1. ENVIRONMENTAL
NOISE CONTROL GUIDELINES AND LIGNES
DIRECTRICES SUR LE BRUIT AMBIANT ET MODIFICATION |
planning committee recommendation as amended
That Council approve
1. The amendment to the 2003 Official Plan
to revise the policies in Section 4.8.8 Road, Rail, Transit Corridor Noise
and Noise from Stationary Sources, as attached in Document 1 and that
Document 3 (Table) be incorporated in the Official Plan.
JOINT
commITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS as amended
That
Council approve:
2. The new Environmental Noise Control
Guidelines (issued separately as Document 2). Notwithstanding the thresholds that are proposed in the Noise
Guidelines, that the guidelines (when applied to existing built forms) also
apply to noise situations that are demonstrably annoying and affect the normal
enjoyment of one’s property either because of their repetitive nature, their
quality or because of the time of the day.
3. An addendum to
the Environmental Noise Control
Guidelines to include Appendix E:
Typical Sound Level Examples, as attached in Document 3.
recommandations modifiÉes du comitÉ de
l’urbanisme et
de l’environnement
Que le Conseil municipal approuve :
1. La
modification au Plan officiel de 2003 visant à réviser les politiques contenues
à la section 4.8.8, intitulée Routes, chemins de fer, couloirs de transport
en commun et sources fixes de bruit, qui fait l'objet du document 1, et
que ledocument 3 (Tableau) soit incorporé au Plan officiel de la Ville.
recommandations modifiÉes dES
COMITÉS CONJOINTS
Que le Conseil
municipal approuve :
2. Les
nouvelles Lignes directrices sur le bruit ambiant (publiées séparément
en tant que document 2). Malgré les
seuils proposés dans les Lignes directrices sur le bruit, que ces dernières
(lorsqu'elles s'appliquent aux formes bâties existantes) s'appliquent également
aux situations où le bruit est manifestement agaçant de façon telle qu'il nuit
au plaisir que l'on tire de sa propriété, en raison de sa nature répétitive, de
sa qualité où du moment de la journée à laquelle il se produit.
3. Un addenda aux Lignes directrices sur
la lutte contre le bruit environnemental incluant l’annexe
E : Exemples de niveaux sonores typiques, figurant dans le document
3 ci-annexé.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager, Planning and Growth
Management report dated 13 April 2006 (ACS2006-PGM-POL-0005 English and
French).
2.
Extract of Draft Minutes, 3 May 2006 follows the French version of the
report.
Report to/Rapport au:
Joint
Transportation Committee and Planning and Environment Committee
Réunion conjointe du Comité des
transports et du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnment
and Council / et au Conseil
13 April 2006 / le 13 avril 2006
Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned
Lathrop, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme et Gestion de la croissance
Contact Person/Personne
ressource : Dennis Jacobs, Director
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure
Policy/Politiques d’urbanisme, d’environnement et d’infrastructure
(613) 580-2424 x25521, Dennis.Jacobs@ottawa.ca
SUBJECT: |
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL guidelines
and official plan amendment |
|
|
OBJET : |
LIGNES DIRECTRICES
SUR LE BRUIT AMBIANT ET MODIFICATION AU PLAN OFFICIEL |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That
Planning and Environment Committee and Transportation Committee recommend Council approve:
1.
The amendment to the 2003 Official Plan to revise the policies in Section 4.8.8 Road, Rail, Transit Corridor
Noise and Noise from Stationary Sources, as attached in Document 1.
2.
The new Environmental Noise
Control Guidelines (issued separately as Document 2).
3.
An addendum to the Environmental
Noise Control Guidelines to include Appendix
E: Typical Sound Level Examples, as attached in Document 3.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement et le Comité des transports recommandent au Conseil d'approuver
:
1. La
modification au Plan officiel de 2003 visant à réviser les politiques contenues
à la sous-section 4.8.8, intitulée Routes, chemins de fer, couloirs de
transport en commun et sources fixes de bruit, qui fait l'objet du document 1
ci-annexé.
2. Les
nouvelles Lignes directrices sur la lutte contre le bruit environnemental,
énoncées dans le document 2 publié séparément.
3. Un
addenda aux Lignes directrices sur la lutte contre le bruit environnemental
incluant l’annexe E : Exemples de niveaux sonores typiques, figurant dans le
document 3 ci-annexé.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
Following amalgamation there was a need to update, consolidate, and harmonize all existing City of Ottawa noise control guidelines. The acoustic consulting firm of SS Wilson Associates was retained to prepare the new Environmental Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG).
The Official Plan amendment revises the policies for environmental noise control in Section 4.8.8 to provide a policy basis for using the new ENCG and to resolve the Official Plan appeals related to stationary noise policies. The amendment proposes the following changes:
The new ENCG:
Financial
Implications:
There are no financial implications for this report.
Public Consultation/Input:
The public consultation process included a public open house as well as correspondence and meetings with the Federation of Citizens' Association, the Ottawa Airport Authority, the Canadian National Railway, the Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders Association and the City of Ottawa Engineering Liaison Sub-Committee.
The open house was advertised in The Citizen and Le Droit on October 21, 2005. Notice was also posted on the City of Ottawa web site. Community groups were notified through the Federation of Citizens Association. Councillors were also notified and invited to an Information Session prior to the public open house.
The Official Plan Amendment was also circulated in keeping with Council's policies on consultation and advertised in daily newspapers.
The DFA-Hovey Group, a specialty service engineering company with extensive acoustic experience within the Ottawa area, provided a peer review of the ENCG. The peer review confirmed the technical validity and practicability of the guidelines.
Concerns raised through the consultation process are summarized and addressed in the Discussion section of this report.
RÉSUMÉ
Hypothèses et analyse :
La fusion des municipalités a nécessité la mise à
jour, le regroupement et l'harmonisation de l'ensemble des lignes directrices
sur le bruit à la Ville d'Ottawa. C'est la société d'experts-conseils en
acoustique SS Wilson Associates qui s'est vu confier le mandat d'élaborer les
nouvelles Lignes directrices sur le bruit ambiant.
La modification au Plan officiel révise les
politiques antibruit énoncées à la section 4.8.8 afin de définir le cadre
d’application des nouvelles Lignes directrices sur le bruit ambiant et de
résoudre les appels interjetés contre le Plan officiel relativement aux
politiques sur les sources fixes de bruit. Voici quels sont les changements :
Les nouvelles Lignes directrices sur le bruit
ambiant :
Répercussions financières :
Le présent rapport n'a pas de répercussions
financières.
Consultation
publique / commentaires :
Le
processus de consultation publique a donné lieu à une réunion portes ouvertes
ainsi qu’à un échange de correspondance et à des rencontres avec les
représentants de la Fédération des associations de citoyens, de
l’Administration de l’Aéroport international d’Ottawa, du Canadien national, de
l’Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders
Association et du sous-comité de liaison technique de la Ville d’Ottawa.
BACKGROUND
The City's current noise control guidelines and
associated Official Plan policies were adopted from the former Region of
Ottawa-Carleton and are now deficient in a number of areas. Inconsistencies currently exist between the
noise evaluation criteria in the Official Plan and the noise evaluation
criteria in guidelines. There are also
deficiencies regarding stationary noise sources as well as references to
provincial information, programs and procedures which are now obsolete. The existing guidelines also only address
noise with respect to former regional roads rather than all City roads and they
do not account for noise from light rail transit sources.
To address all of the above issues, a review of the existing noise guidelines and policies was initiated with the following objectives:
In response to the Council motion, staff submitted a report to Committee on January 11, 2005 regarding vibration policies which also indicated that SS Wilson Associates had been retained to review the noise policies and to prepare new Environmental Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG).
SS Wilson Associates had drafted policies and guidelines for the former Region of Ottawa- Carleton, which will be replaced with the approval of the new guidelines. The ENCG will replace the following:
The new ENCG are primarily based on Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) policies, guidelines and procedures aimed at providing guidance on noise assessment in land use planning. It is important to note that MOE noise guidelines are not focused on any particular transportation source (highway) and then expanded to address other high volume roads. The intent was to develop noise level objectives regardless of the source or road type. This means that it can be applied to the series 400 roads as well as city arterials and LRT corridors. These new guidelines are consistent with all provincial policies (i.e. Provincial Policy Statement, Environmental Protection Act, Environmental Assessment Act and Municipal Act) and other relevant provincial guidelines.
An Official Plan amendment has been prepared to revise the policies for Environmental Noise Control in Section 4.8.8 to provide a policy basis for using the new ENCG and to resolve the Official Plan appeals related to stationary noise policies.
DISCUSSION
The Official Plan provides the policy framework to guide development in the future. The intent of the Environmental Noise Control policies in the Plan is to protect residents from noise levels which exceed the noise level criteria for transportation and stationary source noise as adopted by Council.
The Environmental Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG) are an important tool for the implementation of the City’s Official Plan policies on environmental noise. The ENCG are to be used as a technical manual by the City as well as by the development and consulting industries when dealing with issues involving all sources of environmental noise in the planning and development process.
The Official Plan amendment and the ENCG make a number of changes to the existing policies and procedures that the City currently follows. The main changes are summarized below:
1) The Official Plan Amendment
Section 4.8.8 Road, Rail, Transit Corridor Noise and Noise from Stationary Sources of the Official Plan is replaced with a new Section 4.8.8 Environmental Noise Control (Document 1). The following is a list of the most significant changes that have been incorporated into the proposed policies of the Official Plan:
a) Noise Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation criteria for noise from roads, railways and transitways have been revised in the Official Plan and new noise criteria for stationary noise have been added. The ENCG also contain the same noise evaluation criteria and explain how the Official Plan policies will be implemented. The noise evaluation criteria are discussed further in the following ENCG section.
b) Requirements for Noise Studies
The requirements for when a noise study will be required for development applications has been revised to be consistent with MOE guidelines.
c) Light Rail Transit
The policies for noise from transportation sources introduce policies for light rail transit. The current policies require a noise study for development within 100 m of a rapid transit corridor. The proposed policies require a noise study within 250 m of a light rail transit corridor. Further, where the new policies refer to light rail transit corridors, they will apply to all future rapid transit corridors unless Council has approved a bus transitway in the corridor. The technology to be used in future rapid transit corridors is determined through an Environmental Assessment (EA) and until the EA is complete, the standard for a light rail corridor should be used.
d) Stationary Noise
The Federation of Citizens Association and the Hintonburg Community Association have appealed the stationary noise policies in the Official Plan. They indicated that the current policies are deficient and do not provide sufficient protection for existing communities. Staff agreed with the need for a complete policy framework for stationary noise and has proposed the following to resolve the appeal:
2) The Environmental Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG)
The following is a list of the most significant changes that have been incorporated into the new ENCG:
a) Consolidation, harmonization and update
The new ENCG are a consolidation and harmonization of the former Regional guidelines for transportation noise sources and current provincial policies and guidelines (i.e. 2005 Provincial Policy Statements, Environmental Protection Act, and MOE guidelines: LU-131; NPC-205; NPC-232). It will be the primary source of reference for all planning related noise issues and will help implement the policy direction of the Official Plan. The ENCG will replace the guidelines of the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton.
b) Light Transit Noise
The new ENCG address noise from light rail transit, which was absent in the former Regional guidelines. The ENCG references MOE standard processes and procedures for assessing noise for both electric rail and diesel rail technologies.
c) Stationary Noise
The new ENCG address new stationary noise sources, expansions and alterations of existing stationary sources, as well as new noise sensitive developments adjacent to existing stationary noise sources. The former Regional guidelines only addressed stationary noise as it related to transportation terminals. The addition of stationary noise to the ENCG will address the concerns raised by the community associations in their appeal of the Official Plan with regard to stationary noise. They indicated that guidelines are required to assist City planners to determine when and how stationary noise needs to be considered in the development review process.
d) Noise Barrier Retrofit
The new ENCG reference a Noise Abatement Petition Process as part of the City of Ottawa Local Improvement process. This process is similar to the former Noise Barrier Retrofit Policy, which addresses noise mitigation for existing noise-sensitive developments affected by existing transportation noise. Under this revised process, barriers will now be ranked in order of priority among all Local Improvement petitions (i.e. water, sewage, barriers). This process will be further defined by the Public Works & Services Department and will be presented for Committee and Council consideration in 2006.
e) Noise Evaluation Criteria
The new ENCG rely on the assessment of noise based on MOE evaluation methodologies and criteria, which are dependant upon a number of factors such as the type of noise source, the receiver location and the time of day. As a result, different noise evaluation criteria are applied depending upon the situation, as summarized in Table 1.1 of page 4 of the ENCG (Document 2). The current noise criteria in the Official Plan, which are unique to Ottawa, are not sufficiently robust to be applied in all situations. The Official Plan criteria also cannot be supported from a technical viewpoint, as further described in Summary of Main Issues (Methodology) section below.
f) Noise Control Mitigation Alternatives
To support the policies in the Official Plan, the ENCG include guidance on how to design communities in a manner that provides noise attenuation through methods other than noise barriers, such as site planning techniques (setbacks, building and land use orientation), architectural design, building components, and noise source control techniques.
SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES
The following issues were raised by the public during the consultation process to develop the ENCG and the Official Plan policies for environmental noise control. A summary of the issues and the staff responses are provided below.
a) Noise Evaluation Criteria
The ENCG should use the noise evaluation criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) rather than those used by the Ministry of Environment (MOE).
Staff Response
The WHO and MOE noise evaluation criteria and methodology are very similar in that they both use 16 hour (day) and 8 hour (night) time periods for assessing noise. While both the day and night outdoor objectives are also the same (Leq 16 hr 55 dBA / Leq 8 hr 50 dBA), the WHO night indoor objective for sleeping quarters is Leq 8 hr 30 dBA while the MOE objective is Leq 8 hr 35 dBA for diesel rail traffic and Leq 8 hr 40 dBA for road, bus and electric rail traffic. The MOE objective for diesel rail is more stringent than other MOE transportation objectives because of its lower noise frequency, which makes diesel rail noise more annoying. SS Wilson Associates has indicated that the WHO criteria are based on laboratory tests, not the perceived level of annoyance, and that the WHO objective of 30 dBA would be impossible to achieve. As a comparison, the sound level in a library is typically 40 to 45 dBA while a residential forced air furnace generates approximately 40 to 45 dBA of noise. Furthermore, the MOE noise level objectives and criteria are supported by the Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) and are used by all other municipalities in Ontario.
b) Methodology
The elimination of the Leq 30-minutes from the Official Plan makes the guidelines weaker by eliminating a sensitive calculation of noise and one that is more easily understood by the general public. Averaged calculations do not address peak noise, which is often the most critical aspect of environmental noise.
Staff
Response
Leq is defined as the Logarithmic Energy Equivalent and is used to describe the total sound energy over a specified time period. Staff are recommending that the Leq 30-minutes be changed to 16 and 8 hours for transportation noise sources for the following reasons:
For example, as a general “rule of thumb”, the sound
level of a typical public library is about 40 dBA; a soft whisper at 5 feet
away is about 30 dBA; a normal conversation at 10 feet is about 55 dBA and a
normal conversation at 3 feet away is about 60 dBA. Additional sound level
examples are provided in Appendix E of the ENCG, as shown in Document 3.
Recent studies by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation indicate noise levels based on the 16-hour Leq methodology for the following intersections:
Existing Noise Levels from the Queensway
Intersection |
Noise Level (Leq 16-hour) |
O’Connor and
Isabella |
75 dBA |
Carling and
Kirkwood |
75 dBA |
Preston and Young |
65 dBA |
Preston and George
St. W. |
60 dBA |
Preston and Beech |
55 dBA |
c) Inconsistent Application - Stationary Noise versus Noise
from Transportation Sources
The ENCG propose a differential treatment of noise for stationary sources compared to transportation sources. It is illogical to treat noise differently depending upon the source.
Staff Response
The stationary noise criteria are different from the transportation criteria for the following reasons:
d) Night- time criteria for evaluating City Works and Retrofit
Processes
When evaluating City works projects and retrofit applications the City should include night-time criteria in addition to day-time criteria.
Staff Response
The evaluation of City works and retrofit projects rely on the assessment of day-time noise criteria for the following reasons:
e) Air Conditioning and Sealed Windows
The recommendation for mandatory air conditioning as a mitigation measure should be deleted from the ENCG. If air conditioning is required, the windows are usually sealed units. New housing should be able to have operable windows.
Staff
Response
f) Impact on Redevelopment
There is potential for conflict between the ENCG and Official Plan policies to encourages more residential development downtown, along certain roadways and in Mainstreet areas. Where existing background or ambient levels from traffic noise already exceed maximum objectives, residential redevelopment should not be discouraged.
Staff Response
The ENCG provide guidance to achieve compatible land uses and appropriate spatial separation from noise sources. Intensification in areas that currently experience high noise levels may require additional noise control measures. Sections 1.5.6 and 2.5 of the ENCG provide noise control mitigation alternatives to either control the noise source or block the path of the noise through building orientation, building design, construction materials, acoustic barriers, noise source oriented controls and warning clauses. If noise control measures are not technically or economically feasible, the guidelines require mandatory ventilation or central air conditioning as well as warnings to be registered on title if noise is expected to exceed the maximum objectives.
CONSULTATION
The public consultation process included a public open house as well as frequent correspondence and meetings with the Federation of Citizens' Associations, the Ottawa Airport Authority, the Canadian National Railway, Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders Association and the City of Ottawa Engineering Liaison Sub-Committee.
The open house was advertised in The Citizen and Le Droit on October 21, 2005. Notice was also posted on the City of Ottawa web site. Community groups were notified through the Federation of Citizens' Association. Councillors were also notified and invited to an Information Session prior to the public open house.
The Official Plan amendment was also circulated widely and advertised in daily
newspapers, as per Council policy.
The main issues raised through the consultation process are documented in the previous section of this report. These issues and the corresponding staff responses were reviewed by SS Wilson Associates and the DFA-Hovey Group. The peer review by the DFA-Hovey Group confirmed the technical validity and practicability of the guidelines.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications for this report.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Official Plan Amendment
Document 2 Environmental Noise Control Guidelines (distributed separately and on file with the City Clerk)
Document 3 Typical Sound Level Examples
DISPOSITION
Planning and Growth Management Department to prepare the implementing by-law and forward to Legal Services and undertake the statutory notification.
Corporate Services Department, Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council on May 10 to provide a Council position for environmental noise control at the OMB hearing regarding the appeal of the noise policies in Section 4.8.8 of the Official Plan.
Upon approval of this report, all existing noise control guidelines will be replaced with the new ENCG (Document 2)
INDEX
COMPONENTS
PART A – THE PREAMBLE
Purpose............................................................................................................................................. 2
Location............................................................................................................................................ 2
Basis................................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 3
Details............................................................................................................................................... 3
Implementation.................................................................................................................................. 4
COMPONENTS
PART A – THE PREAMBLE does not constitute part of this Amendment.
PART B – THE AMENDMENT, consisting of the following text, constitutes Amendment No. xx to the City of Ottawa Official Plan.
The purpose of the amendment is to delete the policies in Section 4.8.8 (Road, Rail, Transit Corridor Noise and Noise from Stationary Sources) of the Official Plan that address environmental noise control and replace them with new policies. The new policies are consistent with the new Environmental Noise Control Guidelines approved by City Council and address the deficiencies in the current policies with regard to stationary noise, which is the subject of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.
2. Location
The amendment applies city-wide.
The acoustic consulting firm of SS Wilson Associates was retained to review the Official Plan policies related to noise from transportation and stationary sources and to prepare new Environmental Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG) to provide guidance for how the policies in the Official Plan will be implemented. As part of the review, SS Wilson was asked to:
“That staff be directed to review the Noise and Vibration Policies of the new Official Plan and the relevant Provincial regulations and policies and that a report be submitted to the Planning and Environment Committee no later than February 1, 2005.”
The new Environmental Noise Control Guidelines, which are based on Ministry of Environment (MOE) policies, guidelines and procedures, are more comprehensive and up to date than the old guidelines of the former Region, which they will replace.
The Official Plan amendment revises the policies for Environmental Noise Control in Section 4.8.8 to make them consistent with Ministry of Environment policies, guidelines and procedures and to resolve the Official Plan appeals related to stationary noise policies.
The Glossary, which is not part of the Official Plan, is revised by adding the following:
a) between Noise Exposure
Projection (NEP) and Noise Study:
Noise from Stationary Sources: Include all sources of sound and vibration, whether fixed or mobile, that exist or operate on a premises, property or facility, the combined sound and vibration levels of which are emitted beyond the property boundary of the premises, property or facility, unless the source(s) is (are) due to construction. Sources considered as stationary sources are either individual or multiple sources of noise, or facilities comprising one or more sources of noise.
b) between Accessibility and Affordable Housing
Adverse effect – as used in Section 4.8.8, means harm or material discomfort to any person; an adverse effect on the health of any person, and loss of enjoyment of normal use of property.
1.0 Introduction
All of this part of this document entitled Part B - The Amendment, consisting of the following text, constitutes Amendment No. xx to the Official Plan of the City of Ottawa.
2.0 Details
The following changes are hereby made to the City of Ottawa Official Plan:
2.1 Section
4.8.8 Road, Rail, Transit Corridor Noise and Noise from Stationary Sources is
hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
4.8.8
Environmental Noise Control
The intent of this Plan is to protect residents and their property from noise levels that exceed the noise level criteria adopted by Council. As a general approach, potential noise problems are best addressed through land use planning approaches that separate noise-generating uses from housing and other noise-sensitive land uses. A noise-sensitive land use is any type of land use where environmental noise is likely to cause an adverse effect or material discomfort whether inside or outside of a building. Examples of sensitive land uses include:
· residential developments;
· seasonal residential developments;
· hospitals, nursing/retirement homes, schools, day-care centres;
· other land uses that contain indoor and/or outdoor areas and spaces where intruding noise may create an adverse effect.
Noise studies may be required for proposed development adjacent to transportation corridors and stationary sources of noise, as well as around the Ottawa International Airport. Section 4.8.7 provides detailed policies on development near the airport, including restrictions on specific noise-sensitive uses. As the city matures and redevelops, noise becomes a potential problem in three situations:
· where new noise-sensitive uses are proposed adjacent to existing sources of noise;
· where a new noise source is proposed adjacent to existing noise-sensitive uses, for example through a change in land use that introduces a stationary noise source;
· where an expansion or alteration of an existing noise sources is proposed adjacent to existing noise-sensitive uses.
In these situations, noise studies may be required to determine whether the proposed development can meet the noise level criteria adopted by Council. Where noise studies indicate that the noise level criteria may be exceeded, mitigation measures will be required as conditions of approval for site plans and plans of subdivision.
Council has
adopted Environmental Noise Control Guidelines to implement its noise control
policies. These guidelines are aligned with the Ministry of the Environment’s
policies on noise assessment in land use planning. The guidelines contain Council’s noise level criteria within
the city. The noise level criteria vary
depending on several factors, including the source of noise—road, rail,
aircraft and stationary sources of noise.
Other factors include the time of day and whether the noise is measured
indoors or outdoors. The guidelines
also specify the study requirements for new noise-generating sources proposed
near noise-sensitive land uses, with reference to Ministry of Environment
policies, guidelines and procedures.
Study requirements
in this Plan also include requirements set for proposed noise-sensitive
development adjacent to light-rail corridors and bus transitways. Schedule D of this Plan shows the primary
transit network, including the existing bus transitway, the O-Train, and future
rapid transit corridors on defined and undefined alignments. Where the policies in this section refer to
a “light rail transit corridor”, the policies will apply to all future rapid
transit corridors (alignment defined or to be defined) shown on Schedule
D. Policies for light rail corridors
also apply to the O-Train, as shown on Schedule D. Exceptions may be made where Council has approved an
Environmental Assessment that has determined that the corridor is to be used
for a bus transitway.
The noise level criteria for road, rail and buses in the Environmental
Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG) are based on the criteria in MOE
Guidelines. The maximum noise level
criteria for noise from transportation sources are as follows:
·
Leq 16
hour – 55 dBA (day)
·
Leq 8
hour – 50 dBA (night)
1. The City will require a detailed noise study for all proposed noise-sensitive developments within 500 metres of a principal railway right-of-way or 250 metres from a secondary railway line and will require noise mitigation where necessary, as a condition of approval.
2. The City will also require a vibration study for all proposed vibration -sensitive developments within 75 metres of a railway right-of-way.
3. The City will require a detailed noise-control study where the widening or construction of an arterial road, major collector road or a rapid-transit corridor identified on Schedules D, E, F, G and H is proposed. The Environmental Noise Control Guidelines set the requirements for these projects.
4. The City will require a noise study where new noise-sensitive development is proposed within 500 metres of a freeway or 400-series provincial highway, 250 metres of an existing or proposed provincial highway or light rail transit corridor, and within 100 metres of an existing or proposed arterial or major collector roadway or bus transitway, as identified on Schedules D, E, F, G and H.
5. The City will require a vibration study for all proposed vibration-sensitive developments within 75 metres of an existing or proposed light rail transit corridor.
6. Where noise-sensitive development exists adjacent to a public road or existing rapid-transit infrastructure as identified on Schedules D,E,F,G and H and where the residents of this development raise the issue of noise as a concern, the City may consider construction of a noise barrier under its Local Improvement Policy, according to criteria in the Environmental Noise Control Guidelines. Owners of land abutting directly on the local improvement may contribute towards the costs incurred by the City if a sufficient number of affected landowners agree to the work and if the work is approved by City Council.
Based on MOE guidelines, stationary sources of noise are defined as all sources of sound and vibration, whether fixed or mobile, that exist or operate on a premises, property or facility, the combined sound and vibration levels of which are emitted beyond the property boundary of the premises, property or facility, unless the source(s) is (are) due to construction. Typical individual sources of noise include generators, fans or commercial air conditioners. Industrial facilities and other facilities that include more than one source of noise are considered as a single source, for the purposes of a noise study. Other facilities that are considered as stationary sources of noise include snow disposal sites, car washes, motor vehicle maintenance and repair facilities, and transit terminals. Sources of noise excluded from stationary sources, in accordance with MOE guidelines, include construction activities, gas stations, music and people noise, and retail facilities such as convenience stores where goods are delivered infrequently.
The assessment and mitigation of noise impacts from stationary sources
is complex because stationary source noise involves a broad range of land uses
and activities. For this reason, the Environmental Noise Control Guidelines are
aligned with the Ministry of the Environment’s Noise Assessment Criteria in
Land Use Planning (Publication LU-131) for new noise-sensitive development,
and Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 1& 2 Areas
(Urban) (NPC-205), and Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources
in Class 3 Areas (Rural) (NPC-232) for new sources of stationary noise.
The noise level criteria for sources of stationary noise in the ENCG are
based on the criteria in MOE Guidelines.
The maximum noise level criteria for noise from stationary sources are
as follows:
·
Leq 1
hour - 50 dBA (day)
·
Leq 1
hour - 45 dBA (night)
7. The City will require a noise study for development applications that propose new noise-sensitive uses in proximity to existing sources of stationary noise as described in the Environmental Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG). If existing noise levels exceed the sound level criteria for stationary source noise, then mitigation measures will be required.
8. The City will require a noise study for development applications that entail construction of new sources of stationary noise or changes in land use that may introduce new sources of stationary noise that are in proximity to existing noise-sensitive land uses, as described in the Environmental Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG). If projected noise levels exceed the sound level criteria for stationary source noise in the ENCG, then mitigation measures will be required.
9. The City will apply the criteria in the Environmental Noise Control Guidelines where the expansion or alteration of an existing stationary source of noise is proposed, or where a change of use of a stationary source is being proposed which could result in an increase in noise from the new use. Such proposals typically are made in the context of a building permit and require a certificate of approval from the Ministry of Environment.
Noise is regulated better by land use planning than by noise barriers. The extensive use of noise barriers within or adjacent to a community can result in undesirable streetscapes and views. To improve the quality of the streetscape, communities will be designed to the extent possible to provide noise attenuation through planning and design. Approaches include locating noise-sensitive uses away from areas likely to receive unacceptable noise levels, locating commercial and employment uses along busier roads, or using service roads (also referred to as “single-loaded” roads). Other measures including site planning techniques, architectural design, selection of appropriate building components, are described in the Environmental Noise Control Guidelines. Where the use of noise barriers is unavoidable, the visual impact of the barrier shall be mitigated through the use of berms and landscaping.
10. To improve the quality of the streetscape, communities will be designed to the extent possible to provide noise attenuation through land use planning and design. Noise barriers may only be used where other noise attenuation methods are not feasible. The need for a barrier will have to be justified and approved by the City.
11. In some cases, control measures cannot achieve the sound level criteria established in the Environmental Noise Control Guidelines. In such cases, the City requires that appropriate warning clause(s) be included on title to advise purchasers or occupants of expected noise levels and other recommended noise control measures.
2.2 Section 4.8 is amended as follows:
References to Section 4.8.8 in the table are deleted and replaced with the following:
4.8.8 |
Noise Study |
3. new Where noise-sensitive development is proposed within 500 metres metr of a freeway or 400-series provincial highway, 250 metres of an exist existing or proposed highway or light rail transit corridor, and with within 100 metres of an existing or proposed arterial or major colle collector roadway or bus rapid-transit corridor. 4.
For all proposed noise-sensitive developments within 500 metres of a principal railway right-of-way or 250 metres from a secondary railway line or light rail transit corridor. Where a new noise-sensitive land use is proposed in areas affected by noise from existing stationary sources Where a proposed stationary source of noise will affect existing noise-sensitive land uses. Where the expansion or alteration of an existing stationary source of noise is proposed, or where a change of use of a stationary source is being proposed which could result in an increase in noise. |
4.8.8 |
Vibration Study |
For all proposed vibration -sensitive developments within 75 metres of a railway right-of-way or light rail transit corridor |
3.0 Implementation
The implementation of this Amendment to the Official Plan shall be in accordance with the policies of the 2003 City of Ottawa Official Plan.
Rapport au / Report to/
Réunion conjointe du Comité des
transports et du Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnment
Joint Transportation Committee and Planning and Environment
Committee
et au Conseil / and Council/
le 13 avril 2006 / 13 April 2006
Submitted by/Soumis par : Ned Lathrop, Deputy
City Manager/directeur municipal adjoint,
Planning and Growth Management/Urbanisme
et Gestion de la croissance
Contact Person/Personne-ressource : Dennis
Jacobs, Director/directeur
Planning, Environment and Infrastructure
Policy/Politiques d’urbanisme, d’environnement et d’infrastructure
(613) 580-2424, x/poste 25521,
Dennis.Jacobs@ottawa.ca
Ref N°/No de réf. : ACS2006-PGM-POL-0005 |
OBJET : |
LIGNES
DIRECTRICES SUR LA LUTTE CONTRE LE BRUIT ENVIRONNEMENTAL ET MODIFICATION AU
PLAN OFFICIEL |
|
|
SUBJECT: |
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL guidelines and
official plan amendment |
RECOMMANDATIONS DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité de
l'urbanisme et de l'environnement et le Comité des transports recommandent au
Conseil d'approuver :
1. La modification au Plan
officiel de 2003 visant à réviser les politiques contenues à la sous-section
4.8.8, intitulée Routes, chemins de fer,
couloirs de transport en commun et sources fixes de bruit, qui fait l'objet
du document 1 ci-annexé.
2. Les nouvelles Lignes
directrices sur la lutte contre le bruit environnemental, énoncées dans le
document 2 publié séparément.
3. Un addenda aux Lignes
directrices sur la lutte contre le bruit environnemental incluant l’annexe
E : Exemples de niveaux sonores typiques, figurant dans le document
3 ci-annexé.
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
That
Planning and Environment Committee and Transportation Committee recommend Council approve:
4.
The amendment to the 2003 Official Plan to
revise the policies in Section 4.8.8
Road, Rail, Transit Corridor Noise and Noise from Stationary Sources, as
attached in Document 1.
5.
The new Environmental
Noise Control Guidelines (issued
separately as Document 2).
6.
An addendum to the Environmental Noise
Control Guidelines to include Appendix E: Typical Sound Level
Examples, as attached in Document 3.
Hypothèses et analyse :
La fusion des municipalités a nécessité la mise
à jour, le regroupement et l'harmonisation de l'ensemble des lignes directrices
sur la lutte contre le bruit à la Ville d'Ottawa. C'est la société
d'experts-conseils en acoustique SS Wilson Associates qui s'est vu confier le mandat
d'élaborer les nouvelles Lignes directrices sur la lutte contre le bruit
environnemental.
La modification au Plan officiel a pour objet
de réviser les politiques antibruit énoncées à la sous-section 4.8.8 afin de
définir le cadre d’application des nouvelles Lignes directrices sur la lutte
contre le bruit environnemental et de régler les appels interjetés contre le
Plan officiel relativement aux politiques sur les sources stationnaires (fixes)
de bruit. Voici les changements proposés :
Les nouvelles Lignes directrices sur la lutte
contre le bruit environnemental :
Répercussions financières :
Le présent rapport n'a pas de répercussions
financières.
Consultation publique/commentaires :
Le processus de consultation publique a donné
lieu à une réunion portes ouvertes ainsi qu’à un échange de correspondance et à
des rencontres avec les représentants de la Fédération des associations de
citoyens, de l’Administration de l’Aéroport international d’Ottawa, du Canadien
national, de l’Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders Association et du sous-comité de
liaison technique de la Ville d’Ottawa.
Le groupe DFA-Hovey, une société de services d’ingénierie
spécialisés de la région d’Ottawa qui possède une vaste expérience dans le
domaine de l’acoustique, a examiné les lignes directrices et confirmé qu’elles
étaient techniquement valables et applicables.
Les préoccupations exprimées au cours du processus
de consultation sont résumées et traitées dans la section Argumentation du
présent rapport.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assumptions and Analysis:
Following amalgamation there was a need to update, consolidate, and harmonize all existing City of Ottawa noise control guidelines. The acoustic consulting firm of SS Wilson Associates was retained to prepare the new Environmental Noise Control Guidelines (ENCG).
The Official Plan amendment revises the policies for environmental noise control in Section 4.8.8 to provide a policy basis for using the new ENCG and to resolve the Official Plan appeals related to stationary noise policies. The amendment proposes the following changes:
The new ENCG:
Financial
Implications:
There are no financial implications for this report.
Public Consultation/Input:
The public consultation process included a public open house as well as correspondence and meetings with the Federation of Citizens' Association, the Ottawa Airport Authority, the Canadian National Railway, the Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders Association and the City of Ottawa Engineering Liaison Sub-Committee.
The open house was advertised in The Citizen and Le Droit on October 21, 2005. Notice was also posted on the City of Ottawa web site. Community groups were notified through the Federation of Citizens Association. Councillors were also notified and invited to an Information Session prior to the public open house.
The Official Plan Amendment was also circulated in keeping with Council's policies on consultation and advertised in daily newspapers.
The DFA-Hovey Group, a specialty service engineering company with extensive acoustic experience within the Ottawa area, provided a peer review of the ENCG. The peer review confirmed the technical validity and practicability of the guidelines.
Concerns raised
through the consultation process are summarized and addressed in the Discussion
section of this report.
CONTEXTE
Intersections |
Niveaux
de bruit (Leq 16 h) |
O’Connor et Isabella |
75 dB(A) |
Carling et Kirkwood |
75 dB(A) |
Preston et Young |
65 dB(A) |
Preston et George O. |
60 dB(A) |
Preston et Beech |
55 dB(A) |
5.
Lor |
||
ENVIRONMENTAL
NOISE CONTROL guidelines and official plan amendment
acs2006-pgm-pol-0005
The Director, Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Policy Branch, Mr. Dennis Jacobs, prefaced the presentation by saying the matter is before the Joint Committees partly to address appeals to the 2003 Official Plan to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and to harmonize a variety of noise related guidelines in place in the former municipalities. Mr. Jacobs then introduced Messrs Myles Mahon, Planner, Community Planning and Design Branch, Colin Simpson, Transportation and Infrastructure Planning Division and Hazem Gidamy, P.Eng, Principal partner, S.S. Wilson and Associates, members of the study team that prepared the guidelines and developed the policies.
By way of background information, Mr. Mahon indicated that the firm of S.S. Wilson and Associates was hired to update, consolidate and harmonize the existing noise control guidelines. These were mostly based on the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton guidelines and related principally to transportation noise policies. The Consultant also had to review the Official Plan (OP) policies to ensure the new guidelines and the policies were a complete package and to address the OMB appeal from the Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa-Carleton (FCA) on Stationary Noise Policies and make recommendations on how it could be resolved.
Mr. Mahon went on to describe a collaborative process with extensive stakeholder consultation including:
· the FCA;
· the City of Ottawa’s Engineering Liaison Sub-Committee;
· the Ottawa-Carleton Homebuilders’ Association;
· the Canadian National Railways;
· the Ottawa International Airport Authority.
A public Open House was held on October 27th, where Mr. Ghadami made a presentation and a Councillors’ briefing was held the same day. The guidelines were submitted for peer review, to confirm their technical validity and practicality.
Speaking to the OP Amendment, Mr. Mahon pointed out that:
· It revises the noise evaluation criteria for transportation;
· It revises the requirement for noise studies, to make them consistent with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) guidelines;
· It introduced policies for Light Rail that are not currently in OP;
· It addresses stationary noise and the concerns raised by the FCA in its appeal to the OMB;
· It provides a definition for stationary noise and new sources of same;
· It introduces noise criteria.
Mr. Mahon concluded his presentation by saying the FCA has indicated that, should Council adopt the policies, it would withdraw its appeal to the OMB. In addition, and at the request of the FCA, staff have added warning clauses if the criteria in the OP cannot be met, so that people are aware of them.
Mr. Colin Simpson provided detailed information on the Environmental Noise Control Guidelines per se by means of a PowerPoint slide presentation, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk. The topics he covered in detail included:
· The guidelines as a tool to predict future noise levels for new developments, new roads, corridors and widenings and retrofits for existing developments along existing corridors;
· The introduction of criteria for surface transportation noise, stationary source noise and Aircraft noise;
· A description of the six main issues identified through the public consultation process;
· A Table providingTypical Sound Level Examples, i.e., noise source and their related dBa readings.
Mr. Simpson concluded by saying that an OMB hearing is scheduled for May 9th, and that staff hopes to secure Committee and Council approval within that timeframe in order for the City to have a position for the hearing.
Councillor Diane Holmes made reference to windows having to be sealed, or non-operable when noise levels exceed 65dBa, asking how this would be handled for future developments along the main roads in her ward. Mr. Simpson stated this was neither a requirement of the guidelines nor of the Provincial Noise policy. In response to Councillor Holmes’ query about what could de done in cases where non-profit developers have to install air conditioners in units whose tenants are unable to operate them, Mr. Jacobs advised that the guidelines could be amended to direct staff, at the time of development approvals, not to implement that particular provision, but he advised this would have to be done on a case-by-case basis.
Councillor Jacques Legendre informed the Committee that the Leq 30 minute (OP) originated with him, in recognition of the fact that nobody in the City of Ottawa, including technical experts, could internalize eight hours of sound and that this number was not understandable by the public. He asked whether the Typical Sound Level Examples (at Document 3 of the report) could be incorporated as an example and be considered a legal part of the OP amendment.
The Director, Planning and Environment Law, Mr. Tim Marc, expressed the view that, as the Table is a statement of fact, it would be an awkward fit for the OP, but could be included as an example within the guidelines.
The Councillor asked which part of the guidelines covered night time and other situations inadequately covered by 60 or 65dBa. He gave the example of a repetitive sound below those levels that can make life unpleasant and asked if this is covered by the guidelines.
Mr. Simpson replied that, in terms of transportation noise, there was nothing specific about the type of noise the Councillor alludes to. The guidelines deal with stationary noise and provide a framework on how to evaluate noise.
Councillor Legendre expressed the belief that something was needed for exceptional circumstances, particularly after the Leq30 minute has been removed and not replaced. He signalled his intention to put forward a Motion, calling for the Table to be part of the OP and that he was looking for language to describe the nature of the sound in question. Mr. Simpson pointed out that the criteria for stationary noise and transportation noise are different, the period of calculation is different, and the type of noise the Councillor refers to would be over a one hour Leq and not averaged over a 16 hr period.
The Councillor asked why staff would not accept the one-hour criteria for transportation noise. Mr. Jacobs replied that the level of stationary noise is relatively constant and easier to capture for determining what mitigation measures are needed. Transportation noise has peaks and valleys and has to be examined for a longer period of time. This would indicate that the model works for putting in mitigation measures and as the rationale for the guidelines.
The following Public Delegations were heard:
Mr. Hugh Williamson, Acoustical Consultant in Ottawa, indicated that 60 to 70% of his business consists of evaluating noise impact on development or developing noise control procedures to meet sound requirements. He expressed his strong support for developing new guidelines that include the source of noise. He also supported the notion of using the 16-hour day and the 8-hour night for evaluating the impact of transportation noise sources, typically on residential developments. Mr. Williamson said the purpose of the impact study is to decide what kind of mitigation measure might be appropriate, therefore one has to set criteria that will trigger mitigation. He saw no advantage of moving to a much shorter time period because, over time, a trigger will be set and mitigations will be undertaken. (A copy of Mr. Williamson’s full submission is on file with the City Clerk).
Chair Peter Hume asked Mr. Williamson whether he meant that, when dealing with a noise source, it is the trigger at which one takes action that is the appropriate level, and that a longer period of time is more appropriate if the trigger can be put wherever one chooses. Mr. Williamson clarified that typically, this relates to road traffic and rail traffic noise, and focusing on one half hour would involve more detailed study of each situation, when, in the end, the results would be similar.
Robert Brocklebank, President, Federation of Citizens’ Associations of Ottawa-Carleton, indicated that appeal to the OMB was made because the FCA felt the OP was deficient as relates to noise. They are now pleased with the results of the discussions with City staff. The document contains forthright language, and the circumstances under which noise studies will be required are stated clearly. In addition, other benefits were incorporated into the noise policies, for example studies required along railway right-of-ways, resulting in the protected area being expanded. Mr. Brocklebank asked that the Committee support the OP amendment and he indicated that the FCA would withdraw this aspect of its appeal to the OMB. He also advised that the Hintonburg Community Association also intends to withdraw its appeal. When asked by Councillor Legendre why the FCA had appealed, Mr. Brocklebank indicated that the OP contained very specific noise limits with respect to transportation noise but stationary noise was left in abeyance, and there were no statements about dBa’s and other aspects, leading to the perception that the OP was focused on transportation noise only.
Mrs. Bev Binette, a resident of Ottawa (Woodroffe), commented on the noise by-law, saying it was unclear to her from reading Section 4.8.8 of the OP whether or not stationary noise was covered under those policies. Responding to a query from Councillor Clive Doucet, Mme Bennett said her preference would be that specific noise levels limits be defined in the By-law, because, as things stand, the OP and the By-law do not mesh well.
Martin Reesink, spoke in support of Councillor Legendre’s comments and he asked that the Committee support shortening the measurement window. He felt this would give the Police an additional tool to enforce the noise by-law.
Mr. Michel Haddad submitted written documentation wherein he opines that the measurement methodology is inadequate, the noise thresholds proposed are far too high, and the provisos that allow the already excessive thresholds to be bypassed are totally unacceptable. The complete text of this submission is held on file with the City Clerk.
Councillor A. Cullen put forward a Motion on behalf of Councillor Holmes, calling for the requirement to install air conditioners as a mitigation measure to be waived for developers of non-profit housing. The Councillor said he did not feel that the City should be imposing such an onerous requirement on these developers for something that, in many cases, future tenants would not be able to afford to pay for.
Councillor Janet Stavinga, having ascertained that staff agreed with the proposed Motion, asked whether Council still has the broader authority to not approve developments in areas where it feels these would not be appropriate. Mr. Jacobs indicated that, in reviewing any development, Committee and Council have the right to refuse up front. He pointed out that both non-profit and other developers have to produce the same amount of supporting information. In a case where the Committee, after weighing all the information, still wants to approve it, the proposed clause would allow it to happen: if the Committee felt that allowing the development in the first place was too onerous, it could turn it down. Councillor Stavinga said she could not envision putting people already in difficult life situations into an environment that has a negative impact on them. She could not support the proposed Motion, as she felt that a more thorough discussion would be required before agreeing to waive a requirement.
Councillor Cullen agreed that people should not be exposed to noisy circumstances. He asked for the Committee’s support, as he felt this would be a rare occurrence. The City should not be impeding the ability of non-profit developer to follow through, or force them to reduce the number of units built, because of the high cost of installing air conditioning. He added that both the Centretown Citizens’ Ottawa Corporation and Ottawa Community Housing had faced this situation along the Queensway Corridor.
Moved by Alex Cullen
Notwithstanding
the City guidelines for requiring mandatory air conditioning, the City will
waive such requirements for city-initiated and / or approved non-profit
housing. Instead, a warning clause to
this effect shall be registered on title and included in all lease and rental
agreements.
LOST
NAYS (6): G. Bédard, G. Hunter, B. Monette, D. Thompson, P. Feltmate, J. Stavinga
YEAS (6) R. Bloess, A. Cullen, J. Legendre, M. McRae, C. Doucet, P. Hume
Councillor Legendre introduced a Motion calling for the guidelines, when dealing with built forms, to apply to noise situations that affect the normal enjoyment of one’s property because they are repetitive in nature and occur at certain times of the day. When asked to comment, Mr. Simpson indicated that the Motion seemed appropriate.
Councillor Georges Bédard felt there should be some kind of measurement device, as he could not see how frequency and irritation, which appear to be objective factors, would be measured. He was also unsure about how this could be supported in a Court of Law.
Mr. Hazem Gadamy said that engineers would know by training and by experience that such and such a source would cause annoyance or generate annoying frequencies and/or cyclical variations: an appropriate penalty could be added to the source according to MOE guidelines. There are also instruments to help measure unusual pitch or perfom cyclical valuations. Councillor Bédard presumed that staff would be coming back with a revised by-law to address performance measures and help get convictions in court. Mr. Jacobs clarified that the noise guidelines are not intended to address habitual noise complaints but he agreed to provide the Director of By-law Services with the information garnered through this analysis.
Mr. Marc cautioned that a Motion to change the OP amendment must be introduced by a member of the Planning and Environment Committee.
Moved by G. Bédard
Notwithstanding
the thresholds that are proposed in the Noise Guidelines, resolved that the
guidelines, when applied to existing built forms, also apply to noise
situations that are demonstrably annoying and affect the normal enjoyment of
one’s property either because of its repetitive nature, because of its quality
or because of the time of day.
CARRIED
The Committee then considered the following Motions:
Moved by G. Bédard
That Document 3 of the Joint Committee report be incorporated in the
City Official Plan.
CARRIED
(G. Hunter dissented)
On the advice of Mr. Marc, the Planning and Environment Committee approved the report recommendation, as amended by the foregoing:
1. The amendment to the 2003 Official Plan
to revise the policies in Section 4.8.8 Road, Rail, Transit Corridor Noise
and Noise from Stationary Sources, as attached in Document 1 and that
Document 3 (Table) be incorporated in the City Official Plan.
CARRIED,
as amended
The Joint
Committees then considered Recommendations 2 and 3, with the addition of the
previously approved Motion.
2. The new Environmental Noise Control
Guidelines (issued separately as Document 2). Notwithstanding the thresholds that are proposed in the Noise
Guidelines, that the guidelines (when applied to existing built forms) also
apply to noise situations that are demonstrably annoying and affect the normal
enjoyment of one’s property either because of its repetitive nature, because of
its quality or because of the time of the day.
3. An
addendum to the Environmental Noise Control Guidelines to include Appendix
E: Typical Sound Level Examples, as attached in Document 3.
CARRIED,
as amended