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 Midtown in Focus - Official Plan Amendment No. 405 (“OPA 405”) as it affects the properties municipally known as 1674-1684 BAYVIEW AVENUE, 701-713 SOUDAN AVENUE AND 720 HILLSDALE AVENUE EAST in the City of Toronto EBR Registry No. 013-3483 Ministry Reference No. 20-OP-187916 We are the solicitors for the owners of the properties municipally known as 1674-1684 Bayview Avenue, 701-713 Soudan Avenue and 720 Hillsdale Avenue East (the “Site”) in the City of Toronto, which Site is located within the boundaries of the above-referenced Official Plan Amendment. Our clients are in the process of obtaining final approvals in respect of development applications filed for the Site. The Site was acquired in reliance upon the “in force” policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan. Our clients 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 405 does not meet the requirements of the Planning Act. It is our clients’ position that OPA 405 is not a s. 26 exercise pursuant to the Act and furthermore, it is also our clients’ respectful submission that the passage of OPA 405 is not in keeping with provincial land use plans and policies. It is our clients’ 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 405 seeks to impose prescriptive built form standards, such as those regulating unit mixes and sizes, and the location of indoor amenity space. OPA 405 also seeks to protect existing parks and open spaces listed in sections 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 from “no net new shadow” on March 21st and September 21st between 9:18 a.m. to 6:18 p.m. The unit sizes prescribed are not realistic if the goal is to achieve affordable units. 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. Section 3.3.18 of OPA 405 also introduces the notion of alternative parkland dedication rates that will be established through a forthcoming by-law. However, the policy does not provide a clear indication of the basis upon which these alternative rates will be determined, stating only that they will be “commensurate with the intensity of development.” Vague policies such as these create a lack of certainty for our clients. In our respectful submission, these new policies will restrict intensification in areas of the City that are targeted for growth. The City’s Official Plan already ensures that any new shadows on parks and open spaces are adequately minimized and regulates matters such as unit mixes. The uncertainty of the alternative parkland dedication rates will act as a disincentive to development. In our respectful submission, OPA 405 will have the effect of rendering developments within the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan area unfeasible and will restrict intensification in an area of the City that is targeted for growth by imposing such a strict standard. 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 405 without any right of appeal for those affected by the amendments. The Report outlining OPA 405 was released to the public on May 24th, 2018, only two weeks before the Planning and Growth Management Committee meeting. Our clients ought to have been provided with an opportunity to properly review OPA 405 and to meaningfully consult with City Staff on our concerns with the draft policies, particularly given the fact that there is no further avenue for our clients to express their concerns. In the case of this Official Plan Amendment, there has been no meaningful consultation with many private landowners on the policy changes. As well, on July 23, 2018, City Council approved a version of OPA 405 which had lowered the maximum building heights in several Character Areas from those presented in the original OPA 405 which was drafted by City Staff and presented to the Planning and Growth Committee. This reduction in heights (for example from 40+ storeys along Eglinton Avenue to 15-20 storeys) came about as a result of the Planning and Growth Committee politically suggesting that reducing these heights should be explored, thus departing from the professional recommendations from City Staff in their May 2018 Final Report, without pursuing any further study and without meaningful consultation with stakeholders. Instead, the reduced maximum building heights were determined by way of a brief canvassing of a group of participants at one community consultation meeting. Our clients feel that this approach to policymaking disregards their role as stakeholders and is no substitute for meaningful consultation. Section 2(r) of the Planning Act states that a matter of provincial interest is the “promotion of built form that, (i) is well-designed, (ii) encourages a sense of place, and (iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.” However, OPA 405 requires that mid-block pedestrian connections be secured as part of the development of sites and within larger city blocks, including, but not limited to, those pedestrian connections identified on Map 21-9. These policies provide no certainty as to where pedestrian connections will be specifically located, with no due consideration for the practicality of applying such policies to sites that are not “through sites” (connecting from one street to the next), and as such, may never facilitate the completion of such pedestrian connections. Is not consistent with policy statements issued under subsection 3(1) The prescriptive built form standards and uncertain alternative parkland dedication rates mentioned above will also have the effect of restricting development in an area that is appropriate for intensification and well-served by transit. As a result, OPA 405 is not consistent with and does not conform to the Provincial Policy Statement. 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 consulting with stakeholders such as our clients, and which update conflicts with existing policy statements and provincial policies and interests. Our clients have 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 405 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