Toronto Catholic District School Board;

-Mr. Henry Dwinnell, Brookfield LePage, Property Manager;

-Mr. Jim Gough, Marshall Macklin Monaghan, Project Manager; and

-Mr. David Smith, Solicitor, Fraser & Beatty.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 8, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to permit an additional permission for residential uses up to the existing 116000 square metres of commercial density allocated under the Harbourfront Zoning By-law to York Quay North (Parcel YQ-4) to residential density, subject to certain public benefits being secured.

Source of Funds, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-laws has no financial implications or impact for the City. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it could recommend:

(2)Subject to the execution of the necessary Agreement, that the Draft By-laws attached to the Report (July8,1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto."

Background:

The Toronto Community Council will have before it the Report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (July9,1998) concerning the above-noted subject. This Report recommends the amendment of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto, together with an accompanying Zoning By-law Amendment which will permit the additional use of the site for residential purposes, subject to certain built form requirements and securing of public benefits. An agreement to secure such benefits as detailed in the Planning Report, is required prior to the introduction of the necessary bills in Council.

Comments:

This Report contains the necessary Draft By-laws, which, if enacted, will give effect to the Planning Report.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour, Solicitor

Telephone:(416) 392-7225

Fax:(416) 392-0024

CCCC

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. ( )

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To adopt an amendment to Section 19.19 of the Official Plan for the

former City of Toronto respecting Parcel YQ-4.

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

1.The text annexed hereto as Schedule"A" is hereby adopted as an amendment to Section19.19 of Official Plan for Harbourfront Part II.

2.This is Official Plan Amendment No. .

SCHEDULE "A"

1.Section19.19 of the Official Plan, being the Harbourfront PartII Plan, is amended by:

(a)deleting from Section5.3.2 the word "workplace" where it appears in the second line following the term "non-profit";

(b)adding to Section5 a new paragraph5.2.3 as follows:

"5.2.3It is the policy of Council that a financial contribution should be made by the owner of ParcelYQ-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 ParcelYQ-4.";

(c)deleting the first complete paragraph of Section8.1.2 and replacing it with the following:

"8.1.2With regard to ParcelYQ-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 structure does not exceed 116,000square metres;

(ii)the residential gross floor area does not exceed 111935 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 Section5.3.2 of this Plan and the existing Harbourfront Implementation Agreement;

(b)to submit additional plans and information addressing matters contained in and in accordance with Section8.1.2.1 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 Section8.1.2.1;

(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 inclusive, and the agreement is registered on title to ParcelYQ-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 pursuant to Section37 of the Planning Act to secure the facilities, services and matters required under subsection(v), and the agreement is registered on title to ParcelYQ-4; and

(vi)notwithstanding Sections7.7 and 7.10, Council may also pass by-laws to permit surface parking lots on a temporary basis pending the redevelopment of ParcelYQ-4.".

(d)adding a new Section 8.1.2.1 as follows:

"8.1.2.1 Development 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 public view 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 Section41 of the Planning Act.

b.The Development Concept Plan submitted in accordance with Section8.1.2.1(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 Section2.7 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 complimentary 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 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."

CCCC

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. ( )

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend the Harbourfront Zoning By-law No.289-93 with respect to Parcel YQ-4 known as 8 York Street and part of 200 Queens Quay West.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, the Council of the Municipality may, in a by-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, authorize increases in the height or density of development beyond that otherwise permitted by the by-law that will be permitted in return for the provision of such facilities, services and matters as are set out in the by-law;

AND WHEREAS Subsection 37(3) of the Planning Act provides that, where an owner of land elects to provide facilities, services or matters in return for an increase in the height or density of development, the Municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the Municipality dealing with the facilities, services and matters;

AND WHEREAS the owner of the lands hereinafter referred to has elected to provide the facilities, services and matters as are hereinafter set forth;

AND WHEREAS the increase in the density of development permitted hereunder, beyond that otherwise permitted on the lands by By-law No. 289-93, as amended, is to be permitted in return for the provision of the facilities, services and matters set out in this By-law and to be secured by one or more agreements between the owner of the lands and the City of Toronto (hereinafter referred to as the "City");

AND WHEREAS the City has required the owner of the lands to enter into one or more agreements dealing with certain facilities, services and matters in return for the increase in density in connection with the lands as permitted;

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

1.By-law No.289-93, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in the Harbourfront area", as amended, is amended by:

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

(2)adding to APPENDIX "E" opposite the parcel designationYQ-4 in the column headed "MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA", the number "111935"; and in the column headed "MAXIMUM COMBINED RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA AND NON-RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA", the number "116000";

(3)deleting Height Map50G-313 contained in Appendix"B" and replacing it by a new Height Map50G-313 and a new Alternate Height Map50G-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 June30,1998 is retained,";

(5)by adding to Section19 a new subsection(7) as follows:

"(7)None of the provisions of Sections19(1) and (2) shall apply in respect of any mixed-use building or non-residential building erected or used on ParcelYQ-4.";

(6)by deleting Section15(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 BlockA or BlockB of ParcelYQ-4

i)as shown on the Build To Line Maps contained in Appendix G in the event the Parking Garage existing on June20,1998 is retained; or

ii)as shown on the Alternate Build To Line Maps contained in Appendix G, 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 20metres above grade built within 1.2metres 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 ParcelYQ-4, corresponding to the relevant Build To Line for either of BlockA or BlockB, which area is equal to at least 90percent of the area determined by the product of the length of such Build To Line and the height.";

For the purposes of this section 15(4), 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 5.0metres in depth."

(7)by deleting from Section18(iii) the phrase "of this By-law" and substituting therefor the following:

"provided that in the case of ParcelYQ-4 at least 70percent 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 Section21 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 4.0metres"; and

(9)by inserting, following the heading for Section23, 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 Section23(2) as follows:

"(2)None of the provisions of Section23(1) shall apply to prevent the erection and use of a parking garage above grade on ParcelYQ-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 10metres to a lot line that abuts a street;

(ii)the permitted uses listed in Appendix"D" in respect of ParcelYQ-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 residential gross floor area or non-residential gross floor area."

2.Despite Sections13 and 14 of By-law No.289-93, as amended, the density of residential uses set out in Section13(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 ParcelYQ-4 of the following facilities, services or matters to the City, namely:

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

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

(3)the provision of a daycare facility in accordance with Section5.3.2 of this Plan and the existing Harbourfront Implementation Agreement;

(4)the submission of additional plans and information addressing matters contained in and in accordance with Section8.1.2.1 of the Harbourfront PartII Plan;

(5)adherence in any site plan application to Design Guidelines as adopted by City Council and the Concept Plan referred to in Section8.1.2.1 of the Harbourfront PartII Plan;

(6)the undertaking of improvements to the existing parking garage in accordance with the aforesaid Concept Plan;

(7)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; and

(8)the consideration of any proposal made by the Toronto District Heating Corporation in respect of the development of the buildings.

3.The owner of ParcelYQ-4 is required, pursuant to Section37(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 Section2 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.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

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 AYQ-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 Acompatible 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 Aa 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 A 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, Aat 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 Abuild-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 Section41 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

CCCC

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

CCCC

Appendix B

Proposed Amendments to the Harbourfront Official Plan Part II

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

(a)deleting from Section5.3.2 the word "workplace" where it appears in the second line following the term "non-profit";

(b)adding to Section5 a new paragraph5.2.3 as follows:

"5.2.3It is the policy of Council that a financial contribution should be made by the owner of ParcelYQ-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 ParcelYQ-4.";

(c)deleting the first complete paragraph of Section8.1.2 and replacing it with the following:

"8.1.2With regard to ParcelYQ-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 116,000square 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 Section5.3.2 of this Plan and the existing Harbourfront Implementation Agreement;

(b)to submit additional plans and information addressing matters contained in and in accordance with Section8.1.2.1 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 Section8.1.2.1;

(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 ParcelYQ-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 ParcelYQ-4; and

(vi)notwithstanding Sections7.7 and 7.10, Council may also pass by-laws to permit surface parking lots on a temporary basis pending the redevelopment of ParcelYQ-4.".

(d)adding a new Section 8.1.2.1 as follows:

A8.1.2.1Development 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 Section41 of the Planning Act.

(b)The Development Concept Plan submitted in accordance with Section8.1.2.1(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 Section2.7 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.@

CCCC

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 designationYQ-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 designationYQ-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 Map50G-313 contained in Appendix"B" and replacing it by a new Height Map50G-313 and a new Alternate Height Map50G-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 Section19 a new subsection(7) as follows:

"(7)None of the provisions of Sections19(1) and (2) shall apply in respect of any mixed-use or non-residential building erected or used on ParcelYQ-4.";

(6)by deleting Section15(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 BlockA or BlockB of ParcelYQ-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 20metres above grade built within 1.2metres 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 ParcelYQ-4, corresponding to the relevant Build To Line for either of BlockA or BlockB, which area is equal to at least 90percent 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 5.0metres in depth.

(7)by adding to Section18(iii) the following:

"provided that in the case of ParcelYQ-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 Section21 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 4.0metres; and

(9)by inserting, following the heading "Section23", 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 Section23(2) as follows:

"23(2)None of the provisions of Section23(1) shall apply to prevent the erection and use of a parking garage above grade on ParcelYQ-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 10metres to a lot line that abuts a street;

(ii)the permitted uses listed in Appendix"D" in respect of ParcelYQ-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 Sections13 and 14 of By-law No.289-93, as amended, the density of residential uses set out in Section13(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 ParcelYQ-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 Section5.3.2 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 Section8.1.2.1 of the Harbourfront PartII Plan;

(e)adherence in any site plan application to Design Guidelines as adopted by City Council and the Concept Plan referred to in Section8.1.2.1 of the Harbourfront PartII 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 ParcelYQ-4 is required, pursuant to Section37(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 Section2 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.

CCCC

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 A 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 Aso 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 Apeaks@ and Avalleys@ 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 Afait 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 Athe 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: AHave 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.

CCCC

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.

CCCC

Insert Table/Map No. 1

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

Insert Table/Map No. 6

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

Insert Table/Map No. 7

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This follow-up to my report dated July 9, 1998 includes:

(1)the detailed comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on traffic impact and management;

(2)an update on the Working Committee process; and

(3)an additional recommendation to secure the Educational Development Levy requested by the school boards.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That Council endorse the traffic management and urban design recommendations of the Working Committee as set out in Appendices C and D of this report.

(2)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 with the City Solicitor, to secure the traffic, access, parking and servicing objectives for Parcel YQ-4 set out in Section 1 and modified by 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 Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board to secure financial contributions of $2,494.00 per residential unit for the provision of public and separate schools in connection with residential development on Parcel YQ-4.

Comments:

(1)Traffic Impact

When my Final Report was being prepared, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services had not yet finalized his review of the applicant=s Traffic Impact Study (prepared by the IBI Group) and the supplementary material received from the applicant on June 30th and July 6th. His detailed review was submitted to me on July 15th and is included in Appendix A of this report.

As stated in my Final Report, it is the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the traffic impact of adding residential uses to the use list for YQ-4 can be managed from a traffic operations perspective, subject to ensuring that certain principles are achieved in the design of the site related to access, vehicular circulation and servicing, and parking. The Commissioner=s comments set out his analysis, conclusions, and the conditions that should be secured in conjunction with this application.

The applicant=s traffic analysis involved the review of two potential development scenarios to determine what traffic impact would result from residential uses on the site. In one scenario, the site was built out as a fully-commercial development (offices with retail at grade). The other scenario was a fully-residential development with retail at grade. In both cases, it was assumed that the existing parking garage would be retained.

A comparison was made of the weekday and Saturday peak hour trip generation under these two scenarios. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services observed that:

-the magnitude of weekday traffic generated by full build-out of the site with residential use is approximately one-half that of commercial uses;

-the fully commercial scenario has a greater impact on intersection operations during the weekday peak hours;

-potential residential development will create more traffic during off-peak hours (weekends) as compared to office uses, but potential residential traffic on weekends is not expected to cause significant additional traffic congestion;

-the incremental impact of either scenario, when compared to the existing condition, is within acceptable transportation engineering limits; and

-traffic issues associated with new development of the site can be managed through access, parking, and servicing strategies.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has recommended that the owner be required to enter into an Agreement with the City to secure the following traffic, access, parking and servicing objectives:

(a)That the existing driveway connection to Queens Quay West be made available only for new site drop-off/pick-up activity (in addition to the existing parking garage traffic), and direct access to new parking facilities from Queens Quay West not be permitted;

(b)that the primary access and egress for new development be Simcoe Street, and such access be consolidated with the existing garage access/egress to Simcoe, subject to further detailed design;

(c)that the existing parking attendant kiosk areas on the Queens Quay West driveway be relocated further north into the site in conjunction with re-development;

(d)that the City undertake, at the time of Site Plan review, a curbside management review on streets fronting this site to ensure appropriate regulations and by-laws are in place to control and manage traffic flow in the most efficient manner to minimize further traffic congestion;

(e)that the current obligations to provide and maintain a minimum of 853 parking spaces on the site be maintained;

(f)that the parking supply required to satisfy demand from any new residential development occurring on this site be independent of the existing parking garage supply;

(g)that new parking facilities relate directly to the building(s) on the site, with specific points of access and/or internal circulation driveways to distribute site traffic to the road network; and

(h)that new loading facilities be designed to a high standard and be internalized, with all vehicle manoeuvring occurring on-site to allow trucks to enter and exit in a forward motion.

(2)Outcome of the Working Committee Process

Residents representing several condominium corporations in Harbourfront actively participated in the Working Committee process. Buildings represented were: 33 Harbour Square, 55/65 Harbour Square, 77/99 Harbour Square and 401 Queens Quay West. Residents from 250/260/270 Queens Quay West were also active participants.

At the end of Working Committee process, the Board of Directors of the Harbour Square buildings stated their disagreement with my recommendation that residential use be approved for Parcel YQ-4. Their position is that A[a] commercial building will produce less traffic on weekday evenings and weekends. In addition, the commercial building will provide badly needed public parking on weekday evenings and weekends when the office tower is not in use.@

The representative for 401 Queens Quay West advised during the Working Committee process that she believes that her condominium corporation will support the proposed Official Plan and zoning amendments for residential use.

Notwithstanding the opposition of some of the condominium corporations to residential use, the entire Working Committee adopted a series of traffic management and urban design recommendations and is requesting that Council endorse them in the event that it approves the requested OPA and zoning amendments. These are described in Sections (3) and (4) below.

Please note that the Terms of Reference for the Working Committee were inadvertently omitted from my July 9th report. They are now attached to this report as Appendix B.

(3)Peer Review of the Traffic Study - Related Working Committee Recommendations.

Residents of 77-99 Harbour Square hired Marshall, Macklin, Monaghan (MMM) to review IBI=s finalized traffic study. MMM met with City staff, the applicant, IBI, and the Working Committee on July 20, 1998 to discuss its findings.

At that meeting, the Working Committee adopted the traffic consultant=s recommendations in combination with those put forward by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and requested that Council endorse them in the event that it approves residential use on YQ-4. These traffic recommendations are set out in Appendix C. Staff of Works and Emergency Services, the residents, the applicant and all consultants present have indicated that the recommendations are generally acceptable in principle.

(4)Urban Design - Working Committee Recommendations

The Working Committee adopted the Urban Design recommendations set out in Appendix D, and requested that Council endorse them in the event that it approves residential use on YQ-4. Planning staff, the applicant and all consultants present at the Working Committee meeting supported these recommendations.

(5) School Boards

Legal counsel for the Toronto District School Board have requested that the owner be required to enter into an Education Development Levy agreement prior to the introduction of Bills in Council. The agreement, between the applicant, the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board, would secure financial contributions of $2,494.00 per residential unit for the provision of public and separate schools in connection with residential development on Parcel YQ-4.

This request is reflected in Recommendation No. 3 of this report.

(6)Comments of Civic Officials

The comments of the Buildings Division, Urban Planning and Development Services, are to be found in Appendix A of this report, alongside the comments of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Conclusion:

Based on the applicant entering into an agreement to secure the matters referred to in this report and my July 9, 1998 Final Report, I am recommending that Council approve the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, which would allow this site to be developed as mixed commercial-residential.

Contact Name:

Anne Milchberg; Telephone (416) 392-7216; Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

CCCC

Appendix A

Comments of Civic Officials

(1)Buildings Division, May 6, 1998

Subject:8 York Street and part of 200 Queens Quay West - Rezoning Application 197031

Circulation Notice dated May 1, 1998.

Zoning Review

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City=s Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, unless otherwise referenced.

1.The proposed Residential uses are not permitted in this YQ-4 site. (Section 13-Appendix D of By-law 283-93 as amended)

2.The proposed total Residential gross Floor Area has not been provided. (Section 14(1)- Appendix E of By-law 283-93 as amended)

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

2.The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

3.The proposal DOES NOT require City Council=s approval pursuant to the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989.

4.The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

5.The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal=s full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.

(2)Works and Emergency Services, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, July 15, 1998

Subject:Review of Traffic, Parking and Access Assessment for Premises Nos. 200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street (Parcel YQ-4, Harbourfront).

Reference is made to a Traffic and Parking Study dated June, 1998, submitted by IBI Group for the above-noted site, and a revised report and additional supplementary material received under dates of June, 1998, July 6 and 14, 1998 respectively, incorporating further information requested following a review of the original document by staff and discussions with the Working Committee established to consider an application to rezone this site to allow residential use in addition to those uses already permitted.

Existing Conditions

As you are aware, the site is currently used for paid public parking, with approximately 1400 spaces contained in an above ground parking structure, and 300 spaces provided in surface lots surrounding the structure. The traffic study indicates the applicant Adoes not contemplate the removal of the parking garage and there are various legal and other operating obligations to provide recreational parking for Harbourfront on this site@. According to information provided, the applicant is obligated to provide and maintain approximately 850 spaces within the public parking garage.

The site is bounded by:

-Harbour Street on the north, a three-lane one-way eastbound arterial facility (serving as the eastbound lanes of Lake Shore Boulevard West) situated underneath the elevated F. G. Gardiner Expressway;

-York Street on the east, a three-lane arterial within a 20 metre right-of-way which also incorporates a two-lane eastbound-to-northbound expressway exit ramp;

-Simcoe Street on the west, a four-lane two-way arterial within a 20 metre right-of-way, which provides connections to Harbourfront, the Railway Lands and the Lake Shore/Gardiner traffic corridor, and;

-Queens Quay West on the south, a combination four-lane arterial and two-lane LRT transit facility within a 24 metre right-of-way, which provides access to and within the Harbourfront area.

The main access to the existing parking structure is situated on Queens Quay West. Other points of access are Simcoe Street (entry/exit) and York Street (currently entry only).

The consultant=s assessment of traffic conditions focuses on the weekday morning and evening peak periods for the comparative analysis of Aas-of-right@ commercial development and the proposed residential use. The Saturday peak hour was also reviewed for the site driveways and adjacent intersections on Queens Quay West given that a residential development on this site would generate activity on the weekend when Harbourfront and the surrounding area are busy with recreational, residential and other special events activities. It is noted that weekday evenings can generate considerable special event traffic as well, however, residential activity generally is not as significant at this time compared to the weekend (i.e. Saturday) period which was assessed.

According to information submitted, the site presently generates between 185 and 216 total two way trips in the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectively, and 461 total two-way trips during the Saturday peak hour.

The consultant has reviewed existing traffic conditions on the street system using standard capacity analysis software. The following summarizes the findings of the consultant=s analysis:

IntersectionTime PeriodVolume-to-Capacity Ratio

York/Queens Quay Westa.m. peak hour0.21

p.m. peak hour0.34

Sat. peak hour0.51

Simcoe/Queens Quay West a.m. peak hour0.21

p.m. peak hour0.23

Sat. peak hour0.26

Simcoe/Lake Shore Boulevarda.m. peak hour0.41

p.m. peak hour0.30

York/Harbour a.m. peak hour0.75

p.m. peak hour0.54

Note:A volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.0 represents at-capacity conditions, characterized by stop-and-go conditions, substantial queuing and delay.

The analysis indicates existing conditions are busy but generally operating within capacity. The technical analysis does not, however, specifically account for curbside activity including stopping, mid-block pedestrian traffic etc. which in this case would tend to further impact on the conditions reported.

In addition to the consultant=s review of existing conditions, staff undertook supplementary weekend traffic data collection on Queens Quay West between Simcoe Street and York Street. The following volume and travel speed characteristics were determined for this section of Queens Quay West:

Survey Date Range of volume*Avg Speed85th Percentile Speed

Westbound:

Sat. June 20425-560 vph34 kph48 kph

Sun. June 21425-550 vph35 kph48 kph

Sat. June 27385-510 vph36 kph52 kph

Sun. June 28345-520 vph36 kph48 kph

Eastbound:

Sat. June 20385-510 vph35 kph52 kph

Sun. Jun. 21390-510 vph36 kph52 kph

Sat. June 27215-425 vph40 kph50 kph

Sun. June 28230-390 vph38 kph52 kph

*- based on the busiest 12 hours of the day

As can be seen from the data provided above, the range of traffic volume measured during the busiest hourly periods of these weekend days varies from 345 to 560 vehicles in the westbound direction, and 215 to 510 vehicles in the eastbound direction. A detailed review of the pattern of traffic volume and travel speed data confirms general observations that pedestrian and other street-related activity tend to exacerbate traffic delays during busy periods in the Harbourfront area. Nevertheless, the data do not suggest a capacity Athreshold@ is reached during busy periods (i.e. gridlock) but rather that as delay and congestion increase, traffic moves slowly but is still able to travel through the area at these times.

Traffic Assessment - Proposed Residential Use

The consultant=s analysis reviewed traffic conditions for two future potential development scenarios in order to assess the relative difference in traffic impact associated with full development of the site with permitted office use versus full development with the proposed residential use. The residential scenario also considered some grade-related ancillary commercial use. In both cases, it was assumed the existing parking garage would be retained.

In terms of weekend conditions, the consultant notes that some traffic would be generated by an office development scenario, however, for the purposes of this review, weekend commercial trips are assumed to be negligible. The consultant=s report has established Saturday residential trip generation on the basis of empirical data, augmented with information contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, which is acc

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof has been submitted to Council under separate cover:

-(July 17, 1998) from Ms. Patricia Colenutt;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Brian M. Dourley, Miller Thomson;

-(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Christine M. Silversides;

-(July 2, 1998) from Mr. Henry Dwinnell; and

-(July 22, 1998) from Mr. David P. Smith, Fraser & Beatty. eptable.

A comparison of the weekday and Saturday peak hour trip generation under these two scenarios, applying appropriate criteria for this area of the City, is presented below:

ScenarioTotal New Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles)**

Morning Peak HourAfternoon Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour

Office488462Negligible

Residential215245217

**- The provision of a daycare facility on-site could generate some additional weekday trip making, possibly in the range of 20-30 additional trips depending on the size of the centre and number of attendees driven to the site.

As noted in the table, the magnitude of weekday traffic generated by full build-out of the site with residential use is approximately one-half that of commercial uses.

The report documents the traffic assignments applied for the purposes of evaluating forecast conditions. A summary of the capacity analysis for future weekday and weekend conditions, for each of the residential and office development scenarios, is presented below (existing conditions have been re-iterated for comparative purposes).

IntersectionTime PeriodVolume/Capacity Ratio

Existing w/Officew/Residential

York/Queens Quay Westa.m. peak hr 0.210.38 0.24

p.m. peak hr 0.340.360.40

Sat. peak hr 0.510.550.60

Simcoe/Queens Quay West a.m. peak hr 0.210.220.21

p.m. peak hr 0.230.260.24

Sat. peak hr 0.260.260.27

Simcoe/Lake Shore Boulevarda.m. peak hr 0.410.510.48

p.m. peak hr 0.300.49 0.35

York/Harbour a.m. peak hr 0.750.77 0.76

p.m. peak hr0.540.59 0.55

A review of the detailed capacity analysis for the weekday peak hours indicates the office scenario has a greater impact on intersection operations as a result of the incremental additional traffic generated compared to the residential scenario. Nevertheless, the incremental impact of either scenario when compared to the existing condition is within acceptable transportation engineering limits, and is estimated to be so even with consideration for other activity not explicitly accounted for in the technical analysis.

In addition to a review of intersection operations, trip routing to and from the site and trip frequency were evaluated, in particular during the Saturday period when residential uses would generate a greater relative impact on the road network compared to office use. In terms of inbound traffic to the site, the consultant estimates nearly 70 additional vehicles would enter the site from westbound Queens Quay West, and 50 vehicles would enter from southbound Simcoe Street. However, residents who would be travelling to the site from the east would also have the option to access Simcoe Street directly from the soon-to-be-completed Lake Shore Boulevard West/Bremner Boulevard connection which is being constructed as part of the Air Canada Centre development. As a result, site traffic on Queens Quay West could be less than reported by the consultant. Traffic travelling to the site from the north would of course, also have the opportunity to access the site from either Simcoe Street or York Street without having to use Queens Quay West. For site exiting, nearly 70 vehicles are expected to leave the site by northbound Simcoe Street and nearly 30 vehicles to westbound Queens Quay West.

Notwithstanding, the options available to access the site from streets other than Queens Quay West, the information submitted indicates the frequency of new site traffic arrivals via York Street and/or Queens Quay West during the Saturday peak hour would be just over one vehicle every minute in the peak hour. This compares to a range of existing on-street traffic volume, varying from 345 to 560 vehicles in the westbound direction, and 215 to 515 vehicles in the eastbound direction.

Preferred Site Access Arrangements

The traffic analysis and observation of traffic patterns in the area suggest the primary access for any new development on the site should be from Simcoe Street, to permit convenient access to Lake Shore Boulevard West and the City street system and to minimize traffic impact in the Harbourfront area. Site access to Simcoe Street should be consolidated with the existing garage access/egress, subject to further detailed review.

Also, the existing driveway connection to Queens Quay West should be made available only for new drop-off/pick-up activity (in addition to the existing parking garage traffic) to further reduce the potential impact of new site traffic on this street. In conjunction with this, and recognizing that the existing public parking garage has an important role in serving parking needs of the area, it is further recommended that the existing parking attendant kiosk areas situated on the Queens Quay West driveway be relocated further north into the site in conjunction with redevelopment, in order to provide additional on-site queuing space thereby minimizing impacts to on-street traffic flow.

Direct access to new parking facilities should not be permitted from Queens Quay West. An inbound driveway from York Street is also acceptable from a traffic operations point of view.

The consultant has also suggested access to Harbour Street (eastbound Lake Shore Boulevard West) may be possible, however, this option is not recommended at this time, and would need to undergo further rigorous analysis by the applicant prior to any further consideration.

Ensuring overall site accessibility for trucks, servicing and emergency vehicles would of course, form part of the site access review.

Parking

As noted previously, the site currently provides 1,700 public parking in a combination of above-grade and surface parking spaces of which a total of approximately 850 spaces must be maintained on the site in accordance with the applicable agreements and By-laws. Given that the existing garage continues to be well used by visitors to Harbourfront and the surrounding area, it would be advantageous to maintain the current parking garage, and further secure the current obligations related to the 850 spaces.

Parking for residential uses must be provided in compliance with requirements set out in Harbourfront Zoning By-law 289-93 (as amended). According to the traffic study, and assuming a typical unit mix and application of the By-law, full build-out of a residential scenario could result in the need to provide approximately 467 tenant and 49 visitor spaces for a total of 516 spaces plus any ancillary commercial requirements. Given the nature of residential parking and the need to ensure spaces are available for residents at all times, it is recommended that all residential development occurring on this site supply its own parking independent of the parking supply contained in the existing garage.

Access to new on-site parking should be taken from Simcoe Street (primary driveway) and York Street. As well, parking should relate directly to the building(s) on the site. Individual buildings should have separate parking facilities with specific points of access and/or internal circulation driveways to evenly distribute site traffic to the road network.

Servicing

The design and provision of loading areas should be in accordance with Departmental standards and comply with the requirements of the Harbourfront Zoning By-law. Furthermore, garbage and loading facilities should be internalized, with all vehicle manoeuvring occurring on the site to allow trucks to enter and exit the site in a forward motion. Truck servicing areas should be designed to a high standard to ensure vehicles do not load/unload at curbside. Truck access, service areas, and circulation may be consolidated to achieve an efficient design and operation.

Area-wide Conditions

It is recognized that streets in this area of Harbourfront are sometimes subjected to congestion on weekends and evenings, and at times of special events. The congestion is a result of a number of factors including pedestrian activity, visual distractions, pick-up/drop-off activity, illegal on-street parking, sidewalk vending, etc. These conditions are experienced to some extent in several other areas of the City as well (e.g. Beaches, Yorkville, Bloor West Village, Theatre District, etc.) although each area exhibits somewhat different characteristics. As a result, there are no standard measures available to deal with the congestion occurring in these vibrant and unique areas of the City.

Notwithstanding this, certain traffic operations elements can be reviewed during the site planning stage to ensure traffic and pedestrian flow is managed to the extent possible with redevelopment of this site. Potentially one of the most effective ways of addressing impacts to traffic flow as a result of redevelopment is to undertake a curbside management review on streets fronting this property at the time of site plan review. This would ensure appropriate regulations and by-laws are in place to control and manage traffic flow in the most efficient manner to minimize further traffic congestion.

Other area-related traffic concerns are being dealt with on a City-wide or area basis. In this regard, City Council has recently adopted a strategy to manage tour bus activity. As part of this initiative, and in an effort to address illegal bus parking in various areas of the City including Harbourfront, tour bus operators will be encouraged to use specially designated metered bus parking spaces which will be created in areas of the City within proximity of tour bus destinations. Ultimately, provision of an off-street facility to park tour buses is part of the strategy being developed by the City.

Conclusions:

In summary, it is recommended that the Section 37 Agreement for this site secure the following traffic, access, parking and servicing objectives:

(a)The existing driveway connection to Queens Quay West be made available only for new site drop-off/pick-up activity (in addition to the existing parking garage traffic), and direct access to new parking facilities from Queens Quay West not be permitted;

(b)The primary access and egress for new development be Simcoe Street, and such access be consolidated with the existing garage access/egress to Simcoe, subject to further detailed design;

(c)The existing parking attendant kiosks areas on the Queens Quay West driveway be relocated further north into the site in conjunction with re-development;

(d)The City undertake, at the time of Site Plan review, a curbside management review on streets fronting this site to ensure appropriate regulations and by-laws are in place to control and manage traffic flow in the most efficient manner to minimize further traffic congestion;

(e)The current obligations to provide and maintain a minimum of 853 spaces in the existing parking garage be maintained;

(f)The parking supply required to satisfy demand from any new residential development occurring on this site be independent of the existing parking garage supply;

(g)New parking facilities relate directly to the building(s) on the site, with specific points of access and/or internal circulation driveways to distribute site traffic to the road network, and;

(h)New loading facilities be designed to a high standard and such facilities be internalized, with all vehicle manoeuvring occurring on-site to allow trucks to enter and exit in a forward motion.

Should you have any questions regarding this review, please contact Mr. T. Laspa at 392-7711.

CCCC

Appendix B

Terms of Reference

Working Committee for 200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street (YQ-4)

Objectives:

To provide a forum for community input into the review of the Official Plan and Rezoning application for 200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street, in considering whether to permit residential uses on the site in addition to the range of non-residential uses already permitted on the site.

Participants:

-Bruce Scott and Deborah Cowen from Councillor Olivia Chow=s office (chairing the meetings)

-City Staff from Urban Planning and Development Services and City Works Services as required

- Queens Quay West Land Corporation (the owner) and the IBI Group (the owner=s representative)

- individuals who signed up for this Working Committee at the April 28, 1998 Public Meeting.

Schedule and Tasks:

It is proposed that the Working Committee meet four times, as follows:

Meeting 1

Wednesday, June 3 - General Information

The Working Committee will attend the general information session on future Queens Quay West development being organized by the Management Office of Harbour Square.

Meeting 2

Tuesday, June 9 - YQ-4 Background; Urban Design Issues

City staff will define the scope of work of the Working Committee, provide background information on the site, its context, and the history of its planning controls, and describe the expected outcome of the process.

City staff will review in detail the existing Official Plan, zoning and urban design provisions for the site, and their physical implications in terms of building siting and organization, massing, and pedestrian amenity.

As a group, we will examine what effects the proposed addition of residential use would have on the built form and physical character of development on the site. Particular attention will be paid to:

-creating adequate sidewalks and setbacks on Queens Quay West for streetscapes and pedestrian use;

-determining the appropriate size and location of towers in relation to base buildings;

-determining the appropriate location and form of servicing and car access to the site, to minimize the impact of traffic on the pedestrian sidewalks and neighbouring buildings; and

-evaluating the implications of maintaining the existing above-grade parking garage on the site in the course of redevelopment.

Meeting 3

Tuesday, June 16 - Urban design feedback, actions and recommendations; traffic issues

Approximately half of this session will be a follow-up and wrap-up to the Urban Design discussions of June 9th. The balance of this session will include the examination of vehicular access opportunities and constraints, a comparison of the traffic generated by the proposed vs. permitted uses, and the assessment of summer weekend as well as typical weekday conditions.

Meeting 4

Tuesday, June 23 - Feedback on traffic issues; actions and recommendations; wrap-up.

Approximately half of this session will be a follow-up and wrap-up to the Traffic discussions of June 16th In the balance of this session, there will be an overall summary, and wrap-up, and the Working Committee will formulate and finalize its recommendations for inclusion in the Final Planning Report.

After Tuesday, June 23

Draft by-laws and a Final Report will be prepared for the site, to be considered by the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of July 22, 1998. This will constitute the statutory public meeting for the by-laws. Prior notice for the by-laws will be given in accordance with the Planning Act (i.e., a minimum of 20 days prior to the meeting).

CCCC

Appendix C

Traffic Management Recommendations of the Working Committee

The Working Committee adopted the following series of traffic management recommendations in the event City Council approves residential uses on the site. These recommendations are a combination of the those put forward by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in his memorandum of July 15, 1998 on the matter, and some from the traffic review undertaken by the traffic consultant on behalf of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 949 (Premises Nos. 77 and 99 Harbour Square):

(1)The existing driveway connection to Queens Quay West should be made available only for new site drop-off/pick-up activity (in addition to the existing parking garage traffic), and direct access to new parking facilities from Queens Quay West should not be permitted. In conjunction with this, the existing parking attendant kiosk areas on the Queens Quay West driveway should be relocated further north into the site in conjunction with redevelopment.

(2)The primary access and egress for new development should be Simcoe Street, and subject to feasibility, this access should be consolidated with the existing garage access/egress to Simcoe Street. Given the potential for vehicular conflicts on Simcoe Street during peak event times, the developer should review projected traffic operations on Simcoe Street between Harbour Street and Queens Quay West, with the proposed development in place, and taking into account the impact of the Riviera development, and the projected loss in parking in the area, as part of the Development Concept Plan.

(3)No development or vehicular access should be provided from York Street between Harbour Street and Queens Quay West, due to the importance of this link in the road network.

(4)It is desirable to maintain the existing driveway onto Harbour Street for outbound right-turn traffic from the site, subject to further review of safety issues.

(5)New parking facilities should relate directly to the building(s) on the site, with specific points of access and/or internal circulation driveways to distribute site traffic to the road network.

(6)The parking supply required to satisfy demand from any new residential development occurring on this site should be independent of the existing parking garage supply. Furthermore, the site should provide and maintain at least the minimum visitor parking required by the by-law within the building complex, and not rely on the existing garage or other facilities to meet this demand. New parking must be secured to the extent possible through appropriate agreements with the City.

(7)The City should undertake, at the time of Site Plan Review, a curbside management review on streets fronting this site to ensure that appropriate regulations and by-laws are in place to control and manage traffic flow in the most efficient manner to minimize further traffic congestion.

(8)The current obligations to provide and maintain a minimum of 853 spaces in the existing parking garage should be maintained.

(9)New loading facilities should be designed to a high standard, and these facilities should be internalized, with all vehicle manoeuvring occurring on-site to allow trucks to enter and exit in a forward motion.

(10)Alternative arrangements should be made for the accommodation of buses which currently park on Queens Quay West eastbound from Simcoe Street to York Street. The City shall provide a status report to members of the working Committee in September or October on bus accommodation.

Staff of Works and Emergency Services, residents, the applicant and all consultants at the final meeting indicated that the aforementioned conditions are generally acceptable in principle.

CCCC

Appendix D

Urban Design Recommendations of the Working Committee

The Working Committee adopted the following series of urban design recommendations in the event City Council approves residential uses on the site:

(1)The owner shall be required 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.

(2)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services shall invite the Harbourfront and Harbour Square community to a meeting during the Development Concept planning stage in order to receive their input on site planning and building concepts and details for YQ-4.

(3)The Development Concept Plan shall illustrate and describe the following:

(a)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;

(b)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;

(c)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;

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

(e)the general location of parking facilities and service access areas and their relationship to the objectives contained in the transportation recommendations set out in Appendix C of this report;

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

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

(h)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;

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

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

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

(2)acceptable wind and sunlight conditions; and

(3)acceptable noise and air quality levels.

CCCC

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof has been submitted to Council under separate cover:

-(July 17, 1998) from Ms. Patricia Colenutt;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Brian M. Dourley, Miller Thomson;

-(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Christine M. Silversides;

-(July 2, 1998) from Mr. Henry Dwinnell; and

-(July 22, 1998) from Mr. David P. Smith, Fraser & Beatty.