Application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -

429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and

324 Cherry Street - Home Depot (Don River)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following reports (November 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and (November 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be adopted; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the C.A.O. meet with the local councillors, and afterward, a broader range of Members of Council, to discuss the strategies for the port lands that the City should adopt, in view of the decisions being taken, and the development proposals under appeal at the Ontario Municipal Board, or matters within the proposed ambit of the new marine body.

The above recommendations were carried unanimously as follows:

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Fotinos, Jakobek, Korwin-Kuczynski, Layton, Silva and Walker - 11

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that City Council refuse the Home Depot application for amendments to the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a retail warehouse in the East Bayfront and that the City Solicitor be instructed to advise the Ontario Municipal Board of this position at the pre-hearing conference of December 21, 1998. The report also recommends that a larger retail policy study be carried out.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council refuse the application of Home Depot to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a retail warehouse in the East Bayfront and that the City Solicitor advise the Ontario Municipal Board at its pre-hearing conference of December 21, 1998 of Council's decision.

(2) The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in conjunction with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to undertake a study of the land use, economic development and policy implications of permitting additional big box retail development within the South District (the former City of Toronto), including the Port Industrial District, and that recommendations on this matter be brought back to Toronto Community Council in 1999.

Background:

An application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the properties at 324 Cherry Street and 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East was submitted by The Home Depot Canada on June 27, 1997 ( Map 1).

On January 22, 1998, The Home Depot Canada appealed its application to the Ontario Municipal Board for refusal or neglect of the city to enact an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment.

An Ontario Municipal Board pre-hearing conference to consider that appeal, and the appeals to the East Bayfront Official Plan and Zoning By-law by 1227803 Ontario Limited and 1147390 Ontario Limited was held on August 4 and 5, 1998. At that pre-hearing, it was agreed to combine the Home Depot and East Bayfront appeals.

The City Solicitor informed the Board that Council, at its meeting of June 24 and 25, 1998, had recommended that a full hearing on the Home Depot application and East Bayfront objections should not take place until a research report on the cumulative impact of big box retail on the City's retail strips had been completed and evaluated in the context of the Home Depot application, the City's land use policies for the East Bayfront, and retail activity in general. This study was to be completed by the beginning of November 1998, and to be reported on by December 15, 1998, prior to the Ontario Municipal Board pre-hearing on December 21, 1998.

Subject to the City confirming its position on the Home Depot application at the December 21, 1998 pre-hearing, the Board set a six week hearing starting on March 22, 1999.

Urban Planning and Development Services has since received two other applications in the vicinity of Lake Shore Boulevard and Cherry Street. On July 30, 1998, a joint application was submitted by United Castan Corporation and TEDCO for an Official Plan Amendment for an area of the Port Industrial District and East Bayfront including Polson and Cousins Quays, and the proposed Home Depot site (Map 2). This application requests redesignation from General Industrial and General Use to Medium Density Mixed Commercial-Residential for the Cherry Street corridor and the quays. For the lands to the east, the requested redesignation is from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial and from General Industrial to General Use.

In the absence of letters of consent from the other affected landowners, and submission of a complete application, the United Castan/TEDCO application has not been circulated. In a letter dated October 26, 1998, from the solicitors for United Castan, I received notice that this application had been appealed to the OMB on the grounds that notice of a public meeting under Section 17(15) of the Planning Act had not been issued within the required time.

In a letter dated November 6, 1998, TEDCO withdrew as a co-applicant to the Official Plan Amendment application. The TEDCO letter also refers to my discussions with the TEDCO Board on October 27, 1998 including discussion of the need for a Part II Study for the Port Industrial District, a matter on which I will report further to the December 9, 1998 meeting of Toronto Community Council.

The second application was received on August 17, 1998, as a letter from the solicitors for Costco Canada Inc., requesting an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the lands bounded by Lake Shore Boulevard East, Saulter Street, Commissioners Street and the Don Roadway. The application proposes to develop a warehouse membership club in the area of the Port Industrial District known as the Port Centre. In the absence of complete documentation, this letter has not been accepted as an actual application for an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning. The letter notes that TEDCO has signed an agreement with Costco to lease approximately 6.4 hectares (15.89 acres) of land to Costco in this location. The eventual acceptance of a complete application will require the City to reopen studies of the appropriateness of the Port Centre, a "power centre" of big box retail uses within the Port Industrial District.

Comments:

Planning Considerations

(a) The Home Depot Application

I have reviewed the Home Depot application, and I have informed the owner that there are a number of reasons to refuse this application.

The Home Depot Canada is seeking an amendment to the former City of Toronto Part I Official Plan and Zoning By-law for a big box retail store totalling 9,940 square metres (107,000 square feet). Site plan approval has also been requested. The proposed store would be located on 5.5 hectares (13.6 acres) of vacant land on the water's edge at the mouth of the Keating Channel in the East Bayfront. The existing I2 D3 zoning does not permit a retail store. Zoning By-law 1997-0184 (the East Bayfront Amendment), which is not yet in force but has been adopted by Council, would permit one retail store to a maximum of 4,500 square metres (48,400 square feet) per lot.

(b) Official Plan Policies for the Waterfront

Section 14 of the former City of Toronto's Official Plan contains policies to guide waterfront development. Sections 14.1 through 14.12 include general policies discussing the City's goals and objectives for all waterfront development, followed by specific sections which deal with individual geographic areas. The general sections address the unique location of waterfront sites, the waterfront's local and regional prominence, its importance as a "place" and its visibility at the water's edge where the city meets Lake Ontario. These policies as well as the ones pertaining to the East Bayfront are discussed below with reference to the Home Depot application.

Section 14.1 states that the waterfront provides significant opportunities for the realization of important city objectives due to the extensive land ownership by governments, their boards, agencies and commissions and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, and for the redevelopment of such land, as well as of privately owned lands within the area. This section recognizes that unique opportunities exist for development and public initiatives which are not possible in other areas of the city. I believe that this large development site at 429 Lake Shore Boulevard and 324 Cherry Street could contribute to important city objectives, and it is therefore not appropriate to permit a Home Depot store in the location.

Section 14.28 stipulates that the physical form of new development should include the location of buildings and landscaping in a manner that defines Queens Quay as a significant waterfront boulevard and reinforces the system of public open spaces south of Queens Quay. While Queens Quay East terminates at the Parliament Street slip to the west of the site, for the eastern portion of the East Bayfront, Lake Shore Boulevard acts as the primary waterfront boulevard. I believe that views from the waterfront boulevard to the lake should be maintained in this location. I do not believe that a view of a retail warehouse use with its attendant parking uses is consistent with Official Plan policies for areas of redevelopment on this part of the water's edge.

Unlike the other industrial areas of the former City of Toronto, the East Bayfront does not have an Official Plan designation on Map 1, the Generalized Land Use Plan of the Part 1 Official Plan. Instead, the area is guided by a series of distinct planning and urban design policies found in Section 14.28 and 14.34. These policies encourage a mix of industrial and commercial development, provided the total non-residential floor area of any building does not exceed 3 times the area of the lot. The fact that a standardized Official Plan designation does not exist, points to the unique nature of development anticipated here.

The prominence of the development site proposed for Home Depot is also reinforced by the fact that it is identified on Map 4 of the Official Plan as one of the Prominent Areas and Sites within the Inner Harbour.

Section 14.2 of the Official Plan sets out its first objective for waterfront development as being to extend the richness, diversity and activity of city life into the Waterfront. Big box retail in this location does not introduce retail diversity to the waterfront in a way which supports the characteristic structure and retailing patterns of the former City of Toronto, I believe that permitting such a use on the waterfront would be contrary to this policy.

(c) East Bayfront Policies

In June 1995, in recognition of the instability of the East Bayfront as a redevelopment area, the former City of Toronto Council established the East Bayfront Working Committee with membership including business owners and landowners in the East Bayfront, representatives of the Don River Task Force, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, TEDCO, and the then Ward 6 and 7 Councillors in order to review the East Bayfront planning framework. One of the objectives of the study was to identify where additional non-residential land uses could be permitted in the East Bayfront while promoting a stable business environment.

As a result of the study, a new zoning was proposed, a mixed industrial and commercial zoning called IC D3 N1.5. The amount of non-residential floor area for commercial and institutional uses was raised from .5 to 1.5 times the area of the lot and retail development east of Jarvis Street was capped at 4,500 square metres of new floor space. Retail uses beyond that size were not contemplated as being appropriate for this area, which was intended to be a mixed industrial commercial district, not a major shopping destination centre. It should be noted that there is a trend for big box retailers to locate close to each other, and that the overall size limitation in the East Bayfront would help to support the industrial commercial mix deemed desirable. The recommendations of this Working Committee were adopted by Council and incorporated into revised Official Plan policies and zoning by-law amendments for the East Bayfront. It would be inappropriate, given the extensive work and deliberation involved in this public process to ignore these recommendations.

d) Policies regarding Economic Activity

Section 9.9 of the Part I Official Plan of the former City of Toronto identifies the importance of retail activity in the city and describes how this activity should be strengthened. In order to support this section of the Plan, there is a restriction on the amount of new retail floor space that may be constructed in most areas of the former city (Section 9.15). Official Plan Amendment No. 643, passed on August 29, 1994, establishes specific policies in the Part I Official Plan to prohibit big box retail stores throughout the city.

Despite OPA No. 643, big box retail stores, including The Home Depot, have been permitted in the Stockyard District (OPA 63, passed on July 5, 1996). In order for a big box retail store to be permitted here, the owner was required to apply for a rezoning and in doing so to respond to a variety of conditions related to economic impact, capacity of existing roads and transportation systems, and compliance with Council's general design guidelines for warehouse format stores. Previously I had reported that the same conditions should be applied to a review of the East Bayfront Home Depot application. However, I have since concluded that while both districts are redevelopment districts, they exist within different contexts. Even if these conditions could be met in the East Bayfront, they will not succeed in satisfying the previously mentioned conditions of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for waterfront development in this location.

The City also has policies to protect its traditional pattern of retail strips and puts considerable effort into doing so. Section 9.10 of the Plan recognizes that retail strips are important not only for purposes of providing viable shopping districts, but also as centres of community activity and animated public spaces.

In response to concerns about the cumulative impact of big box retailing on the former City of Toronto's retail strips and downtown, a research study was authorized by Council at its meeting of June 24 and 25, 1998, to be prepared by the Centre of Commercial Activity at Ryerson University. The results of this study are being reported on separately by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture.

For all of the reasons outlined above, I believe that the proposed retail warehouse use is not in conformity with the goals and objectives set out for development in Sections 9 and 14 of the Official Plan.

(e) Site Planning and Urban Design

As a result of considerable discussion with representatives of Home Depot Canada, changes were made to their initial proposal in an attempt to address many of the transportation, environmental and urban design issues pertinent to the site. The changes which Home Depot agreed to consider included breaking down the visual obtrusiveness of the building by an improved massing scheme, providing a "living roof" demonstration to deal with vast expanses of a tar roof, providing a significant tree canopy throughout the site and a well landscaped water's edge. However, in spite of all of the attempts to improve the site plan, the fact remains that the use of the site as a retail warehouse is not appropriate.

For this reason I have informed representatives of The Home Depot that I do not believe that further site development would be helpful in overcoming the fundamental planning issues.

(f) Gateway Site and Future Development

The proposed Home Depot site is situated at the entrance to the Port Industrial District. As a gateway site, I believe that any use located here should contribute to the image and future potential of adjacent lands.

In addition to the applications for the Cherry Street corridor and for the Port Centre, there are other development pressures and opportunities. The Port is being considered as a possible location for an Athletes' Village for the 2008 Olympics. The City is also examining the ramifications of proposals to take down the Gardiner Expressway. Should this occur, there will be extensive study of the system of streets and blocks within the vicinity of the corner of Lake Shore Boulevard and Cherry Street. While the site is cut off from the normal street and block pattern of the city because of Lake Shore Boulevard, the elevated portions of the Gardiner and the rail lines, I believe that these problems should be more fully addressed prior to development in order to realize the full potential of this site on the waterfront at the mouth of the Keating Channel.

I am also aware that TEDCO believes that development of this site is critical in resolving the current significant traffic congestion and signalling problems at the corner of Cherry Street and Lake Shore Boulevard, which it believes will worsen with additional development and be a deterrent to potential users of the Port.

(g) Retail Policy Study and Part II Official Plan Study of the Port Industrial District

In the context of the many, often conflicting proposals in the Port Area and vicinity, the Cherry Street corridor and Port Centre applications, a potential Olympic Athletes' Village, and the possible taking down of the Gardiner Expressway- I will be recommending in a future report to Council that I undertake a Part II Official Plan Study for the Port Industrial District.

As a result of the Home Depot analysis and the findings of the retail research, it has become clear that the city should develop an approach to big box retail which goes beyond the policies set out in the current Official Plan and begins to address where such uses might be appropriately located, including an assessment of the Port Centre in the Port Industrial District. I believe that this would provide assurances to both retail strip merchants as well as big box developers about the precise nature of the city's position. For this reason I am recommending that a study of big box retail policy be undertaken and that I report back to Toronto Community Council in 1999.

Conclusion

That the Home Depot application be refused as it contradicts many current city policies and objectives and sets an undesirable precedent for other important development sites in the area.

Contact:

Elyse Parker

Telephone:392-0069

Fax:392-1330

E-Mail:eparker@city.toront.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Lake Shore/ Cherry Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Lake Shore/ Cherry Street

(Report (November 1998) from K.G. Jones and M.J. Doucet respecting The Impact of Big-Box Retailing on Toronto's Retail Structure is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (October 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Recommendation:

That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services prepare a further report on this application to be forwarded as a deputation item to the Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998.

Comments:

Home Depot submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application on June 27, 1997 to build a store at 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and 324 Cherry Street. In my preliminary report on the application I identified a number of issues to be addressed including the economic impact. The City has retained a consultant to assist with this study and it is expected to be complete by the end of October. Upon receipt of this study staff will be able to complete a report on the Home Depot application and forward it to the Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998.

As there has been considerable public interest in this item, I am requesting that it be heard as a deputation item.

Contact:

Elyse Parker

Telephone:(416) 392-0069

Fax:(416) 392-1330

E-Mail:eparker@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(November 6, 1998) from Councillor McConnell;

-(November 6, 1998) from Mr. Stephen Willis, TEDCO;

-(November 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting Cumulative Impact of Big Box Retailing;

-(November 10, 1998) from Mr. John Wakulat, Roncesvalles Village BIA;

-(November 10, 1998) from Mr. D.F. Given, President, Malone Given Parsons Ltd.;

-(November 11, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association;

-(November 11, 1998) from Mr. Nicholas T. Macos, Morrison Brown, Sosnovitch;

-(November 11, 1998) from Mr. Mark Crowe, Chair, Parkdale Village BIA;

-(undated) Photographs and plans of Cherry Street Quays;

-(November 12,1998) from Ms. Marilyn Churley, M.P.P. Riverdale;

-(November 10, 1998) from Mr. John Ha, Vice-President and Sammun Kim, General Manager, Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association;

-(undated) from Mr. David E. Tyson;

-(November 12, 1998) from Helene St. Jacques, Board of Directors, Queen East Business Association; and

-(November 11, 1998) from Mr. Stephen Kauffman, Director of Real Estate, The Home Depot Canada.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Paul Dineen, Old Cabbagetown B.I.A. - Chair & Chair of TABIA Committee on Big Box Retail;

-Mr. Dalton C. Shipway, Watersheds United;

-Mr. Peter Smith, Portlands Citizen Action Committee;

-Ms. Lena Badhwar, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Alex Ling, Chair, TABIA;

-Mr. Don Given, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Nicholas Macos, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Stephen Kauffman, The Home Depot;

-Mr. Barry Lowe, Weston B.I.A.; and

-Mr. Stephen Longo, Goodman and Carr.