November 28, 2018 Ministry…

November 28, 2018 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Municipal Services Division Municipal Services Office - Central Ontario 777 Bay Street, Floor 13 Toronto ON M5G 2E5 To Whom It May Concern, RE:NOTICE OF OBJECTION to TO Core - Official Plan Amendment No. 406 (“OPA 406”) as it affects the properties municipally known as 1, 9 & 11 BLOOR STREET WEST and 760, 762, 768, 770, 774, 774¿, 776, 778, 780, 782 & 784 YONGE STREET in the City of Toronto We are the solicitors for Mizrahi Development Group (The One) Inc., the owner of the properties municipally known as 1, 9 & 11 Bloor Street West and 760, 762, 768, 770, 774, 774¿, 776, 778, 780, 782 & 784 Yonge Street (the “Site”) in the City of Toronto, which Site is located within the boundaries of the above-referenced Official Plan Amendment. Our client is in the process of obtaining final approvals in respect of development applications filed for the Site, which Site was acquired in reliance upon the “in force” policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan. Our client purchased their property, after conducting their due diligence and reviewing the various permissions contained in the “in force” policies, and relied on these policies in purchasing their property. We have attempted to provide a list of the ways in which OPA 406 does not meet the requirements of the Planning Act. It is our client’s position that OPA 406 is not a s. 26 exercise pursuant to the Act and furthermore, it is also our client’s respectful submission that the passage of OPA 406 is not in keeping with provincial land use plans and policies. It is our client’s sincere hope that such concerns can be fully addressed by the Ministry’s review process. Does not conform with provincial plans or conflicts with them, as the case may be OPA 406 seeks to impose prescriptive built form standards, such as those regulating setbacks, unit mixes, floorplate sizes and location of indoor amenity space in both residential and non-residential development. OPA 406 also seeks to protect parks and open spaces from any new net shadow from 10:18-4:18 from March 21st to September 21st. The test of “no net new shadow” is not achievable in an urban environment and if implemented, would prohibit most reasonable developments from being realized. In our respectful submission, these new policies will restrict intensification in areas of the City that are targeted for growth by imposing such strict standards. The City’s Official Plan and the recent Tall Building Guidelines OPA already seek to adequately protect parks and open spaces and regulate new residential buildings by controlling the floorplate size of towers and ensuring that any new shadows on parks and open spaces are adequately minimized. These new policies in OPA 406 will have the effect of rendering developments in the center of the City, an area targeted for greater intensification in provincial plans such as the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, unfeasible. Does not have regard to the matters of provincial interest listed in section 2 Section 2(n) of the Planning Act states that a matter of provincial interest is “the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests.” However, with the recent changes to the Planning Act, the City has been given extraordinary powers to pass Official Plan Amendments such as the City-initiated OPA 406 without any right of appeal for those affected by the amendments. The Report outlining OPA 406 was released to the public on April 17th, 2018, only two weeks before the Planning and Growth Management Committee meeting on May 1, 2018. Additionally, the statutory open house on OPA 406 was scheduled for one week prior to the meeting of the Planning and Growth Management Committee, and then OPA 406 was quickly adopted by City Council with amendments less than a month later on May 22nd, 2018. Our client ought to have been provided with an opportunity to properly review OPA 406 and to meaningfully consult with City Staff on our concerns with the draft polices. In the case of OPA 406, there has been no meaningful consultation with many private landowners on the policy changes. As well, the Site, without the inclusion of a “grandfathering clause” to recognize pre-existing approvals and/or applications which are currently being processed, is significantly impacted by the passage of OPA 406. Our client has invested time into revising their applications in accordance with the comments of City Staff and the planning guidelines in the Official Plan, Growth Plan and Provincial Policy Plan. To approve the OPA 406 without a clear plan in place for property owners such as our client creates planning conflicts between property owners and the City. Is not consistent with policy statements issued under subsection 3(1) OPA 406 seeks to restrict residential development in the downtown core by allowing only new non-residential development in the Financial District and Health Sciences District and by requiring a minimum amount of non-residential space in other areas of the downtown, including areas which are well-served by transit. These policies, in our respectful submission, are in direct conflict with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, which set minimum density targets to encourage residential intensification in centres, including the downtown area of the City. The use of Section 26 in this case has resulted in an update to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto, which update has been approved at a municipal level without meaningful consultation with stakeholders such as our client, and which update conflicts with existing policy statements and provincial policies and interests. Our client has significant concerns with the use of Section 26 of the Planning Act as a tool to pass radical changes to the Official Plan in a piecemeal fashion, rather than for its intended purpose of a full comprehensive review. As such, it is our respectful submission that OPA 406 does not meet the requirements under Section 26 of the Planning Act and its passage in fact constitutes an abuse of process. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the writer, or Naomi Mares, a lawyer in our office. Yours very truly, Adam J. Brown