Ministry of Municipal…

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Municipal Services Division Municipal Services Office - Central Ontario 777 Bay Street, Floor 13 Toronto ON M5G 2E5 ATTN: The Honourable Steven Clark, MPP Minister of Municipal Affairs Dear Sir: Re:Adoption of City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment –Yonge-Eglinton Official Plan Amendment No. 405 (By-law 1284-2018) EBR Registry Number: 013-3483 Ministry Reference Number: 20-OP-187916 240 Eglinton Avenue East We are the solicitors for the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, a statutory corporation created pursuant to the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, (“CPAO”), and the registered owner of the property municipally identified as 240 Eglinton Avenue East (the “Property”), located on the north side of Eglinton Avenue, immediately west of Mount Pleasant Avenue. We are writing on behalf of CPAO in response to the abovementioned invitation for comments to express our client’s concerns with official plan amendment No. 405 as adopted by City Council on July 27, 2018 (the “Midtown Plan”) currently before the Ministry for review. The Midtown Plan, in our client’s respectful submission, is not consistent with number of the key policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (“PPS”) nor does it conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 (the “Growth Plan”). As they apply to our client’s property, a variety of the policies of the Midtown Plan will not serve to further objectives in these provincial instruments relating to the encouragement of intensification to promote efficient land use and optimal use of infrastructure and promotion of patterns of development that will support transit viability and active transportation. The following discussion of our client’s concerns is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of policies within the Midtown Plan that would benefit from modification or refinement - only to highlight some of the more obvious deficiencies that, in the CPAO’s view, should weigh against its approval by the Minister. By way of context, the CPAO’s Property is a site of approximately 615.5 square metres, currently developed with a 5 storey office building that formerly housed the CPAO’s head offices, and is now vacant. The Property is located within the boundaries of the Yonge-Eglinton Centre area in the Midtown Plan as delineated on Map 21-1 - an urban growth centre in the Growth Plan planned to accommodate significant population and employment growth. By 2031, all such urban growth centres within the City are intended to achieve a target of no less than 400 residents and jobs per hectare (Policy 2.2.3(b)), with this target being a minimum that Policy 5.2.5 of the Growth Plan encourages the City to exceed, where appropriate. Within the context of the Midtown Plan, the Property, steps away from the intersection of Eglinton Avenue and Mount Pleasant, is also proposed to be situated within the Major Transit Station area surrounding the future Mount Pleasant Station on the Eglinton Crosstown light rapid transit (“LRT”) line (See Map 21-3). Policy 2.4.4b of the Midtown Plan provides that a minimum density target of 350 residents and jobs per hectare is to be achieved for the Mount Pleasant Station Transit Area. The Property’s geographical location and planned function within the context of the Midtown Plan therefore encourages and indeed demands intensification. The Midtown Plan, as currently drafted, however, will prevent that intensification. Our client is supportive of the Mixed Use Areas A land use designation applied to its Property, which is generally consistent with the aim of intensification. It is concerned, however, that the range and prescriptive nature of various built form restrictions proposed to be applied by the Midtown Plan to the Property, will effectively work against this aim to inappropriately limit the density potential that can be achieved, contrary to the objectives of the Growth Plan and PPS. For example, Map 21-12 operates to restrict the maximum height of buildings on the Property to 15 storeys or 55 metres, a limit which CPAO respectfully submits is not appropriately informed by the Property’s surrounding planned context, location within a Midtown Transit Station Area, nor indeed, the history of recommendations provided by City planning staff with respect to built form. As the record before Council indicates, staff have provided recommendations in support of greater maximum heights in the range of 27 to 29 storeys for lands in the vicinity of the Property. In view of the significant public infrastructure investment proposed in the form of the Mount Pleasant LRT Station, the reduced 15 storey maximum height ultimately incorporated within the final form of the Midtown Plan adopted by Council does not appropriately respond to clear policy directions within the PPS and Growth Plan that encourage intensification of uses through planning that will optimize the use of existing and planned infrastructure and be transit-supportive. In this respect, we request that the Ministry consider the revision of Map 21-12 to restore the former 27 to 29 storey height range previously contemplated by the Midtown Plan’s earlier drafts for the Property and neighbouring lands. This height is consistent with the heights of a number of buildings along Eglinton Avenue either approved, existing or under construction and appropriately recognizes the Property’s proximity to planned, higher order transit. A similar concern relating to intensification potential is created by the setback requirements proposed to be applied by the Midtown Plan for properties along the north side of Eglinton Avenue between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Avenue. Policy 3.2.2b requires a minimum 12 metre at- and above-grade setback, measured from building face to the property line abutting Eglinton Avenue to be provided to accommodate the Eglinton Greenline public realm feature. Given the modest depth of our client’s Property (approximately 40 metres), a street line setback of this magnitude would reduce the available building area substantially. Given the constrained dimensions of the Property, a setback area of this size coupled with the abovementioned height limits would remove a range of design options for the Property and compromise its viability as a development site with intensification potential. The CPAO is supportive of the City’s efforts to implement public realm enhancements along the Eglinton Avenue frontage but is of the view that the attempt to achieve this objective through the means proposed is overreaching. Particularly when coupled with the restrictive height limit currently proposed, the requirement will create significant impediments towards future redevelopment of the now-vacant Property. The City has the authority to require conveyance of parkland as a condition of development as well as the means, via s. 37 of the Planning Act to secure benefits for community use where increases of height and density are granted. At a more general level, the CPAO is concerned that the Midtown Plan in the form approved by Council imposes an unnecessarily rigid built form regime for all redevelopment within the area. Aside from the height and setback requirements already discussed, for example, the Midtown Plan’s Built Form policies for Midtown Tall Buildings attempts to regulate building performance standards such as the minimum height of base buildings, the depth of stepbacks of upper levels, maximum tower floorplates, and prescribes separation distances between residential towers and between towers and adjacent school properties. Similarly, restrictive built form policies are proposed for mid and low-rise forms. Such numerous restrictions are inappropriate within the context of an official plan instrument. Furthermore, in our client’s submission they are not only likely to frustrate desirable intensification by putting up obstacles to redevelopment, but will eliminate opportunities for design flexibility and architectural responsiveness to context. The Midtown Plan also introduces a range of new policy requirements relating to use that the CPAO regards as problematic. Within the Mixed Use Areas A designation, for instance, applicable to the Property, tall buildings are subject to a requirement for a provision of a minimum percentage of space for office and/or cultural or institutional uses - the greater of 25% of the total gross floor area or 100% replacement of all office gross floor area. Single-use residential buildings and stand-alone retail, among other uses, are prohibited outright. Additionally, across the entirety of the Midtown area, all residential development that contains 80 or more new residential units are subject to a mandatory requirement to provide minimum percentages of 2- and 3- bedroom units at minimum unit sizes of 87 and 100 square metres respectively, culminating in over 25% of units being required to contain 2 or more bedrooms. Such restrictions do not allow for responsiveness to market conditions and, furthermore, given the constraints relating to residential uses, have the potential to negatively impact the Midtown Plan’s ability to respond to policy directives within the Growth Plan and PPS that emphasize the need to ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet projected future needs, including affordable housing. For the foregoing reasons, amongst others, we are requesting that the Minister take no action to approve the Midtown Plan in its current form, thereby allowing property owners the opportunity to appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, or else defer approval until further consultation with stakeholders has been undertaken and the opportunity for discussion of appropriate modifications has been provided. Thank you for your consideration of these submissions. Yours truly, McCarthy Tétrault LLP Per: Michael Foderick MF C. Mr. Bernie Vogel, Vice-President, Finance, Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario C. Mr. Tom Litzgus, Vice-President, Associate General Counsel, Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario