From: Don Rodbard, King-Spadina Residents Association
To: Directors
Subject: King-Spadina Secondary Plan Review Study Comments - September 19, 2006
Sent: Wednesday 9/20/2006
The Wellington Place Neighbourhood Association and the Draper Street Residents Association have prepared this submittal for Council. KSRA has tentatively given it full support.
Unfortunately, the request has come in sort of eleventh hour and doesn’t permit the kind of discussion we would all have liked.
These comments have clearly hit some of the critical “hot buttons” with respect to planning issues and hopefully we can all be comfortable supporting it.
Please let us know asap – the Council session is tomorrow I believe.
Thank You
KSRA Communications Centre
King-Spadina Secondary Plan Review Study – Comments September 19, 2006
There are many points and recommendations in the Review Study and Staff Report that can be supported.
There are, however, four main areas of concern which we would like to see addressed by further action:
1. Hierarchy of Principles and Rules Governing King-Spadina Planning
The report sees that there is an “… on-going and increasing pressure for development of a form and at heights not contemplated by the planning framework …”
-This is a significant understatement and seriously downplays the part played by the City’s own decision makers in seemingly ignoring nearly every rule, direction, and guideline so far laid down in regards to new building in the area. Significant exceptions are often approved at committee; changes that any reasonable person would conclude, clearly fall outside the committee’s terms of reference.
-All stakeholders have a right to know and expect that planning decision-makers abide by a complete and transparent set of rules. The rules, whether they are bylaws, design guidelines or legal rulings, should be set out in order of precedence .
- Any exceptions to this hierarchy of rules and any inherent but unavoidable conflicts should also be dealt with in a pre-defined process that is completely transparent and accessible to all stakeholders.
-Once all the studies are completed, the input assembled, the decisions made and the buy-in secured, any variance from the plan should then be subject to a much higher degree of public scrutiny and the process itself should not be easy.
We have a golden opportunity in this precinct not only to produce a viable plan but also produce a viable process in which the instinctively competing interests, residential, commercial and civic-institutional can and prefer to work together.
Recommendation #1: That the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division report back to Council on how such a hierarchy of principles and rules governing King Spadina planning can be applied in practice, to ensure a clear process reflecting agreed upon priorities.
2. Residential and Small Business Participation
This community insists that the residential and business communities both participate in the development process.
-We have several interested and highly motivated groups of residents and small business owners in this precinct. We have all bought into the promise of the area … the history, the scale, the rhythm, the style..
-We have invested considerable time, money, and emotion over the past decade(s). We also have a claim on this area that should not be ignored.
-We are also a resource that could and should be tapped.
The building of this precinct should be viewed as a collaborative effort. The city has the opportunity to be a leader in increasing and regularizing stakeholder participation in decision-making and review at all stages, not just token comment after all is said and decided.
There are several positive examples that illustrate a pro-active consultative approach between a developer and local residents such as 66 Portland and 75 Portland. This happened when community meetings were inaugurated prior to any statutory meetings.
Unfortunately there are also just as many examples of development by ambush and decision-making by fiat. Even the acceptance of the current Review Study and the supportive Staff Report seems to change not a thing. Toronto & East York Community Council meeting (11 July 2006) accepted all 8 of the staff report’s recommendations, including:
#4 “ … to review and evaluate all development applications … - including existing applications - in the context of the in-force planning framework … and the recommended modifications and amendments to the planning framework for the Plan area set out in this staff report … “
#5 “… to use the King-Spadina Review Study … for any applications that are currently or may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board …”
#8 “ … take any other actions necessary to implement the directions outlined in this report.”
The decision-making concerning 570 King West seems to make a mockery of the whole planning and review study process, as does that relating to the Home Depot at Queen and Portland.
Appeals to the OMB are not the solution and do not resolve the underlying issues. The average citizen of this city is not enamoured with the process or the city officials who force its constant use. It leaves everyone poorer both financially and in civic spirit.
Recommendation #2: That the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, report back on ways of creating an ongoing and transparent process for community involvement at all stages of the development process.
3. Costs
-There is a cost associated with most of the recommendations and to assert otherwise is naïve. It is better to admit it up front.
-For example, establishing friendlier streetscapes (be it street furniture or plantings) involves both upfront expenditure in design / purchase of hard goods / labour and also on-going expenditure for “supervision” and maintenance; the cost of the proposed Heritage Conservation District study is not provided for.
-All costs need not necessarily come from city pockets.
We offer two examples: the design for the restoration of Victoria Memorial Square, and the design for street improvements on Wellington Street West (between the two local parks; Clarence Square and Victoria Memorial), both cases where the local association covered the cost of the design and then passed it to council for consideration.
There is no reason for the City not to look at alternative methods of delivering on a clean, vibrant, and healthy neighbourhood.
Recommendation #3: That the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, in conjunction with the Director of Financial Planning report back on alternative methods of funding these initiatives, including tax increment financing, community and public/private partnerships, among others.
1. K-S Plan to Synchronize and Co-ordinate With Other Plans / Projections
A precinct plan necessarily impacts on, or is impacted by, several other areas of responsibility, city departments, and neighbouring areas.
-For instance, at least some reference should be made to existing TTC plans and projections and how they impact the area. Do they mesh with employment / residential projections, daily traffic flow patterns?
-Does the call for bike-paths conflict with street improvements. Should there be dedicated paths?
-Traffic flows, pedestrian crossings, signalization, and plans to alter traffic patterns in the area e.g. the Front Street Extension and the Gardiner options, are a concern.
-How does the call for retention / expansion of laneways fit with police patrolling. Does it tie-in with street lighting plans in the next 5 years?
-Do the calls for increased greenery fit into the Parks planning? Is there sufficient volume in the ground for tree root systems as it relates to current underground services? What are the plans for burying hydro lines?
-Garbage collection is an issue. It is not managed properly now; how will it be handled with increased residents? And what of expanded recycling and green bin?
-How does our plan impact or tie into RR Lands? Fort York? Liberty Village? Queen West? Waterfront? Are problems being exported or imported?
Recommendation #4: That the Chief Planner report back, in conjunction with the appropriate officials from Public Works, Parks and TTC on means of synchronizing and co-ordinating the King Spadina Plan with the activities of these other agencies, and the plans for the surrounding areas.
Presented by:
Wellington Place Neighbourhood Association
Draper Street Residents Association
King Spadina Residents Association
