New Toronto Secondary Plan Study

CITY CLERK

Clause embodied in Joint Report No. 1 of the Planning and Transportation Committee and Economic Development and Parks Committee, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on December 4, 5 and 6, 2001.

(City Council on December 4, 5 and 6, 2001, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The joint Planning and Transportation and Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends that the joint report (November 5, 2001) from the Commissioners of Urban Development Services and of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be adopted, subject to:

(1) amending Recommendation (1) by adding the words “without prejudice to the outcome of the Secondary Plan Study”, so as to read:

“(1) Council endorse the recommendations of the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study, which identifies South Etobicoke as a viable employment area and includes recommended actions which support employment intensification through a concrete Action Plan aimed at building capacity in the food, automotive and media cluster groups without prejudice to the outcome of the Secondary Plan Study”;

(2) deleting Recommendation (5) and replacing it with the following:

“(5) Council direct staff from Urban Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to prepare terms of reference in consultation with affected land owners for the City’s consulting team to undertake the necessary environmental studies including soil and ground water as outlined in this report”; and

(3) adding the following new Recommendations (8) and (9) and renumbering the existing Recommendation (8) as Recommendation (10):

“(8) affected land owners be requested to table all relevant studies and reports with City staff; and

(9) the Commissioners of Urban Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, together with the area Councillor, be requested to establish a process for bringing together all appropriate parties as part of the preparation of the Secondary Plan recommendations and to report back by June 20, 2002.” 2 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

so that the Recommendations of the report, as amended by the foregoing, now read:

(2) Council direct that the findings of the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study be considered by staff when reviewing the land use options for New Toronto;

(3) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to monitor and report on the implementation of the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Action Plan;

(4) Council not endorse a land use option for the New Toronto Secondary Plan study area at this time;

(5) Council direct staff from Urban Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to prepare terms of reference in consultation with affected land owners for the City’s consulting team to undertake the necessary environmental studies including soil and ground water as outlined in this report;

(6) Council direct staff from Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Development Services to prepare terms of reference for an economic study to assess the overall market viability of employment lands in the New Toronto Secondary Plan area. This study shall include, among other things:

(i) a review of market information; and

(ii) an analysis of the economic/fiscal impacts associated with the redesignation of industrial lands in the New Toronto Study area to residential uses and the impact this might have on existing businesses, and the ability to attract new business to this employment area;

(7) Council direct Urban Development Services staff to seek funding from the private landowners in the New Toronto area in order to defray the costs of these studies;

(8) affected land owners be requested to table all relevant studies and reports with City staff; 3 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

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

The Planning and Transportation Committee and the Economic Development and Parks Committee submits the following joint report (November 5, 2001) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is three-fold:

(i) to update Council on the progress of the New Toronto Secondary Plan Study;

(ii) to provide Council with a summary of available information in regard to market conditions for employment uses in South Etobicoke; and,

(iii) to seek Council’s approval to proceed with appropriate studies to assess the viability of implementing either an Employment Focus or a Residential/Employment Mix land use option as the basis for preparing the New Toronto Secondary Plan.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

An additional $62,500.00 is required to undertake the necessary studies to assess the viability of both land use options and to adequately address the concerns raised by the various stakeholders in the New Toronto Study area. Staff propose to seek a portion of this funding from the private landowners in the New Toronto area. Proposals for this funding are contained in the operating budget submissions for the 2002 budget. Staff will be seeking funding from private landowners to help defray the costs.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council endorse the recommendations of the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study, which identifies South Etobicoke as a viable employment area and includes recommended actions which support employment intensification through a concrete Action Plan aimed at building capacity in the food, automotive and media cluster groups;

(2) Council direct that the findings of the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study be considered by staff when reviewing the land use options for New Toronto; 4 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

(3) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to monitor and report on the implementation of the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Action Plan;

(4) Council not endorse a land use option for the New Toronto Secondary Plan study area at this time;

(5) Council direct staff from Urban Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to prepare the terms of reference for the City’s consulting team to undertake the necessary environmental studies as outlined in this report;

(6) Council direct staff from Economic Development Culture and Tourism and Urban Development Services to prepare terms of reference for an economic study to assess the overall market viability of employment lands in the New Toronto Secondary Plan area. This study shall include, among other things:

(i) a review of market information, and

(ii) an analysis of the economic/ fiscal impacts associated with the redesignation of industrial lands in the New Toronto Study area to residential uses and the impact this might have on existing businesses, and the ability to attract new business to this employment area;

(7) Council direct Urban Development Services staff to seek funding from the private landowners in the New Toronto area in order to defray the costs of these studies; and,

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

Executive Summary:

The future of employment lands in South Etobicoke has been under discussion for some time but most recently was the subject of an OMB hearing in 1998 for a residential proposal on 15 acres of land. The OMB decision did not approve the application but did point out that the City needed to do a thorough review of issues through a secondary plan process. That led to a study being initiated and carried out in 1999 and 2000. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Urban Development Services reported to Planning and Transportation Committee in June of this year (as referred to in this report). The study raised further issues that need analysis and review and this report recommends that this work be done.

The reasons for waiting until this work is finished is that the City needs to make a decision based on the best information available. It is very probable that any decision will be challenged at the OMB and the City should be thorough and complete and not make a premature decision. This issue is important enough to warrant a joint meeting of the Planning and Transportation and Economic Development and Parks Committees and it will have City-wide implications. 5 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

Background:

At its meeting of June 4th, 2001, Planning and Transportation Committee received a report from Urban Development Services (UDS) staff (dated May 9th, 2001) seeking Council’s endorsement, in principle, of a revised Residential/Employment Mix use land option for the New Toronto area and the approval to carry out detailed environmental assessments of this option to determine whether or not it could be implemented as the basis for developing the New Toronto Secondary Plan. Several businesses and organizations, including the Canadian National Railway and the South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association (SEIEA), expressed their concerns at the June 4th Planning and Transportation Committee meeting over staff’s recommendation respecting the introduction of residential uses into this long established employment area. Representatives of the Urban Renaissance Group, the owner of the former Canadian General Tower (CGT) site in New Toronto, expressed their support for the mixed residential/employment land use plan. Planning and Transportation Committee deferred consideration of the May 9th report and directed the Commissioner of Urban Development Services to bring a further report to the September 11th Planning and Transportation Committee meeting.

Between the June 4th and September 11th Planning and Transportation Committee meetings, Economic Development, Tourism and Culture staff brought forward a report (dated June 18, 2001) to the July 19th, 2001 on the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study which provides an assessment of the dominant and emerging clusters in South Etobicoke and an action strategy to build on the area’s strength. In the report, staff recommended, among other things, that the findings of the study be endorsed by the Economic Development and Parks Committee and Council and that the report be forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Committee and Etobicoke Community Council for their information and consideration when reviewing land use options for the New Toronto study.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee adopted this report and also added three additional actions. This report was subsequently forwarded to City Council’s meeting of July 24, 25 and 26, 2001. Council struck out the recommendations made by the Economic Development and Parks Committee and directed that the Commissioners of Urban Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism prepare a joint report on the New Toronto Secondary Plan. As a result of this direction, Urban Development Services Staff did not bring forward a report to the September 11th Planning and Transportation Committee.

This report addresses Council’s direction to the Commissioners of Urban Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for a joint report on the New Toronto Secondary Plan study.

Study Background:

In the May 9th, 2001 report, UDS Staff provided the background to the New Toronto Secondary Plan noting the Ontario Municipal Board’s direction from the 1999 CGT hearing that a secondary plan be prepared for the New Toronto Area. This analysis leads to the identification of a number of opportunities and constraints to development in the New Toronto area. 6 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

The findings of the Phase I Background Analysis Study were then used to develop land use options in Phase II of the study, the “Option Review” stage. The May 9th report provided a detailed description of the two land use options: Option 1, “The Employment Focus”; and Option 2, the “Residential/Employment Mix” use option. A revised Option 2 was also described in the report. The May 9th staff report highlighted the differences among the alternative options as well as the concerns and interests of the various parties in the New Toronto area. The staff report identified the need for additional studies to be undertaken before the City could determine the appropriateness of the Residential/Employment Mix land use option.

The remainder of this report sets out an approach to moving forward with the New Toronto Secondary Plan, and highlights the need for additional studies to address concerns prior to identifying the appropriate land use option for the New Toronto Study area.

Comments:

The principal issue of the debate and discussion at the June 4, 2001 Planning and Transportation Committee meeting (New Toronto Secondary Plan Land Use Option) and the July 9, 2001 Economic Development and Parks Committee meeting (South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study) was the potential conversion of the southern portion of the Ivaco and CGT sites currently designated for employment uses to residential and other non-employment uses.

In considering this issue Council must attempt to balance a number of important and sometimes competing interests, including the need for additional housing units, employment growth, environmental concerns, impact on municipal tax revenue and servicing costs and compatibility with the surrounding community. These competing interests are evident within the New Toronto Employment area. Over the course of the study, staff have met with the various stakeholders in the New Toronto area and consulted with other City departments to discuss their visions for the area and to listen to their issues and concerns regarding the land use options identified by staff. The issues and concerns of these stakeholders are discussed below.

South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association (SEIEA)

The South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association (SEIEA) is a group of 9 companies located within the South Etobicoke area, including Campbell Soup, Nabisco, Castrol Oil, National Silicates, WMI Waste, Pliant, Dominion Colour, Protek, and Cognis. These companies provide over 2,000 jobs, have payroll expenditures exceeding $75 million per year, and capital investments averaging $30 million per year. Several of these companies are either located within or adjacent to the secondary plan area. The South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association has informed staff that they support Option 1, the Employment Focus land use, and do not support any land use option that contains a residential component. The SEIEA industries are concerned that any additional residential development in the New Toronto area would have detrimental impacts on their operations. Additional complaints from new residents in the area may require them to curtail their operations or invest in costly mitigation measures, such as those imposed on Pliant Corp. as a result of residential redevelopment on the adjacent Goodyear site. This affects profitability and could eventually lead to the closure of operations. 7 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

At the June 4th Planning and Transportation Committee meeting, SEIEA expressed its concern over the staff recommendation that Council endorse, in principle, the Revised Land Use Option 2. This recommendation is no longer active as a result of the deferral of the May 9th staff report to Planning and Transportation Committee and Council’s direction (from its July 23, 24 and 25 meeting) that the Commissioners of Urban Development Service and Economic Development, Tourism and Culture prepare a joint report on the New Toronto Study.

Canadian National Railway and GO Transit

Mr. Allan Heisey, the Solicitor for both CN Rail and GO Transit, has informed staff of the Rail Operators’ concerns over the possible approval of any land use option containing a residential component as GO and CN believe that this would have a negative impact on their operations and any future expansion plans. Mr. Heisey cites the MOE Separation Guideline of 300 metres between the CN rail yard and any residential development as the reason to not allow any residential development on the southern portion of the Ivaco or CGT properties.

The Urban Renaissance Group

Mr. Varone (The Urban Renaissance Group) is generally supportive of the revised Land Use Option 2. He is aware that additional studies will be required to address the environmental issues and to determine if any residential units may be permitted on his site (CGT) and the adjoining Ivaco site as well as the appropriate number of units.

Ivaco

Since the June 4th Planning and Transportation Committee meeting, the Director of Community Planning for the West District, the Director of Business Development and Retention, and the study’s consultant have met with Mr. Paul Ivanier, CEO, Ivaco, and other senior representatives from Ivaco, to apprise them of the progress of the new Toronto Study and to see if some progress could be made in advancing the study. A letter outlining the results of this meeting is attached as Attachment No. 1. Mr. Ivanier has stated that Ivaco supports Land Use Option 2, the Residential/Employment Mix, and would only support minor adjustments to the width of the buffer along New Toronto Street. Ivaco believes that any enlargement of the buffer area would create an undesirable parcel from both a residential and employment perspective.

South Etobicoke Regeneration Project

The South Etobicoke Regeneration Project (SERP) is a strategic reinvestment initiative operated through a community-based public/private partnership. SERP is the largest and most comprehensive of 11 active Employment Revitalization project areas in the City. The strength and breadth of stakeholder participation is demonstrated by SERP’s broad partnerships, which includes, Lakeshore Area Multi-Services Project, Vacant Industrial Landowners, local Business Improvement Areas (BIA’s), Lakeshore Ratepayers Association, the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, the Assembly Hall, Canadian National Railway, Citizens Concerned About the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront (CCFEW), Castrol Canada Inc., Humber College, the Lakeshore Planning Council, the South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association (SEIEA), and Lakeshore Arts. 8 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

SERP’s mandate is to encourage reinvestment across all economic sectors of South Etobicoke, to build on the many significant private and public investments that have been made over the last decade, and to provide more labour market opportunities and stability across the area. SERP was formed to explore and expand comprehensive adjustment measures and prospects through a local employment reinvestment strategy.

The following joint federal, municipal, and community initiatives are consistent with retaining a strong employment focus in South Etobicoke:

(a) the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study (SEECCS) finalized in May 2001, and modelled after the City’s recently completed initiative, Toronto Competes, was jointly financed by the City of Toronto and the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (Ontario). Perhaps the most significant finding of the SEECCS is that South Etobicoke is a viable employment area and an important and growing manufacturing centre in the City of Toronto. The report presents a platform that supports employment intensification through a concrete Action Plan aimed at building capacity in the food, automotive and media cluster groups;

(b) the South Etobicoke Telecommunication Audit was recently completed. The findings of this review indicate that a well-developed fibre optic network serves South Etobicoke, providing a full complement of telecommunication services;

(c) a capital design study has recently been tendered by the City of Toronto to examine opportunities for physical enhancements within the South Etobicoke employment area. These enhancements could include curbs, sidewalks, signage, and tree planting;

(d) the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project is currently undertaking an area branding and marketing and promotions initiative;

(e) a food commercialization Centre feasibility review/business plan is currently underway to meet the needs of local and regional food processing companies, and to build capacity within this important economic cluster. Many stakeholders, including but not limited to, the City of Toronto, Humber College, South Etobicoke Industrial Employer Association, and HRDC are participating in this initiative. Various partnership opportunities for the physical (land/ building) and logistical (equipment) requirements will be pursued; and

(f) a five year labour market readiness and training project is currently under review. This initiative includes participation from many stakeholders, including the City of Toronto, Humber College, HRDC, and the South Etobicoke Industrial Employer Association. This initiative will examine opportunities for meeting the labour needs of local business.

Market Conditions for Employment Uses in South Etobicoke

Economic Development Division staff has prepared a summary of market conditions for employment uses in the City of Toronto, Wards 1-6 (formerly Etobicoke) and Ward 6 (South Etobicoke). This summary, attached as Attachment 2, outlines the industrial and commercial market viability of the New Toronto Secondary Plan area, and provides a perspective on the 9 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2 competitive characteristics of this employment area. This market information includes, among others: employment; value of industrial/ commercial permits; building/land enquiries; recent real estate activity, vacancy rates, available vacant land, and absorption patterns.

Need for Further Studies

While staff and the consultant team have attempted to reach a consensus with the various stakeholders on a land use option to serve as the basis for the New Toronto Secondary Plan, the different interests appear to be entrenched in their positions over the potential redesignation of the southern portion of the Ivaco and CGT sites from employment uses to residential. Staff and the New Toronto consultant team firmly believe that the next step in the New Toronto study process is the preparation of several secondary studies addressing:

(i) environmental issues such as noise and vibration, soil remediation, and risk assessment related to the potential introduction of residential uses; and

(ii) economic issues including a review of market information, and an analysis of the economic/fiscal implications associated with the redesignation of industrial lands in the New Toronto Study area to residential uses, the impact this might have on existing business, and the ability to attract new business to this employment area.

These studies will assist staff and Council in making and defending decisions in regard to the most appropriate land use option for the Secondary Plan. The content of these studies are outlined in the next section. The Terms of Reference for the following studies would be prepared jointly by staff from UDS and EDCT. The studies will rely upon as broad an information base as possible and include, among others, the findings of the New Toronto Secondary Plan Background Studies, South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study, studies and/information provided by land owners, and other available data.

Economic Study

Over the course of the New Toronto study, staff have listened to opposing views from the various interests in New Toronto over whether or not there is demand for the New Toronto employment lands to be used for industrial/employment uses. Mr. Toni Varone, owner of the Urban Renaissance Group (CGT Lands), has advised staff that his efforts to market his site for employment uses have been unsuccessful. He has supported his claim with a number of studies. Ivaco also claims that there is no demand for employment uses, a position that they argue is supported by the fact that these lands have remained vacant for over ten years.

Those supporting the retention of the New Toronto lands for employment purposes argue that there is a demand for employment uses, but that the unrealistic selling prices being sought by the owners, and the possibility of higher returns from the redesignation of their lands, are the underlying reasons that these lands have not sold for employment uses. A comparative analysis in Attachment 2 reflects on the differences in land values for industrial and residential property in Toronto. 10 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

SEIEA engaged a consultant to prepare viable development alternatives for employment uses in the New Toronto Secondary Plan study area. These alternative scenarios were premised on recently completed industrial/commercial projects in the GTA taking into account current economic trends. SEIEA presented these employment scenarios to staff and the study’s consultant in June 2001.

The economic study will assess the overall market viability of employment lands in the New Toronto Secondary Plan and review market information already completed in Attachment No. 2. This study will provide an analysis of the economic and fiscal impacts associated with the redesignation of industrial lands in the New Toronto Study area to residential uses and the impact this might have on existing business, and the ability to attract new business to this employment area.

Noise and Vibration Study

With respect to the issue of noise, the focus of the New Toronto Study has been on whether appropriate measures could be put in place to mitigate the noise created from the CN Rail yard activities on any potential residential development located on the southern portion of the Ivaco and CGT sites. The CN rail yard is classified as a Class III operation under the Ministry of Environment Guidelines (MOE Guideline D-6). The MOE guidelines also contemplate situations where it may not be appropriate to locate residential uses closer than 300 metres, such as on the southern portion of the Ivaco and CGT sites. But, as further recommended by the Guidelines, this will have to be verified by a feasibility analysis which would require the provision of a detailed study based on specific site plans including the effects of the size and configuration of the employment buildings located on the northern portions of these two sites on the distance separation recommended.

In preliminary discussions, the noise and vibration consultant for the New Toronto Secondary Plan study has indicated that a distance of less than 300 metres may be acceptable separation distance between the CN lands and potential residential uses on the southern portions of the Ivaco and CGT sites. However, the appropriate distance will have to be verified by a detailed study based on specific site plans. It will depend on factors such as height and massing of employment buildings located on the northern portions of these two sites. He notes that part of the study would investigate the effects of the size and configuration of the employment buildings on distance buffer requirements.

The proposed noise and vibration study would assess whether appropriate buffering could be implemented to allow for residential uses on the southern portions of the Ivaco and CGT lands as shown on Land Use Option 2 and/or the Revised Land Use Option 2. It would also assist in determining whether there is an appropriate separation distance between the CN Rail lands and any potential residential development on the CGT and Ivaco sites, along with the appropriate size and massing of the buildings to serve as buffers. 11 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

Risk Assessment

Staff has been advised that some companies present a higher risk due to the type and quantity of materials handled in their operations. A Risk Assessment study would identify any dangers to potential residents or employees from the existing industrial operations in the New Toronto area. It would also identify appropriate mitigation measures or policies that could be incorporated in the New Toronto Secondary Plan to ensure the safety of residents or employees in the area.

Air Quality

Some existing operations are considered a Class III industrial use based on air quality standards under the MOE guidelines. The air quality study would assist staff to determine if residential uses are appropriate.

Soils Study Review In discussions with Ivaco, Mr. Ivanier, CEO, Ivaco Ltd., advised staff that the Ivaco site can be remediated for a full range of uses. He also made it clear that he will not provide the City with a soil or ground water remediation plan (see Attachment No. 1). According to Mr. Ivanier, only a new owner of the site, who is preparing to redevelop the site, could provide the City with the remediation plan. Staff will need confirmation from Ivaco’s soil consultant that the soils can indeed be cleaned up for all uses, including residential.

Conclusion:

Staff and the consulting team have spent considerable time and effort over the past year-and-a-half listening to the various interests in the New Toronto area in an effort to identify the appropriate land use option to serve as the basis for the New Toronto Secondary Plan. From the concerns raised in these discussions, it is apparent to staff that additional studies are needed to assess the environmental issues in the area. As the extent of these issues was not anticipated by UDS staff at the outset of the study, insufficient funds were allocated to this project. Staff from UDS are now recommending that Council direct staff to seek these funds from the private landowners in the New Toronto area so that the costs of the studies are shared between the City and the private interests. The critical outstanding issues are environmental concerns (noise/vibration, air, soil, risk assessment) related to the introduction of residential uses and economic concerns related to the market viability for new employment uses and the impact created by new residential development on existing and future employment uses in the New Toronto Secondary Plan Study Area. Staff recommend that Council further address these two issues prior to a decision on a future land use option for the New Toronto Area.

Without the information provided by these studies, UDS staff cannot endorse any land use options at this time. Furthermore, these recommended studies are required to assess any change to the current industrial land use designation in the New Toronto area. A change to non- employment uses must be assessed against the industrial policies of the Etobicoke Official Plan, a point emphasized by the Ontario Municipal Board in its 1999 decision regarding the CGT lands. Staff estimate that the studies can be completed by Spring 2002. 12 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

Contact:

Gary Wright, Director, Community Planning, West District, City Planning Tel: (416) 394-8211; Fax: (416) 394-6063; E-mail: [email protected]

Bruce Graham, Director, Business Development and Retention, Economic Development Tel: (416) 392-3381; Fax: (416) 395-7444; E-mail: [email protected]

The joint Planning and Transportation Committee and the Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (August 1, 2001) from the Acting City Clerk:

City Council at its meeting held on July 24, 25 and 26, 2001, had before it, Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 7 of The Economic Development and Parks Committee, headed “South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study (Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore)”.

Council struck out and referred this Clause to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for a joint report thereon, and on the New Toronto Secondary plan; and requested the Chairs of the Planning and Transportation Committee and the Economic Development and Parks Committee and the Ward Councillor to consult on a joint meeting of the two Standing Committees to consider the further joint report.

______

(Clause No. 1 of Report No. 7 of the Economic Development and Parks Committee, headed “South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study (Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore), which City Council on July 24, 25 and 26, 2001, struck out and referred to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for a joint report thereon, and on the New Toronto Secondary plan; and requested the Chairs of the Planning and Transportation Committee and the Economic Development and Parks Committee and the Ward Councillor to consult on a joint meeting of the two Standing Committees to consider the further joint report)

The Economic Development and Parks Committee recommends adoption of the report (June 18, 2001) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, subject to adding the following:

“(a) a joint meeting of the Economic Development and Parks Committee and the Planning and Transportation Committee be held in the Fall (2001) to discuss ‘land use’ issues in the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster area and other areas throughout the City; 13 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

(b) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to attend the aforementioned joint meeting and provide an update on where the process stands, including co-ordination between departments on the conversion of commercial and industrial lands to residential and innovative designs other Cities have developed in that regard; and

(c) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to actively participate in the development of the new Toronto Secondary Plan for the City of Toronto.”

The Economic Development and Parks Committee submits the following report (June 18, 2001) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose: The purpose of this report is to provide an overview on the findings and recommendations contained in the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations: It is recommended that:

(1) the findings and recommendations of the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study be endorsed by the Economic Development and Parks Committee and Council;

(2) this report be forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Committee and Etobicoke Community Council for their information and consideration when reviewing land use options for the New Toronto Secondary Plan;

(3) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to monitor and report on implementation of the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Action Plan; and (4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background: South Etobicoke is located in the southwest quadrant of the City and includes the area south of the Queen Elizabeth Highway to Lake Ontario and west of the Humber River to the Etobicoke Creek, as shown on Attachment No. 1. In 1999, South Etobicoke was identified as an “Employment Revitalization Program Area” and private and public resources (including funds from Human Resources Development Canada) were successfully leveraged to revitalize the area. This initiative has facilitated a collaborative community based process designed to encourage reinvestment in the community. 14 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

The South Etobicoke Regeneration Program (SERP) is the largest and most comprehensive of eleven active Employment Revitalization project areas in the City. The strength and breadth of stakeholder participation is demonstrated by the many signatories to the Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) agreement, which include Lakeshore Area Multi-Services Project, Vacant Industrial Landowners, local Business Improvement Areas (BIAs), Lakeshore Ratepayers Association, the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, the Assembly Hall, Canadian National Railway, Citizens Concerned about the Future of the Etobicoke Waterfront (CCFEW), Castrol Canada Inc., Humber College, the Lakeshore Planning Council, the South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association (SEIEA) and Lakeshore Arts.

In spring 2000 SERP completed its Blueprint for Action, a broad strategy to increase local employment through community capacity building, partnership development, reinvestment advocacy and area marketing and promotion. This document was approved by Council and referred to various City departments for action. An implementation framework was subsequently created under the direction of the SERP Steering Committee and four work groups were formed: Business Attraction and Retention; Physical Infrastructure; Social Infrastructure; and Marketing and Promotions. Each work group is co-chaired by a community and City staff representative.

One of the action items identified by the Business Attraction and Retention (BAR) Work Group was an analysis of economic cluster activities and labour force adjustments/requirements in South Etobicoke, building on the findings and recommendations outlined in the City of Toronto report, entitled “Toronto Competes” and the City’s recently released Economic Development Strategy. Similarly, the work was intended to complement the efforts undertaken in the Toronto Official Plan Directions Report, Toronto at the Crossroads: Shaping Our Future, where Urban Development Services reference the GTA forecast of 540,000 additional jobs and articulate the need to accommodate this job growth within the City structure.

Comments:

The South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study, provided in Attachment No. 2, was prepared under the direction of the Business Attraction and Retention Work Group of the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project (SERP). Perhaps the most significant finding of the report is that South Etobicoke is a viable employment area and an important and growing manufacturing centre in the City of Toronto. The findings of the study are summarized below under the headings of employment growth and characteristics, dominant business clusters and area advantages.

Employment Growth Characteristics in South Etobicoke:

(a) Following the economic restructuring and recession of the early 1990s, South Etobicoke made a successful transition, adapting well to the forces of globalization and modern production processes; this is evident by the large number of firms that have made recent investments in plant and machinery; an example, the nine companies that currently comprise the South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association are collectively investing at a rate of almost $17 million per year in capital improvements; this is projected to grow provided there is a stable investment environment; 15 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

(b) over the past five years, manufacturing employment has grown more quickly in South Etobicoke than in the City (18 percent compared to 14 percent);

(d) there are 24,365 people employed in South Etobicoke, including a large number of skilled trades and crafts people;

(e) approximately 33 percent of the labour force live in the area; and

(f) over 40 percent of the local labour force are involved in manufacturing.

Dominant Business Clusters in South Etobicoke:

(a) Food processing and automotive manufacturing are highly concentrated, with 14 and 22 percent, respectively, of total City employment for these sectors;

(b) over the past five years, food and beverage processing grew by 16 percent, compared to 5 percent in the City overall and automotive parts manufacturing grew by 34 percent, compared to 7 percent in the City overall;

(c) the media cluster (photography, graphics, communications, program and film distribution, radio and TV, advertising, printing, and reproduction of tapes, films, and records) grew by 111 percent in South Etobicoke compared to 11 percent across the City over the past four to five years; and

(d) there are very strong inter-firm linkages in the area, particularly with respect to packaging, machinery manufacturers and repair shops, transportation/logistics operations and chemical manufacturers.

Area Advantages:

(a) The area possesses excellent road and rail infrastructure and is in close proximity to the airport and downtown;

(b) there are excellent opportunities for meeting the City’s population targets within the South Etobicoke area without jeopardizing the current supply of employment lands; there is a substantial amount of land currently designated and zoned for residential uses, but currently not built out (approximately 4,500 units) and significant “Avenues” intensification along Lakeshore Boulevard, both consistent with the policy framework established in the Toronto Official Plan Directions Report, Toronto at the Crossroads: Shaping Our Future;

(c) there is an increasing supply of new housing units in the area, particularly to the east, that provide accommodation for a range of household types and incomes to meet the City’s housing objectives; 16 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

(d) South Etobicoke has a robust and scalable telecommunication network that provides a full complement of services to business customers in all employment areas;

(e) South Etobicoke is served by a well developed fibre optic network;

(f) deregulation of the telecommunications industry has provided an extremely competitive marketplace decidedly in the customer’s favour in South Etobicoke compared to other jurisdictions in North America; and

(g) there is an active and innovative business community willing to work in partnership with the City, Province and Federal governments.

The report identifies an Action Strategy designed to build on the strengths of the area to contain employment sprawl, ensure employment and assessment growth and retention and provide for the efficient use of existing infrastructure. The main themes of the Action Plan are described below.

Create a Positive Investment Climate for South Etobicoke:

The report indicates that the most important issue related to the continuing vitality of the employment area is the need for employers and investors to have a greater degree of land use certainty. Decisions need to be made as quickly as possible on the New Toronto Secondary Plan to ensure the integrity of this manufacturing centre.

Food/Automotive/Media Cluster Initiatives:

Several initiatives are identified in the Action Plan to build capacity in the dominant and emerging cluster groups, specifically, food, automotive and media. These initiatives involve the participation of numerous stakeholders, including community groups, educational institutions, employment agencies, as well as the municipal and provincial government.

Skills Development: The Action Plan also addresses skill development and readiness. The employers in South Etobicoke recognize that modern work environments have increased demand for more computer literate and technically sophisticated employees to operate machinery and equipment. SERP’s current project application to HRDC includes partnership initiatives with local industry, employment agencies, and the federal government to increase labour market skill development and labour force participation.

Marketing: A number of marketing actions are proposed in the report. These actions primarily relate to a marketing campaign emphasizing local attributes, including proximity to the airport and downtown, excellent transportation and telecom infrastructure, an industrial profile and real estate information highlighting reasonable rental rates and land costs vis-a-vis other parts of the City. The South Etobicoke Regeneration Project’s Marketing Workgroup is currently developing a marketing toolkit for use in promoting the area to prospective investors. 17 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

Infrastructure and Amenities:

South Etobicoke has good infrastructure in reasonable repair and the City is undertaking road, sewer and watermain upgrades as part of its five-year capital maintenance program. Action items primarily relate to these initiatives to enhance the image/attractiveness of the area.

Conclusions:

Employment uses in South Etobicoke are significantly more competitive than a decade ago, with many viable companies in production seven days a week, 24 hours a day. In fact, South Etobicoke represents a vital and important manufacturing center in the City of Toronto. In addition to providing employment for local residents, employment properties in South Etobicoke represent approximately 15 percent of the total CVA in Ward 6 but contribute about 52 percent of the total property tax revenue.

Since inception of the South Etobicoke Regeneration Project in 1999, remarkable local energy and resources have been applied to a number of initiatives directed at community revitalization/reinvestment. The level of community interest and involvement among numerous stakeholder groups, supported by strong federal and municipal political advocacy, sustain the success of this community based partnership.

The Action Plan identified in the Employer Cluster Capacity Study represents an extension of the community work undertaken over the past few months, with a platform that supports employment intensification. A co-ordinated and focused approach will be required to successfully realize the opportunities identified in the Plan, particularly as they relate to ensuring the integrity of this employment area as an important manufacturing centre through the New Toronto Secondary Plan, building capacity in the food, automotive and media cluster groups, developing labour market skills, enhancing the image/attractiveness of the area through capital improvements and marketing and promoting the area to prospective investors.

Contact Name:

Ms. Brenda Librecz, Managing Director, Economic Development Division, Telephone: 416-397-4700, Fax: 416-395-0388, E-mail: [email protected].

(Copies of Attachment No. 1, entitled “South Etobicoke Key Map” and Attachment No. 2, entitled “South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study”, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the July 9, 2001 agenda of the Economic Development and Parks Committee and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

______

The Economic Development and Parks Committee also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter the following communications in support of the recommendations embodied in the aforementioned report: 18 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

- (July 6, 2001) from Ms. N. Jane Pepino, C.M., Q.C., Aird & Berlis, LLP, Barristers and Solicitors, representing the South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association (SEIEA); and

- (July 6, 2001) from Mr. A. Milliken Heisey, Q.C., Papazian, Heisey, Myers, Barristers and Solicitors, representing the Canadian National Railway.

______

The following persons appeared before the Economic Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. John Gladki, Principal Consultant, GHK International; - Mr. Alan Milliken Heisey, Q.C., Papazian, Heisey, Myers, Barristers and Solicitors; and - Mr. Ian Brown, Executive Director, South Etobicoke Employers Association; and - Councillor Irene Jones, Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

The joint Planning and Transportation Committee and the Economic Development and Parks Committee also submits the following communication (October 27, 2001) from the City Clerk, Planning and Transportation Committee:

At its meeting on June 4, 2001, the Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the following reports and communications respecting the New Toronto Secondary Plan and deferred consideration of this matter to its meeting on September 11, 2001. In view of Council’s action taken at its meeting on July 24, 25 and 26, 2001 whereby it, in part, requested the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development Culture and Tourism to prepare a joint report on the New Toronto Secondary Plan and the South Etobicoke Employer Cluster Capacity Study for consideration at the joint meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee and the Economic Development and Parks Committee, the following material is submitted for consideration at this joint meeting:

- Commissioner, Urban Development Services (May 9, 2001)

Seeking Council’s approval to carry out a detailed assessment of a revised land use option for the New Toronto Secondary Plan Study and recommending that:

(1) Council endorse, in principle, revised Option 2, as outlined in this report;

(2) Council direct Urban Development Services staff and the consultant team to continue discussions with the various interests in the New Toronto Secondary Plan study area in an effort to address their concerns in developing the revised Option 2 for the New Toronto area and to seek funding from the landowners to undertake further study; and,

(3) Planning and Transportation Committee forward this report to the West Community Council for their review and comments to Council. 19 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

- Gary Waddington Regional Manager - Central Canada Canadian National Railway Properties Inc. (May 29, 2001)

Reaffirming their position in favour of Option 1, the all-employment option, and noting that any proposal that includes residential uses within 300 meters of the CN Mimico Yard is unacceptable to CN.

- Al Brezina, President South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association (May 28, 2001)

Requesting the necessary level of study be conducted before any options involving introduction of residential use to this industrial area are presented to City committees or Council.

- Brian Mirsky Campbell’s Soup Co. Ltd. (June 1, 2001)

Objecting to the recommendations in the report which permit “mixed use” (employment and residential) for the study area which is incompatible with their operations.

- N. Jane Pepino, C.M., Q.C. Aird & Berlis LLP Barristers and Solicitors obo South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association (SEIEA) (June 1, 2001)

Opposing the recommendations of the report because they do not satisfy the OMB’s direction, the Ministry of Environment’s Guidelines for Land Use Planning, or the City’s own Official Plan tests for changed land use designation.

- Paul De Francesca Lang Michener Barristers & Solicitors obo National Silicates Partnership ("National Silicates") (June 1, 2001)

Objecting to the recommendations by staff.

- Paul De Francesca Lang Michener Barristers & Solicitors obo Dominion Colour Corporation (Dominion") (June 1, 2001) 20 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

Objecting to the recommendations by staff and supporting Option 1 contained in the report.

- A. Milliken Heisey Kerzner, Papazian, MacDermid Barristers and Solicitors obo Canadian National Railway (June 1, 2001)

Noting that it is CN’s position that the report does not satisfactorily address the Provincial Policy Statement, the Ministry of Environment Guidelines, or the OMB decision of Member Watty ______

(Report dated May 9, 2001 from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, addressed to the Planning and Transportation Committee)

Purpose:

To seek Council’s approval to carry out a detailed assessment of a revised land use option for the New Toronto Secondary Plan Study.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Additional funding is required to complete a Secondary Plan which considers a mix of employment and residential uses due to issues that have arisen during the study of this land. Funding sources are not available at this time and staff are requesting approval to seek funding from private sources.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council endorse, in principle, revised Option 2, as outlined in this report;

(3) Planning and Transportation Committee forward this report to the West Community Council for their review and comments to Council. 21 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

Background:

In September 1999, Etobicoke Community Council approved the terms of reference for the New Toronto Secondary Plan study. In general, the study area is bounded by the CN main line on the north, Kipling Avenue on the west, Birmingham Street on the south and Dwight Avenue, Drummond Street (including lands on the south side) and Royal York Road on the east (see Attachment No. 1 - Map 1). The area comprises approximately 320 acres.

The need for a comprehensive secondary plan study for the New Toronto area was precipitated by the Ontario Municipal Board’s (OMB) 1999 decision on an application by Canadian General Tower for a mixed used development containing 154 residential units (see Attachment No. 2 - Map 2). In its decision, the OMB noted that despite the numerous studies that have been done for the New Toronto area over the years, there was an “unfortunate failure to translate these investigations into an integrated, coherent, comprehensive framework with sufficient detail to guide all affected interests”. The OMB identified the need for a secondary plan to “come to terms with the activities, role and functions and land use ramifications of CN Rail and its affiliates within the district” and to address the feasibility of continuing industry in the area based on the tests for the redesignation of industrial lands as set out in the Etobicoke Official Plan.

In December of 1999, the firm of Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd. was hired to undertake the New Toronto Secondary Plan Study. The study team also included noise, air quality, transportation, soil, and economic consultants. The study is divided into three phases: Phase I – “Background Review and Analysis”; Phase II – “Option Review” and Phase III - “Secondary Plan Development.” To date, Phase I and the majority of the work on Phase II of the study have been completed.

The Phase I “Background Study” report included a review and analysis of key factors affecting land use development in the New Toronto area including: current policy and land use issues; economic trends in the area and opportunities and constraints for the New Toronto area; a transportation analysis which reviewed the regional and local transportation system and identified long term planned improvements; a brief examination of servicing including water supply and distribution; and a review of environmental issues such as noise and air quality and the condition of soil and groundwater, which considered the Ministry of Environment Guidelines for the use of Contaminated sites in Ontario for new development.

A set of opportunities and constraints to development in the study area were then developed based on this background analysis. This analysis demonstrated the difficulties inherent in redevelopment of the New Toronto area and in particular the environmental constraints with respect to residential development and the limited potential for employment uses from a financial feasibility/marketability perspective.

The findings of the “Background Study” were then used to develop land use options for the New Toronto Secondary Plan area. The overall policy context for the study area is being derived from the Official Plans of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Etobicoke and the new Toronto Official Plan Directions Report and the Provincial Policy Statement. The options developed for the Secondary Plan reflected certain policy directions including: 22 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

(i) Ensuring that development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns are avoided and requiring studies prior to development where there are concerns with land, water, air quality, noise, vibration and safety;

(ii) Protection of significant transportation corridors and infrastructure facilities and significant built heritage resources; and,

(iii) Requirement for the restoration of contaminated sites prior to redevelopment.

Development Scenarios

Two land use options were developed based on the analysis undertaken in the Background Report and the general policy directions: Option 1: “Employment Focus” (see Attachment No. 3 - Map 3) and Option 2 “Residential/ Employment Mix” (see Attachment No. 4 - Map 4). The land use options were set out in the consultants report, “Policy Directions and Landuse Options”, dated November 2000.

A set of evaluation measures were developed to assess the appropriateness of each option. These measures included, among other things: land use compatibility with existing uses including the application of MOE Guidelines; the relationship to existing industrial lands and their ability to continue as viable industrial areas; the cost of hard and soft servicing for new development and redevelopment; and the ability to meet other considerations as set out in the Etobicoke and Metro Official Plans to accommodate new residential development (e.g. adequacy of local social services and educational services). The Phase II, “Policy Directions and Land Use Options” report sets out in detail the application of the evaluation measures to Land Use Options 1 and 2. It is important to note that the evaluation measures were not weighted and the evaluation was intended to provide a basis for discussion among all the participants in the study process which would lead to the development of the future planning area. The evaluation of both options indicated that they both deserved consideration.

Option 1: Employment Focus

In Option 1 most of the secondary plan area would be designated “Employment”. This includes the major vacant sites of 1402249 Ontario Ltd., Ivaco Inc. and Crown Cork and Seal Canada Inc (See Attachment 3 – Map 3). It should be noted that 1402249 Ontario Inc. is commonly referred to as the former CGT site (Canadian General Tower Site) and is now owned by The Urban Renaissance Group. The “Employment” designation would permit a full range of non-residential uses including institutional (other than sensitive land uses such as schools), commercial, office, recreation and industrial. Any large scale commercial uses would be required to submit a market study to ensure that there is no significant impact on the Lakeshore Commercial Area.

The lands south of Birmingham Street would be designated “Transitional”, recognizing the existing industrial uses, while at the same time allowing for the conversion to other industrial or employment/residential uses that are more compatible with the abutting residential uses to the east and south. The lands at 411 Kipling Avenue (Waddington Development Corp.) would be designated “Commercial/Residential” to permit commercial, as well as medium density 23 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2 residential uses. The residential development on Toffee Court and Sixth Street would be designated “Existing Residential” with special policies to recognize and protect these communities. Redevelopment of large portions of these areas for employment uses would also be permitted. Finally, the north side of Birmingham Street between Islington Avenue and the Crown Cork and Seal site and along the west side of Royal York Road would be designated “Commercial/Residential” to recognize existing uses and permit similar new development.

In the case of Option 1, “Employment Focus”, it was found to provide the best opportunity to resolve environmental and land use compatibility concerns with development in the Secondary Plan Area. It also reinforces the stability of the existing employment uses in the area. However, there is still an issue with respect to the actual potential for the development of the vacant “brownfield” lands for employment uses. This uncertainty relates to the financial feasibility/marketability of such development, but also to the limitation on the form and type of permitted development because of the proximity to existing residential uses. Simply stated, the benefits of this option cannot be achieved unless it can be implemented.

Option 2: Residential/Employment Mix

Under Option 2, (See Attachment 4 – Map 4) the lands along the north side of New Toronto Street, as well as the Crown Cork and Seal, Dover and Campbell’s Soup sites would be designated for Employment uses similar to Option 1. However, the lands along the south side of New Toronto Street, west of Toffee Court, would be designated to permit “Light Employment” (i.e. office, commercial, light industry) that would be compatible with abutting residential. The “Light Employment” uses would also serve as a buffer between the CN Rail Yard and proposed residential uses south of New Toronto Street. The Danbel site and other existing industrial uses north of Birmingham Street between 15th and 13th Streets would be designated “Transitional” to recognize the existing industrial use and provide the potential for development for a range of other uses including residential subject to environmental constraints. The remaining lands would be designated residential provided that this use were demonstrated to be appropriate through detailed environmental studies. It is estimated that Option 1 would produce approximately 1,300 to 1,700 jobs, while Option 2 would result in approximately 900 to 1,500 jobs and 2,000 new residents.

With respect to Option 2, it appears to have the potential for implementation based on the current market demand for housing within the City. However, uncertainty arises with respect to the physical and financial feasibility of developing lands because of the environmental constraints. The difficulty resolving these matters was clearly illustrated in the OMB hearing with respect to the CGT lands. Further, with the potential for increased activity at CN’s Mimico Yard, and possibly VIA, the difficulty of resolving the environmental constraints has increased since the CGT hearing. Finally, the market would appear to be most attractive for ground related family housing for which environmental mitigation is more difficult.

Revised Option 2: Residential Employment Mix

At its meeting of February 14, 2001, the West Community Council directed staff to submit a report to its April 4th, 2001 Community Council meeting addressing the possibility of a cost sharing arrangement between the City and the major parties affected in New Toronto area 24 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

(SEIEA, Ivaco Inc., The Urban Renaissance Group and CN Rail) to hire a mediator in an effort to resolve outstanding issues and work towards reaching a consensus on a preferred land use option. SEIEA (The South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association) is an active group of industrial companies in South Etobicoke which includes Campbell’s Soup, Protect Paint, Pliant, Cognis, National Silicates, Dominion Colour and WMI Waste Management of Canada. As only one of the four major parties agreed to contribute to the cost of the mediator, it was recommended in an April 4th report, to West Community Council that staff continue to work with the affected parties in trying to reach a consensus on a preferred land use. If needed, a mediator could be brought in at a later date in the process.

Prior to meeting with the significant parties in the area, staff and the consultant team developed a more detailed version of Option 2. Option 2 proposed Light Employment uses along New Toronto Street west of Islington as a buffer for proposed residential development to the south. However, the exact extent of the Light Industrial designation was to be determined through noise/vibration, air and soil studies. The revised version of Option 2 establishes the southern boundary of the Light Industrial designation as being approximately 200 metres from the CN property line located on the north side of New Toronto Street (see Attachment No. 5 - Map 5). The 200 metre depth was chosen as it may provide sufficient distance to mitigate the noise effects from the CN rail operations on the residential uses proposed for the southern portion of the CGT and Ivaco sites. Staff and the consultants are also considering the possibility of Transitional uses on the southern portion of this employment area. Possible uses in this area could include live/work which would provide a transition from the employment uses on the north and the proposed residential uses on the south (see Attachment 5 – Map 5). Staff and the consultants will explore this possibility in greater detail in the next stages of the Study.

Issues Requiring Further Review

The major parties identified a number of issues and concerns with Revised Land Use Option 2 in their discussions with staff. These issues are outlined below and will have to be examined prior to staff undertaking the comprehensive secondary plan for the area.

The CN rail yard is classified as a Class III operation under the Ministry of Environment Guidelines (MOE Guideline D-6) which recommends a distance separation between Class III operations and residential uses of 300 metres from the property line of the Class III use. In preliminary discussions with Mr. Bill Gastmeier, the noise and vibration consultant for the New Toronto Secondary Plan, he indicated that a distance of 200 metres may be an acceptable separation distance between the CN lands and potential residential uses on the southern portions of the IVACO and CGT sites depending upon the height and massing of employment buildings that are located on the northern portions of these two sites. He noted that further detailed study would be required to determine the size and configuration of the employment buildings and the appropriate distance from the CN lands required to provide adequate noise buffering.

Staff met with representatives of CN to discuss the future of the CN Mimico yards and the land use options for New Toronto Area. Staff will continue to meet with CN in the future to ensure that their concerns (e.g. noise) are addressed in the development of revised Option 2. 25 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

In regard to these environmental concerns, it should be noted that the development of residential uses on the southern portions of the CGT and Ivaco lands would be contingent on the employment lands being developed first so that they could provide the noise mitigation from the CN rail yards. Staff would use the Holding Designation (“H”) provisions of the Planning Act, as well as other legal tools available, to ensure that the employment uses would be built prior to the construction of any residential uses. The fact that there are two separate land owners for the lands south of New Toronto Street (The Urban Renaissance Group and Ivaco Inc.) may also pose a challenge in providing appropriate mitigation between the CN rail operations and the proposed residential uses to the south. Placing residential uses on the southern portions of the CGT and Ivaco lands also raises environmental issues with respect to the Pliant plant located on the south side of Birmingham St, just east of Sixteenth Street. Pliant is a Class II operation under MOE guidelines which recommend a minimum distance separation of 70 metres from its property line to any residential uses. In developing the revised Option, staff would look to provide an appropriate land use(s) opposite the Pliant plant, on the north side of Birmingham Street, that mitigates the noise concern and serves the needs of the community. A park may be one possible use that addresses both these issues. The Dominion Colour facility located on the southeast corner of New Toronto St. and Eighth Street is also considered a Class III industrial use based on air quality standards under the MOE guidelines. The revised Option 2 provides for an employment buffer between Dominion Colour and the proposed residential to the south. Further review of their operations is needed to determine if the proposed separation is adequate from an air quality point of view as well as a safety perspective given the chemicals that are used in their manufacturing process. There are also concerns with respect to soil contamination on the Ivaco lands.

In the case of Option 2 and the revised land use Option 2 , a mix of employment and residential uses are proposed. These mixed use scenarios require further detailed analysis respecting noise, vibration and air quality by the City’s consultants. The initial funding approval by the City for the preparation of the Secondary Plan did not anticipate the detailed analysis required to move forward with the environmental analysis necessary to develop these land use scenarios. No further City funding is available at this time. It is reasonable at this point to ask for funding from the private sector since the resolution of the issues can lead to a productive development scenario. Staff are, therefore, requesting direction to seek funding from the private sector to allow the City’s consultant team to undertake further environmental analysis to finalize a mixed employment/residential scheme.

Cognis and National Silicates, which are located north of the CN rail yard, have also raised concerns that their operations will be impacted by residential development south of the tracks. They anticipate additional complaints from new residents as a result of air quality concerns and safety issues with their operations.

Discussions with Various Stakeholders Staff and the consultant met with representatives of SEIEA, The Urban Renaissance Group and CN Rail to discuss their concerns with respect to the New Toronto Secondary Plan and the revised version of Option 2. The SEIEA members made it clear to staff that they do not support 26 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2 any residential development, including the residential shown in the revised version of Option 2. Their primary concern is that placing additional residential in proximity to their operations will necessitate additional expenditures on their part to mitigate noise and air quality issues. They also pointed out that the types of materials used in their operations could result in spills or fires. The Phase I Background Report for the New Toronto Secondary Plan study did identify that Cognis uses acetone in its production process which is a highly flammable liquid. Staff recognize these as being serious concerns and will need to do risk assessments to determine the acceptable proximity of residential uses to theses industrial uses.

The Urban Renaissance Group was generally supportive of the Revised Option 2. They are aware that the option is at a preliminary stage of development and further work is needed to address the environmental issues and to determine the amount of residential units that may be permitted on its lands and the adjoining Ivaco site.

Finally, staff also sent a letter to Mr. Paul Ivanier, CEO of Ivaco Inc. requesting additional information on the soil conditions and the noise impacts that CN rail created on their site so that staff could assess the possibility of residential and employment uses for their lands. Mr. Barry Morrison, the consultant for Ivaco responded on behalf of Mr. Ivanier by stating that the rezoning of the lands would best be left to a future purchaser and that Ivaco requests that the City continue to maintain the current land use zoning for the site. Staff and Mr. Morrison agreed that a meeting would not be necessary.

Conclusions:

Staff and the consultant team have identified a modification of Option 2, Residential/Employment Mix as a basis for further work with respect to the New Toronto Secondary Plan Study. The Land Use Option allows for a significantly larger employment area. The revised option establishes a suggested dimension and form of development for the employment and residential areas on the south side of New Toronto Street west of Islington. Staff believe that the revised Option 2 should be investigated in more detail given the conclusions of the Policy Directions and Land Use Options study, Revised Option 2 could be a viable option for the area and one which promotes the City’s desire to increase residential uses, and at the same time, adds to its employment base. However, an additional assessment of environmental conditions, including noise and air quality, will have to be undertaken and the appropriate mitigation determined before the City can make a final determination on the appropriateness of this option. As well, risk assessments of the potential dangers posed to new residential in proximity to existing industrial/employment uses will have to be prepared before consideration is given to locating any residential uses in the area. Additional funding for the New Toronto Secondary Plan is necessary so that this work can be performed prior to the development of the secondary plan.

Contact:

Perry Vagnini, Senior Planner, Community Planning, West District Tel: (416) 394-8236; Fax: (416) 394-6063; E-mail: [email protected]

______27 Planning and Transportation Committee and Toronto City Council Economic Development and Parks Committee December 4, 5 and 6, 2001 Joint Report No. 1, Clause No. 2

Alan Heisey, Papazian Heisey Myers appeared before the joint Planning and Transportation and Economic Development and Parks Committee in connection with the foregoing matter.

The joint Planning and Transportation Committee and Economic Development and Parks Committee also had before it the following material and copies thereof are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall:

- Attachment Nos. 1 and 2 and Exhibits 1 to 15 appended to the foregoing report (November 5, 2001) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

- the following material appended to the communication (October 27, 2001) from the City Clerk, Planning and Transportation Committee:

- Attachments 1 to 5 appended to the report (May 9, 2001) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services;

- communication (May 29, 2001) from Gary Waddington, Regional Manager, Central Canada, Canadian National Railway Property Inc.;

- communication (May 28, 2001) from Al Brezina, President, South Etobicoke Industrial Employers Association;

- communication (June 1, 2001) from Brian Mirsky, President, Campbell's;

- communication (June 1, 2001) from Jane Pepino, Barrister and Solicitor, Aird & Berlis;

- communication (June 1, 2001) from Paul De Francesca, Lang Michener;

- communication (June 1, 2001) from A. Milliken Heisey, Barrister and Solicitor, Kerzner, Papazian, MacDermid;

- communication (October 1, 2001) from A. Milliken Heisey, Barrister and Solicitor, Papazian, Heisey, Myers;

- communication (November 15, 2001) from Al Brezina, President, South Etobicoke Industrial Employers’ Association (SEIEA); and

- communication (November 13, 2001) from A. Milliken Heisey, Barrister and Solicitor, Papazian Heisey Myers.