310 & 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue - Official Plan Amendment

and Rezoning Applications; Applicant: Walker Nott Dragicevic;

Owner: Goldlist Properties Inc.

Ward 28, York Eglinton

The York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications for 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue be refused;

(2)in the event the applicant submits a new application regarding these properties, that a citizens reference group be formed to review such application, and any future applications, prior to formal public meetings being held;

(3)the City Solicitor and the staff of Urban Planning and Development Services, together with any other appropriate staff, be instructed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board to defend Council's position in opposition to the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications respecting 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue; and

(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having held a statutory public meeting on July 15, 1999, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and regulations thereunder.

The York Community Council submits the following Final Report (June 28, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To report on the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications for 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue for 286 condominium units in two 25-storey towers which involve the demolition of 246 existing rental units in two 12 storey buildings.

Financing Implications:

There are no financial implications stemming from this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the application for 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue be refused and that the applicant be advised that City Council would be willing to consider a revised application that addresses the issues outlined in this report;

(2)the City Solicitor and the staff of Urban Planning and Development Services, together with any other appropriate staff, be instructed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board to defend Council's position in opposition to the applications for Official Plan Amendment and rezoning respecting 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized to undertake any necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

In 1995, following York Council's adoption of the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan, the owner, Goldlist Properties, appealed the provisions of the Secondary Plan to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), prior to the submission of the subject application in July 1998. A date for hearing this appeal has been set by the Board for September 27, 1999. A Pre-hearing Conference has been also scheduled for July 30, 1999, to finalize the procedural order for the hearing and to consider any additional motions to be brought before the Board. On May 17, 1999, the proponent appealed the subject application to the OMB to be consolidated with the hearing on the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan.

In addition, the applicant, together with 19 other appellants of Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (or OPA2 - the City's Official Plan amendment regarding the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing) have obtained a motion date commencing July 21, 1999, for the purposes of obtaining a determination from the OMB as to the legal validity and applicability of OPA2.

Given this timetable, the July 15, 1999 meeting of York Community Council and the subsequent July 27, 28, 1999 meeting of City Council are the last opportunities for Council to consider a report and give direction to staff on these matters prior July 30, 1999, Pre-hearing Conference and the September 27, 1999 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

Description of the Proposal:

The site is located within the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan area at the southwest corner of Heath Street and Tweedsmuir Avenue (See Appendix 1 - Location Map), and presently has two 12-storey rental apartment buildings with 246 units. Of the 246 existing units, the owners advise that the buildings contain 144 rental units and 102 hotel suites that are exempted from rent control and which are rented on a short-term lease basis.

The application for an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning was filed on July 30, 1998. The applicant is proposing to demolish the two existing rental buildings and replace them with two 25-storey condominium apartment towers and 36 townhouse units, for a total of 286 units. (See Table 1 - Project Information).

The current application consists of two 25-storey towers facing Tweedsmuir Avenue and connected at the second level by a recreation complex. The 36 four-storey proposed townhouse units face Heath Street, St. Michael's playing fields and Holy Rosary Catholic School. The proposed towers and townhouses would enclose an internal landscaped courtyard. All parking is to be provided below-grade and accessed from Tweedsmuir Avenue by a driveway between the two towers (See Appendices 2 - Site Plan and 3 - Elevations).

TABLE 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION

Official Plan:High Density Residential - maximum floor space index of 3.0

Zoning:RM2 - maximum floor space index of 2.5 and height of 8 storeys

Site Area:0.9226 hectares (2.2 acres)

Existing Use:two 12-storey rental apartment buildings with 144 rental units and 102 short-term rental units

Proposed Use:two 25-storey condominium apartment buildings with 250 units and 36 townhouses around the perimeter of the site. Total 286 units

Average Apartment140 m² (1,500 ft)

Average Townhouse149 m² (1,600 ft)

Proposed GFA45,066 m² (485,100 ft²)

Proposed FSI4.9 floor space index

Proposed UPH310 units per hectare

HeightApartment Buildings - 25 storeys (67 metres)

Townhouses - 3 and 4 storeys (11.7 metres)

Proposed Parking358 spaces in an underground parking garage

The proposal shows 5 units per floor in the high-rise buildings, each approximately 140 m²/unit (1,500 ft²) in size.

The surrounding uses are as follows:

West:St. Michael's College playing field;

South:Holy Rosary Catholic School;

East:Apartment buildings ranging in height from 15 to 25 storeys; and

North:Apartment buildings ranging in height from 17-18 storeys.

Application Chronology:

Following its submission in July 1998, the application was circulated to other departments and agencies for their review. A preliminary staff report on the matter was submitted to the York Community Council at its meeting of November 1998. This report identified a range of issues, including the potential loss of rental housing. The report noted that the application would be subject to emerging City policies on condominium conversion and demolition of rental housing.

A Public Information Meeting on the application was held on November 11, 1998. A further meeting was held with the community on March 30, 1999 to provide an overview of the planning process. Concerns raised by the community are discussed further in this report.

The applicant submitted the required information concerning the application in February through April 1999. As noted above, on May 17, 1999, the proponent appealed the subject application to the OMB to be consolidated with the hearing on the Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan, the date for which has been set for September 27, 1999. In addition, the applicant, together with 19 other appellants of OPA2 have obtained a motion date commencing July 21, 1999, for the purposes of obtaining a determination from the OMB as to its legal validity and applicability.

Comment:

Overview of Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Provisions:

This section of the report takes a closer look at the current planning framework with respect to the applicant's proposal.

City of York Official Plan and Zoning By-law:

As indicated, the site is designated High Density Residential in the City of York Official Plan. This designation allows apartment buildings in the range of 125 to 300 units per hectare, with a floor space index of up to 3.0 (Section 9.20). The current zoning of the site is RM2, which allows a maximum floor space index (f.s.i.) of 2.5 and a maximum height of 8 storeys. At a proposed density of 310 units per hectare and an f.s.i. of 4.9, the application would require both an Official Plan Amendment and a Rezoning.

The Official Plan provides opportunities for greater increases in density, subject to the provisions set out in Sections 9.20 and 9.22 of the Plan. Locations in the vicinity of subways may be candidate sites where the site has the capability for accommodating the intensified use, height and density, and where the development is integrated to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses.

Section 9.22 further stipulates that among the factors to be considered in assessing the applications for high-density residential development is the ability of the site to accommodate affordable housing or other needed types of housing, among other matters. Section 9.6 addresses Council's policies to encourage at least 25% of new housing production to be affordable. Both sections of the York Official Plan refer to Bonus Zoning, under Section 37 of the Planning Act, as the appropriate vehicle for permitting higher densities in exchange for affordable housing and public amenities.

The Official Plan contains general provisions (Section 4.9) which encourage diversity in form and tenure of housing, emphasizing the production of ownership housing. However, it also provides criteria in Section 9.7 b to restrict the conversion of rental housing to condominiums, as a means of preserving rental housing stock, and to discourage unnecessary or premature loss of housing through the use of demolition control.

The Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan, in which this site is located, does not contain any specific provisions relating to the site. However, the Secondary Plan (Section 21.11.4.5) removes the ability to use bonusing to add community benefits in exchange for increased density or height within its boundaries. A summary of relevant City of York Official Plan policies is provided in Appendix 5.

The Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan:

In addition to provisions related to affordable housing, Policy No. 125, states that it is the policy of Council to encourage the investment in new private rental housing and the preservation and maintenance of existing rental housing and to support provincial and federal policies in this regard.

Current Policies of the Amalgamated City of Toronto:

In 1998, the Province of Ontario repealed the Rental Housing Protection Act (RHPA) and enacted the Tenant Protection Act, which does not provide a provincially mandated approval process with respect to conversions and demolition of existing rental stock.

In recognition of the fact that:

1.policies to encourage retention and conservation of the existing stock of private rental housing (for example through discouraging demolition and conversion) represent good planning;

2.the Provincial Policy Statement directs that all planning jurisdictions in the province provide for a full range of housing types and densities to meet projected demographic and market requirements of current and future residents by a variety of means, including encouraging housing forms and densities designed to be affordable to moderate and lower income households; and

3.more than half of the residents of the City (52.5%) live in rented accommodation and the current rental vacancy rate across the City is approximately 0.8 percent.

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services reported to Council in June 1998, regarding the potential loss of rental housing. She was directed to review and report back on the matter by early fall of 1998 on appropriate City-wide policies and procedures respecting condominium conversion and the demolition of rental housing.

City Council, at its meeting of March 2, 3, and 4, 1999, approved draft official plan amendments regarding the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing (i.e. OPA2) and on April 15, 1999, City Council adopted by by-law, the above-noted Official Plan Amendments. The new City policies also reflect ongoing initiatives to harmonize the policies and practices of the former municipalities with regard to the preservation of rental housing.

The policies related to the demolition of rental housing adopted by Council are as follows:

Policy 135.4 -to seek the retention of rented residential units, except where the whole or part of a building which contains such units is in the opinion of the Chief Building Official structurally unsound, and to consider, where appropriate, acquiring or leasing a property where such units are at risk of being demolished.

Policy 135.5 (a) -when considering redevelopment applications involving the demolition of rented residential units, to seek the replacement of the demolished rental units with rental units of a similar number, type, size and level of affordability in the new development, and/or alternative arrangements, which in the opinion of Council are consistent with the intent of this policy; and

Policy 135.5 (b) -when considering such applications in the context of an increase in height and-or density, to secure such replacement units and/or alternative arrangements through an appropriate legal agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act.

These policies will assist City Council in meeting its goal of no net loss of rental housing as recommended by the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force which identified the decreasing supply of low-cost rental housing as one of the six major barriers that have prevented effective solutions to homelessness in the City. When in force, these provisions will supercede provisions in existing Official Plans regarding conversion/demolition of rental housing. As noted previously, these provisions are currently under appeal. Nevertheless, they represent an implementation and continuum of currently in force official plan provisions and form a context within which this application should be considered.

Appraisal of the Application:

This section of the report provides an overview of some of the key considerations, which have been identified in reviewing the application.

In support of the application, the applicant submitted information with regard to traffic, parking, the location of community services in the area, existing rents and housing data in response to both the Metropolitan and York Official Plans.

Agency Response:

The Buildings Section, Toronto Public School Board, and Parks Division did not forward comments. The Toronto Region Conservation Authority has no objection.

Works and Emergency Services indicated that the existing street network could accommodate the increased traffic. In addition, the applicant must prepare a recycling program and submit a storm water management study for the development.

The Fire Protection Division requires that access requirements be addressed.

Toronto Hydro required the applicant to contact the Commission about the project's electrical requirements.

The Toronto Separate School Board is concerned with construction and its effect on the adjacent school property and indicates that it objects to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments due to lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at the Holy Rosary Catholic School.

Policy Considerations:

As discussed above, to seek an increase in density from the existing 1.9 f.s.i. to the proposed 4.9 f.s.i., the York Official Plan sets out a number of criteria which must be reviewed when assessing applications for increases in density. It is noted that the site is located in close proximity to the St. Clair West subway station with convenient access to shops and services. In terms of the impact of the proposal on hard and soft services, the review of information submitted by the applicant has identified few problems with existing hard and soft services, with the exception of school capacity at the adjacent Holy Rosary Catholic School.

However it is clear from the York Official Plan that considerations of increased density beyond 300 u.p.h. and 3.0 f.s.i., as set out in Sections 9.20 and 9.22 of the Plan, are also related to the provision of affordable or other needed types of housing, as well as an appropriate built form. Of paramount importance in this instance is that the higher densities sought by the applicant involve the loss of 246 units of rental housing.

While the application addresses the general provisions in the York Official Plan encouraging ownership production, it does not address the issue of diversity in tenure of housing on site, nor does it reflect the policies addressing the provision of affordable housing and the preservation of rental stock. According to 1998 data that the applicant supplied from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the vacancy rate for rental apartments in the former City of York was 0.8 percent, which is consistent with the City-wide rate, and reflects the scarcity of rental supply. The current proposal, which provides for luxury units at an average of 145 m2 (1,560 ft2), makes no provision for affordable ownership or rental housing.

When City Council passed OPA 2, it also provided for the repeal and replacement of the existing York provisions (Section 9.7) with regard to conversion of rental housing. Through OPA 2, staff are directed to seek the replacement of the rental units proposed for demolition with rental units of a similar number, type, size and level of affordability in the new development, and/or alternative arrangements.

The current application is for a condominium form of tenure. The site is large enough to accommodate a reasonable replacement of the 246-unit rental building, as well as adding a condominium development. It is the opinion of planning staff that the applicant should include this rental component in the development proposal and that it should be appropriately secured.

Of the 246 existing units, 102 have been classified as "apartment hotel suites". These suites are typically short-term rentals and the rents were not regulated under the Residential Rent Regulation Act or the superseding Rent Control Act. The applicant has requested that these units should not be considered in determining the number of rental units that are required to be replaced as a result of OPA No. 2. It is staff's position that they should be considered for replacement as they form part of the City's rental housing stock.

Site Design and Density:

In addition to the policy concerns, staff has reviewed the application in terms of its compatibility with adjacent areas and the appropriateness of the proposed scale, massing, street relationship, heights, building profiles and shadow impact. Subsection 9.22 requires that in order to support an increase in density the development must be carefully integrated to ensure that it reflects the opportunities and constraints of the location and will result in a compatible built form with adjacent areas.

The current proposal places the two towers along the Tweedsmuir frontage with the townhouses ringing the site to the rear of the building (See Appendix 2 - Site Plan). The two towers are slab buildings that rise from grade with no building setbacks. There is no gradation of height from the two 25 storeys to the townhouses on site, and an abrupt transition from the southerly tower to the adjacent two-storey school building.

With regard to shadow impact, there is an increase in shadow from the development on adjacent buildings to the east and north (see Appendix 4 - Shadow Study) which will create a negative impact on these sites.

For these reasons, staff find the design and scale of the current proposal unacceptable. Staff has, however, reviewed the site in some detail and feel that there is sufficient opportunity within the 0.92 hectare (2.2 acre) site to achieve a satisfactory site design that relates better internally and to the neighbourhood, and which can accommodate both rental and ownership housing.

Staff has met with the applicant to discuss the concerns with respect to site design, density, and replacement of the rental units. To date, these matters remain unresolved. It is hoped that discussions with the applicant can continue. However, Council direction is required so that staff can attend the Pre-hearing Conference on July 30, 1999, and the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing which begins September 27, 1999, to defend Council's position on the application.

Community Consultation:

As noted above, public information meetings were held on November 11, 1998, and March 30, 1999. The residents living at 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir and people living in the surrounding community identified a number of issues. The building residents, many of whom have lived in the building for a number of years, are very concerned about the loss of their housing and the need to make alternative arrangements in the face of a tight rental market.

The surrounding community's concerns include the application's height and density, shadow impact, the increased amount of traffic as well as protection for the building's residents and the need for a tenant relocation plan. These issues were highlighted at the first community meeting and have been repeated at subsequent meetings. Comments on these matters are provided in this report.

Tenant Relocation:

The rental buildings were constructed in 1963. Some of the existing tenants have lived in the buildings since that time and many others are long-term renters.

We are advised by the applicant that they have given notice to the tenants which meets the requirements of the Tenant Protection Act, and have offered an enhanced payment in addition to that required by the Act provided the tenants agree to vacate their units by August, 1999. The applicant also advises that they have offered to make other rental units available. However, these units are not in proximity to the subject site, and staff have been advised that the Tweedsmuir tenants have expressed a desire to remain in the area.

Conclusion:

Staff have reviewed the application from Goldlist Properties to amend the York Official Plan and Zoning By-law in order to permit the construction of two 125 unit condominium towers and 36 townhouses at a proposed density of 310 u.p.h. and 4.9 f.s.i. While it is recognized that the site is located near a subway station, and is of a reasonable size to support some level of intensification, the current proposal does not otherwise meet the criteria of the Official Plan for an increase in density. It does not address the retention or replacement of rental housing, the provision of affordable units, and the compatibility of the project within the context of the surrounding area and internally with respect to scale, massing, and density. Therefore staff recommend refusal.

Redevelopment of this site should be dependent on the reasonable replacement of 246 existing rental units that are of similar type, size, and level of affordability as currently provided for at this location within an appropriate site design that also provides for ownership housing.

Staff has advised the applicant that the City is willing to keep the lines of communication open in order to resolve outstanding matters. Should a revised application, which addresses the issues identified in this report, be forthcoming, a supplementary report will be forwarded to Council. In this event, it is recognized that relief from the restriction on bonusing contained in the Oakwood/Vaughan Secondary Plan may need to be further considered.

Contact Names:

Wendy Johncox, MCIP, RPP

Senior Planner

Tel: (416) 394-2868Fax: (416) 394-2782

Helen Bulat

Principal Planner

Tel: (416) 394-8229Fax: (416) 394-6063

The York Community Council also had before it the following communications during consideration of the aforementioned matter:

(i)(June 30, 1999) from Mr. Bramley Paulin, advising that the project is overly dense; the increase in traffic, noise and the sudden influx in the population would totally destroy the tranquillity of this quiet neighbourhood; the surrounding residences would be left in perpetual darkness from the shadows of this development; the project is out of character and scale with the rest of the neighbourhood; and is adamantly opposed to the project.

(ii)(July 9, 1999) from Ms. Doreen Lowe, Tweedsmuir Tenants Association, advising that she has been a resident for 19 years; that during this time Goldlist Properties has allowed the buildings to deteriorate; now claims that it would cost millions of dollars to renovate; the demolition has been planned for years and as soon as the provincial government changed the regulations allowing landlords to demolish rental accommodation for construction of condominiums, Goldlist immediately applied to demolish and replace the buildings with luxury condominiums; the residents of these buildings are not only facing the possibility of losing their homes, but also the impossible task of finding affordable housing; if the City allows Goldlist Properties to demolish these buildings it will set a precedent for other landlords to do the same thing.

(iii)(June 29, 1999) from Ms. Susan Willemsen, expressing opposition to the proposal; that the changes effectively double the height of the buildings, obscure the view and sunlight currently enjoyed and cast long shadows over the homes in the area; the increase in population with add to the traffic congestion in an area that is already strained by traffic at peak hours; and that there will be the added noise and dirt pollution from the number of construction vehicles.

(iv)(July 5, 1999) from Ms. Lois Wells, objecting to the proposal; concerned that the homes of the residents will be destroyed; there are many on fixed incomes who cannot afford the cost of luxury condominiums; there will be more traffic and pollution of the area; and the demolition of these buildings will set a precedent.

(v)(June 30, 1999) from Ms. Julia Matthews, stating that many of the residents have lived there for 20 to 35 years and are on fixed incomes; they are familiar with the residents in the buildings who take care of them; the cost of rental housing is unaffordable; over fifty-percent of income is spent on housing; the density proposed will increase the traffic in the area in addition to the traffic from the Holy Rosary School and Church on Tweedsmuir where buses drop off children in the morning and afternoon; the parking meters are always occupied; the vehicles from the garages at the two 25-storey buildings (Walmer Road Apartments) exit onto Tweedsmuir Avenue; St. Clair Avenue westbound is blocked in by a railed 4-ft. wall from Bathurst Street to just east of Tweedsmuir, to allow street cars access to the underground subway; this locks in traffic and on St. Clair Avenue just west of Bathurst Street, meters are in place where cars and taxis park, forcing two lanes of traffic to merge as one when they cross Bathurst Street, creating traffic backups and delays; and the huge new Loblaws Superstore when completed will increase the volume of traffic on St. Clair Avenue.

(vi)(June 28, 1999) from Mr. Paul Williger, submitting a letter signed by six other area residents, objecting to the proposal; and commenting on the traffic congestion, lack of adequate parking; obstruction of sunlight; and the need to retain rental housing

(vii)(July 5, 1999) from Dr. D.C. Slezakova, requesting notification regarding decisions on this proposal.

(viii)(June 29, 1999) from Mr. William Solomon, President of the Tenants Committee, advising that he has resided at this building for 38 years, is physically disabled, that there are many senior citizens in the buildings on fixed incomes; there has been no rental apartments constructed in the last ten years; the rents being charged are exorbitant; the residents of these buildings cannot afford the luxury condominiums; and requesting that the application to demolish the buildings not be approved.

(ix)(July 12, 1999) from Rev. Paul McGill, Pastor, Church of the Holy Rosary, the Basilian Fathers, advising that he has known the area residents for many years; have visited some at their homes; that the past eleven months have been very stressful for the elderly; expressing concern for the health and welfare of the parishioners and stating that they are not in a position to relocate.

(x)From Dr. Len Green, Walmer Road Chiropractic Clinic, expressing concern regarding the physical toll this proposal has had on some of his clients, many of whom are seniors and have lived in these buildings for many; and indicating support for the position of the residents.

(xi)(July 12, 1999) from Ms. Mary Leah Kitchen, advising that she has lived in the building for 21 years; had hoped to spend the remaining years there; and that the owners had done very little to improve the buildings.

(xii)(July 7, 1999) from Ms. Norma Jackson, stating that she is retired on a fixed income, is very happy living in the building; that there are many other seniors, some elderly, who are very upset and scared on the prospect of having to relocate; and is opposed to the demolition.

Similar letters in opposition to the demolition were submitted by the following persons:

(xiii)(July 9, 1999) from Mary and Gordon Hopkins;

(xiv)(July 7, 1999) from Ms. Marie Walsh;

(xv)(July 10, 1999) from Bertie Sullivan;

(xvi)(June 30, 1999) from Ms. Roslyn Oleuder;

(xvii)(July 8, 1999) from Ms. Jean Beauregard;

(xviii)(July 7, 1999) from Ms. Carolyn Oldham;

(xix)(June 30, 1999) from Ms. Cecilia McCea;

(xx)(June 30, 1999) from Ms. Veronica Boros;

(xxi)(June 30, 1999) from Ms. Magdolna Boros;

(xxii)(June 30, 1999) from Mr. Alexander Boros;

(xxiii)(July 7, 1999) from H.C. Levargs

(xxiv)(July 6, 1999) from Ms. Joan Darling;

(xxv)(July 8, 1999) from Ms. Mary McGeachy;

(xxvi)(July 8, 1999) from Ms. Frances McGeachy;

(xxvii)(July 8, 1999) from Ms. Mera Bubenick;

(xxviii)(July 7, 1999) from Ms. Bernice Oldham;

(xxix)(July 8, 1999) from Ms. Rochelle Couton;

(xxx)(July 9, 1999) from Ms. Annette Goldstein;

(xxxi)(July 10, 1999) from Ms. Agnes Austerweil; and

(xxxii)(July 9, 1999) from Ms. Regina McBain.

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

Mr. Phil White - commended the planning staff for an excellent report; expressed opposition to this application; advised that construction of two such massive structures with the proposed height and density in the heart of the community is irresponsible; that the proposal does not abut on any arterial road but on two residential streets; the fact that the buildings will be close to the Heath Street subway entrance subway does not merit extra density or height; the only way a 25-storey building might be considered is if the building was built close to the St. Clair Subway Station on St. Clair Avenue; it would be irresponsible to consider a density of 4.9 when right next door to St. Michael's College lands the density is 2.6 to 3; that the application is out of step when you consider the High Park area which has high rise buildings which has the density of 2.6 to 3, Yonge and Eglinton 3.7, Yonge and St. Clair 2.7 and St. James town of all places has 3.5; that the planning report did indicate that the application doesn't provide affordable housing; that this development is geared for the rich with a luxury building and with townhouses which would sell for approximately $800,000. and condominiums for about $400,000. to $500,000.; the design of the building leaves much to be desired; it lacks originality and uniqueness; that parking is another concern; there are some people who will park their vehicles on the street; at the present time there are no on-stree parking spaces available according to a staff report; there are also no permits available for parking on Tichester Road and Heath Street West and on the surrounding streets; the Works and Emergency Services have stated that the streets could accommodate increased traffic; the roads can accommodate a few more cars but only into the village area where most of the residents visit once or twice a week; there is a high volume of vehicles; the parking meters and the lot are constantly full; vehicles from this project will only compound the problems; there will also be the opening of Loblaws with almost 100,000 sq. ft.; every street within the quadrant will see increased traffic from shoppers who will try and avoid traffic on the main roads and use the residential roads to bypass; there will be shadow effect and wind tunnels; there are condominiums being built all over the City, but there are no rental units being built; concern has to be shown for rental properties for seniors, single people on fixed incomes; to approve this application would be a tragedy especially when the vacancy rate is at an all-time low of 0.8 percent; tenants are forced to pay increased rents and are deferring on the basic essentials of their needs in order to pay these increased rents; to allow for the removal of these rental units without suitable alternative it will be political suicide; more than half of the City's population are tenants and are running at 52.5 percent; that the aim should be to morally and socially fight for the retention or replacement of rental units and protect vulnerable tenants and to give the community a compatible project that the residents can be satisfied with; and urged consideration of the following motion:

(1) that the application for 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir be refused;

(2)that the applicant be advised that City Council will consider an application that addresses the issues that the planning officials and the concerns of the residents; and

(3)that a sub-committee be formed with approximately 3 citizens from this community and 2 representatives from Ward 28 to work in tandem with the appropriate planning officials and the applicant to ultimately submit a revised application for the consideration of our community.

Ms. Roz Mendelson - expressed support for the staff recommendations; encouraged the planners in considering a revised application that all the issues outlined in the report be addressed and not be compromised; that there is a real concern regarding the traffic that will be generated; the number of cars that exit from the Tweedsmuir garages is really significant contrary to the Works Department; the residents are aware of the volume of traffic on a daily basis; challenged the staff report that the street could handle the traffic; Tweedsmuir is one block long with no access to eastbound traffic; fender benders on Walmer and Heath Streets are not uncommon; they may not be reported due to fear of increased insurance costs but they do take place; traffic must really be a consideration; requested notification of OMB hearing; expressed concerns for the well-being of the tenants who are also neighbours who have lived in the area for many years in affordable housing, longer than the condominium owners; these residents would be displaced to far away neighbourhoods if Council does not endorse the recommendations; quoted Mr. Bramley Paulin, who faxed the Clerk's Department, "Placing such a large project of this magnitude in the middle of our small neighbourhood would be equal to placing 10 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound sack"; urged the Community Council to accept the recommendations of the Planning Department; and requested notification if there are any revisions going forward to Council.

Mr. Issie Glassman - expressed concerns for the residents who will be displaced; they will be moved away from their church, the priest, rabbi and synagogue; and advised that the human factor is very important in this case, as well as the fact that close to 250 rental units will be eliminated which are needed in the City.

Mr. Philip Connell, Chair of the Walmer Road Tenants Association at 400 Walmer Road - commented that they are a small village with about 800 to 1000 people living in the complex; indicated strong support for the Planning staff's recommendations; emphasized that density is a significant factor not to be viewed in isolation; referred to Loblaws, a major foodstore and ancillary stores; the large multi-development at Bathurst and St. Clair Avenue, future changes to the St. Michael's lands; the entire neighbourhood has to be considered; there will be a massive collection of people on residential streets; and that a relatively pleasant area will be turned into a concrete jungle.

Mr. Michael Bryant, MPP, St. Paul's - commented that from a provincial perspective, St. Paul's has 100,000 people, the most educated riding in the province; advised that during the election the main issue was the housing crisis whereby rent control has been gutted and the provincial protection that had existed since Premier Davis's early days in office were eliminated; that if you moved into a building and the City was going through a time where there was a crisis as the residents are experiencing now, City Council would not permit this kind of application go through; with these new regulations, we are here because it is now possible, but that does not change the political and democratic landscape in this area and these neighbourhoods; the people in the neighbourhood surrounding Tweedsmuir and the building themselves and from Bayview to Winona have all said the same thing; it is setting a precedent, it is sending a signal to the rest of Toronto and province; the housing crisis is acknowledged and should be addressed now; referred to the Homelessness Task Force from Anne Golden and the Mayor's Task Force; the residents in the Tweedsmuir buildings are living that crisis; there is an 0.8 % vacancy rate; we cannot have a situation where affordable housing is demolished and replaced by what it is referred to in the report as luxury housing; from a residential and provincial point of view the application must be denied and that the staff report be accepted; if a compromise is being sought, at the very least the application should be denied and sent back for revisions; the residents of St. Paul's have spoken, indicating that these buildings should remain.

Ms. Annette Devon - spoke of the traffic issues; at the Goldlist meeting held at the Holy Rosary Church, a statement was made that the increase in traffic will be minimal; this is unrealistic; a plan to erect two buildings over twice as high in addition to townhouses for a total of 286 units, there is likely to be one car for each unit whereas the rental units now are occupied by many 80 and 90 year olds unlikely to be drivers; there are times on Heath Street when vehicles are bumper to bumper; the volume will be increased with 286 new units.

Mr. Jim Davison, Secretary and Acting Chair of the Tweedsmuir Committee, President of 450 Walmer Tenant's Association and an area resident; advised that the Tweedsmuir committee was formed by local residents representing 17 buildings and approximately 2700 residents living within the immediate area of the site; that the committee was formed to oppose the demolishing of the existing building at 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue on the grounds that it would further reduce the stock of affordable rental units in Toronto and to oppose the amendments to the Official Plan and by-laws regulating to the Tweedsmuir property which would permit construction of larger buildings on the site; that through a number of meetings and letters with both local councillors and City Council, opposition to this project is very clear; the City's staff report has been reviewed and comments noted as follows - when reference is made to surrounding uses it is usually in regard to apartment buildings located on the east and north sides, but fails to mention clearly the fact that there are no other apartment buildings on Tweedsmuir Avenue; the issue of setback is not addressed; there is no landscaping with respect to this site, except internally; the Works and Emergency Services have indicated that the existing street network could accommodate the increased traffic; if this were the case why have speed bumps been recently installed; this is a secondary road and is only accessed one way west onto St. Clair Avenue and then it runs into another residential street, then Heath Street; there is no mention of the neighbourhood stability, the impact of light or the removal of trees; the latest highrise in the area was one of 10 or 11-storeys and other new buildings which have been built are only 4-storeys; the proposal does not fit the neighbourhood; we are all aware of the new Tenant Protection Act; while we are having an existing housing crisis at this point time it probably relates to those on the lower economical scale; if developments such as this one is allowed to proceed, it will increase; this should not be allowed to continue, we do have a crisis and it has to be dealt with accordingly.

Ms. Betty Johnson, Vice President of the 450 Walmer Association and resident of the area; indicated strong opposition to the density of the proposed development; the tunnel effect already exists between this building and the east building of the Park Towers and right on to 447 & 449 Walmer Road; enquiries were made regarding this issue but were not addressed; there will be a significant number of vehicles on a small residential street, especially during rush hours; expressed strong opposition to the reduction of affordable housing which will place more residents into poverty; some can afford $600. to $800. a month; in her building, where a little work has been done, the rent now in some of the apartments is $1200. which is unaffordable; and that this is taking place all over the City.

Mr. Bill Solomon, Co-chair of 310 & 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue and also a representative of our building on the Tweedsmuir committee; indicated that he was 78 years old and physically disabled; has lived at Tweedsmuir for 38 years and suddenly his life and that of 250 other tenants have been almost destroyed; is very angry at what is happening to their lives; when residents voted for the common sense revolution, little did they realize that this took away the Rental Housing Act leaving all renters at the complete mercy of the landlords; this new approach to Tenant Landlord Legislation is obviously not for the good of the tenants or our protection; tenants are neither consulted nor considered in making decisions; the landlords are not building any rental units, they are building thousands of condominium at outrageous prices; too expensive for those on fixed income, senior citizens, pensioners, middle income and newlyweds who live in rental units; Goldlist Properties would like to destroy our buildings, displace the tenants and replace them with those who can afford those very expensive condominiums; the residents have no where to go; rental units which become available but we have no where to go; no rental units are being built; as units become available due to someone dying or moving to another province, the rent is more than doubled; there are some basement apartments now available in old houses they are renting for over $1000 a month; this proposal by Goldlist Properties is being monitored by other landlords; the City has been declared a disaster area due to the homeless situation; the residents on Heath Street will not have a beautiful view of the City, instead they will be looking into bathrooms, kitchens and bedrooms on Tweedsmuir Avenue; the very expensive properties on Heath Street will diminish in value; the tenants of 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue are very much against any compromises that will allow us to be evicted; that the City must retain its present by-laws in order to protect the tenants and save their homes.

Ms. Suzi Cass - representing the younger community that stands to lose everything with no warning; they can be displaced with nowhere to go; they are all hardworking and cannot afford to lose their homes; most of the residents have been there for twenty or more years and are well into their eighties; imagine being displaced from your home, having to pack your personal effects, and move into a brand new area at 80 years of age; the residents are very scared; there are also concerns with regard to traffic and shadowing; the buildings have not been maintained by Goldlist; the by-law should not be amended; there are may residents who could not attend tonight's meeting but have sent letters indicating their opposition to the proposal; consideration should be given to the tenants who deserve a place to live; and urged the Community Council to reject the project.

Mr. Paul York - the residents need protection from arbitrary eviction; it is a human right that is necessary for the functioning of a civil society and every civilization on earth has statutes which provide and protect for security of tenure in one form or another; the Rental Housing Act was one such statute, which is now gone; the Landlord Tenant Protection Legislation we now states that the tenants will have first right or first refusal as if this is going to make things better; tempering the injustice of forced displacement with provisions of right of first refusal is a cruel joke; tenant advocates have acknowledged this all throughout the Bill 96 hearings; most tenants cannot afford a luxury condominium, especially the ones that are proposed here; where would they live in the interim; this proposed compensation by the landlord is considered to be totally unacceptable by the tenants; the tenants are doing their part, they have formed an association and working with the local residents; it is now the time for their elected officials to come to their aid; and expressed confidence that the Community Council will support the staff recommendations.

Mr. Normal Rogal - stated that after hearing all the comments, Goldlist Properties should abandon this proposal; there will be increased pollution with the traffic generated which is a very serious health issue.

Mr. George Solomon - at present the units at 310 and 320 Tweedsmuir Avenue are occupied by older residents who do not drive; most of the owners in this new development will have two or three vehicles; the traffic study is meaningless and useless; each new high-rise compromises the area; Please consider the Cityscape with all these large buildings being constructed; and indicated concern for the future of the long-term residents of the buildings.

Mr. Phillip Apper - the City has identified the negative impact of shadowing during the summer and spring/fall period; and noted that there was no shadow study for the winter months.

Ms. Alicia Bulwik, Lower Village Gate - indicated support for the staff recommendations; concerned with Council's direction with regards to the OMB; stated that there is a window of opportunity to negotiate the application further with the developer between this meeting and Council's meeting; that she would like to be involved with the negotiations because of the number of issues which remain open at this point in time; that it is unknown as to what staff will be supporting in terms of height, parkland dedication and the removal of Section 37 provision; can support the application if a suitable proposal can be reached working; requested that they be invited to attend the negotiations and that the negotiations be held in the evening to ensure that the members of the committee can attend.

Ms. Janet Coloran - stated that the parking proposed is one parking space per unit; that because of the size of the units, it is more than likely that there will be more than one car per unit; most buyers of a condominium or townhouse in considering its resale value would expect to have two or more parking spaces; enquired as to whether the traffic study is valid if it was based on one parking space per unit; the needs of the owners of these units will require the creation of additional parking spaces or on-street parking.

 Appendix 5

Policies within the City of York:

The City of York Official Plan contains policies which speak to the preservation of rental housing and the diversification of housing types and tenure, including the accommodation of affordable housing. The City of York Official Plan policies can be summarized as follows:

Section 4.7 encourages the production of a full range of housing types;

Section 4.9 encourages diversity in form and tenure of housing, emphasizing the production of ownership housing;

Section 9.6 recognizes High Density Residential Areas as being suitable for housing intensification and seeks to provide greater housing production in co-operation with both private and public housing providers;

Section 9.6 a)encourages and enables at least 25% of new housing production to be affordable housing;

 Section 9.7 a)by reference to Appendix 1- City Procedures, Specifications and Requirements for Condominium Housing requires that each condominium application be considered on its own merits with reference to current City policies and criteria;

Section 9.7 b)provides criteria for assessing conversion of rental to condominium, which include having regard for the following matters in considering an application:

the overall mix of rental and freehold housing in the City;

the availability of rental housing in the general area of the application; and

the vacancy rate for rental housing in the City;

Section 9.8discourages unnecessary and premature removal of housing and provides for the utilization of demolition control to further this end; and

Section 9.20permits high density ranges and situations where densities can be exceeded:

-in vicinity of a subway station

-for seniors housing

-high coverage, low profile buildings

-through the bonusing provisions in Section 9.22

Section 9.22establishes factors for consideration in assessing an application for high density residential development, among them; the capability of the site to accommodate affordable housing or other needed types of housing as indicated by any established housing targets or identified through the implementation provisions of sub-section 24.7 and the potential for altering the proposed development in order to accommodate such types of housing.

Oakwood Vaughan Secondary Plan

Section 21.11.C.4.5prohibits bonusing in the High Density Residential Areas within the Secondary Plan boundaries.