ossington community association

seeks planner
formal rfp in appendix
oca_finance@yahoo.ca

 the oca mission

promoting the flourishing of our neighbourhood and its business districts
our neighbourhood
queen to harrison, crawford to dovercourt

its business districts

the ossington strip the dundas bend

residents storefronts friends of the neighbourhood

our member classes

 the oca history

prehistory
smart growth for ossington

chartered 3 july 2012 out of a need for an umbrella organization for the ossington community
residents of argyle and givins perceive increasing developer attention to the ossington strip but no BIA not aware of a residents association establish a guerilla organization to raise awareness to learn the facts and the law to get the word out to develop our message to get to know the community to get to know the city, the process, the economics to establish links with business, with residents beyond our block, with older folks, with the city government lets talk about ossington 25 june 2012 the planning event of the decade an overflow crowd of 400

success

mike layton: the message was loud and clear mike makes it happen: a community visioning study, a planning department area study

the press goes wild regularization

establishing oca

14+ stories citytv, the grid, torontoist, openfile, national post, toronto star, global toronto, toronto life, spacing toronto, parkdale liberty villager, abc portuguese canadian newspaper, novae res urbis

no more guerilla action byebye to smart growth for ossington bring in all the players provisional bylaws provisional exec board minutes membership drive monthly meetings in the community center association bank account blah blah blah

going forward

going to the mattresses for the long haul involvement with planning liason with the city fundraising good works

vanguard engagement with visioning process rabble-rousing for 109oz statutory public meeting, community council preparation for omb hearing if it comes to that involvement in future preapplication consultation maintain good relations with councillor layton, city planning spread the word pipeline community requests advise community on city hall questions

 our current situation

background: lowrise to midrise? why keep ossington lowrise? what oca is doing about it

ossington is at a crux: keep it lowrise or make it midrise; oca says lowrise, gears up for the omb

 a current application
the much-discussed 109oz application for an 86 unit midrise
an application in process

application
109oz midrise condo on ossington 45m by 41m site on east side of ossington just south of argyle six story + penthouse 21.5m + 3.5m 86 units 80 balconies median unit 420K for 11 by 55 feet 70 cars one big retail space at grade

applicant
reserve properties, shelley and shane fenton an earlier project on ossington to the south, between rebecca and bruce, at the construction phase six stories (with wrapped penthouse)

application status
complete as of early july statutory public meeting 9 october 2012 no word on community council scheduling

 more generally
just following our nose

someone seems to have had the bright idea to reclassify ossington for midrise sub rosa

kinda seems like someone got the bright idea to slate ossington for midrise intensification
after talking with pretty much every player for months

ossington is not in one of the official plan growth areas

ossington is not an avenue (and not downtown or in a centre or employment area) the official plan says intensification outside of growth areas requires an area study or secondary plan, which dont exist for ossington the land-use category mixed use is not a growth category even though, strangely, many city officials go around saying it is

which in our view makes the legal basis for that bright idea a little shaky

 the soft sites

and their environment whats in it?
most soft sites on ossington
are on the ossingtonargylegivinsbruce block the entire block running south from 109 to bruce street 76m of additional street frontage
a few other soft sites on ossington here and there but this will be our focus

their context

the adjoining neighbourhood social services nearby

47 houses on that block or across argyle or bruce streets across the laneway to the east lie 21 houses abutting perpendicularly givins-shaw and santo cristo schools within a block or two camh, western detox, st chris within 1/4km a handful of retirement homes

local traffic patterns

propose to service these structures from the 5.5m laneway, argyle place argyle, to the north, runs east bruce, to the south, runs west givins, one block east of ossington, runs south argyle part of the citys bike network and a .9km pedestrian thorofare from gladstone to shaw

 why lowrise?
just two words: character; transition to stable residential areas

 why lowrise?
just two words: character; transition to stable residential areas
its cute and mysterious
ossington is (in part) a nightlife destination ossington functions as a town square intimacy without enclosure

planning has recognized this (in fact or potential) for a decade the business ecology is heavily dependent on resto-bars and outside visitors

a gathering place to feel free and relaxed away from the banalities of more quotidian areas full of surprises with a sense of sky with cute charming lowrise victorians and light-industrial spaces
a rarity in toronto brought to you by a narrow (17.5m) street envelope combined with a low (12m or less with few exceptions) roofline

ya gotta speculate midrise would deflate the party

midrise is overwhelming midrise is banal midrise and chain retail are best buddies

which might be not so great for the business ecology (in the medium term, anyway)

 why lowrise?
just two words: character; transition to stable residential areas
the endgame

argylebruce gets midrise at the 7, 9, and 11-story levels

7 when 109oz wraps the penthouse (on the advice of city urban design), next application comes in at 8 and goes to 9, etc

real bad news

that means ballpark 250 units and 200 parking spaces beyond what currently exist the structures themselves social mix traffic
overshadow, overloom, and overlook for 21 perpendicularly abutting houses ordinarily on avenues abutment is parallel, so midrise does not block light and peer directly into rear windows these condos are marketed as frathouses and sold as rental units to speculators

conservatively, 90 cars each morning and evening rush plus semi trucks (plus 20 from the developers project at ossington/rebecca) affected: 21 houses on the laneway on givins + 33 on bruce or argyle + about 200 on shaw + kids going to givins-shaw + everyone using argyle to walk or bike midrise laneway traffic is supposed to affect only two to four houses as the vehicle passes from the avenue between commercial structures on the side street and drives past two houses on the way back to the avenue

 going forward
area study

three strands: city planning area study, community visioning study, oca legal preparation
mike layton got this passed through city council at the closing july meeting planning is currently doing it apparently they are observing the visioning study to get a sense for the community position this is about halfway through large community involvement

visioning study

60 to 80 participants in each of the three stages (planning 101, area walk, visioning brainstorm session) finger in the wind says the community is pro lowrise

the 18 or so work group

oca activities

headed up by van elslander/carter architects ten or more of the group are members of the oca other members from trinity-bellwoods ca and beaconsfield ra, both of which are friendly

so, reasons for optimism about the result

obviously we have been doing our homework we are pretty confident this will end up at the omb
we have a line on discount highest quality legal representation but

as are city officials, as are our senior contacts in the activist community

so we are getting geared up for that and of course for the community council meeting

 we need a planner

 we need a planner
how about you?

 we need a planner
how about you?
can you make our case for us? what we need
a sound planning rationale to keep ossington lowrise
ossington is not an avenue avenues get midrise ossington cant be an avenue, and cant sustain midrise

 its possible

the rationale exists within the bounds of the official plan using sound planning principles

of course you gotta follow your code but we think there is this rationale

the official plan declares ossington to be not an avenue rightly so

ossington is too short to be an avenue ossington is to narrow to be an avenue ossington is a destination, and its economic life relies on its quirky non-avenue character ossington is too tightly interwoven with the adjoining stable residential area to be an avenue

the official plan says grow but protect

protect character protect stable residential areas

dont stop sprawling out by sprawling up

dont grow indiscriminately absorb population from the periphery while saving and improving whats great about the city we already have

 whats at stake

in a wide range of areas

its about ossington but its about more than that its about the viability of the official plan
the official plan doesnt say build anything anywhere it allows a lot of latitude
in the downtown (which includes the lakefront) on the avenues in employment areas in lands under a secondary plan

this upsets a lot of people

they see the rapid change they feel its upward sprawl they think its exploitation

the growth we see

but not indefinite latitude

its not perfect but there is some kind of guidance even if we wish there was more

which makes ossington a crux

the official plan doesnt allow build anything anywhere because of its built in protections for character for stable residential areas

the available lands toward which the official plan directs growth are pretty much built out developers getting into the game at this stage have to go to the margins and we are seeing applications that (we think) are ridiculous
43 stories next door to yuk-yuks! 23 stories at Queen-Spadina! 13 stories at Dundas-Claremont!

but what makes an area marginal not yet built out is legal restriction
otherwise some canny but cautious operator would have already put something there

so that loosening up the margins is loosening up the only thing between us and build anything anywhere

 thats the buzz

dont take our word for it
those who are watching closely know this
thats what the star wrote about when it put us on the front page on 8 july thats what our well-placed sources tell us thats what our long-time activist friends tell us you know it your pals know it

and planners know this

 be the hero

get on board with us

planners wanna plan planners like great neighbourhoods they live in our neighbourhood

were good to work with

as you can tell weve done our homework well keep doing it weve done a lot of messaging well keep doing it weve moved public opinion well keep moving it weve got your back

save the neighbourhood

youre a star! youre a superstar!!!

save the official plan

 contact oca
ossingtoncommunity.ca

where to get the deets, the four one one, the ell-dee on the queue-tee, and all that jazz

we are especially proud of 109oz in context under the research tab

r_corkum@yahoo.com (treasurer) benj.hellie@gmail.com (communications)

 formal rfp
PLANNING REPORT FOR OSSINGTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION CONCERNING 109OZ PROPOSAL Services and Deliverables The OCA requires a report that represents a position broadly in line with that of the OCA, and that will be respected by all relevant governmental bodies. The report will be professionally prepared and make appropriate arguments in accord with sound planning principles and applicable legislation. The report would include as much detail as is feasible, customary, and necessary, including shadow and massing studies, traffic studies, and the like. Background The Ossington Community Association (OCA) was formed in the course of community engagement with an application to build a midrise condominium at 109 Ossington Avenue, a site that is currently zoned as lowrise. The OCA is opposed to many facets of the development, has studied the City of Toronto Official Plan, and believes that a strong case is to be made against the proposal. We have been advised to commission a report from a professional planner to bolster and present our position in a formal manner to Toronto City Planning and Community and City Councils; as well as, perhaps, the Ontario Municipal Board.

A preliminary meeting and a follow up meeting with the OCA Executive Board will probably be required.

Testifying at the OMB is outside the scope of this The communitys opposition to the proposal has a high proposal, but may become a follow up project. profile and has garnered significant media attention, including articles in the Toronto Star, the National Post The Developers Proposal and Toronto Life, as well as numerous online sites City Planning describes the rezoning application as such as the Grid, Torontoist, and Spacing. The city Proposal to construct 6 has ordered both a community Visioning Study and an follows: floor retail/commercial. 86sty condo with and ground residential units Planning Study in response to the OCAs lobbying. 2 levels of below grade parking. 103 Ossington Ave & 109-111 Ossington Ave. See Site Plan 12 122807. The OCA is soliciting quotes to prepare a planning report and would appreciate a quote from your firm in A March 23, 2012 City Planning Staff Preliminary this regard as outlined in this Request for Proposal. Report is available at http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/te/bgrd/back groundfile-46244.pdf.

 formal rfp
The OCAs Position 1. Ossington is not within the 25% of the citys lands to which the Official Plan directs growth: in particular, it is not an Avenue. The Official Plan does not direct growth toward all mixed-use areas, but only toward mixed-use areas within growth areas. As such, without a secondary plan amending the OP to direct growth to Ossington, intensification of the degree proposed is contrary to the overarching goal of the OP to grow but protect. Were there such a secondary plan, the proposal would be in line with the OP but the requirement of a secondary plan raises a high bar and a significant procedural constraint. In order to protect the legal significance of the OP, redirections of growth outside the ordinary legal procedure must be prohibited. 2. An ongoing community Visioning Study is developing a set of character guidelines for the Ossington Strip. This is not yet complete, but it would not be a stretch to suppose that it will reach conclusions which would be 6. rendered nugatory by the approval of the application. Sustaining the credibility of the communitys thoughtful and democratic self-vision is incompatible with the proposal. In parallel, city planning is undertaking an area study in close observation of the Visioning Study. We are uncertain what conclusions they will reach, but we consider it likely that they will find much in the proposal to object to. 3. The proposal would radically alter the character of the Ossington Strip. The 7. structure is one-third the length of the long block between Argyle and Bruce. At more than twice the height of any existing structure in the area, it would loom immensely. This would break the existing relatively consistent lowrise roofline, creating a discordant and jagged profile. At 7.5 meters taller than the existing right-of-way, it would cut off the access to sky which is crucial to Ossingtons serving its town square function as a gathering 8. place and destination. Because Ossington slopes downhill, no stepbacks would significantly diminish the view of the buildings flank from the northern half of the Ossington Strip. And this incursion of banal and suprahuman midrise architecture into a cute Victorian human-scale area would undermine the credibility of the strip as a distinctive and myserious destination. This could decimate the local business ecology. 4. The single large retail space proposed would be entirely out of character in 9. a street almost exclusively populated by storefronts of under 200 square meters. And the inevitable chain retail would further undermine the credibility of the strip, and also potentially serve as a category killer for the almost-exclusively locally owned businesses. 5. The proposal interacts violently with the adjoining neighbourhood. The paradigm for midrise runs the frontage of the building parallel to adjoining houses, so that only two residences per block are across the laneway from the midrise structure. Here, the residences are perpendicular to the midrise, so that twelve residences are across the laneway. Moreover, there would be direct views into the rear windows of houses from the eastern windows of the proposed structure. If the proposal is to be a paradigm for future development of nearby soft sites, all 20+ houses along Givins from Bruce to Argyle would be affected. The shadow impacts would threaten the viability of over one dozen economically significant gardens in the long Givins yards. The 5.5m high blank brick wall on the laneway side would depress and undermine the reasonable enjoyment of property of residents along Givins. The structure is equally massed toward front and rear, offering no relief for the adjoining neighbourhood. Indeed, it even cherrypicks the midrise guidelines, massing the building as per the short-lot guidelines when the lot is in fact deep. The proposal has worrisome traffic impacts. The paradigm for midrise runs traffic up a lightly-used residential street. Argyle Street, which would distribute traffic to the laneway behind the proposed structure, is a major east-west thorofare for pedestrians and is part of the citys bike lane network. As a paradigm for furture development of adjacent soft sites, it is hard to see how the existing street network could accommodate the incursion of up to 200 further cars into the block. The proposal would undermine the neighbourhood social fabric. Its fundamentally repugnant tiny lightless units would not be habitable on any reasonably extended basis. The population would be transient and alienated. This sort of structure threatens to devolve into lawless lowincome housing over the medium term. The proposal would not serve to rebalance the business proile along Ossington. Marketed as a locus for bar-crawling, the demand created would be for more and louder bars. Offering no employment space, the proposal would not add daytime density, and would not repopulate the area in a way that would sustain businesses catering to daily needs: the area is at present a notorious food desert for residents despite its many restaurants. Finally, subjective stylistic complaints suggest themselves. The jarring style of the architecture is ugly and aggressive. The cladding materials would wear poorly and clash distressingly with the existing brick and stone structures in the area.

 formal rfp
Resources Available The OCA has researched the Official Plan and provincial planning law and the developers proposal and has formulated a series of strong arguments against the proposal which can be used as the starting point for your report, if you concur. These are summarized in the OCAs Position above but are fleshed out in numerous documents available on our website, in particular 109OZ in context (under our research tab). The OCAs viewpoint has been vetted informally with a prominent veteran lawyer (who has committed to representing us at half price), and also with several friendly planners who cannot prepare the report due to conflicts. Please provide your recommendation as to the appropriate report format to accomplish the objectives outlined above, together with a quote for the cost. If appropriate, we suggest providing two quotes representing two different levels of report detail and sophistication. The OCA is a notfor-profit community association; our income stream is entirely based on voluntary donations. Our modest budget may require a scaleable approach. If you have any questions concerning the scope or other project details, please contact the undersigned as soon as possible.

Please provide your proposal by end of day 12 October. Schedule/timelines We are not certain what the citys schedule is. The March Sincerely yours, 23, 2012 Staff Report estimated a final report for Q4, 2012. Obviously, the sooner our report is ready, the more likely Benj Hellie city planning is to accommodate its conclusions. Corresponding Secretary, OCA 647 713 2365 (cell) 416 531 2365 (home) 416 978 8226 How Success will be Measured (work) Ultimate success for the OCA would be rejection of the benj.hellie@gmail.com developers proposal by the City Planner and the City Council, ideally without appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Rob Corkum Your report will be successful if it effectively presents, Treasurer, OCA within the scope of sound planning principles and 416 371 6986 (cell) 416 537 5398 (home) 416 868 2205 applicable law, a case that is largely in line with the position (work) we have sketched on the previous page.