Project No. 1809 September…

Project No. 1809 September 19, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Municipal Services Division Municipal Services Office - Central Ontario 777 Bay Street, Floor 13 Toronto ON M5G 2E5 Re:City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment No. 405 (OPA 405) Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan We are the planning consultants to Greenrock Real Estate Advisors (“Greenrock”) with respect to the above-noted matter. Greenrock is a longstanding multi-residential rental property owner in the Yonge-Eglinton neighbourhood, that has developed and continues to own multiple properties. Greenrock has a strong interest in continuing to grow the community and its multi-residential rental stock in the area. Among other lands within the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan Area, Greenrock is the manager and owner of, or has a development interest in, the following lands: 1.45 Balliol Street and 57-93 Balliol Street; 2.50-64 Merton Street; 3.216-240 Balliol Street, a portion of 200 Balliol Street, and 195-221 Davisville Avenue; and 4.225 Davisville Avenue. The subject lands are located within the area subject to the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan. The properties at 45 Balliol Street and 57-93 Balliol Street and 50-64 Merton Street are approximately 115 and 195 metres, respectively, from the entrance to the Davisville subway station, and accordingly are within a “major transit station area” as defined by the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The two other properties are located approximately 585 and 665 metres from the station entrance. On July 27, 2018, the City of Toronto Council adopted OPA 405 with respect to the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, and authorized the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to “seek the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs of Ontario under Section 26 of the Planning Act”. We understand that the Notice of Adoption has been submitted to Mr. Aly N. Alibhai, Regional Director Municipal Services Office – Central Ontario, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On behalf of Greenrock, Bousfields Inc. attended three public meetings held by City staff, as well as submitted letters dated February 23, 2018 and June 6, 2018 to both staff and Council, in opposition to OPA 405. In summary, we recommend that: A.Should the Ministry decide to review the OPA, that you determine that OPA 405 is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014, and does not conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017, and accordingly refuse to approve OPA 405. Or, in the alternative; B.The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing not review OPA 405, and instead send the proposed OPA back to the City of Toronto Council for a decision under Section 17 of the Planning Act. We object to OPA 405 and its proposed approval under Section 26 of the Planning Act for the following reasons: 1.In our opinion, proposed OPA 405 does not constitute either an official plan review or a provincial plan conformity exercise and therefore is not subject to approval pursuant to Section 26 of the Planning Act. We would therefore request that OPA 405 be deemed to be an inappropriate matter for Provincial approval, and be returned to the City to be adopted through the proper route, under Section 17 of the Planning Act, thereby maintaining our client’s right of appeal. Section 26(3)(a) requires Council to consult with the approval authority (in this case, the Ministry) and with prescribed public bodies with respect to any revisions to the official plan that may be necessary. There is no apparent evidence that the Ministry was consulted with respect to the revisions required as part of the exercise, and even if so, the public has no information on that consultation or its results. In addition, Section 26(3)(b) requires Council to hold a special public meeting that is open to the public to discuss the revisions to the official plan that may be required. There is no apparent evidence that such a meeting was held. While the Planning and Growth Management Committee meeting held on June 7, 2018 (and continued on July 5, 2018) purports to be the special public meeting required by Section 26(3)(b), it is our opinion that it cannot reasonably be considered to be the required statutory meeting as it did not provide an opportunity for members of the public to provide input on the “revisions that may be required” to bring the Official Plan into conformity with Provincial policies and plans (a meeting that in any event should have occurred near the beginning of the process in 2014). 2.In our opinion, proposed OPA 405 does not have sufficient regard to the purposes of the Planning Act. In this regard, Section 1.1 provides that one of the purposes of the Planning Act is to “to provide for planning processes that are fair by making them open, accessible, timely and efficient”. While the approval process for OPA 405 included a number of meetings where members of the public were given the opportunity to provide comment, those submissions do not appear to have been taken into consideration. In fact, in most cases, the proposed Secondary Plan was revised in a manner that was directly contrary to those submissions (see letters provided to City staff and Planning and Growth Management Committee by Bousfields Inc., appended to our letter sent directly to the Minister). As a result, at the very least, those members of the public who actively participated in the approval process, including Greenrock, should be able to appeal OPA 405 and, through that process, to ensure that their comments be fairly considered. Approving OPA 405 under Section 26 of the Planning Act would remove the right of appeal, resulting in a process that is unfair and unbalanced, contrary to the stated purposes of the Planning Act. 3.OPA 405 applies to a limited geographic area and is not City-wide in its scope or application. It does not comprehensively review the policies of the Official Plan and proposes only a few limited amendments to the City-wide policies of the Official Plan. The primary focus of OPA 405 is the adoption of a new secondary plan that applies to a specific geographic area in the Yonge-Eglinton area. In our opinion, by definition, an official plan amendment can not be reasonably expected to be considered a comprehensive review of an Official Plan. 4.Consistent with the foregoing, throughout most of the public consultation and review process and until the concluding stages of the process, OPA 405 was never referred to by the City as comprising part of the official plan review process, which has been ongoing since 2011, nor as a provincial plan conformity exercise. It appears that the last-minute decision to frame OPA 405 as a matter subject to Section 26 was done for the sole purpose of denying the right of appeal to parties who had participated throughout the public process, such as our client. Despite our concerns as outlined above, should you decide to review OPA 405 for approval under Section 26 of the Planning Act, we have the following additional comments: 1. It is our opinion that the proposed OPA is not consistent with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”) and does not conform with the 2017 Growth Plan, both of which contain a number of policies that seek to optimize the use of land and infrastructure and to promote intensification and compact built form, particularly in areas well served by higher order public transit. In our opinion, the arbitrary and overly prescriptive limitations on height and built form proposed in OPA 405 are contrary to those policy directions. As compared with the in-force Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, proposed OPA 405 will limit, rather than optimize, the use of land and infrastructure. Our concerns in this regard are exacerbated by the last-minute changes made by Planning and Growth Management Committee to further reduce heights and achievable densities, without the benefit of City Planning staff support. 2.Proposed OPA 405 does not delineate the boundaries of major transit station areas in a transit-supportive manner that maximizes the size of the area and the number of potential transit users that are within walking distance of the station, as required by Section 2.2.4 of the Provincial Growth Plan. Furthermore, no supporting analysis was provided to establish the boundaries. 3.Proposed OPA 405 and its supporting materials do not include density calculations within the Major Transit Station Areas and none of the documents presented to the public during and in support of the review process provide any density calculations in terms of job and persons per hectare, as required by the 2017 Growth Plan. Given our concerns above, and those expressed in the letters in Appendices “B” and “C”, we recommend that you refuse to review OPA 405 under Section 26 of the Planning Act. However, should you decide to review OPA 405, we submit that OPA 405 is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014, and does not conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017, and accordingly should be refused. Thank-you for your consideration of these comments. If you require any clarification or wish to discuss these matters further, please do not hesitate to contact me, or Mike Dror, Senior Planner, of our office. Yours very truly, Tom Kasprzak, MCIP, RPP Bousfields Inc