Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

March 1, 2023

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-22-003552

(Formerly PL160073)

OLT-22-003315

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant:

3450 Dufferin Yorkdale Holdings Inc.

Appellant:

Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)

Appellant:

C.Y. Vehicle Enterprises Inc.

Appellant:

RioCan Management Inc.

Appellant:

Oxford Properties Group (Yorkdale Shopping Centre)

Appellant:

Dufferin 401 Properties Limited

Appellant:

Centura Real Estate Corp. et. al.

Subject:

Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 294

Municipality:

City of Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-003552

Legacy Case No.:

PL160073

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-003552

Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL160073

OLT Case Name:

3450 Dufferin Yorkdale Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

Oxford Properties Group

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure of the City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation:

Mixed Use Areas

Proposed Designated:

Mixed Use Areas

Purpose:

To permit a mixed-use redevelopment with new retail, office, hotel, residential and open space uses

Property Address/Description:

3401 Dufferin St. and 1 Yorkdale Road

Municipality:

City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No.:

17 168973 NNY 15 OZ

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-003315

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-22-003315

OLT Case Name:

Oxford Properties Group v. Toronto (City)

Heard:

February 16, 2023, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Oxford Properties Group

Mark Flowers

City of Toronto

Laura Bisset and Lauren Pinder

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE ON FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The Tribunal convened the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for the above noted matter. Oxford Properties Group (“Appellant”) has filed two appeals being:

1. with respect of the City of Toronto's (“City”) adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 294 (“OPA 294”), known as the Dufferin Street Secondary Plan, pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Planning Act (“Act”); and,

2. a site specific Official Plan Amendment for the City's failure to make a decision, pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Act (“SS OPA”).

The property is known municipally as 3401 Dufferin Street and 1 Yorkdale Road, in the City (“Subject Lands”).

2The effect of the two appeals is to bring the entire Yorkdale Shopping Centre Property (“Yorkdale”) into the boundaries of OPA 294 and to establish a long term Block Master Plan for the subject lands.

3There are no requests for Participant status with respect to this matter.

HEARING

4Mark Flowers, Counsel for the Appellant, provided background information with respect to the application for the benefit of the Tribunal. Mr. Flowers and the City have had continued discussions with respect to a Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List. A Final draft PO with Issues List is presented to the Tribunal for approval.

5The Tribunal notes the first CMC on September 30, 2022, set hearing dates for ten days starting on September 18, 2023.

6Laura Bissett, Counsel for the City agreed with Mr. Flowers’ description of discussion regarding the PO and Issues List and confirmed issues have been scoped and finalized.

TRIBUNAL DISPOSITION

7The Tribunal has received the Final Draft of the PO including the Issues List. The Final PO as approved by the Tribunal is appended to this Order as Schedule 1.

8The Member is not seized.

“Eric S. Crowe”

ERIC S. CROWE

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

Schedule 1 CASE NOS.: OLT-22-003552 and OLT-22-003315

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant:

Appellant:

Appellant:

Appellant:

Appellant:

Appellant: Appellant:

3450 Dufferin Yorkdale Holdings Inc. Building Industry & Land Development Association (BILD)

C.Y. Vehicle Enterprises Inc.

RioCan Management Inc.

Oxford Properties Group (Yorkdale Shopping Centre) Dufferin 401 Properties Limited

Centura Real Estate Corp. et al.

Subject:

Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 294

Municipality: OLT Case No.:

City of Toronto OLT-22-003552

Legacy Case No.:

OLT Lead Case No.: Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL160073

OLT-22-003552 PL160073

OLT Case Name:

3450 Dufferin Yorkdale Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

Oxford Properties Group

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure of City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation:

Proposed Designation: Purpose:

Mixed Use Areas Mixed Use Areas

To permit a mixed-use redevelopment with new retail, office, hotel, residential and open space uses

Property Address: Municipality:

Approval Authority File No.: OLT Lead Case No.:

3401 Dufferin Street and 1 Yorkdale Road City of Toronto

17 168973 NNY 15 OZ OLT-22-003315

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-003315

OLT Case Name:

Oxford Properties Group v. Toronto (City)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on Monday, September 18, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/909787981.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is ten (10) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the attachment for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. If the applicant / appellant intends to seek approval of proposed modifications that are different from those provided to the City in May 2022 at the hearing, the applicant / appellant shall provide a copy of the proposed modifications to the other parties on or before Monday, April 17, 2023. The applicant / appellant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposed modifications after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Monday, May 15, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, June 16, 2023 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, and if the expert witnesses reach an agreement, the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, June 30, 2023.

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 14 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14 below.

14. On or before Monday, July 17, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

15. On or before Monday, July 17, 2023, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before Friday, September 1, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Monday, August 14, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, September 8, 2023.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

20. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal and the other parties at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, August 28, 2023 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically, and in hard copy to the Tribunal if requested. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

23. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;

• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;

• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;

• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or

• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1 – LIST OF PARTIES / PARTICIPANTS

Parties

Oxford Properties Group

Mark R. Flowers and Hannah Ruby

Davies Howe LLP

10^th Floor, 425 Adelaide Street West

Toronto, Ontario

M5V 3C1

Tel: 416-263-4513

Email: markf@davieshowe.com / hannahr@davieshowe.com

City of Toronto

Laura Bisset

Solicitor, Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

City of Toronto, Legal Services Division

26^th Floor, Metro Hall

55 John Street

Toronto, Ontario

M5V 3C6

Tel: 416-392-8782

Email: Laura.Bisset@toronto.ca

Participants

2255695 Ontario Ltd. and B.J.S. Properties Inc. (c/o Dash Urban Inc.) Jennifer Evola Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP 2100 Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 3C2 Tel: 416-860-6753 Email: jevola@cassels.com

ATTACHMENT 2 – ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any party that the issue is relevant or appropriate, or that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over it. The identification of an issue by a party indicates that party’s intent to tender evidence and/or make submissions on it, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet.

Issues List of the City of Toronto

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment, including the proposed modifications to the Dufferin Street Secondary Plan (DSSP) have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest listed in Section 2 (e), (f), (q), (h), (i), (j), (l), (m), (n), (o), (q), (s) of the Planning Act?

2. Would the approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment have appropriate regard for the decisions of City Council as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and Growth Plan (2020)

3. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including in particular, but not limited to: 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.4, 1.1.3.7(b), 1.2.1, 1.2.6.1, 1.3.1, 1.4.3, 1.5.1, 1.6.1, 1.6.6.1, 1.6.7, 1.6.8, 1.6.11.1, 1.7.1, 1.8.1, and 4.7?

4. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to and not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), as amended, including in particular, but not limited to: 2.2.1.4, 2.2.4, 2.2.4.8, 2.2.4.9, 2.2.4.10, 2.2.4.11, 2.2.6.3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.2.3, 3.2.2.4, 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.4, 3.2.5.1(b), 3.2.5.1(e), 3.2.8, 4.2.9, and 5.2.5.6?

City of Toronto Official Plan

5. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including, but not limited to:

a. Structuring Growth in the City: Integrating Land Use and Transportation (Section 2.2) (Policies 2.2 (3), 2.2(4), 2.2(5), 2.2(6), 2.2(7e) 2.2(8));

b. Bringing the City Together A Progressive Agenda of Transportation Change (Section 2.4, including in particular, but not limited to: Policies 2.4.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.10, 2.4.14, 2.4.15, 2.4.16, 2.4.17, 2.4.18, 2.4.20, 2.4.21, 2.4.22, 2.4.23 and 2.4.24);

c. The Public Realm (Section 3.1.1); including in particular, but not limited to: 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.8, 3.1.1.9, 3.1.1.11, 3.1.1.12, 3.1.1.13, 3.1.1.15, 3.1.1.16, 3.1.1.18, 3.1.1.19, and 3.1.1.20; Public Realm – Higher Order Transit (Section 3.1.2); including in particular, but not limited to: 3.1.2.2;Built Form (Section 3.1.3); including in particular, but not limited to: 3.1.3.1, 3.1.3.4, 3.1.3.5, 3.1.3.6, 3.1.3.8, 3.1.3.9, and 3.1.3.10;

d. Built Form – Building Types (Section 3.1.4);3.1.4.1, 3.1.4.10,

e. Housing (Section 3.2.1 (Policy 3.2.1.9));

f. Community Services and Facilities (Policies 3.2.2.5, 3.2.2.6)

g. Parks and Open Spaces (Section 3.2.3 Policies 3.2.3.3, 3.2.3.8);

h. Building New Neighbourhoods (Section 3.3);

i. Creating a Strong and Diverse Civic Economy (Section 3.5.1, Policy 3.5.3.4);

j. Mixed Use Areas (Section 4.5); and

k. Secondary Plans (Section 5.2.1 (Policies 5.2.1.4))?

Dufferin Street Secondary Plan

6. Are the proposed Amendments to Appendix 1, related to Block 14, of the Dufferin Street Secondary Plan appropriate?

7. Are the proposed new road Links appropriate?

8. Is the removal of Block 14 from Policy 11.12.1 of the Dufferin Street Secondary Plan appropriate?

City of Toronto Guidelines

9. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have appropriate regard to the City of Toronto Tall Building Design Guidelines (2013)?

10. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have appropriate regard to the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards (2010) and the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards Addendum (2016)?

11. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have appropriate regard to Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Guidelines (2020)?

12. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have appropriate regard to the Dufferin Street Urban Design Guidelines?

13. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have appropriate regard to the Complete Streets Guidelines?

Phasing and Implementation

14. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment policies with respect to the phasing of development appropriate in the absence of a comprehensive phasing plan/strategy?

15. Has the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriately responded to the timing, delivery and interim conditions of matters including but not limited to parkland, streets, public realm, and other mobility elements, servicing, and provision of community facilities and services, and affordable housing?

16. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment adequately provide for how to address the long-term redevelopment of the existing shopping centre?

17. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment contain appropriate implementation policies, including but not limited to:

a. Timing of the delivery of final urban design guidelines and the coordination between future urban design guidelines and the proposed Official Plan policies; and

b. Timing of the delivery of a public art strategy, sustainability strategy and a public realm strategy. Does a staggered delivery of these materials preclude a comprehensive approach?

18. Are the proposed policies with respect to the existing transit station and the phased delivery of a PATH through the existing shopping centre, Yorkdale Plaza and POPS in Block 14-D appropriate? Do they address the need to enhance connections between the transit station and the surrounding community?

19. Are the proposed development (unit and gross floor area) thresholds identified in proposed policy 9.5.5 appropriate?

20. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendment include policies regarding the use of a Holding ("H") provision for matters including, but not limited to, transportation and servicing capacity limitations?

21. Does proposed policy 9.5.23 provide for all of the necessary information required for a Precinct Plan?

Servicing

22. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriately address the future infrastructure needs to service the overall development and the implementation of those services?

Land Use

23. Is the proposed mix of land uses appropriate and does the proposed Official Plan Amendment ensure a mixed use community?

Public Realm

24. Do the proposed policies provide for sufficient public frontage and access for the existing shopping centre at full build-out?

25. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment contain appropriate policies regarding the proposed public realm elements and also appropriate policies for the relationship between new development and the existing public realm elements? In particular:

a. Are the proposed policies with respect to the relationship between future development and the surrounding context, including connections to the surrounding neighbourhoods, parks and open spaces appropriate?

b. Are the proposed policies related to the relationship between future development and the Dufferin Street frontage and the Dufferin Street Streetscape appropriate?

26. Are the proposed policies with respect to private laneways and their location appropriate?

Site Layout and Organization

27. Are the location of vehicular accesses and ramps to underground parking appropriate and should they be integrated within building massing in accordance with the Official Plan?

28. Are above grade parking and loading, and their associated policies, appropriate?

29. Are the policies with respect to "retail frontages" appropriate and sufficient?

Built Form and Massing

30. Are the proposed policies with regard to built form, massing and height appropriate?

31. Are the proposed policies with respect to massing and height, including streetwall, setbacks, stepbacks and design, particularly along Dufferin Street appropriate?

Mobility

32. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment adequately address the recommendations in the City Council-approved Yorkdale Transportation Master Plan (TMP)?

33. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment adequately identify onsite and offsite transportation improvements to support the planned growth, including pedestrian and cycling, transit, intersection and road infrastructure improvements (the 26 TMP preferred solutions), as recommended in the Yorkdale TMP?

34. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment adequately address the planned/proposed right-of-way for existing and new streets as recommended in the Yorkdale TMP, including but not limited to the right-of-way widths and provision of facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, transit and automobiles along Dufferin Street and Yorkdale Road?

35. Is the proposed public and private street network appropriate?

Housing

36. Does the proposed affordable housing appropriately address Official Plan Policy 3.2.1.9, including providing for a full range of housing by tenure, unit type and unit size?

37. Should the proposed Official Plan Amendment include requirements for an affordable housing strategy, including appropriate phasing plans?

38. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment include appropriate housing unit mix policies?

Parks and Community Services and Facilities

39. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment identify appropriate parkland sizes, locations and configurations?

40. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment contain appropriate policies for the phased conveyance of usable, programmable and accessible parkland that is proportionate to the phased development?

41. Are the proposed community services and facilities appropriate and are the floor areas of these spaces identified in the draft policies appropriate?

Sustainability and Resiliency

42. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment provide for an appropriate sustainable strategy including stormwater management, energy efficiency and green infrastructure?

43. Do the proposed policies regarding sustainable strategy conform to the vision set out in the Official Plan?

Planning

44. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment represent good planning and is approval of the proposal in the public interest?

45. Is the form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment appropriate?

Issues List of Oxford Properties Group

46. Is it appropriate to redesignate the entirety of the McAdam Loop as “Parks” on Map 16, Land Use Plan, of the City’s Official Plan, and to show it as a “Public Park” or “Park” on various Maps within the Dufferin Street Secondary Plan (“DSSP”), or should the existing roadway linking the Yorkdale Shopping Centre lands and the west side of Dufferin Street be shown as being retained?

47. Should the proposed reference to New Link 8 from Dufferin Street to approximately 150 m east of Dufferin Street in Schedule 2 of the City’s Official Plan be replaced with reference to New Link 8 from Dufferin Street to Yorkdale Road, together with New Link 9 from Yorkdale Road to New Link 8 (Street A)?

48. Should the reference to Block 14 be deleted from Policy 3.7.1.7 of the DSSP?

49. Should Block 14 within the DSSP be expanded to include the entirety of the Yorkdale Shopping Centre lands?

50. Should proposed Policy 9.5 and the Maps regarding Block 14 within the DSSP be replaced with the proposed policy and mapping modifications submitted to the City by Oxford Properties Group dated May 12, 2022, as may be revised?

51. Should the proposed reference to Block 14 be deleted from Policy 11.12.1 of the DSSP?

52. Should new site and area specific policies for the Yorkdale Shopping Centre lands be included within section 12 of the DSSP and, if so, should the new site and area specific policies be in accordance with the proposed policies submitted to the City by Oxford Properties Group dated May 12, 2022, as may be revised?

53. Should the reference to “Proposed South Yorkdale Road (southern limit of Yorkdale Shopping Centre)” as a 23 m Collector within Block 14 be deleted from Appendix 1 to the DSSP and replaced with reference to “New east-west street (between Dufferin Street and Yorkdale Road), including Street A-1 and Street A-2”, with a width of 18.5 m for Street A-1 and 24 m for Street A-2, together with reference to “New north-south street (between Yorkdale Road and Street A-2)” with a width of 18.5 m?

ATTACHMENT 3 – ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Oxford Properties Group

2. City of Toronto

3. Reply of Oxford Properties Group