23 ParkLawnRoad 2150 LakeShoreBoulevardWest & PLANNING RATIONALE Mondelez Canada Inc. SUBJECT LANDS
DECEMBER 2013 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
Job No. 1307
ii December 2013
Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 sUBJECT LANDS AND SURROUNDINGS 7 2.1 Subject Lands 7 2.2 Surroundings 8 2.3 Transportation Network 11 3.0 PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 13
4.0 POLICY AND REGULATORY CONTEXT 15 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2005) 15 4.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 17 4.3 Toronto Official Plan 19 4.4 Five-Year Official Plan Review/Municipal Comprehensive Review 27 4.5 Zoning 31 5.0 lanD USE PLANNING ANALYSIS 33 5.1 Policy Context 33 5.2 Intensification 33 5.3 Employment Policy Analysis 34 5.4 Redesignation to Regeneration Areas 40 5.5 The Importance of Mixed Use 41 5.6 Community Services and Facilities 41 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 43 appendix a community services & facilities A1
iii Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
Job No. 1307 Table of Contents Figure 1 Location Map 1 Figure 2 Aerial Photograph 7 Figure 3 Official Plan Map 3 - Right of Way Widths Associated with Existing Major Streets 11 Figure 4 Official Plan Map 2 - Urban Structure 20 Figure 5 Official Plan Map 4 - Higher Order Transit Corridors 23 Figure 6 Official Plan Map 5 - Surface Transit Priority Network 24 Figure 7 Official Plan Map 15 - Land Use Plan 25 Figure 8 Etobicoke Zoning Code - Zoning Map 31 Figure 9 Zoning By-law 569-2013 - Zoning Map 32
iv December 2013
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Planning Rationale report has been prepared in support of an Official Plan Amendment application by Mondelez Canada Inc. to redesignate the lands municipally known as 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West from Employment Areas to Regeneration Areas. The lands are approximately 11 hectares (27 acres) in size and contain the Mondelez Lakeshore Bakery, which recently ceased operations, as well as extensive areas of surface parking and grassed lawns (see Figure 1).
Figure 1 Location Map Bousfields Inc. previously prepared a Peer Review (dated May 2013) of the request by Mondelez Canada Inc. to redesignate the lands from Employment Areas to Regeneration Areas as part of the City’s ongoing Municipal Comprehensive Review. Given that staff are not recommending approval of the requested redesignation, Mondelez has decided to formalize the redesignation request by filing the subject Official Plan Amendment application.
In our opinion, the requested redesignation to Regeneration Areas is appropriate and desirable in recognition of the Avenues identification applying to the Lake Shore Boulevard frontage of the lands and the need to amend the Official Plan to reflect the closure of the Lakeshore Bakery. In this latter regard, it should be noted that the current Official Plan provisions restrict the use of the lands to light industrial uses and offices ancillary to the Christie Brown, Kraft Canada Inc. and/or related business.
1 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
The Regeneration Areas designation would facilitate the redevelopment of the lands for a mix of uses that could reasonably be expected to generate considerably more employment than exists on the lands today in a mixed-use setting, while also achieving Provincial and City objectives related to residential intensification, transit-supportive development and the reurbanization of important city streets (i.e. Lake Shore Boulevard and Park Lawn Road).
In our view, the existing Employment Areas designation is no longer appropriate or desirable for the lands and, if retained, would likely contribute to an underutilization of strategically located lands within the built-up urban area, in proximity to transit services and municipal infrastructure. Such a result would be contrary to the objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe with respect to the efficient use of urban land and infrastructure.
As set out in the Official Plan, the requested Regeneration Areas designation would recognize the principle of redevelopment of the lands for a broad mix of commercial, residential, light industrial, parks and open space, institutional, live/work and utility uses in an urban form. The mix of uses, densities and heights would need to be established through a subsequent area planning exercise that would incorporate, among other matters, urban design guidelines, a phasing strategy, a greening strategy, a community improvement strategy, a community services strategy, a heritage strategy, environmental policies and transportation policies. In this latter regard, we note that the resolution of transportation constraints in the area, through initiatives such as the Planning and Growth Management Committee resolution of April 11, 2013 requesting a study of the possible relocation of the Mimico GO Station to the vicinity of Park Lawn Road, could help to unlock the potential of both the subject lands and the broader Park Lawn/Lake Shore area.
As described in greater detail in Section 3.0 of this Planning Rationale, in addition to providing for the redesignation of the lands from Employment Areas to Regeneration Areas, the proposed Official Plan Amendment would retain the Avenues identification applying to the Lake Shore Boulevard frontage of the lands on Map 2 (Urban Structure), while deleting the remnant Employment Districts identification applying to the northwest corner of the lands. It would also amend Site and Area Specific Policy 15 by deleting the existing text restricting the use of the lands to light industrial uses and offices ancillary to the Christie Brown, Kraft Canada Inc. and/or related business and would instead insert site-specific policy requirements for undertaking additional studies and formulating strategies generally in accordance with the Regeneration Areas policies of the Official Plan.
In summary, this Planning Rationale report concludes that the requested redesignation of the lands from Employment Areas to Regeneration Areas, and the redevelopment of the lands for a mix of employment and residential uses, is appropriate and desirable for the following reasons:
2 December 2013
1. A mixed-use form of redevelopment would contribute to streetscape improvements along both Lake Shore Boulevard and Park Lawn Road. Currently, the site frontages along both streets lack amenities and a human scale for pedestrians. Amenitizing the Lake Shore Boulevard frontage would be consistent with the identification of Lake Shore Boulevard as an Avenue in the Official Plan. Providing for mixed- use intensification along Lake Shore Boulevard would also be consistent with a transit-supportive development approach.
2. The Official Plan provides that Avenues are important corridors along major streets where reurbanization is anticipated and encouraged to create new housing and job opportunities while improving the pedestrian environment, the look of the street, shopping opportunities and transit service for community residents. The subject lands are located at the eastern gateway to the Lake Shore Boulevard West Avenue and provides a key opportunity to create new housing and jobs as intended by the Official Plan.
3. The existing Employment Areas designation applying to the lands is a recognition of the historic existence of the bakery use and is not based on a strategic analysis of the attributes of the lands for industrial and/or other space-extensive employment uses.
4. The lands represent an isolated pocket of lands designated Employment Areas, which are bounded by Mixed Use Areas to the south and west. The only nearby lands designated Employment Areas are located to the north, across the Gardiner Expressway, the CN Lakeshore rail corridor, the Hydro transmission corridor and a portion of the Mimico Creek open space system. The lands to the north contain the Ontario Food Terminal, as well as the Sobeys retail plaza and the Humber Wastewater Treatment plant further to the east and northeast, respectively, and a mix of low-intensity employment uses along the west side of Park Lawn Road.
5. The lands were not identified as an Employment District by staff as part of the Official Plan Review leading to the adoption of the current Official Plan in November 2002; instead, staff proposed only that the frontage of the lands be identified as an Avenue. The identification of the northwest corner of the subject lands and the northerly portion of the Park Lawn Block (on the west side of Park Lawn Road) as an Employment District was done on the floor of Council in response to a request by Kraft Canada (the predecessor in title to Mondelez Canada) without the benefit of staff analysis or support. For this reason among others, the Employment District identification was subsequently deleted from the northerly portion of the Park Lawn Block as part of the redesignation of those lands to Mixed Use Areas.
6. The termination of the bakery use and the redevelopment of the subject lands for a mix of uses is not anticipated to have any adverse effects on the continued operation of the Ontario Food Terminal, provided that the uses to be developed on the subject lands are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from the Ontario Food Terminal use. Matters such as design and separation would be
3 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
addressed through the subsequent planning process that is contemplated by the Regeneration Areas designation.
7. Given the isolated nature of the subject lands and their lack of a functional relationship to a larger Employment District, together with the surrounding land use context, which has been evolving toward high density residential development forms over the past 25-35 years, it is unlikely in our opinion that these lands would be retenanted or redeveloped for a large-scale industrial employment use if the Employment Areas designation were to be retained. The existing building is an aging manufacturing facility that would not be suitable for re-use by other industries due to structural and operational constraints. Moreover, the Site and Area Specific Official Plan Policy applying to the subject lands would not permit the re-use of the lands for an employment purpose other than one operated by Christie Brown, Kraft Canada Inc. and/or related businesses.
8. It is apparent from a historic review of such isolated industrial pockets throughout the city that, if such industries close, the raison d’etre for the industrial pocket ceases to exist and the lands are typically repurposed for non-industrial uses (whether residential, retail commercial or mixed-use). Examples in the immediate vicinity along the Gardiner Expressway corridor include the McGuinness Distillery, west of Mimico Creek, and the Stelco plant, east of the Humber River. Other examples throughout the Greater Toronto Area include the Johns Manville plant in the former City of Scarborough, the Colgate-Palmolive plant in the Dundas-Carlaw area and the St. Lawrence Starch plant on the City of Mississauga waterfront. All of these sites have been successfully redeveloped for residential/mixed-use purposes, which contribute to the amenity and vitality of the adjacent residential communities.
9. The redevelopment of the subject lands for a mix of employment and residential uses as contemplated by the Regeneration Areas designation could generate many more jobs than had historically been provided at the Lakeshore Bakery. In this regard, we are advised that there had been approximately 590 employees working at the facility. Upon closure, it was intended that approximately 40 positions would remain in the City of Toronto, resulting in a net loss of 550 jobs. This historic employment density works out to 54 jobs per hectare, which is a low employment density within an urban context. For comparison purposes, a single 16,700 square metre (180,000 square foot) office building i.e. a typical 7- to 9-storey office building would be expected to accommodate approximately 600 jobs and would require a fraction of the land base to accommodate it. Similarly, the objective of achieving 1,500 jobs on the subject lands, as indicated in the March 28, 2013 and October 29, 2013 Economic Development Department reports, could be satisfied on a small portion of the lands. As a result, there is a clear opportunity to both replace and augment the employment generation potential of the subject lands, while also accommodating residential uses and a variety of other uses in an intensified, mixed-use redevelopment.
4 December 2013
10. The resulting increases in population and employment would assist in meeting the population targets/forecasts in the Toronto Official Plan and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The mixed-use redevelopment approach responds positively to numerous policy directions set out in the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan and the Toronto Official Plan, and in the background work undertaken in support of the ongoing Official Plan Review.
In summary, given the closure of the manufacturing facility on the lands, it is our view that the Employment Areas designation is no longer appropriate or desirable for the lands. Mixed-use development, as contemplated by the Regeneration Areas designation, has the potential to deliver the broadest range of public benefits and to maximize the lands’ employment-generating potential.
Strategically, we believe that it would be prudent for the City of Toronto to seize the opportunity that will be created by the closure of the facility to pursue a mixed-use redevelopment that will contribute to the integration of the subject lands into the surrounding community. Given the scale and prominence of the lands, such an approach represents a rare city-building opportunity.
5 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
6 December 2013
2.0 sUBJECT LANDS AND SURROUNDINGS
2.1 subject Lands
The subject lands are located at the northeast corner of Lake Shore Boulevard West and Park Lawn Road and are known municipally as 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West and 23 Park Lawn Road (see Figure 2). The lands are triangular in shape and have a total area of 11 hectares (27.18 acres), with frontages of approximately 420 metres (1,380 feet) on Lake Shore Boulevard West and approximately 325 metres (1,070 feet) on Park Lawn Road. The lands are bounded by the Gardiner Expressway and the CN Lakeshore rail corridor on the north, Lake Shore Boulevard West on the south, and Park Lawn Road on the west.
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph The subject lands are occupied by a 58,060 square metre (625,000 square foot) manufacturing facility, which includes office and industrial space. The building is generally one storey in height, with tall industrial floor-to-ceiling heights and two-storey office components facing toward Lake Shore Boulevard. It is generally L-shaped, with the east-west portion located parallel to the Gardiner Expressway; as a result, the building frontages do not align with either Lake Shore Boulevard or Park Lawn Road. The north-south portion of the building along Park Lawn Road appears to be more recently built and includes the major loading and trucking facilities, as well as the outlet store. A water tower is located within the northerly portion of the lands, adjacent to the Gardiner Expressway.
7 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
Two large employee parking lots are located along the Lake Shore Boulevard and Park Lawn Road frontages, accessible by driveways from Lake Shore Boulevard West and Park Lawn Road. Loading and receiving are accessible on both the east and west portions of the property, including a rail loading dock to the northwest. A large area of undeveloped lands is located along the westerly portion of the Lake Shore Boulevard frontage, which is used as an extensive grassed lawn. A Bank of Montreal building under separate ownership is located at the northeast corner of Lake Shore Boulevard and Park Lawn Road.
The property has been occupied by a biscuit manufacturing plant since approximately 1948 and has operated under several corporate names, including Christie, Brown and Company Ltd., Nabisco Brands Ltd. and Kraft Canada Inc.
2.2 Surroundings
The subject lands are located in the southeast portion of the former City of Etobicoke. The area located generally south of The Queensway between the Humber River and Mimico Creek is comprised of larger lots and blocks as compared to the older, finer-grained residential communities of Mimico (to the west), Humber Bay (to the north) and Swansea (to the east, beyond the Humber River). With the opening of the Queen Elizabeth Way in the late 1930s, a number of large industrial operations were established in this area, including the McGuinness Distillery (1938), the Noxema Chemical factory (1946), the Christie Brown Bakery on the subject lands (1948) and the Ontario Food Terminal (1954). South of Lake Shore Boulevard, the Motel Strip was developed in the 1950s.
Over the past 35 years, the area has been transformed with the high-rise redevelopment of the Motel Strip area (now referred to as Humber Bay Shores), beginning with the Place Pier in 1978 and the Marina Del Rey and Grand Harbour developments in 1990. Recent development patterns since 2000 have continued this trend, including the redevelopment of some of the earlier industries (McGuinness Distillery and Noxema Chemical) for high density residential projects (Mystic Pointe and South Beach Condos, respectively). Similarly, the Stelco plant, located on the north side of the Gardiner Expressway, east of the Humber River, has been redeveloped for residential condominiums over the past decade (Windermere by the Lake).
To the south and east of the subject lands is the Humber Bay Shores area, a cluster of narrow properties that were formerly developed with low-rise buildings consisting of a strip of motels (the Motel Strip). Redevelopment began in the easterly portion of the area, consisting of high-density residential uses concentrated south of Lake Shore Boulevard West, and has moved westward. Existing development in the area consists of the following:
• Palace Pier and Palace Place, two 46-storey buildings, built in 1978 and 1991, respectively; • 16-storey and 6-storey buildings at 80 and 88 Palace Pier Court (Nevis);
8 December 2013
• a mid-rise 12-storey building at 2067 Lake Shore Boulevard West Drive (Players Club); • a 20-storey building at 3 Marine Parade Drive (Hearthstone by the Bay); • two mid-rise 12-storey buildings with a row of townhouse units at 5 Marine Parade Drive (Grenadier Landing); • two 18-storey buildings and an 11-storey mid-rise building at 2083-2095 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Waterford); • two 18-storey buildings and 24 townhouse units at 2111 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Newport Beach); • six high-rise buildings, ranging from 14 to 39 storeys in height, at 2117-2139 Lake Shore Boulevard West (the Waterview complex), including 18-storey and 27-storey buildings at 2117 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Voyager), two 14-storey buildings at 58 Marine Parade Drive (Explorer), a 39-storey building at 2123 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Nautilus) and a 30-storey building currently under construction (Waterscapes).
This cluster of properties is divided by Jean Augustine Park (2115 Lake Shore Boulevard West), which consists of a drainage basin and a paved pathway that provides access to Humber Bay Shores Park.
The westerly portion of the Humber Bay Shores area, opposite the subject lands, includes an Esso gas station at 2189 Lake Shore Boulevard West as well as several properties currently in the development application and building stages of development (2143-2183 Lake Shore Boulevard West), as follows:
• an approved 50-storey residential tower, a 16-storey residential building and a 5-storey commercial building at 2143-2147 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Waterways); • an approved 49-storey residential tower, a 14-storey residential building and a 4-storey commercial building at 2151-2155 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Lago); • a 39-storey residential tower, a 10-storey residential building and a 5-storey office building at 2157 Lake Shore Boulevard West, currently under construction (Ocean Club); • a proposed 41-storey residential tower, a 5-storey residential building and a 2-storey commercial building at 2169-2173 Lake Shore Boulevard West; • an approved 38-storey residential tower, a 3-storey commercial building and a public park at 2175 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Jade Waterfront Condominiums); • proposed 45-storey and 66-storey residential towers at 2183 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Eau De Soleil).
To the west of the subject lands is the Park Lawn Block, a concentration of large properties that were formerly developed with low- to mid-rise industrial and office buildings. Currently, redevelopment of the block is ongoing, including:
• two 27-storey residential towers at 60-80 Park Lawn Road, now completed (South Beach);
9 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
• a rezoning application to permit a mixed-use development consisting of a 41-storey tower with 327 residential units and a separate 2-storey commercial building at 42 Park Lawn Road; • an approved rezoning and site plan approval application for a 36-storey residential building at 36 Park Lawn Road (Key West); • an approved rezoning application for a 45-storey mixed-use building at 10 Park Lawn Road (Westlake Encore); and • 38-storey, 43-storey and 48-storey towers at 2200 Lake Shore Boulevard West, currently under construction (Westlake).
Further to the west, on the west side of the Mimico Creek, are three recently completed residential towers of 26 storeys, 37 storeys and 44 storeys (Beyond the Sea and Star Tower).
To the north, north of the Gardiner Expressway, is the Ontario Food Terminal (165 The Queensway), a 16-hectare (40-acre) property consisting of two low-rise buildings with large footprints. The first building is located on the west side of the property on Park Lawn Road and consists of a 2-storey parking structure. The second building is located in the middle of the property and consists of a 2-storey industrial/office building that is generally U-shaped. Loading and receiving are accessible by two driveways, one on the west portion of the property on Park Lawn Road and the other on the northeast portion of the property on The Queensway.
To the east and northeast of the Ontario Food Terminal are the Sobeys Plaza (125 The Queensway) and the Humber Wastewater Treatment plant. To the west is a mix of low-intensity employment uses along the west side of Park Lawn Road, including an automotive commercial use, a printing establishment, a restaurant supply company, a fast food restaurant, a garden centre, a bank and a dental office, as well as one remnant detached dwelling.
10 December 2013
2.3 Transportation Network
The site is well served by the local and regional road network. Within 100 metres of the site, the Gardiner Expressway provides excellent access to Downtown Toronto as well as to Southwestern Ontario via the Queen Elizabeth Way. It is accessible from ramps at Lake Shore Boulevard West and Park Lawn Road. Lake Shore Boulevard West and Park Lawn Road are classified as Major Arterial roads and have planned right-of-way widths of 36 metres (see Figure 3).
Figure 3 Official Plan Map 3 - Right of Way Widths Associated with Existing Major Streets The subject lands are well served by surface transit routes connecting to Downtown Toronto to the east and to the Bloor-Danforth subway line to the north. Surface transit consists of two streetcar routes, two bus routes and a Blue Night Route, as follows:
• The 501 Queen streetcar route generally travels in an east-west direction along Queen Street, The Queensway and Lake Shore Boulevard West. It operates between Neville Park Loop, Humber Loop and Long Branch Loop. • The 508 Lake Shore streetcar route generally travels in an east-west direction along Lake Shore Boulevard West and King Street. It operates between Long Branch Loop and Church Street/Parliament Street. • Operating out of Old Mill Station, the 66D Prince Edward bus route generally travels in a north-south direction between Bloor Street West and Lake Shore Boulevard. It operates along Bloor Street West, Prince Edward Drive, Park Lawn Road, Lake Shore Boulevard West, Stephen Drive and Berry Road. • The 145 Downtown/Humber Bay Express bus route generally travels in an east-
11 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
west direction along Lake Shore Boulevard West. It operates express between Downtown Toronto and the Humber Bay area. • Blue Night Route 301 runs between the Long Branch Loop and the Neville Park Loop along Lake Shore Boulevard, The Queensway and Queen Street.
In addition, the Planning and Growth Management Committee adopted a resolution at its meeting on April 11, 2013 requesting that the Planning Department “study the possible relocation of the Mimico GO Train Station to the vicinity of Parklawn Road within the context of the Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Official Plan and proposed new Transportation Plan”. Specifically with respect to the subject lands, the resolution requested that the Planning Department study the benefit of a relocated GO Train Station to assist with the revitalization of the lands for new employment uses and to serve the mobility needs of the Humber Shores, Mimico and South Etobicoke communities.
In response to this direction, staff prepared a report that was received by the Planning and Growth Management Committee at its meeting on May 16, 2013. The report advised that the issue of the GO Station accessibility should be considered in the context of a comprehensive Transportation Study for the Park Lawn Road area, with “appropriate co-ordination of the current employment options review to ensure development of a clear vision that sets the framework for moving forward”. The report further stated that outcomes from this work could serve as input into the City’s review of the Transportation component of the Official Plan.
12 December 2013
3.0 PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The proposed Official Plan Amendment would redesignate the subject lands from Employment Areas to Regeneration Areas and delete the Employment Districts identification applying to the northwest corner of the lands on Map 2. In addition, the text of the existing Site and Area Specific Policy 15 would be deleted and replaced with new text that would require an area study to be undertaken generally in accordance with the Regeneration Areas policies in Section 4.7 of the Official Plan. Specifically, the policy would require the following studies and analysis to be undertaken prior to redevelopment of the lands:
(a) appropriate height, density and massing; (b) appropriate range and scale of residential, office and retail uses; (c) urban design guidelines; (d) greening strategy; (e) heritage strategy; (f) a community improvement strategy to identify improvements to streets, sidewalks, boulevards and open spaces; (g) environmental strategy to identify any necessary site and building clean-ups and deal with the issue of separation/buffering from rail corridors; (h) transportation strategy to encourage transit, walking and cycling, including the possible relocation of the Mimico GO Station; (i) employment policies requiring a minimum of 1,500 jobs on the lands; and, (j) phasing strategy to provide for interim development to meet market needs, while not precluding the ultimate vision for the lands as an urban mixed use area.
The intent of the proposed Site and Area Specific Policy is essentially identical to that of the Regeneration Areas designation, that is, to attract reinvestment for a broad mix of uses to vacant or underused areas of the city. The Regeneration Areas designation does not predetermine the mix of uses, heights or densities but rather sets up a process to establish a framework for redevelopment. While, in general, the Regeneration Areas policies anticipate that a Secondary Plan process will be employed, the Site and Area Specific Policy for the subject lands proposes a streamlined area study process in recognition of the fact that the lands include a single large ownership, with only one small additional parcel (the BMO property).
The proposed Site and Area Specific Policy also recognizes that redevelopment of the subject lands is likely to occur in increments over time and that phasing is accordingly a key consideration. As part of that phasing strategy, the policies propose that, on an interim basis, consideration be given to re-use of portions of the existing building for employment purposes and to large format retail development on vacant lands. In this latter regard, large format retail development can create jobs in the short term, while preserving the land base for intensified mixed-use redevelopment over the longer term.
13 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
14 December 2013
4.0 POLICY AND REGULATORY CONTEXT
4.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2005)
The current Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) came into effect as of March 1, 2005. Section 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that all decisions that affect a planning matter shall be consistent with the PPS. Policy 4.3 provides that the Provincial Policy Statement is to be read in its entirety and that all relevant policies are to be applied to each situation.
One of the three key policy directions expressed in the PPS is to build strong communities by promoting efficient land use and development patterns. To that end, the PPS contains a number of policies that promote intensification in built-up urban areas.
In particular, the PPS supports densities and a mix of land uses which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities. Policy 1.1.3.3 provides that planning authorities shall identify and promote opportunities for redevelopment and intensification, where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas and the availability of existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities. Policy 1.1.3.4 promotes appropriate development standards which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.
With respect to housing, Policy 1.4.3 requires provision to be made for an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents by, among other matters, facilitating all forms of residential intensification and redevelopment, and promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities and support the use of alternative transportation modes and public transit.
The efficient use of infrastructure, including public transit, is a key element of provincial policy (Sections 1.6, 1.6.4 and 1.6.5). Section 1.6.2 states that the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized, wherever feasible, before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities. With respect to Transportation Systems, Policy 1.6.5.4 promotes a land use pattern, density and mix of uses that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and supports the development of viable choices and plans for public transit and other alternative transportation modes.
Policies 1.7.1(a) and 1.7.1(b) require that long-term economic prosperity be supported by, among other matters, optimizing the long-term availability and use of land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and maintaining and, where possible, enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and mainstreets. Further, Policy 1.7.1(e) provides that long-term economic prosperity should be supported by planning so that major facilities and sensitive land uses are “appropriately, designed,
15 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, and minimize risk to public health and safety”.
Policy 1.8.1 (energy and air quality) promotes energy efficiency and improved air quality through land use and development patterns which promote compact form and a structure of nodes and corridors; promote the use of public transit and other alternative transportation modes; focus major employment, commercial and other travel-intensive land uses on sites which are well served by public transit; and improve the mix of employment and housing uses to shorten commute journeys and decrease transportation congestion.
Given that the subject lands are currently designated Employment Areas and the northwest corner of the lands is located within an Employment District, Policy 1.3.1 is relevant. It requires planning authorities to promote economic development and competitiveness by:
(a) providing for an appropriate mix and range of employment (including industrial, commercial and institutional uses) to meet long-term needs;
(b) providing opportunities for a diversified economic base, including maintaining a range and choice of suitable sites for employment uses which support a wide range of economic activities and ancillary uses, and take into account the needs of existing and future businesses; and
(c) planning for, protecting and preserving “employment areas” for current and future uses.
Furthermore, Policy 1.3.2 requires that the conversion of lands within “employment areas” to non-employment uses occur by way of a “comprehensive review”, where it has been demonstrated that the land is not required for employment purposes over the long term and there is a need for the conversion. The PPS defines “employment areas” as “those areas designated in an official plan for clusters of business and economic activities including, but not limited to, manufacturing, warehousing, offices, and associated retail and ancillary facilities”. A “comprehensive review” is defined as “an official plan review which is initiated by a planning authority, or an official plan amendment which is initiated or adopted by a planning authority”.
As set out in Section 4.5 of this report, the City is currently undertaking a “comprehensive review” by way of its Five-Year Official Plan Review. Furthermore, it is our opinion that the subject lands do not constitute part of an “employment area” within the meaning of the PPS definition.
16 December 2013
4.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the “Growth Plan”) came into effect on June 16, 2006. Section 3(5) of the Planning Act requires that all decisions that affect planning matters shall conform to the Growth Plan. Policy 5.4.1(1) provides that “this Plan, including context sections, policies, definitions and schedules, should be read in its entirety and all relevant policies are to be applied to each situation”.
Similar to the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan supports mixed-use intensification within built-up urban areas, particularly in proximity to transit. As noted in Section 2.1 of the Plan:
“. . . Better use of land and infrastructure can be made by directing growth to existing urban areas. This Plan envisages increasing intensification of the existing built-up area, with a focus on urban growth centres, intensification corridors, major transit station areas, brownfield sites and greyfields. Concentrating new development in these areas also provides a focus for transit and infrastructure investments to support future growth.”
The subject lands would be considered to form part of an “intensification area” pursuant to the Growth Plan (i.e. a focus for accommodating intensification), given that it is located within an “intensification corridor” (Lake Shore Boulevard). The Growth Plan defines “intensification corridors” as “intensification areas along major roads, arterials or higher order transit corridors that have the potential to provide a focus for higher density mixed-use development consistent with planned transit service levels”. In turn, “higher order transit” is defined as transit that generally operates in its own dedicated right-of-way, outside of mixed traffic, including light rail (such as streetcars).
Policy 2.2.2(1) of the Growth Plan seeks to accommodate population and employment growth by, among other measures, directing a significant portion of new growth to the built-up areas of the community through intensification, focusing intensification in intensification areas, and reducing dependence on the automobile through the development of mixed-use, transit-supportive, pedestrian-friendly urban environments.
In this respect, Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan forecasts a population of 3,080,000 and 1,640,000 jobs for the City of Toronto by 2031. The interim forecast population in Schedule 3 for 2011 is 2,760,000; the actual 2011 population is estimated to be 2,753,000 (i.e. the 2001-2011 population growth fell short of the forecast by 4.1%). Growth Plan Amendment No. 2, which came into effect on June 17, 2013, introduces updated forecasts for 2031 and 2041. The updated population and employment forecasts for 2031 are 3,190,000 and 1,660,000, respectively, increasing to 3,400,000 and 1,720,000, respectively, by 2041.
Policy 2.2.3(6) requires municipalities to develop an intensification strategy, to be implemented through their official plans and other supporting documents, which will, among other things, identify intensification areas, recognize urban growth centres,
17 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
intensification corridors and major transit station areas as a key focus for development to accommodate intensification, and include minimum density targets consistent with planned transit service levels.
Policy 2.2.3(7) provides that all intensification areas will be planned and designed to cumulatively attract a significant portion of population and employment growth, provide a diverse and compatible mix of land uses, generally achieve higher densities than the surrounding areas and achieve an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas.
Further, Policy 2.2.5(1) requires “intensification corridors” and “major transit station areas” to be designated in official plans and planned to achieve both “increased residential and employment densities that support and ensure the viability of existing and planned transit service levels” and “a mix of residential, office, institutional, and commercial development wherever appropriate”.
Finally, Policy 3.2.3(2)(a) provides that all decisions on transit planning and investment will consider using transit infrastructure to shape growth, and planning for high residential and employment densities that ensure the efficiency and viability of existing and planned transit service levels.
Similar to the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan includes a policy (Policy 2.2.6(5)) which requires the preparation of a “municipal comprehensive review” in order to support the conversion of lands within an “employment area” to non-employment uses, where it has been demonstrated that:
(a) there is a need for the conversion (b) the municipality will meet the employment forecasts allocated to the municipality pursuant to the Growth Plan (c) the conversion will not adversely affect the overall viability of the employment area, and the achievement of the intensification target, density targets and other policies of the Plan (d) there is existing or planned infrastructure to accommodate the proposed conversion (e) the lands are not required over the long term for the employment purposes for which they are designated (f) cross-jurisdictional issues have been considered.
The definition of “employment areas” in the Growth Plan is the same as in the Provincial Policy Statement (see Section 4.1 above). The Growth Plan defines a “municipal comprehensive review” as “an official plan review, or an official plan amendment, initiated by a municipality that comprehensively applies the policies and schedules of this Plan”.
18 December 2013
Similar to the comments noted in Section 4.1 above, the City is currently undertaking a “municipal comprehensive review” by way of its Five-Year Official Plan Review. Furthermore, it is our opinion that the subject lands do not constitute part of an “employment area” within the meaning of the Growth Plan/PPS definition.
4.3 Toronto Official Plan
The Official Plan for the amalgamated City of Toronto was adopted on November 26, 2002 and was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on July 6, 2006, with the exception of certain policies and land use designations. It is noted that both the land use designation applying to the subject lands and the Employment District identification applying to a portion of the subject lands on the urban structure map date from the time of adoption in November 2002, well before the effective date of both the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan. Growth Management Policies
Chapter 2 (Shaping the City) outlines the growth management strategy. It recognizes that: “Toronto’s future is one of growth, of rebuilding, of reurbanizing and of regenerating the City within an existing urban structure that is not easy to change. Population growth is needed to support economic growth and social development within the City and to contribute to a better future for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). A healthier Toronto will grow from a successful strategy to attract more residents and more jobs to the City.”
To that end, Policy 2.1(3) provides that Toronto should accommodate a minimum of 3 million residents and 1.835 million jobs by the year 2031. The marginal note regarding Toronto’s growth prospects makes it clear that that these figures are neither targets nor maximums; they are minimums:
“The Greater Toronto Area . . . is forecast to grow by 2.7 million residents and 1.8 million jobs by the year 2031. The forecast allocates to Toronto 20 percent of the increase in population (537,000 additional residents) and 30 percent of the employment growth (544,000 additional jobs) . . . This Plan takes the current GTA forecast as a minimum expectation, especially in terms of population growth. The policy framework found here prepares the City to realize this growth, or even more, depending on the success of this Plan in creating dynamic transit oriented mixed use centres and corridors.” (Our emphasis.)
On Map 2 (Urban Structure) of the Toronto Official Plan, the entire Lake Shore Boulevard frontage of the subject site is identified as an Avenue, while only a small portion of the site in its northwest corner is identified as an Employment District (see Figure 4).
19 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
Figure 4 Official Plan Map 2 - Urban Structure
The Employment District applies only to this portion of the subject lands and does not form part of a larger contiguous Employment District. The Employment District north of the Gardiner Expressway is shown as a discrete Employment District consisting of the Ontario Food Terminal, the Sobeys Plaza and the lands on the west side of Park Lawn Road. There are no other Employment Districts in the vicinity.
The Avenues identification applying to Lake Shore Boulevard applies continuously to the segment of Lake Shore extending west from the Gardiner Expressway ramps to the City of Mississauga border.
In Chapter 2 (Shaping the City), one of the key policy directions is Integrating Land Use and Transportation (Section 2.2). The Plan states that:
“. . . future growth within Toronto will be steered to areas which are well served by transit, the existing road network and which have a number of properties with redevelopment potential. Generally, the growth areas are locations where good transit access can be provided along bus and streetcar routes and at rapid transit stations. Areas that can best accommodate this growth are shown on Map 2: Downtown, including the Central Waterfront, the Centres, the Avenues and the Employment Districts. A vibrant mix of residential and employment growth is seen for the Downtown and the Centres. The mixed use Avenues will emphasize residential growth, while the Employment Districts will focus on job creation.” (Our emphasis.)
20 December 2013
Policy 2.2(2) provides that “growth will be directed to the Centres, Avenues, Employment Districts and the Downtown as shown on Map 2” and sets out a number of objectives that can be met by this strategy, including:
• using municipal land, infrastructure and services efficiently • concentrating jobs and people in areas well served by surface transit and rapid transit stations • promoting mixed use development to increase opportunities for living close to work and to encourage walking and cycling for local trips • offering opportunities for people of all means to be affordably housed • facilitating social interaction, public safety and cultural and economic activity • improving air quality and energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions • protecting neighbourhoods and green spaces from the effects of nearby development.
Under Section 2.2.3 (“Avenues: Reurbanizing Arterial Corridors”), the Plan states that Avenues are important corridors along major streets where reurbanization is anticipated and encouraged to create new housing and job opportunities while improving the pedestrian environment, the look of the street, shopping opportunities and transit service for community residents. The framework for new development on each Avenue is to be established by a new zoning by-law and design guidelines, based on consultation with the local community, that will set out the mix of uses, heights, densities and other zoning standards.
Policy 2.2.3(1) provides that the reurbanization of Avenues will be achieved through the preparation of “Avenue Studies” for particular segments of designated Avenues. In this regard, the Plan notes that there is no “one size fits all” program for reurbanizing the Avenues and that the priorities for future Avenue Studies will be Avenues characterized by one or two storey commercial buildings, vacant and underutilized lands and large areas of surface parking. Ultimately, the intent is that all Avenues should perform a “main street” role and become meeting places for local neighbours and the wider community.
Policy 2.2.3(3) specifically provides that development may be permitted to proceed within an Avenue prior to the preparation of an Avenue Study. Such development proposals are to be considered on the basis of all of the policies of the Plan and are intended to implement the relevant land use designations. Policy 2.2.3(3)(b) states that development in Mixed Use Areas on Avenues that takes place prior to an Avenue Study has the potential to set a precedent for the form and scale of reurbanization along the Avenue; accordingly, development proponents are required to address the larger context and examine the implications for the segment of the Avenue in which the development is located (i.e. through an Avenue Segment Study).
An Avenue Segment Study is to assess the impacts of the incremental development of the entire Avenue at a similar form, scale and intensity, appropriately allowing for distinguishing circumstances. The analysis is required to consider impacts on any
21 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
adjacent Neighbourhoods or Apartment Neighbourhoods and address whether the proposed development is supportable by available infrastructure.
Policy 2.2.3(4) provides that the land use designation policies of the Plan apply to and prevail on lands broadly shown on Map 2 as Avenues and, in particular, that “where a portion of an Avenue as shown on Map 2 is designated Neighbourhoods, or Parks and Open Space Areas, the policies of Chapter Four will prevail to ensure that any new development respects and reinforces the general physical character of established neighbourhoods . . .”
Under Section 2.2.4 (“Employment Districts: Supporting Business and Employment Growth”), the introductory text states that Employment Districts play an important role in the Plan’s growth management strategy and can accommodate substantial growth in jobs, as well as meeting the needs of some of the key economic clusters that are the focus of the City’s Economic Development Strategy. Employment Districts are “large districts comprised exclusively of lands where the Employment Areas land use designation applies”.
The Plan states that:
“. . . most of these districts are characterized by manufacturing, warehousing and product assembly activities, while some are exclusively commercial office parks. As large Employment Districts, they will be protected from the encroachment of non- economic functions.” (Our emphasis.)
The Employment Districts will be improved for economic purposes in order to:
• ensure a stable environment for investment • maintain and grow the City’s tax base • offer suitable locations for a variety of employment uses, including those that require separation and/or buffering • nurture key clusters that benefit from these strategic locations and ensure a supply of accessible locations for firms that are part of region-wide clusters.
Policy 2.2.4(1) provides that Employment Districts will be “protected and promoted exclusively for economic activity” in order to, among other matters, maintain and grow the City’s tax base, attract new and expand existing employment clusters, and develop quality Employment Districts that are globally competitive locations for national and international business and offer a wide choice of sites for new business. Policy 2.2.4(6) provides that development adjacent to or nearby Employment Districts will be appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from industries as necessary to mitigate adverse effects from noise, vibration, traffic, odour and other contaminants, and to promote safety and security.
From a transportation perspective, Map 4 (Higher Order Transit Corridor) identifies the segment of Lake Shore Boulevard from west of Mimico Creek easterly across
22 December 2013
the frontage of the subject site and then extending along Lake Shore Boulevard to the Exhibition GO Station as a “Transit Corridor” (expansion element), while Map 5 (Surface Transit Priority Network) identifies Lake Shore Boulevard between the Humber Loop and the Long Branch GO Station as a “Transit Priority Segment” (see Figure 5 and Figure 6).
Figure 5 Official Plan Map 4 - Higher Order Transit Corridors
The introductory text in Section 2.4 (“Bringing the City Together: A Progressive Agenda of Transportation Change”) notes that:
“This Plan integrates transportation and land use planning at both the local and regional scales . . . In addition to policies regarding the physical infrastructure of the City’s transportation system, we need complementary policies to make more efficient use of this infrastructure and to support the goal of reducing car dependency throughout the City . . . Achieving a more intense, mixed use pattern of development will increase both the opportunity and the need to plan for better pedestrian and cycling conditions. It will also minimize the long term need for costly infrastructure, in the form of additional transit and road capacity, to meet the City’s growing transportation demands . . .”
Policy 2.4(3) directs that planning for new development in targeted growth areas be undertaken in the context of reducing auto dependency and provides that the transportation demands and impacts of such new development will be assessed in terms of the broader social and environmental objectives of the Plan’s reurbanization strategy.
23 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
Figure 6 Official Plan Map 5 - Surface Transit Priority Network
Policy 2.4(4) further provides that, for sites in areas well serviced by transit including locations around key subway stations and along major surface transit routes, consideration will be given to establishing minimum density requirements (in addition to maximum density limits) and establishing minimum and maximum parking requirements. As well, surface parking will be limited as a non-ancillary use.
Land Use Designation Policies
On Map 15 (Land Use Plan), the subject lands are designated Employment Areas, while lands to the south and west along the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard and the west side of Park Lawn Road are designated Mixed Use Areas (see Figure 7) The only lands designated Employment Areas in the immediate vicinity are the subject lands. To the north, the CN Lakeshore rail corridor and the Hydro transmission corridor are designated Utility Corridors, with a portion of the Mimico Creek open space system between the two corridors being designated Parks and Open Space Areas – Natural Areas.
24 December 2013
Figure 7 Official Plan Map 15 - Land Use Plan
The Employment Areas designation permits a broad range of business and economic activity, including offices, manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, research and development facilities, hotels, restaurants, and small-scale stores and services serving area businesses and workers. In addition, places of worship, recreation and entertainment facilities, business and trade schools and branches of colleges and universities are permitted on major streets such as Lake Shore Boulevard and Park Lawn Road, while large scale, stand-alone retail stores and power centres are permitted, by rezoning, fronting onto major streets that form the boundary of an Employment Area.
The Regeneration Areas designation that is being sought is intended to provide for a broad mix of commercial, residential, light industrial, institutional and live/work uses in an urban form in order to revitalize areas that are largely vacant or underused (Policy 4.7(1)). These areas are intended to:
• create new jobs and homes that use existing roads, transit and other infrastructure • create and sustain well-paid, stable, safe and fulfilling employment opportunities • restore, re-use and retain existing buildings that are economically adaptable for re-use (particularly heritage buildings) • achieve streetscape improvements and the extension of the open space network • promote the environmental clean-up and re-use of contaminated lands.
25 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
Policy 4.7(2) provides that, for each Regeneration Area, a framework for new development will be set out in a Secondary Plan. The Secondary Plan will guide the revitalization of the area through matters such as urban design guidelines related to the unique character of each Regeneration Area, a greening strategy, a community improvement strategy, a community services strategy, a heritage strategy, environmental policies and transportation policies.
The intent of the Regeneration Areas designation is to:
“. . . open up unique areas of the City to a wide array of uses to help attract investment, re-use buildings, encourage new construction and bring life to the streets. These areas are key to the Plan’s growth strategy, reintegrating areas of the City that are no longer in productive urban use due to shifts in the local or global economies . . .”
The introductory text goes on to state that:
“Not all Regeneration Areas will have the same mix of uses or development policies. Each will differ in terms of its existing built context, character of adjacent areas and market opportunities for revitalization. Regeneration Areas will need ‘tailor-made’ strategies and frameworks for development, provided through a Secondary Plan . . . in every case Regeneration Areas represent a tremendous opportunity to unlock potential and help direct growth within the City.”
Secondary Plans/Site and Area Specific Policies
The subject lands are subject to Site and Area Specific Policy No. 15. The applicable provisions state that “only light industrial uses and offices ancillary to the Christie Brown, Kraft Canada Inc. and/or related business are permitted”. As well, the provisions specify a maximum gross density of 1.0 times the lot area, and direct that development proposals for the lands will be considered through a comprehensive redevelopment application that responds to the Employment Areas policies of the Plan. Finally, the Site and Area Specific Policy requires that access to new development and redevelopment along Park Lawn Road will maintain the integrity of the existing access points into the subject lands. The existing Site and Area Specific Policy precludes any other type of development and any other ownership than that which has historically existed; as such, any proposed redevelopment will not be able to conform to the applicable policies.
The subject lands are not subject to a Secondary Plan. However, the lands on the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard are subject to the Motel Strip Secondary Plan, while the lands on the west side of Park Lawn Road are subject to Site and Area Specific Policy No. 303.
To the south, the Motel Strip Secondary Plan designates the frontage along the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard, to a depth of 38 metres, as Mixed Use Area ‘B’. The applicable policies provide that the properties designated Mixed Use Area ‘B’ include those which were previously designated Commercial through prior Official Plan policies as
26 December 2013
well as those with potential for commercial redevelopment, and specifies that lands in this designation will continue to be reserved for commercial use. The Secondary Plan states that the Mixed Use Area ‘B’ designation is also intended to provide an area of transition between “the existing industrial use north of Lake Shore Boulevard” (i.e. the Lakeshore Bakery) and future residential uses within the Mixed Use Area ‘A’ designation to the south. Within Mixed Use Area ‘B’, the Secondary Plan specifies that uses will be compatible with the industrial use through the use of building design, orientation and landscape features.
To the west, Site and Area Specific Policy No. 303 applying to the Park Lawn Block indicates that, in order to provide for both employment and residential opportunities, both residential and office/retail use buildings are permitted, while existing industrial uses are permitted on an interim basis until redevelopment of the Park Lawn Block is complete. Policy (e) directs that residential uses will generally be located so as to provide separation from the industrial operations east of Park Lawn Road (i.e. the Lakeshore Bakery) by appropriate distance separation and/or non-residential buildings and uses.
Policy (f) states that the transportation requirements and access arrangements for development of the Park Lawn Block will be comprehensively addressed in order to provide for integration of access locations for both sides of Park Lawn Road. Finally, Policy (g) requires that applications for rezoning to permit residential uses be supported by impact studies to address the compatibility of residential uses with industrial uses in the vicinity, in terms of the impact relationships between proposed residential uses and industrial operations, including assessment of air quality, noise, traffic and other potential impacts, and identification of appropriate locational controls and mitigation measures to ensure a compatible interface between residential and industrial uses.
4.4 Five-Year Official Plan Review/Municipal Comprehensive Review
On May 30, 2011, the Planning and Growth Management Committee initiated the Five- Year Review of the Official Plan and Municipal Comprehensive Review, by adopting the recommendations of the staff report dated May 10, 2011. The report advised that background research on growth patterns within Toronto and employment trends had been completed and that staff of the City Planning Division and Economic Development and Tourism Division had begun the work of assessing policies and designations for employment lands. In adopting the staff recommendations, Planning and Growth Management Committee also requested that staff address intensification along key Higher Order Public Transit Routes as part of the Official Plan Review.
A number of public open houses were held in September 2011, and there were a number of meetings with stakeholders during the Fall of 2011. A report dated December 14, 2011 was submitted to the Planning and Growth Management Committee on January 5, 2012, outlining the results of the Stage 1 consultations and recommending a work program for Stage 2 of the Reviews.
27 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
The December 14th report indicated that, as part of the Reviews, the City was examining whether or not the Official Plan’s current policies, including its land use designations, were appropriate to plan for employment uses and economic growth in the years ahead. Consultants were undertaking a study of employment uses to identify evolving land and space needs for various sectors, and how the current Official Plan addresses these needs. The study was part of a comprehensive work program addressing the Planning Act’s Section 26 requirements to review policies and designations dealing with areas of employment and the Municipal Comprehensive Review criteria referred to in the Growth Plan. This includes City staff assessing applications and requests to convert employment lands to non-employment uses.
A staff report dated August 27, 2012 was adopted by the Planning and Growth Management Committee on September 13, 2012. The report presented directions for changes to the Official Plan policies for employment. These directions were to be subject to further consultation before a final set of policy amendments would be brought forward in November 2013. The report recommended the following policy directions as the basis for public consultation:
• Strengthen the Official Plan’s policies to target new office space construction in Downtown, the Centres and areas with higher order transit; • Strengthen the Official Plan’s policies to clearly integrate land use policy for offices with transit provision and economic development initiatives; • Preserve ‘core’ areas of Employment Areas for industrial uses; • Designate areas within Employment Areas to provide retail commercial uses and services, including: areas where major retail and a variety of other services are permitted, generally on major roads on the edges of the Employment Areas; and areas where all retail commercial uses are permitted as well as other services, generally areas that now function as commercial ribbons or concentrations; • Identify ‘Business Parks’ where there are concentrations of offices in the existing Employment Areas and allow a mix of uses that would provide better amenity for the offices, including restaurants and other services for the employees, and provide for residential development on district edges near rapid transit stations provided it is in a mixed use development that includes offices and provides for intensification of employment uses; and • Consider policies addressing requirements for mixing uses in Mixed Use and Regeneration Areas, including mechanisms for implementing such requirements, such as the use of conditional zoning or holding by-laws.
The report indicated that while most lands would be retained for employment, there would be limited exceptions based on local context and circumstances. The report further indicated that it may be appropriate in some of these exceptions to require the provision of employment space as a condition of the permission for residential spaces.
These matters, as well as other matters, were the subject of a subsequent staff report dated October 23, 2012, which was considered by Planning and Growth Management Committee at its meeting on November 8, 2012. The staff report recommended that
28 December 2013
Council receive the draft Official Plan policies and draft changes to the Official Plan mapping, to be used as the basis for consultation. It also recommended that Council endorse, as the basis of consultation, the preliminary assessments and draft policy directions regarding 65 requests and/or applications for employment land conversions (with a further report to be brought forward on additional requests and/or applications prior to the calling of the statutory public meeting). The report did not address the request for redesignation filed on behalf of Mondelez Canada Inc., given that it was received after the date of the report.
The draft changes to the Official Plan mapping put forward in the October 23rd report proposed that the subject lands be designated Core Employment Areas, however, as noted above, the report was drafted prior to the announcement of the closing of the bakery and prior to the request for redesignation.
A subsequent report dated April 23, 2013 provided preliminary assessments on 36 requests/applications for the conversion of employment lands, including 14 conversion requests for sites along the Gardiner Expressway/QEW corridor from the Humber River to the City of Mississauga boundary corridor. The conversion request for the subject lands was one of the 14 requests evaluated within the corridor. As noted in the staff report, the Gardiner/QEW corridor represented “the most significant clustering of conversion requests/applications in the City”. Staff’s preliminary assessments for these conversion requests recommended that all 14 sites be retained as Employment Areas.
The report stated that, although there have been several residential approvals in the past decades in the area, it remains an important employment corridor. The report went on to state that employment sites that front on a major expressway or highway are well-suited for business because of their visibility, prominence and accessibility for vans and trucks, while sensitive residential uses fronting on expressways and highways require buffering and mitigative design measures. Furthermore, the report stated that due to the clustering of conversion requests in this corridor, the final recommendations for these requests need to reflect their collective impact upon the future viability of the South Etobicoke Employment Area as well as their individual immediate site context.
The report was unable to take into account the peer review filed by Bousfields Inc., which was submitted after the date of preparation of the report. As well, it did not include a specific evaluation of the conversion request for the subject site, other than the tabular response in Appendix 2, which stated simply that “a preliminary assessment based on the criteria in the Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement has determined that these lands should be retained for employment uses and be designated as Core Employment Areas”, without providing reasons for that determination. In particular, the report provided no specific analysis regarding the potential redevelopment of the lands for a mix of employment and residential uses given its large site size and surrounding land use context (which differs from other sites along the Gardiner/QEW corridor).
29 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
The August 20, 2013 staff report identified the subject site as “Conversion Requests/ Applications” rather than showing it as Core Employment Areas. The report also included revised draft policies for the proposed Core Employment Areas and General Employment Areas designations. The proposed Core Employment Areas designation would permit offices, research and development facilities, manufacturing, warehousing, wholesaling, transportation facilities, utilities, post-secondary trade schools, media facilities, and vertical agriculture. As well, secondary uses supporting the primary employment uses would be permitted, including hotels and parks, as well as small- scale restaurants and catering facilities, ancillary workplace daycare, small-scale service uses that directly serve business needs such as courier services, banks and copy shops, and small-scale ancillary retail outlets.
The final recommendations for Employment policies and land use designations, including final recommendations on conversion requests, were set out in the staff report dated November 5, 2013. Among other matters, the staff report collectively addressed 16 conversion requests/applications within the Gardiner Expressway/QEW corridor extending from the Humber River on the east to the City of Mississauga boundary on the west between Evans Avenue on the south and The Queensway on the north. The report stated that both the Growth Plan and the proposed Official Plan policies call for the preservation of employment lands near major highway interchanges for employment purposes. The report further stated that these lands benefit from major highway access for goods movement and prominence and visibility from the highway; adjacency or proximity to the highway may be an advantage for business, but the noise and vibration from highway traffic could pose problems for new residents. Accordingly, the conversion request/application sites in this highway corridor were all proposed to be retained as Employment Areas.
The site-specific analysis in Attachment 2 to the staff report recommended that, based on the criteria in the Growth Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan policies, the lands at 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West be retained as Employment Areas and be designated as Core Employment Areas. It also recommended that Site and Area Specific Policy No. 15 be amended by deleting any reference to “the Christie Brown, Kraft Canada Inc.”, removing the density limit, and adding criteria for a comprehensive plan that responds to the Employment Areas policies of the Plan.
In addition to the overall comments relating to the Gardiner Expressway/QEW corridor, the staff analysis commented that, given the size of the site, it provides a unique ability to accommodate a large single employment user or multiple users from a range of employment sectors. The site can be utilized in a number of ways to provide for current and future uses that could include the reuse of its building(s), its ability to be redeveloped into an employment campus or divided into smaller parcels. This creates the opportunity for a range and choice of sites that would be suitable to large, medium and small sized employment firms. As well, the report expressed concerns regarding proximity to the Ontario Food Terminal (OFT). Specifically, the report stated that, because a significant portion of the OFT operations occurs outdoors, it may result in
30 December 2013
land use conflicts associated with the lighting, noise and truck traffic. It is staff’s opinion that the introduction of sensitive land uses on the site would produce an uncertainty within the Employment Areas across from the OFT, which could potentially threaten OFT’s viability and impede its operations.
These recommendations were considered at a special statutory public meeting of Planning and Growth Management Committee on November 21, 2013, which adopted the staff recommendations with respect to the subject lands.
4.5 Zoning
The subject lands are zoned I.C1 (Industrial Class 1 Zone) by the Etobicoke Zoning Code (see Figure 8). The I.C1 zoning permits a range of industrial and commercial uses, including restaurants, banquet halls, communications/technological facilities, banks, servicing/repair operations, manufacturing, research laboratories, government/ public works buildings, service stations and storage. The By-law permits a maximum floor space index of 0.6 and a maximum height of 5 storeys for business, professional and administrative offices.
Figure 8 Etobicoke Zoning Code - Zoning Map
The new City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013 was adopted on May 9, 2013, but has been appealed in its entirety and is not yet in force (see Figure 9). It zones the subject lands E 1.0 (Employment Industrial) Zone, with a maximum FSI for all land uses of 1.0. In addition to a range of manufacturing uses and warehouses, the zoning would permit offices, financial institutions, custom workshops, service shops, printing establishments, artist studios and performing arts studios. As well, eating establishments and retail services are permitted to a maximum of 300 square metres, or 10% of the gross floor area of the buildings on the lot, to a maximum of 500 square metres.
31 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
Figure 9 Zoning By-law 569-2013 - Zoning Map
32 December 2013
5.0 lanD USE PLANNING ANALYSIS
5.1 Policy Context
In our opinion, the proposed redesignation of the subject lands to Regeneration Areas is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan and conforms with the overall policy direction of the Toronto Official Plan.
In this regard, it is noted that all three documents direct that they are to be read in their entirety and that all relevant policies are to be applied to each situation. It follows that one single policy is not intended to “trump” other policies but, rather, that all policies are to be considered and balanced so as to further the fundamental policy directions expressed in those documents. In that regard, as set out in Section 5.2 below, it is clear that the overarching growth management direction is to optimize the use of existing and new infrastructure to support growth in a compact, efficient form. In pursuing that direction, policies related to employment land protection must be considered and balanced with policies related to mixed-use intensification.
5.2 Intensification
Mixed-use intensification on the subject lands would be supportive of the policy directions articulated in the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the City of Toronto Official Plan, all of which promote intensification on sites well served by municipal infrastructure, especially transit.
In this regard, the Growth Plan includes policies that specifically support a mix of uses and increased residential and employment densities to support the viability of existing and planned transit service levels in “intensification corridors”. As well, strong policy support is expressed in the Official Plan for mixed-use intensification along the Avenues, in a form that is intended to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and concentrate population and jobs in areas well served by transit. Furthermore, Policy 2.4(4) of the Official Plan provides for intensified development (with minimum density requirements and limits on parking) for sites such as this which are well serviced by transit, specifically including locations along major surface transit routes.
The population and employment that would potentially be generated pursuant to the proposed Regeneration Areas designation would assist in achieving the minimum Official Plan targets for population (3,000,000 by 2031) and jobs (1,835,000 by 2031). In the non-policy sidebar within Section 2.1 of the Official Plan, it is noted that, by making better use of existing urban infrastructure and services before introducing new ones on the urban fringe, reurbanization helps to reduce demands on nature and improves the liveability of the urban region by: reducing the pace at which the countryside is urbanized; preserving high quality agricultural lands; reducing reliance on the private automobile; reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and reducing consumption of non- renewable resources.
33 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
From a city-building perspective, the continued existence of a large low density and land intensive use including a large surface parking lot and vacant lands along one of the City’s major Avenues would represent a squandered opportunity. Avenues are identified as important corridors that are intended to accommodate mixed-use intensification in the Official Plan. The Avenues policies recognize that the mixed- use reurbanization of such sites provides the opportunity to improve the pedestrian environment, enhance the look of the street and provide shopping opportunities for community residents, among other benefits.
In this regard, it is noted that the both sides of Lake Shore Boulevard, including the Humber Bay Shores area and the subject lands, are identified as an Avenue and were so identified by staff dating back to the May 2002 draft of the Official Plan i.e. prior to the identification of the northwest corner of the subject lands and the Park Lawn block as an Employment District (see Section 5.3 below).
Within the context of the Avenues identification and the “intensification corridor” policies of the Growth Plan, it is our opinion that the subject lands, as they currently exist, do not demonstrate an efficient or optimal use of land for such a large, prominent site located in an urban area, along a transit corridor, and benefitting from good visibility and accessibility.
5.3 employment Policy Analysis
Within the context of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan definition of “employment areas”, it is our opinion that the subject lands do not constitute an “employment area” and should not have been identified as an Employment District in the Toronto Official Plan, as adopted in November 2002 and subsequently approved in July 2006.
In this regard, it is important to note that as part of the City’s 2002 Official Plan Review, the subject lands were identified by City Planning staff as an Avenue but were not identified as an Employment District. This is particularly important given that the staff recommendations were based on professional analysis and extensive background studies and technical reports. The Employment District identification was not recommended by staff but rather was initiated through a request by Kraft Canada Inc., the property owner at the time. Based on our review of the public record, staff did not comment on the requested Employment District identification; instead, the introduction of the Employment District was made by Council by way of amendment to the staff recommendation at its meeting on October 29, 30 and 31, 2002 (item 5 of the Council resolution), and was not supported by any technical analysis.
With respect to the definition of “employment areas,” both the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan define “employment areas” as “areas designated in an official plan for clusters of business and economic activities including, but not limited to, manufacturing, warehousing, offices and associated retail and ancillary facilities”. The
34 December 2013
reference in the definition to “clusters” reflects the fact that the Provincial policies are concerned not with each and every individual parcel of land that may be designated for employment purposes, but rather with strategic employment areas (typically large, consolidated employment districts which are characterized by purely employment uses).
The City of Toronto has historically taken the position that, conceptually, “employment areas” as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan are equivalent to Employment Districts as identified by the Official Plan. In this regard, Employment Districts are described in the Official Plan as “large districts” comprised exclusively of lands where the Employment Areas land use designation applies. Therefore, it follows that lands designated Employment Areas but not included in Employment Districts were not considered by the City to be the strategic long-term employment lands to which the conversion policies in the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan are directed. In this regard, the Employment District identification in the vicinity of the subject lands does not apply to a “large district” and was not recommended by staff.
In our opinion, the City’s conceptual approach of equating Employment Districts with “employment areas” as defined in the PPS and Growth Plan was sound inasmuch as each was directed at achieving the same result i.e. the geographical identification of large strategic employment “clusters”. However, the caveat that needs to be added to the City’s approach is that the Toronto Official Plan was adopted in November 2002, well in advance of the 2005 PPS and the Growth Plan. As a result, the identification of Employment Districts and the establishment of their boundaries was not critically analyzed through the “lens” of the PPS and Growth Plan definitions or the associated policy implications (i.e. the need for a (municipal) comprehensive review in order to convert lands to a non-employment use).
Accordingly, the Five-Year Official Plan Review and Municipal Comprehensive Review represents the first opportunity to comprehensively analyze and identify the location and boundaries of Employment Districts in the context of the 2005 PPS and the Growth Plan. In that context, the policies of the 2005 PPS and the Growth Plan related to the conversion of lands within “employment areas” to non-employment uses are not directly applicable. The matter to be decided through the Five-Year Official Plan Review and Municipal Comprehensive Review is a more fundamental one; that is, whether the lands constitute an “employment area” within the meaning of the PPS and the Growth Plan and whether they should have been identified as an Employment District in the initial instance.
In this regard, it is our opinion that the subject lands do not form part of a “cluster” of business and economic activities and, accordingly, do not constitute an “employment area” as that term is used in the PPS and Growth Plan. Detailed reasons are set out below:
• The subject lands do not form part of a large Employment District. The Official Plan provisions applying to Employment Districts twice refer to the large size
35 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
of such areas as being a defining attribute of an Employment District. This is consistent with the notion set out above that not each and every individual parcel of land that may be designated for employment purposes is a strategic long-term employment area. The May 2002 staff recommendation not to identify any portion of the subject lands as an Employment District is consistent with our opinion in this regard.
• The subject lands do not form part of the Employment District north of the Gardiner Expressway, which includes the Ontario Food Terminal. They are shown as two discrete Employment Districts on the applicable Official Plan map. More importantly, there is no evidence that the bakery use historically formed part of a functional “cluster” of food-related industries associated with the Ontario Food Terminal and other food processing industries in South Etobicoke. There were no functional or synergistic linkages between the facility and the Ontario Food Terminal. Accordingly, deletion of the Employment District south of the Gardiner Expressway (i.e. the subject lands) will not have an adverse impact on the viability of the Employment District to the north.
• The subject lands represent a small isolated parcel that has historically been used for a specific manufacturing purpose (the Lakeshore Bakery), which has now ceased operations. In the absence of that specific use, the lands have no compelling locational or functional attributes that would make them strategically important in terms of accommodating large-space extensive employment uses. That does not preclude a continuing role for the lands in accommodating more intensive forms of employment as part of a mixed-use redevelopment.
• The historic employment levels on the subject lands were very low given their urban context, equating to approximately 54 jobs per hectare on a net site basis. In comparison, new greenfield employment areas on the suburban fringe are being planned at densities of 40-50 employees per hectare on a gross basis, and the existing employment density on the subject lands is lower than the employment densities typically being achieved by large format retail developments. In the City of Toronto, employment areas dominated by office development have net employment densities that are two to four times higher than the existing employment density on the subject lands, including the Consumers Road Employment District (230 employees per net hectare), the Thorncliffe Employment Cluster (139 employees per net hectare), the Lesmill Employment District (127 employees per net hectare), the Don Mills Employment District (99 employees per net hectare) and the Woodbine/Steeles Employment District (90 employees per net hectare).
Accordingly, it is our opinion that the Employment District identification applying to the northerly portion of the subject lands should be deleted. Deletion of the Employment District would allow for consideration of intensified forms of development that could better support the intensification objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan and the Toronto Official Plan, as described in Section 5.2 above.
36 December 2013
Furthermore, it is our opinion that re-use or redevelopment of the lands solely for employment purposes is neither realistic or desirable, for the following reasons:
• Any re-use or redevelopment of the site for a purpose not related to Mondelez Canada’s operations (as a successor in title to Kraft Canada Inc.) would, in our opinion, require an Official Plan Amendment pursuant to Site and Area Specific Policy No. 15. Given that a change to the Official Plan is required, the issue of the appropriate Official Plan policy framework to guide redevelopment of the lands is, of necessity, engaged.
• The Site and Area Specific Policy No. 15 on the subject site essentially precludes the redevelopment of the lands to any use other than what currently exists on the property, or to a related use. It follows then that this policy cannot be fulfilled with any type of new development on the site that does not contain a manufacturing/ industrial profile. It is clear that this policy needs to be re-evaluated by identifying a range of appropriate uses on the lands that take into consideration the urban location of the property, the changing profile of the area to a residential character, and the intensification opportunities that exist on the property.
• Re-use of the existing building for manufacturing purposes would be problematic due to the age and structural condition of the facility. Built in 1948, the plant was designed to be a high-volume, low-cost producer for its time. We are advised by Mondelez Canada that, today, a similar sized facility would require volume throughputs to be at least 3-4 times higher to be cost effective. This means that substantial investment in infrastructure would be required to make the plant viable and ready for investment in modern equipment, able to compete on a world-wide scale.
• An estimate for this infrastructure upgrade is $30 million to $40 million. Some examples of required infrastructure investment include:
• drainage infrastructure is an issue as during heavy rainfall flooding occurs inside the plant; • the collapse of a section of the first level concrete floor has occurred, caused by erosion of fill under south side of the facility, possibly due to poor drainage; • aged boiler and heating systems require replacement; • lighting upgrades are required across the manufacturing portion of the plant; • window replacement and major roof repairs are required across the entire facility; • electrical supply quality to plant is unreliable resulting in several power “blips” per year, which is inconsistent with the needs of modern computer-controlled equipment; and • incoming material and outgoing Finished Goods loading docks need to be increased and upgraded to meet requirements of a facility running at full capacity.
37 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
• Truck traffic is limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. as a result of the proximity of residential development, which is currently a problem in this significantly underutilized facility and would be even more of an issue if the plant was running at full capacity. It would not be able to match production to these shipping and receiving hours.
• Additionally, the column locations create bay sizes inconsistent with needs for modern ovens and high-speed packaging equipment, making the facility physically obsolete for a modern world-class manufacturing facility.
• In our opinion, retaining the subject lands solely for space-extensive industrial purposes would be both unrealistic and undesirable in land planning terms. The lands have few of the attributes that are generally considered necessary to attract large-scale industry, based on our experience. They represent an isolated pocket lacking the critical mass and supporting infrastructure that are desired by major industry, and would have to compete with other, better-located lands within the City (North Etobicoke/Rexdale, Highway 400, Marshalling Yard/Tapscott) as well as other large employment districts outside the City boundaries. From a land use perspective, the existing and planned context of the surrounding lands, which is almost exclusively high-density residential in character, would not be supported by continued industrial use of the property. While land use compatibility between industry and residential uses can be managed and mitigated in accordance with the direction set out in the Provincial Policy Statement, the two uses function independently of one another and do not generate the types of synergies that could contribute to a more complete, integrated mixed-use community.
• Similarly, while redevelopment of the subject lands solely for large format retail purposes could be permitted by rezoning pursuant to Policy 4.6(3) of the Official Plan, given their frontage on two adjacent major streets, such a use would in our opinion represent an underutilization of strategically located lands and a missed opportunity. While retailing could appropriately be considered as a component of a mixed-use redevelopment on the lands or as part of an interim development approach, retaining the lands solely for this employment purpose over the long term would in our opinion be contrary to the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan with respect to the efficient use of urban land and infrastructure. It is noted that the staff recommendation to redesignate the subject lands to Core Employment Areas, rather than General Employment Areas, effectively proposes to remove the permission for retail and service commercial uses currently enjoyed by the lands pursuant to both Policy 4.6(3) and Policy 4.6(1).
• While we believe that office uses would be an appropriate and desirable component of a mixed-use development, the size of the subject lands, in combination with their locational attributes, means that reserving the lands solely for office uses is likely to result in an underutilization of the lands over the long term. Development of even two or three modest office buildings of 16,700 square metres (180,000 square feet) each (i.e. typical 7- to 9-storey office buildings), generating a total of approximately 1,200-1,800 jobs, would require only 1.0-1.5 hectares of the 11
38 December 2013
hectare parcel, premised on an urban building form and underground parking. Accordingly, the objective of achieving 1,500 jobs on the lands, as set out in the Economic Development Department reports of March 28, 2013 and October 29, 2013, could be satisfied on a comparatively small portion of the lands, leaving the remainder of the lands available for a mix of other uses.
• While the November 5, 2013 staff report states that the lands benefit from major highway access for goods movement and prominence and visibility from the highway and that, while adjacency or proximity to the highway may be an advantage for business, the noise and vibration from highway traffic could pose problems for new residents, it is our opinion that the large size of the site, together with the surrounding land use context, makes it possible to effectively accommodate a mix of uses on the site, including both employment uses and residential uses. There is room on the site to accommodate employment uses that can take advantage of highway access for goods movement and prominence and visibility from the highway, while locating residential uses further from the highway in a locational context that is similar to adjacent areas in the Park Lawn Block and Humber Bay Shores that have been successfully redeveloped for residential/mixed-use purposes. The location and geographic extent of employment uses, residential uses and mixed uses would be evaluated through the area study contemplated by the proposed Regeneration Areas designation.
• Similarly, while the November 5, 2013 staff report expressed concerns regarding proximity to the Ontario Food Terminal (OFT), specifically, with respect to potential land use conflicts associated with the lighting, noise and truck traffic, it is our opinion that the large size of the site, together with the surrounding land use context, makes it possible to effectively accommodate a mix of uses on the site, including both employment uses and residential uses. The location, design and buffering of any sensitive land uses would be evaluated through the area study contemplated by the proposed Regeneration Areas designation
Additionally, given the site’s identification as both Employment District and Avenues on Map 2 to the Official Plan, it is important to understand the planning relationship between these identifications and the underlying Employment Area land use designation. In the Ontario Municipal Board decision PL070048 (August 28, 2009), which relates to the property located at 2205 Sheppard Avenue East, the OMB considered an appeal which requested the redesignation of lands designated Employment Areas in order to permit a mixed-use development. Similar to the subject lands, the lands at 2205 Sheppard Avenue East are identified as an Avenue on Map 2, are adjacent to an Employment District and had been designated Employment Areas. The OMB decision found that:
“Chapter 2 of the Plan sets out the growth management strategy for the City’s urban structure and directs jobs and population growth to certain areas shown on Map 2. These areas are identified as the Downtown, including the Central Waterfront, the Avenues, Employment Districts and the Centres. The Plan sets out the City’s vision: (. . . ) the mixed-use Avenues will emphasize residential growth; Employment Districts
39 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
will focus on job intensification. (. . . ) The Board finds these elements are all separate; they are separately identifiable on Map 2 and, under separate sections of the Official Plan, each element has a distinct set of policies and explanatory text to implement the vision and the process by which change in each element will be managed.”
Furthermore, the OMB decision stated that the Avenues depiction on Map 2 is not purely schematic or meaningless, except for the underlying land use designations. The decision found that the City’s assertion in this regard was “at odds with the City’s statement in the Official Plan that Avenues as depicted on Map 2 are important corridors where re-urbanization is anticipated and encouraged to create new housing and job opportunities.”
Based on the foregoing, the Ontario Municipal Board determined that the application (to redesignate the lands from Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas, in that case) could be considered without the requirement of a “comprehensive review”. The Board went on to approve the application. The City’s request for a Section 43 review was denied and the decision was confirmed, on appeal, by the Courts.
With respect to the subject lands at Lake Shore Boulevard and Park Lawn Road, it is our position, reinforced by the OMB and Court decisions noted above, that the Official Plan is not ambiguous in its identification of the lands as an Avenue on Map 2, with the exception of a small area in the northwest portion of the lands, which is identified as an Employment District. Mixed-use intensification on the lands is appropriate, supports the objectives of the Avenues identification, will support the intensification objectives of the requested Regeneration Areas designation, and represents good planning.
5.4 Redesignation to Regeneration Areas
On the basis of the analysis set out in Sections 5.1 to 5.3 above, it is our opinion that the proposed redesignation of the subject site from Employment Areas to Regeneration Areas is appropriate and desirable.
There are a number of advantages associated with the proposed Regeneration Areas approach. It does not predetermine the appropriate densities or heights, nor does it predetermine the mix of uses or the approach to mixing (i.e. mixed-use buildings versus single-use buildings). Rather, it establishes a process whereby such matters will be determined through detailed study and public input in the context of a subsequent planning process. The current Regeneration Areas policies in Section 4.7 of the Official Plan require a Secondary Plan process, although the City is recommending the use of an area specific policy approach in the context of the directions emerging from the Official Plan Review/Municipal Comprehensive Review.
In this respect, the November 5, 2013 staff report recommends a Regeneration Areas designation for the conversion of lands currently designated Employment Areas in the Wilson/Tippet, Wilson/Dufferin, Milliken GO Station and Dupont Corridor areas, as well as for individual isolated sites (the former Toronto Refiners and Smelters site
40 December 2013
at 28 Bathurst Street, the Quality Meats site at 2 Tecumseth Street, and the Sunrise Propane/Teskey Concrete site at 10-62 Murray Road).
In this context, it should be noted that the preliminary development concept that was originally filed with the conversion request represented merely one possible illustration of how the subject lands could be redeveloped. In our opinion, the development concept had a number of deficiencies, including a similarity of built form across the site, an undesirable uniformity of approach to the mixing of uses and a general absence of genuine public spaces. In any event, the development concept has now been formally withdrawn. Accordingly, the focus should now be squarely on establishing the principle of mixed use on the subject lands and putting in place a framework to guide the detailed planning process for determining the right mix of uses, heights and densities, and the myriad of other considerations that go into creating a successful community.
5.5 The Importance of Mixed Use
Mixed-use intensification provides an opportunity to achieve planning objectives related to both the retention of employment opportunities and the intensification of land use, as well as the reurbanization of Avenues such as Lake Shore Boulevard.
This approach is supported by the findings of the major employment policy study commissioned by the City in conjunction with the Official Plan Review (Sustainable Competitive Advantage and Prosperity: Planning for Employment Uses in Toronto, Malone Given Parsons et al, October 2012). Based on case study research, the study indicated that there is a growing body of experience suggesting “consensus that a mixed use model (residential, retail & service and office if not industrial) is the only reasonable approach to intensification and more compact form, particularly in conjunction with transit”, and that “introduction of mixed use to employment areas is at the very least a potential answer to revitalizing employment areas that are in decline, or under-using their land base” (Appendix 2, p. A2.4-1). It should be emphasized that these conclusions were ones of general application and were not specific to certain employment areas or to locations in proximity to subway or GO stations.
5.6 Community Services and Facilities
A Community Services and Facilities Inventory was undertaken, outlined in detail in Appendix A, which demonstrates that the neighbourhood is well served by a number of community services and facilities.
The Mimico neighbourhood experienced a population increase of 6.6 percent between 2006 and 2011, which was more than double the increase experienced in the previous five year period. In 2011, private households were mainly comprised of 1 and 2 persons and, as a result, the average size was 1.94 persons per private household. In terms of housing stock, the neighbourhood is predominantly made up of apartment buildings with greater than 5 storeys (49.9 percent) and those with less than 5 storeys (21.7%).
41 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
With respect to tenure, home ownership grew by 9 percent between 2001 and 2006. In terms of household income, residents earned nearly $7,000 less annually than the City’s average. With respect to immigration, the neighbourhood has experienced a decline since 1990.
The public elementary and secondary schools serving the subject site are currently operating under capacity and can accommodate additional students. The Catholic elementary schools serving the subject site are also operating under capacity and can accommodate additional students, however the Catholic secondary schools are operating over capacity and may not be able to accommodate additional students.
The 13 child care facilities in proximity to the subject site reported a total of 30 vacancies across all age groups.
The subject site is served by two Public Library branches, which offer moderate collections of materials and services. Four community recreation centres serve the subject site, which offer a variety of facilities and services ranging from sports fields to arts and crafts. Moreover, the Study Area is well served by a number of parks (24) and has a combined total of 90.01 hectares of parkland.
The subject site is served by 1 hospital, which provides services ranging from emergency care to family health.
The subject site is well served by all emergency services. There are two Fire Stations (Nos. 433 and 435), one Police Station (22 Division) and one EMS station (No.38) in proximity to the subject site.
The subject site is in proximity to 11 Places of Worship.
42 December 2013
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons set out in this Planning Rationale report, we are of the opinion that the requested redesignation of the subject lands from Employment Areas to Regeneration Areas is appropriate and desirable.
The applicable policy framework at the Provincial and City levels promotes mixed- use intensification and the efficient use of urban land and infrastructure. As set out in this report, the re-use or redevelopment of the subject lands for low-intensity, space- extensive employment uses appears unlikely and would be undesirable in land use planning terms, given that such uses would not utilize the lands to their full potential.
Intensified mixed-use development, incorporating both employment uses and residential uses, has the potential to significantly increase the number of jobs on the subject lands, while accommodating population growth, promoting transit-supportive intensification and reurbanizing the Lake Shore Boulevard frontage of the site, consistent with its identification as an Avenue.
Accordingly, it is our opinion that the proposed application to redesignate the site from Employment Areas to Regeneration Areas (with an associated Site and Area Specific Policy requiring additional strategies to ensure appropriate development and address technical matters) and to delete the Employment District designation is appropriate and desirable and should be approved.
43 Planning Rationale - 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West & 23 Park Lawn Road
44 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
APPENDIX A COMMUNITY SERVICES & FACILITIES
Ai Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
Job No. 1307 Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction A1
2.0 Purpose A1
3.0 sTudy Area A1
4.0 METHODOLOGY A1
5.0 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE A2 5.1 Mimico Neighbourhood A2 5.2 Family Composition A2 5.3 Housing A4 5.4 Income A5 5.5 Ethnicity A6 5.6 Summary A8 6.0 Community Services and Facilities Inventory A9 6.1 Schools A9 6.2 Child Care Services A11 6.3 Public Libraries A13 6.4 Recreation A13 6.5 Hospitals A14 6.6 Emergency Services A14 6.7 Places of Worship A15 6.8 Parks A16 7.0 Conclusions A17
Aii Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
1.0 Introduction
This Community Services and Facilities Inventory was prepared by Bousfields Inc. to provide a review of community services and facilities that are available to residents in the vicinity of 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West (the “subject site”). Key services include publicly funded schools, child care facilities, libraries, parks and community centres.
2.0 Purpose
The purpose of this inventory is to identify the range of existing community resources that are available, and to identify any priorities that should be considered in connection with future developments.
3.0 sTudy Area
The boundaries for this Community Services and Facilities inventory are: Berry Road to the north, the Humber River to the east, Lake Ontario to the south and Islington Avenue to the west, as shown on Figure A1 (see page A23).
The boundaries of the Mimico neighbourhood (as established by the City of Toronto’s neighbourhood classification system) were selected for the purpose of this demographic profile (See Section 5).
4.0 METHODOLOGY
An inventory of key publicly funded services and facilities was compiled, including schools, child care facilities, community centres, parks and libraries, using data such 2011 Social Profile #1 as enrolment,City of Toronto capacity, Neighbourhood service Profiles boundaries and types of programs. NeighbourhoodAge & Gender census data was gathered from the 2011 Mimico Neighbourhood Profile (see Mimico (17) Page 1 ofF 2igure A2) found on the City’s website (www.toronto.ca) to develop a short demographic profile of the area and its residents.
D V L B E R GARDINER EXPRESSWAY O H S E K A L
C
I
S
P
L
R I
N
K
G
I
P
T
L
O
I
N
N
G
A
A V R V N E C
E E
N I L E
R
O
H S
E
E D K
R V V N L O C A C B I T E B H R O
G O T
I H E
W S
D E K A L
Figure A2 Mimico neigbourhood Population by Age and Gender Population by Age Group For Mimico Working Age 25-64 2800 65% 2400
2000
1600
1200
Population A1 800
400
0
0 to 04 years 05 to 0910 yearsto 1415 yearsto 1920 yearsto 2425 yearsto 2930 yearsto 3435 yearsto 3940 yearsto 4445 yearsto 4950 yearsto 5455 yearsto 5960 yearsto 6465 yearsto 6970 yearsto 7475 yearsto 7980 yearsto 84 years 85 years and over Seniors 65+ 15% Youth 15-24 Attribute & Gender Cohorts Children 0-14 9% Blue: Female, Orange: Male 11%
How does Mimico differ from the equivalent City of Toronto Age Groups?
Children 0-14 -27.1%
Youth 15-24 -30.8%
Working Age 25-64 13.4%
Seniors 65+ 2.6%
Source: Statistics Canada, Census 2011 Online Resources: 2012 Copyright City of Toronto, All Rights Reserved Wellbeing Toronto: www.toronto.ca/wellbeing Social Policy Analysis & Research, Date of Publication: May 2012 Social Development, Finance and Administration Demographics: www.toronto.ca/demographics Contact: [email protected] Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
5.0 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
5.1 Mimico Neighbourhood
The subject site is located within the Mimico neighbourhood as per Figure A2. The following demographic profile is based on the City of Toronto’s 2011 and 2006 Mimico neighbourhood profile census data. Information pertaining to dwellings by period of construction, housing tenure, Income and ethnicity was not available in the 2011 neighbourhood profile, and as such, was taken from the 2006 neighbourhood profile.
5.1.1 Population
The Mimico neighbourhood has experienced moderate population change since 2001. Between 2001 and 2006, the population increased by 750 persons (3.1%). It experienced a greater population increase in the next five year period, where 1,650 new residents entered the neighbourhood (6.6%).
The neighbourhood is predominantly comprised of people in the “Working Age” group (65.2%), followed by the “Seniors” group (14.8%) and the “Children” group (11.2%). The data indicates that the population percentage of the “Working Age” and “Seniors” groups have been gradually increasing since 2001, whereas the “Children“ and “Youth” groups have been gradually decreasing. When compared to the City of Toronto as a whole, the proportion of people in the “Working Age” and “Seniors” groups within the neighbourhood are higher (see Table A1 below)
Table A1 – Population by Age Group
Mimico Mimico Mimico City of Toronto City of Toronto Age Group (2001) (2006) (2011) (2006) (2011)
# % # % # % # % # % Children (0-14) 3,275 13.5 3,030 12.2 2,970 11.2 409,620 16.4 400,860 15.3 Youth (15-24) 2,585 10.7 2,300 9.2 2,345 8.8 318,655 12.7 333,515 12.8 Working Age 15,110 62.5 16,255 65.2 17,330 65.2 1,421,545 56.8 1,503,230 57.5 (25-64) Seniors (65+) 3,210 13.3 3,345 13.4 3,935 14.8 353,455 14.1 377,440 14.4 Total 24,180 100 24,930 100 26,580 100 2,503,281 100 2,615,045 100
5.2 family Composition
Tables A2 and A3 below provide a breakdown of the family composition for the Mimico neighbourhood, including family characteristics, the number of children in each family and the number of people in each private household.
A2 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
Table A2 indicates that the neighbourhood experienced an increase in the number of families between 2006 and 2011. However, it remained relatively static in terms of the percentage of married and common-law couples with and without children at home. In this regard, the percentage of married couples slightly decreased (-0.4%) while the number of common law couples slightly increased (0.5%).
Table A2 – Families by Number of Children (2011) Mimico Mimico Category (2006) (2011) # % # % Total couple families by family structure 5,475 100 5,705 100 Married couples 4,360 79.6 4,510 79.1 Without children at home 2,240 40.9 2,420 42.4 With children at home 2,115 38.7 2,095 36.7 1 Child 975 17.8 1,030 18.1 2 Children 875 16.0 815 14.3 3+ Children 270 4.9 245 4.3 Common-law couples 1,110 20.3 1,185 20.8 Without children at home 870 15.9 945 16.6 With children at home 230 4.5 240 4.2 1 Child 180 3.3 145 2.5 2 Children 55 1.0 80 1.4 3+ Children 10 0.2 15 0.3
Table A3 indicates that in 2011, the neighbourhood was mainly comprised of 1 and 2 person households (43.5% and 32.5% respectively). Households consisting of 3 persons accounted for 12.2 percent, those with 4-5 persons accounted for 10.3 percent and those with more than 6 persons accounted for 1.4 percent. As such, there were an average of 1.94 persons per private household within the neighbourhood in 2011.
Between 2006 and 2011, the neighbourhood experienced an increase in the percentage of households consisting of 1 person (1.5%) and 2 persons (0.3%), whereas it experienced a decrease in the percentage of households consisting of 3 persons (-0.6%), 4 to 5 persons (-1.0%) and 6 or more persons (-0.3%).
A3 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
Table A3 – Private Households by Size (2006) Mimico Mimico Category (2006) (2011) # % # % 1 Person 5,450 43.5 6,170 45.0 2 Persons 4,065 32.5 4,500 32.8 3 Persons 1,530 12.2 1,595 11.6 4-5 Persons 1,295 10.3 1,285 9.3 6 or more Persons 180 1.4 150 1.1 Total number of private households 12,520 100 13,700 100
5.3 Housing
The 2011 data indicates that there were 13,690 private dwellings within the census tracts that make up the Mimico neighbourhood. Between 2006 and 2011, the total number of private dwellings has increased by 9.3 percent.
In 2011, the neighbourhood mainly consisted of apartment buildings with greater than 5 storeys and those with less than 5 storeys (49.9% and 21.7% respectively). When compared to the 2006 data, apartment buildings with greater than 5 storeys experienced the greatest proportional change with an increase of 3 percent (see Table A4 below).
Table A4 - Housing Stock (Housing Type) Mimico Mimico Category (2006) (2011) # % # % Single-detached house 2,355 18.8 2,300 16.8 Semi-detached house 235 1.9 285 2.1 Row house 675 5.4 920 6.7 Apartment, detached duplex 475 3.8 370 2.7 Apartment building, 5+ storeys 5,870 46.9 6,835 49.9 Apartment building, less than 5 storeys 2,910 23.2 2,975 21.7 Other 5 0.1 5 0.1 Total number of dwellings 12,525 100 13,690 100
The five year period between 2001 and 2005 experienced the greatest proportion of construction within the neighbourhood (15.5%). This suggests that the rate of development is increasing (see Table A5 below).
A4 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
Table A5 – Dwellings by Period of Construction (2006) Period of Construction # of dwellings % of total Before 1946 2,325 18.6 1946-1960 2,600 20.8 1961-1970 1,220 9.8 1971-1980 1,210 9.7 1981-1990 1,455 11.6 1991-2000 1,755 14.0 2001-2006 1,945 15.5 Total 12,510 100
In 2006, 55 percent of residents within the neighbourhood owned housing (see Table A6 below). When compared to the 2001 data, the percentage of residents who owned increased by 9 percent.
Table A6 - Housing Stock (Tenure) 2001 2006 Rent 54% 45% Own 46% 55%
5.4 Income
Table A7 below shows the number of private households in each income level within the Mimico neighbourhood. “Household” refers to a person or group of persons who occupy the same dwelling. It may consist of a family with or without other non-family members.
In 2005, approximately 21.5 percent of private households within the neighbourhood earned greater than $100,000 annually. The average private household income was $73,322, which was lower than the City’s average of $80,343.
A5 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
Table A7 - Private Household Income (2005) Mimico # of Private Income Level % of Total Households Under $10,000 785 6.3 $10,000 - $19,999 1,530 12.2 $20,000 - $29,999 1,100 8.8 $30,000 - $39,999 1,140 9.1 $40,000 - $49,999 1,160 9.3 $50,000 - $59,999 955 7.6 $60,000 - $69,999 920 7.4 $70,000 - $79,999 885 7.1 $80,000 - $89,999 750 6.0 $90,000 - $99,999 580 4.6 $100,000 and over 2,685 21.5 Total Number of Private Households 12,490 100 Average Household Income $73,322 Median Household Income $55,773
5.5 Ethnicity
Table A8 indicates that the neighbourhood experienced the greatest rate of immigration before 1961. It has been experiencing a decline in immigration since 1990.
Table A8 – Period of Immigration (2006) Mimico Before 1961 32% 1961-1970 11% 1971-1980 15% 1981-1990 22% 1991-2000 14% 2001-2006 6%
Table A9 indicates that between 2001 and 2006, the number of immigrants, visible minorities, Canadian citizens and non-permanent residents have increased, whereas the number of recent immigrants have decreased.
A6 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
Table A9 – Type of Resident Mimico 2001 2006 Visible Minority 4,755 5,935 Canadian Citizenship 20,180 21,745 Immigrants 9,965 10,360 Recent Immigrants 2,310 1,910 Non-Permanent Residents 470 600
Table A10 provides a breakdown of ethnicity within the neighbourhood. A high proportion of residents have reported heritage from Europe and Canada.
Table A10 – Ethnicity (2006)
Mimico (2006) Category # of Persons English 4,475 Scottish 3,570 Canadian 3,540 Irish 3,325 Polish 2,550 Italian 2,195 French 1,725 Ukranian 1,570 German 1,510 Chinese 1,060
A7 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
5.6 Summary
The following conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of the demographic information: • The population of the neighbourhood has increased since 2006; • Between 2006 and 2011, the percentage of married and common-law couples remained relatively static; • In 2011, private households were mainly comprised of 1 and 2 persons and, as a result, the average private household size within the neighbourhood was 1.94 persons; • In 2005, the average household income was lower than the City’s average; • In 2011, 49.9 percent of the housing stock was comprised of dwellings in apartment buildings with greater than 5 storeys; • As of 2006, the greatest rate of residential construction occurred between 2001 and 2006; • Home ownership grew by 9 percent between 2001 and 2006; and • The neighbourhood has seen an increase in the percentage of visible minorities, Canadian citizens, immigrants and non-permanent residents.
A8 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
6.0 Community Services and Facilities Inventory
The following is an inventory of service agencies serving the subject property and surrounding area, with descriptions of the primary type of service offered by the organization (several other types of programs may be provided from that location as well). The locations of these services are shown on Figure A1.
6.1 Schools
Table A11 lists the schools within the Study Area.
Table A11 – Schools within the Study Area School Address School Type David Hornell Junior 32 Victoria Street Public Elementary School Second Street Junior 71 Second Street Public Elementary Middle School Seventh Street Junior 101 Seventh Street Public Elementary School George R Gauld Junior 200 Melrose Street Public Elementary School John English Junior 95 Mimico Avenue Public Elementary Middle School Etienne Brule Junior 50 Cloverhill Road Public Elementary School Etobicoke School of the 675 Royal York Road Public Secondary Arts St. Leo 165 Stanley Avenue Catholic Elementary St. Louis 11 Morgan Avenue Catholic Elementary St. Mark 45 Cloverhill Road Catholic Elementary Bishop Allen Academy 721 Royal York Road Catholic Secondary
The Toronto Disctrict School Board (TDSB) advises that subject site is within the attendance boundary of the following public schools:
• Etienne Brule Junior School (JK - 5) • Park Lawn Junior Middle School (JK - 8) • Lakeshore Collegiate Institute (9 - 12)
The Toronto Catholic Disctrict School Board (TCDSB) advises that subject site is within the attendance boundary of the following Catholic schools:
• St. Mark (JK - 8) • Bishop Allen Academy (9 - 12)
A9 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
6.1.1 Capacities
Tables A12 and A13 outline the capacities, enrolments and utilization rates for the schools in the attendance area boundary for both the TDSB and TCDSB.
Table A12 – TDSB School Capacities and Enrolment Enrolment Utilization School Capacity (Oct. 2012) Rates Elementary Etienne Brule Junior School 199 134 67.1% (JK - 5) Park Lawn Junior Middle School 463 385 83.1% (JK - 8) Secondary Lakeshore Collegiate Institute 1,287 810 62.9% (9 - 12)
The data in Table A12 indicates that both Etienne Brule Junior School and Park Lawn Junior Middle School are operating under capacity (67.1% and 83.1% respectively) and can accommodate additional elementary students. Lakeshore Collegiate Institute is also operating under capacity (62.9%) and can accommodate additional secondary students.
Table A13 – TCDSB School Capacities and Enrolment Enrolment Utilization School Capacity (Oct. 2012) Rates Elementary St. Mark (JK - 8) 254 198 78.0% St. Leo (JK - 8) 447 260 58.2% St. Louis (JK - 8) 346 199 57.5% Secondary Bishop Allen Academy (9 - 12) 717 1,505 209.9% Father John Redmond (9 - 12) 999 1,102 110.3%
The data in Table A13 indicates that the three Catholic elementary schools serving the subject site are currently operating under capacity and can accommodate additional Catholic elementary students. However, the two Catholic Secondary Schools are operating over capacity (209.9% and 110.3% respectively) an may not be able to accommodate additional students.
It is important to note that it has not yet been determined if potential students from this development will attend the schools listed in Tables A12 and A13. This level of detail will occur later in the application review process, when the TDSB and TCDSB determine where prospective students will attend school. As such, the TDSB and
A10 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
TCDSB may accommodate students outside of the area until adequate funding or space becomes available.
6.2 Child Care Services
Table A16 provides a listing of child care services within the Study Area, including enrolment and reported vacancy. There are a total of 13 child care facilities, 9 of which provide subsidized spaces if available. As of October, 2013, service providers reported a total of 30 vacant spaces across all age groups.
Table A16 – Enrolment/Reported Vacancies within Study Area (Rates as of October, 2013) Program Enrolment / Reported Vacant
Total ubsidy Available S ubsidy F ee Infant (0 to 18 months) Toddler (18 months to 2.5 years) Pre-school (2.5 to 5 years) Age S chool (6 to 10 years)
Early Adventures Nursery Capacity - - 34 27 61 School & Child Care* Y Vacant - - 200 Melrose St. Humber Bay Child Care Capacity - 15 44 55 114 Centre* Y Vacant - 50 Cloverhill Rd. John English Jms Ymca Elp* Capacity - - 10 - 10 Y 95 Mimico Ave. Vacant - - -
Lakeshore Community Child Capacity - 20 72 60 152 Care Centre* Y Vacant - 99 Seventh St. Lamp Jr Ymca Capacity - 10 32 - 42 Y 185 Fifth St. Vacant - 0 8 - 8
A11 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
Program Enrolment / Reported Vacant
Total ubsidy Available S ubsidy F ee Infant (0 to 18 months) Toddler (18 months to 2.5 years) Pre-school (2.5 to 5 years) Age S chool (6 to 10 years)
Martin Luther Church Day Capacity - - 16 30 46 Nursery Y Vacancy - - 3 0 3 5 Superior Ave. Mimico Day Care Centre Capacity - 14 24 - 38 N 46 Mimico Ave. Vacant - 4 4 - 8 Munchkinz Preschool Capacity - - 31 - 31 N 260 The Queensway Vacant - - 7 - 7 Plasp - David Hornell Capacity - - - 30 30 Y 32 Victoria St. Vacant - - - 0 0 Plp Early Learning at St. Capacity - 15 32 15 62 Mark Y Vacant - 0 0 4 4 45 Cloverhill Rd. Second Street School Age Capacity - - 20 30 50 Ymca* Y Vacant - - 71 Second Street The Rec Room Before and Capacity - - 48 108 156 After School Program* N Vacant - - 255 Royal York Rd. Tiny Treasure Day Care Capacity - 20 - - 20 Centre* N Vacant 600 The Queensway Total Capacity 182 Total Vacancy *Vacancy information could not be provided 30
A12 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
6.3 Public Libraries
There are two public libraries within the Study Area. The facilities and services provided by the Mimico Centennial Branch and the Humber Bay Branch are described below.
Mimico Centennial Library
This neighbourhood branch, located at 47 Station Road, offers services such as wireless internet access, computer terminal workstations, baby time, family time and a book club. Mimico Centennial’s library collection materials include:
• Large print collection • Large collection in Polish • Medium collection in Russian • Small collection in French (children), Spanish
Humber Bay Library
This neighbourhood branch is located at 200 Park Lawn Road and is just outside of the Study Area. It offers services such as wireless internet access and computer terminal workstations. The Humber Bay library collection materials include:
• Audiobooks on CD • Large Print Collection • Small collection in Polish, Russian
6.4 Recreation
The Study Area is served by four Community Recreation Centres. A description of the locations and types of services provided at each centre is listed in Table A17 below.
Table A17 – Description of Community Recreation Centres within Study Area Location Facilities Services/Programs Sport Programs Youth Leadership John English C.C. Fitness 95 Mimico Avenue Gymnasium Camps Art Programs
Mimico Arena Recreational Skating Indoor Skating Rink 31 Drummond Street Skating Lessons
A13 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
Location Facilities Services/Programs
New Toronto Senior’s Craft Room Fitness Programs Centre Multipurpose Room Art Programs 105 4th Street
Gymnasium Kitchen Tennis Court Sports Field Ourland C.C. Baseball Diamond Camps 18 Ourland Avenue Outdoor Pool Art Programs Multipurpose Room Older Adult Programs Bocce Court (Indoor) Sport Programs Basketball Court (Indoor)
The Community Recreation Centres within the Study Area offer a variety of facilities and services ranging from sports fields to arts and crafts.
6.5 Hospitals
St. Joseph’s Health Centre is located at 30 The Queensway, which is approximately 3 kilometres east of the Site. For more than 90 years, St. Joseph’s Health Centre has served the health care needs of South West Toronto. With a Vision to be Canada’s Best Community Teaching Hospital, St. Joseph’s is acknowledged for its commitment to community engagement and linkage that enables the delivery of outstanding quality and service to its diverse communities.
The Health Centre’s clinical programs include: • Women, children, family heath and chronic disease management • Emergency, mental health and addictions • Medicine & seniors care • Surgery & oncology • Diagnostics & therapeutics
6.6 Emergency Services
The subject site is well served by all emergency services.
6.6.1 Emergency Medical Services
EMS station 38, located at 259 Horner Avenue, serves the subject site.
A14 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
6.6.2 Fire Services
Fire Station #433, located at 615 Royal York Road, serves the subject site.
Fire Station #435, located at 130 Eighth Street, serves the subject site.
6.6.3 Police Services
22 Division, located at 3699 Bloor Street West, serves the subject site.
6.7 Places of Worship
Table A18 summarizes the Places of Worship within the subject site.
Table A18 – Places of Worship Religious Institution Location Martin Luther Lutheran Christian 2379 Lake Shore Blvd W. Church Wesley Mimico United Church Christian 2 Station Road Mimico Baptist Church Christian 80 Hillside Avenue Mimico Presbyterian Church Christian 119 Mimico Avenue St. Leo’s Church Christian 277 Royal York Road Cornerstone Christian Christian 414 Royal York Road Fellowship Christ the Good Sheppard Catholic 182 Sixth Street Ukrainian Catholic Church Church of Transfiguration RC Christian 11 Aldgate Avenue St. James Humber Bay Christian 194 Park Lawn Road Queensway Baptist Church Christian 950 Islington Avenue Tong Sun Temple Buddhist 71 Castlebar Road
There are a total of 11 Places of Worship within the Study Area.
A15 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
6.8 Parks
There are a total of 24 parks within the Study Area as listed in Table A19 below.
Table A19 – Recreation Facilities and Amenities within the Study Area Tennis Court Tennis Arena Indoor Paths Walking Pool Wading Pool B aseball F ield O utdoor R ink B each F ootball/ S occer F ield Area (ha) Amos Waites Park 1.35 Berry Road Park 1.52 Coronation Park 0.93 Flora Voisey Park 0.69 Grand Avenue Park 1.23 Hillside Park 0.28 Humber Bay Park East 20.14 Humber Bay Park West 22.45 Humber Bay Promenade 0.62 Humber Bay Shores/Local Park 2.86 Kingsdale Park 0.55 Lake Crescent Park 0.06 Manchester Park X 3.23 Mimico Creek 5.3 Mimico Memorial Park X X 1.34 Norris Crescent Park 0.55 Ourland Park X X X X 3.48 Queensway Park X X X 3.15 Sand Beach Road Parkette 0.04 Saunders Crescent Parkette 0.09 South Humber Park 14.07 Superior Park 0.39 Stanley Avenue Parkette 0.23 Woodford Park X X 5.46 Total Park Area 90.01
X – Denotes the recreational facility and/or amenity.
The Study Area has a total of 90.01 hectares (222 acres) of parkland.
A16 Community Services & Facilities - 23 Park Lawn Road and 2150 Lake Shore Boulevard West December 2013
7.0 Conclusions
The Mimico neighbourhood experienced a population increase of 6.6 percent between 2006 and 2011, which was more than double the increase experienced in the previous five year period. In 2011, private households were mainly comprised of 1 and 2 persons and, as a result, the average size was 1.94 persons per private household. In terms of housing stock, the neighbourhood is predominantly made up of apartment buildings with greater than 5 storeys (49.9 percent) and those with less than 5 storeys (21.7%). With respect to tenure, home ownership grew by 9 percent between 2001 and 2006. In terms of household income, residents earned nearly $7,000 less annually than the City’s average. With respect to immigration, the neighbourhood has experienced a decline since 1990.
The public elementary and secondary schools serving the subject site are currently operating under capacity and can accommodate additional students. The Catholic elementary schools serving the subject site are also operating under capacity and can accommodate additional students, however the Catholic secondary schools are operating over capacity and may not be able to accommodate additional students.
The 13 child care facilities within the Study Area reported a total of 30 vacancies across all age groups.
The Study Area is served by two Public Library branches, which offer moderate collections of materials and services. Four community recreation centres serve the Study Area, which offer a variety of facilities and services ranging from sports fields to arts and crafts. Moreover, the Study Area is well served by a number of parks (24) and has a combined total of 90.01 hectares of parkland.
The subject site is served by 1 hospital, which provides services ranging from emergency care to family health.
The Study Area is well served by all emergency services. There are two Fire Stations (Nos. 433 and 435), one Police Station (22 Division) and one EMS station (No.38) within the Study Area.
There are 11 Places of Worship within the Study Area.
A17 1307 - 2 -3fg October 25-13