August 31, 1999

To:Toronto Community Council

From:Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

Subject:Report on Rezoning Application 199004 to amend By-law 1994-0806 to remove the holding symbol (h Zoning): 401 Front Street West by Concord Adex Developments Corp., 23 Spadina Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5V 3M5 (Ward 24 - Downtown)

Purpose:

This report recommends Council approval to remove the "h" holding symbol from the property at 401 Front Street West to permit residential uses. This approval will allow the construction of two residential buildings on the site as envisioned by the Part II Official Plan. The applicant has shown that the prerequisite environmental conditions as outlined in the Railway Lands Part II Official Plan, have been met.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

1.It is recommended that Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend Zoning By-law 1994-0806 to remove the holding symbol from the eastern half of the Front Street General Use Area B (401 Front Street West) and allow the proposed residential development of the site.

Comments:

Location

The property is located on the south side of Front Street West to the immediate west of Blue Jays Way and east of Spadina Avenue as shown on the attached Key Map.

Proposal

The applicant proposes to construct two, 28 storey, residential towers with an overall height of 77.1 metres.

Background

The Railway Lands Central Part II Official Plan permits residential uses in the Front Street General Use Areas, subject to environmental issues such as noise, air quality and vibration being addressed. These conditions were the result of the settlement of an appeal by GO Transit respecting the proposed residential use. The GO Transit appeal was based on concerns related to the potential environmental effects arising from the proximity of the development of these blocks to the Rail Corridor and GO Transit's Bathurst North Yard.

Section 11.8 of the Part II Official Plan outlines the environmental requirements:

-a detailed prediction of noise, vibration and air quality effects, including odour within the proposed buildings and in surrounding outdoor areas at current levels of rail activity and based on future levels of rail activity;

-a prediction of changes in snow drifting patterns and icing of rails and switches on adjacent sections of the Rail Corridor and the Bathurst North Yard;

-a detailed outline of proposed measures to reduce the environmental effects and to meet satisfactory standards and minimize nuisance impacts;

-analyses of the suitability of exterior open balconies and outdoor amenity space; and

-the phasing of construction and assurance that the interim development as well as final phases achieve acceptable environmental conditions.

The application to remove the "h" holding symbol is required to be circulated for comment and the City is required to consult with and have regard for the comments of GO Transit. The Part II Plan further states that Council shall enact a by-law to remove the "h" holding symbol from all or part of the Front Street General Use Areas A and B provided that:

"i)the supplemental Environmental Report required pursuant to Section 11.8 (a) confirms the feasibility of the proposed residential development on the lands, including methods of mitigation;

ii)appropriate methods of mitigation have been secured; and

iii)site plan approval has been granted."

It should also be noted that Sections 9.1 and 9.2 of this Part II Plan generally state that Council will use its available powers to ensure that the development provides:

-environmental conditions satisfactory to the City of Toronto for people working and living within and adjacent, to the Railway Lands Central;

-an Environmental Report which among other conditions requires the provision of buffers (including acoustical walls, buildings and structures); and

-satisfactory indoor and outdoor air quality and climatic conditions at grade and in other outdoor amenity areas.

In addition, the Part II Plan for the Railway Lands Central requires notice and appropriate warning clauses regarding possible noise, vibration and/or air quality impacts associated with the existing and future freight and passenger rail and regional rail and public transit uses in the Rail Corridor, Future Development Area and the Bathurst North Yard to be provided to any purchasers, landowners or lessees within such developments.

In the comments received on this application City Departments have concurred that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed all conditions related to removal of the "h". However, GO Transit has continued to voice its concerns respecting the air quality, noise and vibration impact of its potentially expanded future operations on the proposed development and in particular has concerns with: projected numbers of trains and passengers and the assumed improvements in emission controls.

The applicant's consultants (IBI and RWDI) in responding to these concerns, have indicated that Go's projected increase of train movements by 250% is not achievable without exceptional capital investment in infrastructure. In addition, the consultants have noted that the expected passenger growth does not require a 250% increase. The consultants have also concluded that the numbers of idling trains affecting this particular site would not change appreciably and that as new locomotives are purchased to meet the increased demand and some existing engines are retired, the overall acceptable standards for air quality and noise would be maintained.

City staff have reviewed this analysis and agree that the applicant has met the conditions outlined in the Part II Plan and that the proposed development will experience satisfactory environmental conditions.

GO Transit has stated in its letter of August 20, 1999, that it is generally opposed to the development of the Front Street General Use Areas A and B for residential use, in spite of its Ontario Municipal Board settlement. GO Transit's primary concern is the potential for objections from future residents of the proposed development. GO Transit thinks that it would be prudent for the City to safeguard itself and its interests in GO Transit by refusing the development of these lands for residential uses. City staff have reviewed the proposal, the associated studies and the correspondence between GO Transit and the applicant's consultants and have concluded that the applicant has addressed all issues to meet City standards.

In reviewing the detailed application for Site Plan Approval, it should be noted that the applicant's proposal will also require several relatively minor Zoning By-law variances. These would include a minor height variance, due to the sloping nature of the site, approval of some undersized parking spaces and detailed exceptions to the "build to" zone and the dimensions of the proposed canopies. In addition, the Undertaking associated with the Site Plan Approval with this application will require a variety of relatively standard conditions which would be imposed as a result of comments from the Medical Officer of Health and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Conclusion:

City staff have reviewed the information by the applicant and support this application subject to conditions which are attached to my report on the Site Plan Approval. I am therefore recommending removal of the holding symbol from the Zoning By-law as it applies to 401 Front Street West (the eastern half of the Front Street General Use Area B).

Contact Name:Angus Cranston

Telephone: (416) 392-0425

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: acransto@toronto.ca

Beate Bowron

Director, Community Planning, South District

 (p:\1999\ug\uds\pln\to991979.pln) - smc

APPENDIX A

Comments of Civic Officials

1.GO Transit (August 25, 1999)

This letter is a follow up to our letter of 20 August 1999 regarding the abovementioned application. We have received a response from RWDI regarding a preliminary set of comments/ questions re: the air quality study, attached. It is therefore necessary to update our comments as provided in our 20 August 1999 letter to the City and also to respond to RWDI's letter.

Regarding future rail traffic levels, our comments in the 20 August letter do not change. As noted in our letter, GO is particularly concerned that adequate future service plans are considered, in order to ensure that our stakeholders, which includes the City of Toronto, are not exposed to unanticipated risk limiting service expansions and/or the associated incremental increased costs for mitigation. Also, we were not advised of this change in rail traffic levels. By deviating unilaterally in using the reduced future scenario the Environmental Agreement has not been satisfied.

Regarding the simulation of Bathurst North Yard exhaust emissions, RWDI's letter has clarified how the yard source was simulated. The 21 June report described the yard operation, but did not specifically state what was used in the simulation. We therefore no longer require further clarification on this matter.

RWDI's letter also answers our question regarding 24 hr NO₂ and TSP results.

Regarding the number of trains idling in the rail corridor, our question with respect to sensitivity to the number of trains idling in the corridor remains. The simulation only deals with ½ to 1 train idling immediately south of the site. The point that we were trying to make in our 20 August letter is that the effects of idling and moving trains impact areas as far away as Front Street as indicated in Table 8 (unfortunately Table 8 does not have data with no trains idling). We are therefore concerned that the incremental effects of 2 to 6 trains idling in the rail corridor between Spadina and just east of Blue Jays Way (a relatively short distance in the context of the results listed in Table 8), depending on wind conditions, have not been considered.

The question regarding emission control equipment was part of an earlier set of questions. The 20 August letter does not identify any further questions in this area.

However, the following observation in RWDI's letter requires a response, "It is not clear if GO Transit would be required to undertake an environmental impact assessment at the time of any significant growth in the fleet, but such an assessment would clearly show the need for the retrofit of air pollution control equipment". Several related points need to be made. The assumption of 50% of the existing fleet being equipped with emission controls by the year 2020 may be reasonable considering a typical retirement/ replacement rate of existing locomotives over this time frame. However, if there is significant growth in the fleet in advance of this time frame, the retrofitting of existing equipment with emission control equipment is not a practical solution as it is a major undertaking requiring a significant re-design of the engine. In fact, it is our understanding that it is more economical to purchase a new locomotive than to retrofit an existing unit with the emission control equipment. The premature removal of equipment prior to the end its useful life will require significant incremental funding requirements from our municipal stakeholders, including the City of Toronto. Secondly, in the event of complaints from adjacent land owners/ residents, retrofitting locomotives with emission control equipment should not be considered a realistic alternative for the reasons noted above. Further, any growth in the fleet of locomotives/coaches would typically be associated with a service expansion. Therefore, any environmental assessment work, if required, would be in the context of the service expansion which may or may not drive the need for additional rolling stock. The final point that should be made is that this statement reinforces the importance of the need to build compatible land uses adjacent to heavily utilized rail corridors.

If you have any further questions, please call.

2.(August 20, 1999)

This letter is in response to the 4 March 1999 circulation of the above-mentioned application and subsequent circulations dated 29 June 1999 and 20 July 1999.

Prior to outlining our comments regarding this application, it would be useful to review GO Transit's position with respect to residential land uses on Blocks 21 and 28 and the background associated with the settlement of our objection at the OMB hearing.

GO Transit does not endorse residential land use on Blocks 21 and 28. We have been consistent in this position from the beginning of this process. Our concern is not so much about questioning whether a "technical" solution is possible to mitigate air quality and noise considerations to meet a given set of criteria. Fundamentally, we do not believe it is prudent to build what is typically a non-compatible use adjacent to a heavily utilized rail corridor and yard.

Notwithstanding these concerns, GO Transit agreed with the developer to settle our objections to the land use changes that were appealed to the OMB. This settlement was based on i) the approval of particular amendments to the Official Plan, Zoning By-laws and Environmental Agreement, and ii) certain assurances provided by the developer. The Official Plan and Environmental Agreement amendments designate a thorough development application review by the City with input from GO. More specifically, the City is to "consult with and have regard for the comments of GO Transit" when considering an application to remove the holding symbol.

GO's expectation, therefore, is that the City will consider the adequacy and sufficiency of all studies and the mitigation measures proposed to enable residential uses adjacent to existing and future rail uses. GO's review and comments are restricted to dealing with GO related assumptions in the studies, seeking clarification of reported results and similar issues.

We look to the City for considering the comments that are attached in the decision regarding this application. In brief, our comments relate to compliance with the Environmental Agreement in consulting with GO Transit re: future rail traffic and ensuring adequate future scenarios are considered for the air quality study; clarification of assumptions in the air quality study regarding trains idling in Bathurst North Yard; sensitivity considerations of noise and air quality results with respect to the number of trains idling in the rail corridor; exposure to excessive noise levels if windows are open during non-air conditioning seasons; and consideration of incremental noise mitigation to accommodate future night time exposures.

GO is concerned that should the City's review not take such matters into account, then the cost of mitigation in the future may be imposed on GO and, in turn, on the City which shares in the funding of GO. In GO's view, this result could be avoided now by proper review, with the appropriate conditions being imposed on the developer. For example, the studies have focussed on current users of the rail corridor but have not included considerations of the Federal proposal for an airport service whereby incremental costs for mitigation would have to be funded by proponent agencies.

Furthermore, the City is currently negotiating with the railways for the purchase of Union Station and the associated rail infrastructure. It is therefore in the interest of the City to ensure that rail traffic into the station is not restricted as a result of this development. Hence, we have taken the liberty of copying this letter to Mr. M. Garrett.

Our comments regarding the air quality study, noise and vibration impact study and general application comments are attached as attachments 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

In conclusion, we look to the City for considering these comments in their decision regarding this application with respect to the areas noted above and in the attachments. If you have any further questions, please call.

Attachment 1

Comments - Air Quality Study, Block 21 - Towers A and B, Railway Lands Central, dated 21 June 1999, RWDI

• Pg 4 - "The traffic volumes predicted by GO Transit for the year 2020 showed an increase in existing traffic by almost 250%. This increase in traffic seemed significantly higher than previous 20 year projections provided by GO Transit for earlier studies in the rail corridor....As a result of IBI Group's evaluation, a 100% increase in traffic volume was simulated for the future (2020) traffic scenario."

GO Transit did not provide a prediction of traffic for 2020. Based on meetings with Concord Adex and their consultants, it was our understanding that the study would use future traffic levels identified in the previous air quality analysis. RWDI provided traffic data for 2010 from a study for the CN Tower redevelopment in 1997. GO subsequently suggested changes to the hourly distribution of train moves. The overall number of passenger train moves did not increase. The increase in train moves resulted from revisions to equipment (non-revenue) moves. It appears that the train move tabulations in earlier studies were based on an east storage facility which significantly reduces the number of equipment moves through the west ladder. At this time, with the redevelopment of the Danforth Yard, opportunities for an east storage facility are limited, therefore, equipment moves for the future scenario were prorated upwards accordingly to reflect this situation.

The scenario used in the air quality study derived from the Year 2021 Plan would likely preclude opportunities for service expansions beyond peak period service enhancements on virtually all corridors. The 2021 plan entails a base minimum of enhancements to peak period services and does not include any provision for all day services on the existing limited service corridors or proposed airport services. In that regard, we are mindful of recent decisions of the Canadian Transportation Agency which concluded that, while municipalities are responsible for the risk relating to the approval of residential development near operating rail corridors, that assumption of risk does not extend to increased rail services which were not contemplated or addressed at the time the development was approved. For that reason, GO is particularly concerned to ensure that adequate future service plans are considered, in order to ensure that our stakeholders, which includes the City of Toronto, are not exposed to unanticipated risk limiting service expansions or incrementally increased costs associated with mitigation.

Appendix L does provide an analysis of the higher future traffic scenario, but it does not indicate whether the results are acceptable.

Up until the time of receiving the final report, GO Transit was not advised of this change in future traffic levels used by the consultant. We were consulted in the early stages of the study and an agreed upon approach for future traffic levels was established. By deviating unilaterally in using the reduced future scenario the Environmental Agreement has not been satisfied, and future service enhancements beyond the minimum may be precluded.

• It isn't clear how the Bathurst North Yard source was included in the analysis. Table 2 notes that 3 trains were modelled and the results were scaled to account for 2 to 7 trains idling. For tables 6 to 13, it is not noted what number of trains idling in the yard were used in the analysis. Further, the text of the report indicates that concentrations are projected for the rail corridor without reference to the yard. Therefore, it is not clear how or whether the yard was considered.

The current daily practice is that 3 to 7 locomotives idle simultaneously during the peak 2 hours of the pm yard operation. The analysis should reasonably incorporate this operation.

• The results for the 24 hr criteria for NO₂ and TSP are not reported.

• Pg 8 - The assumption regarding trains idling in the corridor in the pm underestimates the situation. Our observations indicate the equivalent of 2 locomotives idle in the corridor waiting for their allotted platform on a continuous basis over the pm peak. On an occasional but typical basis up to 6 trains can be idling in the corridor.

The assumption in the study is specific to ½-1 train idling in the corridor immediately south of the site.

The study indicates that air quality considerations will be impacted negatively with an increasing number of trains idling in close proximity to the site. The study also indicates that under existing conditions the effects of idling and moving trains negatively affect areas as far away as Front Street. With this information, it is not clear why the assumption restricts idling trains to one area immediately south of the site.

By only considering ½ -1 train idling immediately south of the site, incremental affects of up to 6 idling trains in the vicinity of the site are not considered.

We have a concern in this regard for both current and future operations. Complaints may result in constraints on train queueing location in the near term. Secondly, any reconfiguration or relocation of switches in the future in this area may be constrained as a result of restrictions on train queueing locations. Therefore, the study should offer an opinion on the sensitivity of the results regarding the number of trains queueing in the corridor to enable an assessment of the potential impact on current and future train operations.

• Odour concentration modelled based on the existing site conditions and ½ an idling train as noted in Table 8 indicate a large number of exceedances. This is consistent with our historical experience with complaints from adjacent land owners in this area. The modelling of the built up scenarios indicate an improved situation, as reported. It is not clear how the predicted excessive concentrations (as indicated in Table 8) are dissipated, i.e. are unacceptable odour concentrations being created elsewhere?

Attachment 2

Comments - Revised Noise and Vibration Impact Study, Block 21 - East Development, May 27, 1999, J.E. Coulter Associates Limited

• Pg 3 - "The combination of the increased GO, VIA and CN traffic at night increases by the same factor of about 3 times."

The number of GO trains passing the site at night increases from 11 to 93, an increase much greater than 3 times referred to in the report. Our understanding is that the proposed mitigation measures will result in interior sound levels at or just below acceptable levels. Considering this incremental increase in noise levels for the night time period, higher levels of mitigation may be required.

Pg 3 - Regarding the extent of extraordinary train queuing in the corridor, "This assumption accounts for all but dire conditions that currently occur only 1 or 2 days per year."

The statement that the abovementioned assumption accounts for all but dire conditions that currently occur only 1 or 2 days per year is not accurate. Our previous correspondence to the consultants stated that queues can arise from weather and non-weather related causes (signal/switch problems, platform constraints, equipment problems, late trains, patron illness). For estimating purposes, it was suggested to the consultants that weather related queueing could occur 2-4 times per month during Jan-Feb and 1-3 times per month during Dec-March, otherwise, non-weather related queues occur throughout the year.

Whereas the analysis aims to consider typical conditions, there should be an understanding of the number of times that deviations (which are also typical and somewhat frequent) occur from the conditions used in the analysis.

• Similar to the train queueing in the rail corridor comment in the air quality study noted in attachment 1, the noise study should offer an opinion on the sensitivity of the results regarding the number of trains queueing in the corridor to enable an assessment of the potential impact on future train operations.

• Pg 5 - Bathurst Yard- "Toward the latter part of the afternoon, the engines are restarted and warmed for ½ hour to an hour."

The locomotives are restarted at approximately 1400 hours which is probably better described as mid-afternoon. Also, the locomotives idle for 2 hours to perform safety checks and enable pressure to build for operation of the train.

• Pg 5 - Bathurst Yard - The worst case has been modelled as if all 7 engines idled together for a full hour between 1500 and 1600 hours. This is not a realistic scenario as there will be some staggering of the idling times. However, the extra energy modelled in this scenario realistically accounts for the air conditioner condenser noise that will occur simultaneously."

The idling of 7 locomotives simultaneously is typical of daily operations. The air conditioner condenser noise should therefore be additive to this sound level.

• Pg 5 - Bathurst Yard - "At the busiest hour during the morning start up, between approximately 0500 and 0600, we might anticipate the equivalent of 4 locomotives idling continuously for the full hour (or 6 for 40 minutes each etc.)."

This section is dealing with the possible condition of overnight storage. Similar to the p.m. operation, locomotives would idle for 2 hours and given the peaked nature of our service, yard departures would likely not be staggered. Therefore, an assumption of all 7 trains idling simultaneously should be used.

• Pg 9 - Outdoor Amenity Area

An opinion, as required in the Official Plan and Environmental Agreement, with respect to suitability of balconies for use as amenity space was to be provided in the report. Our concern is that if balconies are provided then some purchasers will have an expectation of being able to use it as an amenity space. Reference to a MOE guideline stating that since the area of the balconies is small then the balconies are not considered amenity space does not satisfy the Official Plan requirements in our opinion.