Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 02, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002193 (Formerly PL200204)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Toronto to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation: Mixed Used Areas

Proposed Designated: Mixed Used Areas

Purpose: To permit a 9-storey mixed-use building containing 95 new rental units and retail use at-grade

Property Address/Description: 2950 and 2970 Lake Shore Boulevard West

Municipality: City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No.: 19-146505 WET 03 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002193

Legacy Case No.: PL200204

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002193

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL200204

OLT Case Name: 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2215 and Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Commercial Residential (CR 3.0(c3.0; r3.0) (SS2)) under the City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013. Commercial (C) under the Etobicoke Zoning Code

Proposed Zoning: Commercial Residential – Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose: To permit a 9-storey mixed-use building containing 95 new rental units and retail use at-grade

Property Address/Description: 2950 and 2970 Lake Shore Boulevard West

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 19-146505 WET 03 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003785

Legacy Case No.: PL200205

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002193

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL200204

Heard: June 30, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
2970 Lakeshore GP Inc.	Matthew Lakatos-Hayward
City of Toronto	Rory McNeil, Jessica Jakubowski
CAPREIT Apartments Inc.	Eugenia Bashura
Lakeshore Planning Council Corp.	Peggy Moulder*
Three Into Eight Inc.	Frank Serafini*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI ON JUNE 30, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the fourth Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to consider appeals by 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc. (“Appellant”) against City Council’s failure to make decisions on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments respecting the properties known municipally as 2950 and 2970 Lakeshore Boulevard West (“Subject Lands”).

2The Appellant seeks approval for a redevelopment of the Subject Lands with an eight to nine-storey mixed-use building, including approximately 95 residential units and 485 square metres of at-grade commercial space.

THE FOURTH CMC

3The purpose of the CMC was to receive status updates from both parties to organize the hearing of these appeals.

4The Tribunal has received an updated Procedural Order and is herein attached as Attachment 1 to this decision.

5An Issues List submitted by Ms. Moulder on behalf of the Lakeshore Planning Council Corp. was received and is attached as Attachment 2 to this decision.

6Ms. Moulder requested a written hearing and upon further review and opinions from all parties, the Tribunal denied the request.

7The Tribunal hereby schedules a Video Conference Hearing of these appeals on Monday, April 24, 2023 commencing at 10 a.m. Twelve (12) days have been set aside.

8Parties and participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/719383509

Access code: 719-383-509

9Parties and participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

10Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is 719-383-509.

11Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

12The Member is not seized

13No further notice is required.

“Carmine Tucci”

CARMINE TUCCI

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

Case No. OLT-22-002193

ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc.

Subject: Application to amend City of Toronto Official Plan– Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Designation: Mixed Use Areas and Neighbourhoods.

Proposed Designated: Mixed Use with a Site and Area Specific Policy.

Purpose: To permit a 9-storey mixed-use building containing 95 new rental units and retail use at-grade.

Property Address/Description: 2950 and 2970 Lake Shore Blvd W

Municipality: City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No.: 19 146505 WET 03 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002193

Legacy Case No.: PL200204

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002193

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL200204

OLT Case Name: 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2215 and Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Commercial Residential (CR 3.0(c3.0; r3.0) (SS2)) under the City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013. Commercial (C) under the Etobicoke Zoning Code

Proposed Zoning: Commercial Residential – Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose: To permit a 9-storey mixed-use building containing 95 new rental units and retail use at-grade

Property Address/Description: 2950 and 2970 Lake Shore Boulevard Wes

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 19-146505 WET 03 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003785

Legacy Case No.: PL200205

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002193

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL200204

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 April 24, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The Parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is about 12 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. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.

5. The order of evidence is 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 consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

6. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 4 to this Order. 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.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.

8. If the hearing is to proceed electronically, 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 (https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) may have at least one meeting before the hearing and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, the Parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or by April 10, 2023 (fifteen days (15) days prior to the Hearing Date) if this meeting takes place and if agreement is reached.

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, curriculum vitae, and the intended order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before February 28, 2023 [55 days before hearing date]. For expert witnesses, a Party must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before on or before March 6, 2023 [50 days before Hearing date].

11. 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, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and curriculum vitae. 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.

12. 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. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence.

13. On or before March 10, 2023 [45 days before the hearing], the Parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert statements to the other Parties, the City Clerk, and to the case co-ordinator.

14. On or before March 10, 2023 [45 days before the hearing], Participants shall provide copies of their written Participant Statements to the other Parties, the City Clerk, and to the case co-ordinator.

15. On or before April 10, 2023 [15 days before the hearing], the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

16. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with Rule 10 of the OLT Rules, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

17. The Parties may provide to all other Parties, the City Clerk, and the case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within twenty (20) days after the evidence is received.

18. The Parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the case co-ordinator on or before April 14, 2023 [10 days prior to the hearing].

19. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross-examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the case co-ordinator, on or before April 20, 2023 [2 days before hearing].

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 at least seven (7) days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. On or before April 14, 2023 [10 days before the hearing], the Parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan that identifies, at a minimum: the Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any). 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 throughout the Hearing Event.

22. If the Applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the Applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties on or before January 24, 2023 [90 days before the hearing]. The Applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the Parties may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. 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 email shall be governed by Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. This Section applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.

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

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member ) Date:

______________________________________

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
January 24, 2023	Last date to provide copies of revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings (if any)
February 28, 2023	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
March 6, 2023	Last date to challenge qualifications of expert witnesses
March 10, 2023	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
March 30, 2023	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
April 10, 2023	Agreed Upon Statement of Facts and exchange of Visual Evidence (if any)
April 14, 2023	Joint Document Book and Hearing Plan
April 24, 2023	Hearing commences

Attachment 2 – List of Parties/Participants

PARTIES

1. 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc.
2. City of Toronto
3. CAPREIT Apartments Inc.
4. Lakeshore Planning Council Corp
5. Three Into Eight Inc. and Three West of Eight Inc.

Attachment 3 – Order of Evidence

1. 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc.
2. City of Toronto
3. Lakeshore Planning Council Corp
4. Three Into Eight Inc. and Three West of Eight Inc.
5. CAPREIT Apartments Inc.
6. 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc. (Reply)

Attachment 4 – Issues List

Note: The identification of an issue on this Issues List does not mean that all Parties agree that such an issue, or the manner in which is expressed, is appropriate or relevant for the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing. The Appellant has noted such issues with an asterix [*] that on a preliminary basis, are without prejudice to the right of the parties, in evidence and/or argument, to dispute whether the issue is properly before the tribunal for adjudication.

City of Toronto

Planning Act

1. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act?

2. Would approval of the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment have regard to the decision of City Council to oppose the appeal and the information and material that City Council considered in making its decision as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

3. Is the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) pursuant to Section 3 of the Planning Act, including section 4.6?

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020

4. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to and not conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Horseshoe (2020), including section 2.2.2.3?

Toronto Official Plan

5. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan, including:

(a) Structuring Growth in the City: Integrating Land Use and Transportation (Chapter 2.2);

(b) Avenues: Reurbanizing Arterial Corridors (Chapter 2.2.3);

(c) Healthy Neighbourhoods (Chapter 2.3.1);

(d) Public Realm (Chapter 3.1.1);

(e) Built Form (Chapter 3.1.2);

(f) Built Form – Building Types (Chapter 3.1.3);

(g) Neighbourhoods (Chapter 4.1);

(h) Mixed Use Areas (Chapter 4.5); and

(i) Implementation (Chapter 5)?

6. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to the policies of Site and Area Specific Policy 21?

Guidelines

7. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment maintain the intent and purpose of the Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Study and Performance Standards?

8. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment maintain the intent and purpose of the Lake Shore Boulevard West Urban Design Guidelines?

9. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment maintain the intent and purpose of the Growing Up Urban Design Guidelines?

Built Form

10. Are the proposed height, massing, setbacks and stepbacks, and site organization of the proposed development appropriate given principles of good planning and urban design?

11. Is the proposed overall tower height consisting of 9-storeys and 28.8 metres appropriate?

12. Does the proposed development provide appropriate transition between areas of different development intensity and scale?

13. Does the proposed development's massing fit with the existing and planned context?

14. Does the proposed development adequately address shadow concerns on adjacent low-rise residential uses and the public realm?

15. Does the proposed development adequately address wind impacts on streets, public spaces and the building itself (amenity areas and balconies)?

16. Does the proposed development protect privacy and overlook within adjacent buildings?

17. Is the proposed density of 5.71 times the area of the lot appropriate?

18. Does the proposed development represent an overdevelopment of the site?

Public Realm

19. Does the proposed development provide appropriate setbacks along the Lake Shore Boulevard West frontage?

Access

20. Does the proposed development provide appropriate vehicular access and site circulation?

21. Does the proposed development include sufficient vehicular parking on-site?

Draft Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment

22. Are the form and content, including regulatory standards, of the proposed draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments appropriate?

Good Planning and Urban Design

23. Does the proposed development and draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments represent good planning and urban design and is it in the public interest?

Conditions

24. If the proposed development is approved in whole or in part, should the Tribunal's Final Order be withheld until the following conditions are satisfied and the Tribunal receive confirmation from the City Solicitor that:

(a) The proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are in a final form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

(b) The owner has submitted a detailed wind tunnel test complete with a statistical wind analysis to determine the impacts and efficacy of the recommended wind mitigation measures, evaluated to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning. The owner shall construct and maintain any required mitigation measures, to be secured through the site plan application review process, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(c) The owner has submitted a Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion Declaration of Use and Screening Form to confirm whether there are any existing rental units on the subject site, evaluated to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

(d) The owner has provided space within the development for installation of maintenance access holes and sampling ports on the private side, as close to the property line as possible, for both the storm and sanitary service connections, in accordance with the Sewers By-law Chapter 681 evaluated to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services;

(e) The owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report to determine the stormwater runoff, sanitary flow, and water supply demand resulting from this development and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development and if upgrades/improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure are required to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

(f) The owner has made satisfactory arrangements with the City and entered into the appropriate financially secured Development Agreement with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to accommodate this development, according to the Functional Servicing Report accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; and

(g) The owner has submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study and Parking Justification, demonstrating that the requested parking ratios are acceptable, evaluated to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Transportation Services.

Lakeshore Planning Council Corp

A. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020)?

B. Does the proposed development conform with requirements of the Provincial Plan (The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020)?

C. Can the proposed development be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conform with the Growth Plan, without conforming with the Official Plan?*

1. Site and Area Specific Policy #21 (SASP #21) of the Toronto Official Plan

(a) Are Area and Site Specific policies a more detailed refinement of parent Official Plan policies that are applied to more specific locations?*

(b) Does the proposed development comply with the overall requirements of SASP #21? Do the built-form policies of SASP #21 provide principles on key relationships for the location and organization of development and massing within the existing and planned context of New Toronto?*

(c) Are the height and density aspects of the planned context of the new redevelopment proposal being assessed on the basis of the site-specific policies of SASP #21 from the Official Plan? Do the Official Plan policies of SASP 21 already provide for a change in intensification along Lake Shore Blvd. West? Does the proposed development meet the SASP #21 maximum height requirement of four stories for the New Toronto section of SASP #21, with the building height not to exceed a 45-degree angular plane from the property line of the adjacent low-scale residential properties, and maximum net density of 3.0 times the area lot for lands designated Mixed Use Areas? Is a 45-degree angular plane starting at the property line the de facto planning standard for the allowable maximum height limit for development?*

(d) In SASP #21, has the word “should” been misrepresented as only being a “suggestion”? Is the meaning of the word “should” in SASP #21 intended to be a suggestion to support non-compliance with the SASP #21, or does it express an “obligation, propriety, expediency, or what is probable or expected” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) in accordance with municipal bylaw and policy? Is the standard dictionary definition of the word “should” the past-tense version of the word “shall”? As the words “shall” (and “will”) are legal directives, is the word “should” also a statutory legal directive which must be followed without any deviation?*

(e) Is it appropriate to issue an Official Plan Amendment for a new Site and Area Specific Policy for the development in order to excuse the development from complying with the existing Site and Area Specific Policy #21, when the development is able to comply with the existing SASP #21 for building heights not to exceed four stories within the New Toronto section of SASP #21?*

(f) Are the subject lands a unique configuration with respect to lot depth not found in the remaining Mixed Use, Commercial-Residential properties within the New Toronto section SASP #21? Would the proposed development set a precedent for the height, massing and scale of buildings for the New Toronto section within SASP #21?*

(g) Does SASP #21 require a 45-degree angular plane from the property line of the adjacent low-scale residential property at 135 Eight Street, consisting of six, three and one-half (3.5) storey, low-rise residential apartment buildings? Or can the existing low-rise residential property context be ignored, only taking into consideration a potential (not planned) future re-development of the property to eight storeys as permitted by the Zoning Bylaw? *

(h) Does the proposed development create negative impacts on adjacent properties, including shadowing, or other constraints or restrictions on any future development, or other negative effects? *

(i) Does the 6-storey maximum height limit for Lake Shore Blvd. West in Long Branch west of Twenty-Third St. apply to the 36-metre right-of-way, and in New Toronto does the 4-storey maximum building height apply to the narrower 27-metre right-of-way? *

(j) Should the content and findings of the “Avenues Study Implementation Report, Lake Shore Boulevard West - Long Branch (Ward 6 - Etobicoke-Lakeshore)” completed in 2004 for the Long Branch section within SASP #21, also be applied to the New Toronto section of SASP #21, given the right-of-way width along Lake Shore Blvd West is 36 metres in Long Branch, and only 27 metres in New Toronto, along with other singular attributes of these two historic towns in Etobicoke?*

(k) Was SASP #21 created in 1993 by the former City of Etobicoke? Or was SASP #21 created by the City of Toronto and included in the first Toronto Official Plan in 2002, which was adopted by City Council after “an inclusive, consultative process that over the past three years included more than 180 community meetings, the distribution of several key reports, newsletters and, translation of 'A Citizen's Guide to Toronto's New Official Plan' into nine languages.” (City Clerk – October 31, 2002)? [Note: SASP #21 was subsequently amended in 2004, and the first Toronto Official Plan, including the current SASP #21, was approved by the OMB in 2006-2007] *

2. Urban Design Guidelines – Lake Shore Boulevard West: Between Etobicoke Creek and Dwight Avenue (2004)

(a) Do the statutory requirements of SASP #21 take precedence over the non-statutory suggestions of the Lakeshore Urban Design Guidelines (UDG)?*

(b) Does the illustration for the UDG accurately represent the statutory requirements set by the Site and Area Specific Policy 21 (SASP #21) of the Official Plan? Is the illustration mainly comprising the UDG incorrect - and totally inaccurate?*

(c) Do the UDG for Lake Shore Blvd West correspond to SASP #21, or do the illustrations in Figure A show incorrect right-of-way widths and other incorrect information for the Long Branch and New Toronto segments of LSBW? If the UDG are non-statutory documents and contain incorrect formation concerning widths, angular vs. parallel parking, building heights, should they be totally ignored for the purposes of the OLT hearing? *

(d) Is the source of the incorrect drawings in the UDG the City of Etobicoke Official Plan – Central/Western Lake Shore Area Secondary Plan, which was replaced and superseded by the first Toronto Official Plan, created in 2002 and approved by the Ministry and OMB in 2006-2007? Should the UDG be corrected by the City to accurately reflect the content of the Toronto OP SASP #21, and not utilize the incorrect and flawed drawings from the former City of Etobicoke OP Secondary Plan? *

(e) Is it acceptable for the City to base any approval whatsoever of the development proposal by relying on the UDG, which contain numerous blatant and misleading errors, and which clearly do not in any way represent the requirements of SASP #21 while falsely reporting that they do?*

3. Toronto City-wide Harmonized Zoning By-law 569-2013

(a) Is the new comprehensive, harmonized Zoning By-law 569-2013 (Zoning By-law) up-to-date and in accordance with the Official Plan, particularly with respect to zoning for the New Toronto area?*

(b) Is the new comprehensive Zoning By-law the key regulatory instrument that implements the Official Plan policies and provides regulations and standards that shape the City’s built form and land use; and, in particular, is the zoning contained in the Zoning By-law up-to-date for the New Toronto Commercial Residential (CR) area?*

(c) Did the Zoning By-law provide for a review of the earlier zoning by-laws for the former City of Etobicoke-New Toronto, including but not limited to Chapters 350, 351, 352, 354 and A360 and zoning maps in order to update zoning for the former New Toronto Commercial (C) area, and to update zoning to implement Official Plan policies?*

(d) Did the Zoning By-law review the New Toronto Commercial (C) area and implement changes in order to update and create the new New Toronto CR zone?*

(e) Did the Zoning By-law update zoning for the New Toronto CR zone to support and implement the requirements of SASP #21?*

(f) Did the Zoning By-law update zoning for the adjacent property at 135 Eighth Street?*

(g) Did any owner of property in the CR zone in New Toronto appeal the provisions of the Zoning By-law for the new CR zone?*

(h) Does the proposed development comply with all the provisions of the Zoning By-law for a property located in the New Toronto CR zone?*

(i) Does the proposed development comply with all the requirements of Chapter 40 Commercial Residential of the Zoning By-law?*

(j) Does the proposed development comply with the provisions of the Height Overlay Map of the Zoning By-law?*

(k) Does the proposed development comply with the provisions of Policy Area 4 – Parking requirements of the By-law?*

4. City of Toronto Official Plan

(a) Does the proposal comply with the Official Plan which is to be considered in its entirety?*

(b) Is residential intensification appropriate and intended to be implemented in all areas in the City of Toronto?*

(c) Does the scale of the redevelopment proposal for 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West provide an appropriate transition of building height and intensity when measured from the adjacent property line of the 3.5-storey low-rise apartment neighbourhood? Does the proposal comply overall with OP Section 2.2.3 Avenues: Reurbanizing Arterial Corridors? In particular, would the proposed development set a precedent for form and scale, or adversely impact any adjacent Neighbourhoods or Apartment Neighbourhoods, such as the low-rise 3.5 storey apartment complex at 135 Eighth Street?*

(d) Should scale and massing be conceived only in terms of individual buildings or should they be conceived in terms their fit within the existing and planned context? Does the redevelopment proposal for 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West conform and comply with the existing and planned context for New Toronto? Does the proposal consider and address the larger context and implications for the New Toronto neighbourhood segment of the avenue (Lake Shore Blvd West), which extends approximately 2.1 kilometres from Dwight Ave to Twenty Third Street on the south side, and the mid-point of Twenty Second and Twenty Fourth block on the north side of the avenue?*

(e) Does the proposal comply with OP 2.2.3 policy 2 (b) and the contextually appropriate as-of-right zoning and other regulations which exist for the New Toronto neighbourhood segment of the avenue Lake Shore Blvd West?*

(f) Have the statutory planning requirements of SASP #21 and the harmonized zoning by-law 569- 2013 enacted in 2013 been developed with extensive public input over a time period of many years? Were the contextually appropriate as-of-right zoning and other regulations, such as SASP #21, which currently exist for the New Toronto segment of the avenue, enacted by City Council following extensive public and stakeholder consultation? *

(g) Does the scale and massing of the redevelopment proposal for 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West fit with the existing context and fit the existing and planned built-form character of the neighbourhood of New Toronto in accordance with the policies in OP Section 3.1.2 Built Form, including policy 5 and other policy requirements?*

(h) Does the proposed redevelopment conform and comply with the existing and planned context of New Toronto? Does the height of the proposed redevelopment consider the existing conditions of street proportion and character of a narrow right-of-way with low-rise buildings of up to 4 storeys that provides ample sunlight and sky views? Is street proportion a fundamental determinant of the character of Lake Shore Blvd. West in New Toronto, and the amount of daylight available throughout the various seasons? Does the proposal meet development criteria in OP Section 4.5 Mixed Use Areas, including appropriate transition in intensity and scale, set-backs, stepping down, limiting shadows, maintaining sunlight, adequate supply of parking for residents and visitors?*

(i) Does the proposal comply with the policies in OP Section 4.5 Mixed Use Areas, including policy 2 (b) by creating and sustaining well-paid, stable, safe and fulfilling employment opportunities? *

5. Parking

(a) Is the NexTrans survey of occupied parking spaces at 135 Eighth Street (145 Islington Ave) for the dates of June 3 and August 3, 2017, relevant or conclusive, in that the parking spaces are rented to residents who may come and go at any time? Isn’t the correct measure how many parking spaces are rented to residents of 135 Eighth Street, and not when a vehicle may or may not be parked in the rented space?*

(b) Is the selected date and time for the survey of Saturday, June 3, 2017, from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m., appropriate for a survey of the number of vehicles parked at home, when Saturday night is a typical time when people socialize outside of the home on a late spring evening at various events, and with friends and family? Is the second selected date and time for the survey of Thursday, August 3, 2017, from 2:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., appropriate for a survey of the number of vehicles parked at home, since the August summertime is prime vacation time, when many people leave the City to enjoy time away with family?*

(c) Is the number of parking spaces of 32 for 95 units for the applicant (34%) in any way justified by comparison with the number of existing parking spaces of 158 for 278 units at 135 Eighth Street (57%)? Is the proposed parking deficiency likely to result in overflow parking onto the adjacent property at 135 Eighth Street and other surrounding public streets?*

(d) Is the number of parking spaces of 32 for 95 units for the applicant (34%) in any way justified when compared with the lowest, minimum number of parking spaces for an apartment building in Toronto, located in Policy Area 1, Downtown and Central, of 57% for 95 residential units?*

(e) Since tenants who rent a parking space at 135 Eighth Street can leave and be replaced with tenants who may or may not rent a parking space, is it reasonable that the number of parking spaces that are rented, or occupied or not, will change from time to time?*

(f) Is it reasonable to expect that residents who live in South Etobicoke may likely require car ownership to travel to jobs throughout the GTA when compared with residents who choose to live in Downtown Toronto?*

(g) Is it reasonable to expect that higher rents will attract new tenants with higher employment incomes, and that these new tenants may be able to afford and want to own a car, when compared with tenants having lower, or no, employment income?*

6. Heritage Conservation District

(a) Does the proposed development comply with the requirements and policies of OP Section 3.1.5 Heritage Conservation?*

(b) Is Toronto’s goal to protect and integrate the history, landmarks and neighbourhoods to create a shared sense of place for its residents? Is the preservation of cultural heritage essential to the character of the City of Toronto? Must growth and intensification be balanced with the ongoing conservation of significant heritage properties? Is conservation of cultural heritage considered to be a prominent civic legacy for Toronto?*

(c) Does the proposed development take into consideration of New Toronto as a potential Heritage Conservation District, as identified in SASP #305? Is the redevelopment proposal for 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West considered to be “within or in close proximity to a potential Heritage Conservation District”? *

(d) Because New Toronto is listed as a potential heritage conservation district, will the proposed redevelopment adversely impact the heritage character and built form of New Toronto? Does the built-form for the proposed redevelopment of 2950 and 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West “fit in” and respect the heritage character and context of New Toronto’s main street? *

(e) Is the redevelopment proposal for 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West likely to have any negative impact on the heritage character of the potential Heritage Conservation District? *

(f) Does the proposed redevelopment of 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West potentially adversely impact adjacent buildings of heritage importance?*

7. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

(a) Does the proposed development comply with the overall requirements of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe?*

(b) Does the Growth Plan repeatedly emphasize the necessity for ‘complete communities’ where citizens can perform all daily functions of their life over an entire lifetime?*

(c) What is the statutory definition of ‘complete communities’?*

(d) Do ‘complete communities’ provide a balance of employment and housing on a local (neighbourhood) scale?*

(e) Is one of the objectives of ‘complete communities’ to provide a local employment base to reduce the need for long-distance commuting to get to work?*

(f) Does the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe require the City of Toronto to have 0.54 of a job per resident over the 2041 time horizon?*

8. Employment

(a) Are retail jobs considered to be ‘employment’ in employment areas and outside of employment areas?*

(b) How does eliminating a historical level of at least 70 jobs at 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West create new employment opportunities in New Toronto?*

(c) How does eliminating 70 or more jobs at 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West comply with the creation of jobs in proportion to intensifying residential population? How does eliminating 70 or more jobs at 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West comply with the requirements for ‘complete communities’ mandated in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe?*

(d) Does the local level of employment provide the primary customer base for main street retail businesses? Does ‘daytime population’ provide the primary customer base for main street retail businesses?*

(e) How can residents provide a customer base for local retail businesses during the day when residents typically leave the neighbourhood on a daily basis by commuting to other areas for work?*

(f) Has the destruction/elimination of the local employment base in New Toronto adversely impacted main street retail businesses?*

(g) Is it is generally recognized that most forms of new residential development create net costs to the host municipality, so that the costs of serving the needs and expectations of the residential population are higher than the revenues the residential tax base generates?*

(h) Does a local employment base generate higher tax revenues and use fewer services compared to residential uses? Does eliminating existing local employment locations and lands in neighbourhoods accelerate the reduction of the tax base and increases the speed at which residential and other tax rates must rise to cover the shortfall?*

(i) Where is the plan to provide the proportion of new jobs in New Toronto in relation to the residential intensification proposed by the redevelopment proposal for 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd West? Where is the plan to replace the number of jobs in New Toronto that will be eliminated by the proposed redevelopment?*

9. Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Performance Standards (MBPS)

(a) Do the statutory requirements of SASP #21 take precedence over the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards (MRPS)? Can the MRPS be used to challenge the legitimacy of existing Official Plan built-form policies such as SASP #21 and applicable by-laws?*

(b) Has LPAT previously confirmed the City of Toronto’s hierarchy of authority regarding the Mid- Rise Building Performance Standards Addendum (April 20, 2016), which clearly defines that the MRPS and other non-statutory guidelines, etc. cannot be used to challenge the legitimacy of statutory Official Plan policies such as SASP #21?*

(c) Does the proposed development comply with the MBPS adopted by City Council in June 2010 and the Addendum to the MBPS adopted by City Council in June 2016? *

(d) Because the Addendum of 2016 on page 2, under the heading “Applicability of the Performance Standards”, clearly states that the “Performance Standards are not intended to be used to challenge Council-approved studies or Area-specific policies, by-laws or guidelines, particularly with respect to building heights and matters of transition”, should the MBPS be applied to the development proposal?*

(e) Do the requirements of SASP #21 supersede the MBPS in accordance with the Addendum?*

(f) Does the development proposal comply with the Addendum to the MRPS adopted by City Council in 2016, including, but not limited to the following:*

(i) Does the proposed development comply with the MRPS Addendum under the heading on page 5, “Context”, have due regard for the existing and planned context, given the existing context is primarily 2 storeys and the planned context is 4 storeys?*

(ii) Does the proposed development comply with the MRPS Addendum items under the heading on pages 7 and 8, “#1 Maximum Allowable Height”? *

(iii) Does the proposed development comply with the MRPS Addendum items under the heading on page 10 “#4B Pedestrian Perception Stepback”?*

(iv) Does the proposed development comply with the requirement for a 7.5-metre setback from the property line and a minimum 15-metre separation distance from the existing adjacent 3.5-storey low-rise apartment building that is perpendicular to the avenue, with no windows facing the avenue property, in accordance with MRPS #5D, Configuration 3? Does the proposed development comply with the MRPS Addendum items under the heading on page 11 “#5A-D: Rear Transition”?*

(g) Does the proposed development comply with the requirement for a separation distance of 20 metres with the adjacent apartment building with facing windows?*

(h) Does the proposed development comply with all transition requirements for the adjacent Apartment Neighbourhood at 135 Eighth Street, including separation distances, setbacks and other provisions?*

(i) Does the proposed development comply with MRPS #8A and Addendum items requiring stepbacks after the sixth floor on the east side of the building, with the adjacent property?*

(j) Does the proposed development comply with MRPS #8B which limits the height of blank walls to six storeys? *

(k) Does the proposed development, which has a continuous blank wall on the east side up to the total height of the building of 9 stories, set a precedent for adjacent CR properties on the avenue to similarly exceed the maximum height of 4 storeys set by SASP #21, as shown in the diagram on page 73 of the Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Study?*

(l) Does the development proposal for 9 storeys on the avenue impose restrictions on any future infill development or redevelopment of the adjacent apartment complex property that currently do not exist if the development proposal complies with the requirement for a maximum of 4 storeys in the CR area, as required by SASP #21?*

10. Provincial Policy Statement

(a) Does the development proposal comply with the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement, including employment uses to support liveable and resilient communities?*

11. Planning Justification Report – April 2019

(a) Is the information contained in the Planning Justification Report dated April 2019 prepared for the applicant by Weston Consulting accurate, or can it be challenged throughout concerning facts and applicable law?*

12. We will respond to issues raised by the Parties (and Participants) in their various documents, submissions and witness statements:*

13. 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc.

14. City of Toronto

15. CAPREIT Apartments Inc.

16. Three Into Eight Inc. and Three West of Eight Inc.

Three Into Eight Inc. and Three West of Eight Inc.

1. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate mix of market oriented ownership and rental units to help established a more balanced community makeup?

2. Is the proposed development’s at-grade retail space sufficient to help stabilize the neighbourhood, or is it necessary to include additional commercial uses to help stabilization a percentage of the time?

3. Is the proposed parking supply sufficient, given that the Zoning By-law prescribes a raste of 1 space per dwelling unit?

4. Is a reduction in parking spaces justified, if based on the premise more people will use public transit?

CAPREIT Apartments Inc.

Built Form and Massing

1. Does the proposed development fit harmoniously with the adjacent property at 148 - 178 Islington Avenue and 135 - 147 Eighth Street (the “CAPREIT Property”) with respect to the proposed:

(a) height;

(b) massing and density;

(c) setbacks at grade;

(d) stepbacks and angular planes; and

(e) separation distances?

2. In respect of the above:

(a) does the proposed development have regard for the Planning Act sections 2(f)(h)(n)(o)(p)(q)(r)?

(b) is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement?

(c) does the proposed development conform with Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019 as amended?

(d) does the proposed development conform with the Toronto Official Plan including the following sections:

(i) Built Form Policies 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3, and 3.1.2.5;

(ii) Official Plan Amendment 480;

(iii) Mixed Use Policies 4.5.2(a)(c)(d)(e)(f)(i)(j); and

(iv) Site and Area-Site Policy No. 21?

(e) does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the following guidelines and standards:

(i) Lake Shore Boulevard West Urban Design Guidelines,

(ii) Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards (2010) as amended,

(iii) Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities (2020) Guidelines,

(iv) Toronto Green Standard, and

(v) Light, View and Privacy standard?

Transportation and Public Safety

3. Does the proposed development fit harmoniously with the CAPREIT Property with respect to the proposed:

(a) vehicular access and egress;

(b) loading facilities and associated manoeuvring areas;

(c) ramp configuration; and

(d) parking supply?

4. Does the proposed use of the laneway respect existing legal easements?

5. In respect of the above:

(a) does the proposed development have regard for the Planning Act sections 2(f)(h)(n)(o)(p)(q)(r)?

(b) is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement?

(c) does the proposed development conform with Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019 as amended?

(d) does the proposed development conform with the Toronto Official Plan including the following sections:

(i) Built Form Policies 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3, and 3.1.2.5;

(ii) Official Plan Amendment 480;

(iii) Mixed Use Policies 4.5.2(a)(c)(d)(e)(f)(i)(j); and

(iv) Site and Area-Site Policy No. 21?

(e) does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the following guidelines and standards:

(i) Lake Shore Boulevard West Urban Design Guidelines,

(ii) Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards (2010) as amended; and

(iii) Toronto Green Standard.

General

6. Based on the above issues, does the proposed development represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

7. Are the form and content of the proposed ZBLAs and OPA appropriate?

7176946

LAKESHORE PLANNING COUNCIL CORP.

www.lakeshoreplanningcouncil.com

lpcc.lakeshoreplanningcouncil@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 2

REVISED ISSUES LIST – June 27, 2022

OLT-22-002193 - Development Proposal – 2950-2970 Lake Shore Blvd West

A. Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020)?

B. Does the proposed development conform with requirements of the Provincial Plan (The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020)?

C. Can the proposed development be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conform with the Growth Plan, without conforming with the Official Plan?

1. Site and Area Specific Policy #21 (SASP #21) of the Toronto Official Plan

(a) Are Area and Site Specific policies a more detailed refinement of parent Official Plan policies that are applied to more specific locations?

(b) Does the proposed development comply with the overall requirements of SASP #21? Do the built-form policies of SASP #21 provide principles on key relationships for the location and organization of development and massing within the existing and planned context of New Toronto?

(c) Are the height and density aspects of the planned context of the new redevelopment proposal being assessed on the basis of the site-specific policies of SASP #21 from the Official Plan? Do the Official Plan policies of SASP 21 already provide for a change in intensification along Lake Shore Blvd. West? Does the proposed development meet the SASP #21 maximum height requirement of four stories for the New Toronto section of SASP #21, with the building height not to exceed a 45-degree angular plane from the property line of the adjacent low-scale residential properties, and maximum net density of 3.0 times the area lot for lands designated Mixed Use Areas? Is a 45-degree angular plane starting at the property line the de facto planning standard for the allowable maximum height limit for development?

(d) In SASP #21, has the word “should” been misrepresented as only being a “suggestion”? Is the meaning of the word “should” in SASP #21 intended to be a suggestion to support non-compliance with the SASP #21, or does it express an “obligation, propriety, expediency, or what is probable or expected” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) in accordance with municipal bylaw and policy? Is the standard dictionary definition of the word “should” the past-tense version of the word “shall”? As the words “shall” (and “will”) are legal directives, is the word “should” also a statutory legal directive which must be followed without any deviation?

(e) Is it appropriate to issue an Official Plan Amendment for a new Site and Area Specific Policy for the development in order to excuse the development from complying with the existing Site and Area Specific Policy #21, when the development is able to comply with the existing SASP #21 for building heights not to exceed four stories within the New Toronto section of SASP #21?

(f) Are the subject lands a unique configuration with respect to lot depth not found in the remaining Mixed Use, Commercial-Residential properties within the New Toronto section SASP #21? Would the proposed development set a precedent for the height, massing and scale of buildings for the New Toronto section within SASP #21?

(g) Does SASP #21 require a 45-degree angular plane from the property line of the adjacent low-scale residential property at 135 Eight Street, consisting of six, three and one-half (3.5) storey, low-rise residential apartment buildings? Or can the existing low-rise residential property context be ignored, only taking into consideration a potential (not planned) future re-development of the property to eight storeys as permitted by the Zoning Bylaw?

(h) Does the proposed development create negative impacts on adjacent properties, including shadowing, or other constraints or restrictions on any future development, or other negative effects?

(i) Does the 6-storey maximum height limit for Lake Shore Blvd. West in Long Branch west of Twenty-Third St. apply to the 36-metre right-of-way, and in New Toronto does the 4-storey maximum building height apply to the narrower 27-metre right-of-way?

(j) Should the content and findings of the “Avenues Study Implementation Report, Lake Shore Boulevard West - Long Branch (Ward 6 - Etobicoke-Lakeshore)” completed in 2004 for the Long Branch section within SASP #21, also be applied to the New Toronto section of SASP #21, given the right-of-way width along Lake Shore Blvd West is 36 metres in Long Branch, and only 27 metres in New Toronto, along with other singular attributes of these two historic towns in Etobicoke?

(k) Was SASP #21 created in 1993 by the former City of Etobicoke? Or was SASP #21 created by the City of Toronto and included in the first Toronto Official Plan in 2002, which was adopted by City Council after “an inclusive, consultative process that over the past three years included more than 180 community meetings, the distribution of several key reports, newsletters and, translation of 'A Citizen's Guide to Toronto's New Official Plan' into nine languages.” (City Clerk – October 31, 2002)? [Note: SASP #21 was subsequently amended in 2004, and the first Toronto Official Plan, including the current SASP #21, was approved by the OMB in 2006-2007]

2. Urban Design Guidelines – Lake Shore Boulevard West: Between Etobicoke Creek and Dwight Avenue (2004)

(a) Do the statutory requirements of SASP #21 take precedence over the non-statutory suggestions of the Lakeshore Urban Design Guidelines (UDG)?

(b) Does the illustration for the UDG accurately represent the statutory requirements set by the Site and Area Specific Policy 21 (SASP #21) of the Official Plan? Is the illustration mainly comprising the UDG incorrect - and totally inaccurate?

(c) Do the UDG for Lake Shore Blvd West correspond to SASP #21, or do the illustrations in Figure A show incorrect right-of-way widths and other incorrect information for the Long Branch and New Toronto segments of LSBW? If the UDG are non-statutory documents and contain incorrect formation concerning widths, angular vs. parallel parking, building heights, should they be totally ignored for the purposes of the OLT hearing?

(d) Is the source of the incorrect drawings in the UDG the City of Etobicoke Official Plan – Central/Western Lake Shore Area Secondary Plan, which was replaced and superseded by the first Toronto Official Plan, created in 2002 and approved by the Ministry and OMB in 2006-2007? Should the UDG be corrected by the City to accurately reflect the content of the Toronto OP SASP #21, and not utilize the incorrect and flawed drawings from the former City of Etobicoke OP Secondary Plan?

(e) Is it acceptable for the City to base any approval whatsoever of the development proposal by relying on the UDG, which contain numerous blatant and misleading errors, and which clearly do not in any way represent the requirements of SASP #21 while falsely reporting that they do?

3. Toronto City-wide Harmonized Zoning By-law 569-2013

(a) Is the new comprehensive, harmonized Zoning By-law 569-2013 (Zoning By-law) up-to-date and in accordance with the Official Plan, particularly with respect to zoning for the New Toronto area?

(b) Is the new comprehensive Zoning By-law the key regulatory instrument that implements the Official Plan policies and provides regulations and standards that shape the City’s built form and land use; and, in particular, is the zoning contained in the Zoning By-law up-to-date for the New Toronto Commercial Residential (CR) area?

(c) Did the Zoning By-law provide for a review of the earlier zoning by-laws for the former City of Etobicoke-New Toronto, including but not limited to Chapters 350, 351, 352, 354 and A360 and zoning maps in order to update zoning for the former New Toronto Commercial (C) area, and to update zoning to implement Official Plan policies?

(d) Did the Zoning By-law review the New Toronto Commercial (C) area and implement changes in order to update and create the new New Toronto CR zone?

(e) Did the Zoning By-law update zoning for the New Toronto CR zone to support and implement the requirements of SASP #21?

(f) Did the Zoning By-law update zoning for the adjacent property at 135 Eighth Street?

(g) Did any owner of property in the CR zone in New Toronto appeal the provisions of the Zoning By-law for the new CR zone?

(h) Does the proposed development comply with all the provisions of the Zoning By-law for a property located in the New Toronto CR zone?

(i) Does the proposed development comply with all the requirements of Chapter 40 Commercial Residential of the Zoning By-law?

(j) Does the proposed development comply with the provisions of the Height Overlay Map of the Zoning By-law?

(k) Does the proposed development comply with the provisions of Policy Area 4 – Parking requirements of the By-law?

4. City of Toronto Official Plan

(a) Does the proposal comply with the Official Plan which is to be considered in its entirety?

(b) Is residential intensification appropriate and intended to be implemented in all areas in the City of Toronto?

(c) Does the scale of the redevelopment proposal for 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West provide an appropriate transition of building height and intensity when measured from the adjacent property line of the 3.5-storey low-rise apartment neighbourhood? Does the proposal comply overall with OP Section 2.2.3 Avenues: Reurbanizing Arterial Corridors? In particular, would the proposed development set a precedent for form and scale, or adversely impact any adjacent Neighbourhoods or Apartment Neighbourhoods, such as the low-rise 3.5 storey apartment complex at 135 Eighth Street?

(d) Should scale and massing be conceived only in terms of individual buildings or should they be conceived in terms their fit within the existing and planned context? Does the redevelopment proposal for 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West conform and comply with the existing and planned context for New Toronto? Does the proposal consider and address the larger context and implications for the New Toronto neighbourhood segment of the avenue (Lake Shore Blvd West), which extends approximately 2.1 kilometres from Dwight Ave to Twenty Third Street on the south side, and the mid-point of Twenty Second and Twenty Fourth block on the north side of the avenue?

(e) Does the proposal comply with OP 2.2.3 policy 2 (b) and the contextually appropriate as-of-right zoning and other regulations which exist for the New Toronto neighbourhood segment of the avenue Lake Shore Blvd West?

(f) Have the statutory planning requirements of SASP #21 and the harmonized zoning by-law 569- 2013 enacted in 2013 been developed with extensive public input over a time period of many years? Were the contextually appropriate as-of-right zoning and other regulations, such as SASP #21, which currently exist for the New Toronto segment of the avenue, enacted by City Council following extensive public and stakeholder consultation?

(g) Does the scale and massing of the redevelopment proposal for 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West fit with the existing context and fit the existing and planned built-form character of the neighbourhood of New Toronto in accordance with the policies in OP Section 3.1.2 Built Form, including policy 5 and other policy requirements?

(h) Does the proposed redevelopment conform and comply with the existing and planned context of New Toronto? Does the height of the proposed redevelopment consider the existing conditions of street proportion and character of a narrow right-of-way with low-rise buildings of up to 4 storeys that provides ample sunlight and sky views? Is street proportion a fundamental determinant of the character of Lake Shore Blvd. West in New Toronto, and the amount of daylight available throughout the various seasons? Does the proposal meet development criteria in OP Section 4.5 Mixed Use Areas, including appropriate transition in intensity and scale, set-backs, stepping down, limiting shadows, maintaining sunlight, adequate supply of parking for residents and visitors?

(i) Does the proposal comply with the policies in OP Section 4.5 Mixed Use Areas, including policy 2 (b) by creating and sustaining well-paid, stable, safe and fulfilling employment opportunities?

5. Parking

(a) Is the NexTrans survey of occupied parking spaces at 135 Eighth Street (145 Islington Ave) for the dates of June 3 and August 3, 2017, relevant or conclusive, in that the parking spaces are rented to residents who may come and go at any time? Isn’t the correct measure how many parking spaces are rented to residents of 135 Eighth Street, and not when a vehicle may or may not be parked in the rented space?

(b) Is the selected date and time for the survey of Saturday, June 3, 2017, from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m., appropriate for a survey of the number of vehicles parked at home, when Saturday night is a typical time when people socialize outside of the home on a late spring evening at various events, and with friends and family? Is the second selected date and time for the survey of Thursday, August 3, 2017, from 2:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., appropriate for a survey of the number of vehicles parked at home, since the August summertime is prime vacation time, when many people leave the City to enjoy time away with family?

(c) Is the number of parking spaces of 32 for 95 units for the applicant (34%) in any way justified by comparison with the number of existing parking spaces of 158 for 278 units at 135 Eighth Street (57%)? Is the proposed parking deficiency likely to result in overflow parking onto the adjacent property at 135 Eighth Street and other surrounding public streets?

(d) Is the number of parking spaces of 32 for 95 units for the applicant (34%) in any way justified when compared with the lowest, minimum number of parking spaces for an apartment building in Toronto, located in Policy Area 1, Downtown and Central, of 57% for 95 residential units?

(e) Since tenants who rent a parking space at 135 Eighth Street can leave and be replaced with tenants who may or may not rent a parking space, is it reasonable that the number of parking spaces that are rented, or occupied or not, will change from time to time?

(f) Is it reasonable to expect that residents who live in South Etobicoke may likely require car ownership to travel to jobs throughout the GTA when compared with residents who choose to live in Downtown Toronto?

(g) Is it reasonable to expect that higher rents will attract new tenants with higher employment incomes, and that these new tenants may be able to afford and want to own a car, when compared with tenants having lower, or no, employment income?

6. Heritage Conservation District

(a) Does the proposed development comply with the requirements and policies of OP Section 3.1.5 Heritage Conservation?

(b) Is Toronto’s goal to protect and integrate the history, landmarks and neighbourhoods to create a shared sense of place for its residents? Is the preservation of cultural heritage essential to the character of the City of Toronto?

Must growth and intensification be balanced with the ongoing conservation of significant heritage properties? Is conservation of cultural heritage considered to be a prominent civic legacy for Toronto?

(c) Does the proposed development take into consideration of New Toronto as a potential Heritage Conservation District, as identified in SASP #305? Is the redevelopment proposal for 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West considered to be “within or in close proximity to a potential Heritage Conservation District”?

(d) Because New Toronto is listed as a potential heritage conservation district, will the proposed redevelopment adversely impact the heritage character and built form of New Toronto? Does the built-form for the proposed redevelopment of 2950 and 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West “fit in” and respect the heritage character and context of New Toronto’s main street?

(e) Is the redevelopment proposal for 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West likely to have any negative impact on the heritage character of the potential Heritage Conservation District?

(f) Does the proposed redevelopment of 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West potentially adversely impact adjacent buildings of heritage importance?

7. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

(a) Does the proposed development comply with the overall requirements of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe?

(b) Does the Growth Plan repeatedly emphasize the necessity for ‘complete communities’ where citizens can perform all daily functions of their life over an entire lifetime?

(c) What is the statutory definition of ‘complete communities’?

(d) Do ‘complete communities’ provide a balance of employment and housing on a local (neighbourhood) scale?

(e) Is one of the objectives of ‘complete communities’ to provide a local employment base to reduce the need for long-distance commuting to get to work?

(f) Does the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe require the City of Toronto to have 0.54 of a job per resident over the 2041 time horizon?

8. Employment

(a) Are retail jobs considered to be ‘employment’ in employment areas and outside of employment areas?

(b) How does eliminating a historical level of at least 70 jobs at 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West create new employment opportunities in New Toronto?

(c) How does eliminating 70 or more jobs at 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West comply with the creation of jobs in proportion to intensifying residential population?

How does eliminating 70 or more jobs at 2970 Lake Shore Blvd. West comply with the requirements for ‘complete communities’ mandated in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe?

(d) Does the local level of employment provide the primary customer base for main street retail businesses? Does ‘daytime population’ provide the primary customer base for main street retail businesses?

(e) How can residents provide a customer base for local retail businesses during the day when residents typically leave the neighbourhood on a daily basis by commuting to other areas for work?

(f) Has the destruction/elimination of the local employment base in New Toronto adversely impacted main street retail businesses?

(g) Is it is generally recognized that most forms of new residential development create net costs to the host municipality, so that the costs of serving the needs and expectations of the residential population are higher than the revenues the residential tax base generates?

(h) Does a local employment base generate higher tax revenues and use fewer services compared to residential uses? Does eliminating existing local employment locations and lands in neighbourhoods accelerate the reduction of the tax base and increases the speed at which residential and other tax rates must rise to cover the shortfall?

(i) Where is the plan to provide the proportion of new jobs in New Toronto in relation to the residential intensification proposed by the redevelopment proposal for 2950 – 2970 Lake Shore Blvd West? Where is the plan to replace the number of jobs in New Toronto that will be eliminated by the proposed redevelopment?

9. Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Performance Standards (MBPS)

(a) Do the statutory requirements of SASP #21 take precedence over the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards (MRPS)? Can the MRPS be used to challenge the legitimacy of existing Official Plan built-form policies such as SASP #21 and applicable by-laws?

(b) Has LPAT previously confirmed the City of Toronto’s hierarchy of authority regarding the Mid- Rise Building Performance Standards Addendum (April 20, 2016), which clearly defines that the MRPS and other non-statutory guidelines, etc. cannot be used to challenge the legitimacy of statutory Official Plan policies such as SASP #21?

(c) Does the proposed development comply with the MBPS adopted by City Council in June 2010 and the Addendum to the MBPS adopted by City Council in June 2016?

(d) Because the Addendum of 2016 on page 2, under the heading “Applicability of the Performance Standards”, clearly states that the “Performance Standards are not intended to be used to challenge Council-approved studies or Area-specific policies, by-laws or guidelines, particularly with respect to building heights and matters of transition”, should the MBPS be applied to the development proposal?

(e) Do the requirements of SASP #21 supersede the MBPS in accordance with the Addendum?

(f) Does the development proposal comply with the Addendum to the MRPS adopted by City Council in 2016, including, but not limited to the following:

(i) Does the proposed development comply with the MRPS Addendum under the heading on page 5, “Context”, have due regard for the existing and planned context, given the existing context is primarily 2 storeys and the planned context is 4 storeys?

(ii) Does the proposed development comply with the MRPS Addendum items under the heading on pages 7 and 8, “#1 Maximum Allowable Height”?

(iii) Does the proposed development comply with the MRPS Addendum items under the heading on page 10 “#4B Pedestrian Perception Stepback”?

(iv) Does the proposed development comply with the requirement for a 7.5-metre setback from the property line and a minimum 15-metre separation distance from the existing adjacent 3.5-storey low-rise apartment building that is perpendicular to the avenue, with no windows facing the avenue property, in accordance with MRPS #5D, Configuration 3? Does the proposed development comply with the MRPS Addendum items under the heading on page 11 “#5A-D: Rear Transition”?

(g) Does the proposed development comply with the requirement for a separation distance of 20 metres with the adjacent apartment building with facing windows?

(h) Does the proposed development comply with all transition requirements for the adjacent Apartment Neighbourhood at 135 Eighth Street, including separation distances, setbacks and other provisions?

(i) Does the proposed development comply with MRPS #8A and Addendum items requiring stepbacks after the sixth floor on the east side of the building, with the adjacent property?

(j) Does the proposed development comply with MRPS #8B which limits the height of blank walls to six storeys?

(k) Does the proposed development, which has a continuous blank wall on the east side up to the total height of the building of 9 stories, set a precedent for adjacent CR properties on the avenue to similarly exceed the maximum height of 4 storeys set by SASP #21, as shown in the diagram on page 73 of the Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Study?

(l) Does the development proposal for 9 storeys on the avenue impose restrictions on any future infill development or redevelopment of the adjacent apartment complex property that currently do not exist if the development proposal complies with the requirement for a maximum of 4 storeys in the CR area, as required by SASP #21?

10. Provincial Policy Statement

(a) Does the development proposal comply with the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement, including employment uses to support liveable and resilient communities?

11. Planning Justification Report – April 2019

(a) Is the information contained in the Planning Justification Report dated April 2019 prepared for the applicant by Weston Consulting accurate, or can it be challenged throughout concerning facts and applicable law?

12. We will respond to issues raised by the Parties (and Participants) in their various documents, submissions and witness statements:

13. 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc.

14. City of Toronto

15. CAPREIT Apartments Inc.

16. Three Into Eight Inc. and Three West of Eight Inc.