Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From WT:

Waterfront Toronto Releases Due Diligence Report on Port Lands Flood Protection
Plan to Flood Protect the Port Lands and Unlock Development Estimated to Cost $1.25 Billion, Project Construction and Development of Port Lands Projected to Create over $5 Billion in Economic Value

October 20 2016 | Area: Port Lands Topic: sustainable development

Artist Rendering Looking West Across Naturalized River Valley (Full Vision)

Waterfront Toronto today released an extensive Due Diligence Report on the proposed Port Lands Flood Protection Project. The Report provides greater certainty on the cost estimate, schedule and risks associated with the proposal to naturalize the mouth of the Don River, provide flood protection to the area and unlock significant economic development potential. The Report was developed in cooperation with the City of Toronto, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Toronto Port Lands Company.

Key components of the project include creating two new outlets for the Don River – a 1,000 metre river valley and greenway – that will safely convey flood waters into Lake Ontario, as well as infrastructure such as roads, bridges and services to support development. This project also includes 29 hectares of naturalized area in the river valley, two new parks and 14 hectares of aquatic habitat.

“The Port Lands Flood Protection project addresses the fundamental challenge of transforming the underused Port Lands into a long-term asset that will support Toronto’s competitiveness,” said Will Fleissig, Waterfront Toronto’s CEO. “Excavating a new river mouth in an urban post-industrial brownfield is a pioneering project for Toronto. The opportunity here is immense – no other North American city has such an asset on the doorstep of downtown that can support the creation of new communities and new economic opportunities.”

The key findings from the Due Diligence Report include:

• The Project’s estimated cost is $1.25 billion (in year-of-expenditure dollars), which includes a 30 per cent contingency; the previous, less informed, cost estimate before due diligence was $975 million.
• The revised cost estimate for the project is largely due to the discovery of flowing sand and compressible peat in the project area that will require additional excavation, soil and groundwater treatment, enhanced erosion control and material handling costs, as well a need for additional environmental risk management measures.
• A major risk is the lack of an established environmental regulatory approval process for creating a river valley in a brownfield. The project team is collaborating with partner agencies to confirm an effective environmental approval process for this.
• The project team developed a comprehensive list of potential risks to the cost estimate and schedule. The results were used to inform a probabilistic computer risk simulation that modelled 10,000 possible project outcomes; the modelling concluded that there is a 90 per cent probability that the Project can be completed for $1.25 billion or less.
• The project will take seven (7) years to construct, with a start date in 2017. Achieving this start timing would avoid costs for escalation, or inflation, of about $30 million a year.
• The construction of the project and future development in the project area is projected to result in $5.1 billion in value added to the Canadian economy, 51,900 person years of employment and $1.9 billion in revenues to governments, according to an independent study. These numbers do not include the additional long-term economic impact associated with the proposed development of the First Gulf/Unilever site.

“Based on Waterfront Toronto’s experience working on waterfront projects and the poor underground conditions, contaminated soil and high water table that characterize the area, we knew that flood protecting the Port Lands will be challenging,” said Waterfront Toronto Chief Operating Officer David Kusturin. “We wanted to provide as much assurance as possible to governments on what this project would cost, how long it would take to build and the nature of the project’s risks – and that’s what led us to undertake this Due Diligence Report.”

About the Port Lands

The Port Lands is a 400-hectare (880 acre) parcel of downtown waterfront land, unique in that no other North American city has a plan to unlock such a large-scale waterfront development. Currently, about 290 hectares (715 acres) in the area – including parts of Riverside, Leslieville and the First Gulf/Unilever development site – are at risk of flooding from the Don River and cannot be developed until they are flood protected.

Flood protecting the Port Lands would complete flood protection on the waterfront and unlock considerable economic development potential in the area. An earlier phase is the flood protection infrastructure built in the West Don Lands which now protects 210 hectares of eastern downtown Toronto and has spurred $1.3 billion in private sector investment in the West Don Lands.

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change has previously approved the Don Mouth Naturalization and Flood Protection Project EA, after extensive stakeholder engagement and public consultation over the past decade.

- 30 -

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/1999...ligence_report_on_port_lands_flood_protection

Report: http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uploads/documents/due_diligence_report_october_20_2016_1.pdf

Appendicies: http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uplo...e_diligence_report___list_of_appendices_1.pdf

AoD

 

[ADRM]

Very exciting. One of the more interesting bullets, I thought, was that highlighting timing:

- The project will take seven (7) years to construct, with a start date in 2017. Achieving this start timing would avoid costs for escalation, or inflation, of about $30 million a year.

The latter cost escalation data is a useful data point to have in terms of encouraging all parties to assemble the required financing for the project in good order.

 

[interchange42]

If they start next year, it can be just be done in time for Expo 2025, if that bid goes all the way through.

42

 

[44 North]

We had a pile more headlands planned at one point, islands off the shores of Mimico, New Toronto, Long Branch, and Scarborough, than ever got built. They were mostly cancelled 20 to 30 years ago because of rising concerns about loss of aquatic animal habitats and contaminated lake fill. Since that time we've gotten much better at decontaminating soils, and more is known about how to create nearshore habitats…

So maybe that's why they are willing to consider some new lake filling again. It's still not a program that's universally approved of by marine ecologists, so it could be a long time before we get miles of new coastline.

I hope we consider it. As it stands the operation of fill disposal is shadowy with little known, other than it costs a lot of money. You guys did a good piece on it, as did the Post with some nice infographics.

From WT:

• The construction of the project and future development in the project area is projected to result in $5.1 billion in value added to the Canadian economy, 51,900 person years of employment and $1.9 billion in revenues to governments, according to an independent study. These numbers do not include the additional long-term economic impact associated with the proposed development of the First Gulf/Unilever site.

Interesting. That's a lot of value and doesn't even include Unilever. I wonder if there's a way we can bypass going cap-in-hand to higher levels and simply have WT borrow the money needed. If I understand it correctly they don't have that much power, but I think it could be gifted to them.

 

[steveintoronto]

As someone who had a studio down on Polson for decades, and being aware of what went on before it was cleaned up somewhat in recent times, and aware of some of the unpleasant politics and hidden criminal activities, it's not going to be easy to turn a highly toxic garbage dump into a purse of Nature. It's a bit like Hamilton Harbour, some things are so polluted that they're best left where they are.

I think the concept is great, but it is not going to go smoothly. If 1.25B $ is touted, guaranteed it will be at least twice that before it's finished, and an ongoing water and soil remediation for half a century after. The lower Don has been a garbage dump for hundreds of years, and the fill that created the present portlands might best be left where it is, with a few exceptions.

The City certainly hasn't helped. I remember arguing with the then Cnclr Jack Layton over Toronto Hydro chopping down the wonderful hardwoods along Commissioner for their new yard on the old oil property at the foot of Carlaw. The surveyor even worked around them to save them, they were magnificent. And Layton claimed I was "just being a treehugger" for wanting to save them...even as they were growing where nothing else would in the phenol saturated soil, as "they will be replaced". Yeah, replacements all died, they had to dig out the soil to plant what's there now, and they're not looking great either.

If Layton couldn't get it right....who can? I'm skeptical...this is more about politics than love of Nature. And now the inevitable talk of Expo? Is Ford's Ferris Wheel coming back too?

I'll take the hype seriously when I see some real action. I'll I can see is that the *superficial* polluting sources have (mostly) gone. What's in the soil still remains to be seen...

 

[ADRM]

As someone who had a studio down on Polson for decades, and being aware of what went on before it was cleaned up somewhat in recent times, and aware of some of the unpleasant politics and hidden criminal activities, it's not going to be easy to turn a highly toxic garbage dump into a purse of Nature. It's a bit like Hamilton Harbour, some things are so polluted that they're best left where they are.

I think the concept is great, but it is not going to go smoothly. If 1.25B $ is touted, guaranteed it will be at least twice that before it's finished, and an ongoing water and soil remediation for half a century after. The lower Don has been a garbage dump for hundreds of years, and the fill that created the present portlands might best be left where it is, with a few exceptions.

The City certainly hasn't helped. I remember arguing with the then Cnclr Jack Layton over Toronto Hydro chopping down the wonderful hardwoods along Commissioner for their new yard on the old oil property at the foot of Carlaw. The surveyor even worked around them to save them, they were magnificent. And Layton claimed I was "just being a treehugger" for wanting to save them...even as they were growing where nothing else would in the phenol saturated soil, as "they will be replaced". Yeah, replacements all died, they had to dig out the soil to plant what's there now, and they're not looking great either.

If Layton couldn't get it right....who can? I'm skeptical...this is more about politics than love of Nature. And now the inevitable talk of Expo? Is Ford's Ferris Wheel coming back too?

I'll take the hype seriously when I see some real action. I'll I can see is that the *superficial* polluting sources have (mostly) gone. What's in the soil still remains to be seen...

A few things:
1. The report makes clear that a 30% contingency was built into the latest cost estimate. That is a significant buffer for a project of this size and type.
2. You'll "take the hype seriously when you see some real action"? Three levels of government have already come together with $65M of financing and a government agency has a team wholly dedicated to this project. What more would you expect at this point?
3. "If Layton couldn't get this right, who can?" To be honest, I trust the work of a team of international experts that has already and will continue to lend their expertise to this project over a single former politician.

 

[Edward Skira]

Canary was pretty dirty and it has been cleaned up. No reason they can't do the same here. Looking forward to it being restored and good to see the first small phase being started up.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If Layton couldn't get it right....who can? I'm skeptical...this is more about politics than love of Nature. And now the inevitable talk of Expo? Is Ford's Ferris Wheel coming back too?

I'll take the hype seriously when I see some real action. I'll I can see is that the *superficial* polluting sources have (mostly) gone. What's in the soil still remains to be seen...

Jack Layton couldn't get many things right, including the DRL As a neighbourhood politician does his interest goes much beyond that? His green credentials always strike me as a little "Body Shop-ish"

Ultimately this will be about the confluence of need for developable land, infrastructure spending and "the right thing to do".

Interesting. That's a lot of value and doesn't even include Unilever. I wonder if there's a way we can bypass going cap-in-hand to higher levels and simply have WT borrow the money needed. If I understand it correctly they don't have that much power, but I think it could be gifted to them.

WT doesn't have much borrowing power (beyond what's allowed against current assets as a stopgap while the other levels are reviewing the funding mechanism) - giving that power to them is the billion dollar question (vis-a-vis accountability requirements, politics, etc).

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

2. You'll "take the hype seriously when you see some real action"? Three levels of government have already come together with $65M of financing and a government agency has a team wholly dedicated to this project. What more would you expect at this point?

$65M? What more do I expect? Real action, as I stated prior. There's been all sorts of projects touted since long before Dennis Mills' being in office, and with all credit to the man, he made a real effort to move things along. It was ultimately not much more than futile.

Canary was pretty dirty and it has been cleaned up. No reason they can't do the same here.

Canary Wharf? You can't be serious. There next to no similarity other than the Thames.And when Toronto cleans up the upper and middle Don like London did with the Thames, you have a starting point:
[The River Thames is the cleanest river in the world that flows through a major city. This is a major feat considering that fifty years ago the river was so polluted that it was declared biologically dead. From 1830 to 1860 tens of thousands of people died of cholera as a result of the pollution in the Thames.
Pollution on the River Thames - Primary Homework Help]
primaryhomeworkhelp.co.uk/riverthames/pollution.htm

As for "Canary" (I presume you mean Canary Wharf, not the Canary Restaurant, where I used to eat breakfast regularly for years, but is now 'nouveau gauche'):

Be very careful what you wish for....

[...]
In December 1995 an international consortium, backed by the former owners of Olympia & York and other investors, bought the scheme. The new company was called Canary Wharf Limited, and later became Canary Wharf Group.

Recovery in the property market generally, coupled with continuing demand for large floorplate Grade A office space, slowly improved the level of interest. A critical event in the recovery was the much-delayed start of work on the Jubilee Line Extension, which the government wanted ready for the Millennium celebrations.

In March 2004, Canary Wharf Group plc. was taken over by a consortium of investors, backed by its largest shareholder Glick Family Investments[11] and led by Morgan Stanley using a vehicle named Songbird Estates plc.

At the peak of property prices in 2007, the HSBC building sold for a record £1.1 billion.[12]

In March 2014 planning permission was granted for the second residential building on the Canary Wharf estate, a 58-storey tower including 566 apartments plus shops and a health club.[13]

In July 2014 Canary Wharf Group was granted planning permission for a major eastwards expansion of the Canary Wharf estate.[14][15] The plans include the construction of 30 buildings comprising a total of 4.9 million square feet, including shops, 1.9 million square feet of commercial offices and 3,100 homes.[14][15] Construction is planned to commence in autumn 2014 with the first buildings to be occupied at the end of 2018.[14]

In 2014, Singapore listed Oxley Holdings, together with developer Ballymore UK, have a joint venture to set up a new waterfront township of Royal Wharf with 3385 new homes housing over 10,000 people. [...continued next post window...]

I remain skeptical, for good reason, watching project after project to clean the soil, get rid of the most polluting industries, try and form a modicum of tri-partite governance (it's still not be made clear) and finance something of scale to transform the area.

 

[steveintoronto]

Tallest buildings
This table lists completed buildings in Canary Wharf that are over 60 metres tall.

Ranking by height Image Name Height Floors Completion date Notes
Metres Feet
1 One Canada Square 235 771 50 1991 The second-tallest completed building in the United Kingdom, the tallest being The Shard. Designed by Cesar Pelli, it was the tallest building in Europe upon completion in 1991. Multi-tenanted; occupiers include The Bank of New York Mellon, the CFA Institute, Clearstream, EEX (European Energy Exchange), Euler Hermes, the International Sugar Organization, Mahindra Satyam, MetLife, Moody's Analytics and Trinity Mirror.[16]
2= 8 Canada Square 200 655 42 2002 The joint fifth-tallest completed building in the United Kingdom. Occupied by HSBC as its world headquarters.[17]
2= 25 Canada Square 200 655 42 2001 The joint fifth-tallest completed building in the United Kingdom. 25 Canada Square and 33 Canada Square together form a single complex known as the Citigroup Centre. Primarily occupied by Citigroup as its EMEA headquarters.[18] Other tenants include Gain Capital, 3i Infotech, Lehman Brothers (in Administration), Crossrail, Instinet, Munich Re, MWB Group, SunGard and Wells Fargo.[16]
4 One Churchill Place 156 513 32 2005 Occupied by Barclays as its world headquarters.[19] Currently the eighth-tallest building in the United Kingdom, it was originally planned to be 50 stories in height, but was scaled down to 31 after the 11 September attacks.
5= 40 Bank Street 153 502 33 2003 Multi-tenanted; occupiers include Allen & Overy, ANZ Bank, China Construction Bank, Duff & Phelps, Saxo Bank and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.[16]
5= 25 Bank Street 153 502 33 2003 Occupied by JP Morgan Chase as its European headquarters since 2012.[20]

continues next pane...

 

[steveintoronto]

7 10 Upper Bank Street 151 495 32 2003 Occupied by Clifford Chance as its world headquarters.[21] Other occupiers include FTSE Group, Infosys, MasterCard and Total.[16]
8 25 Churchill Place 130 426 23 2014 The building houses the European Medicines Agency from early 2014 and Ernst & Young from 2015.
9 1 West India Quay 108 354 36 2004 Floors 1-12 are occupied by a Marriott Hotel.[22] Floors 13-33 house 158 apartments.
10 33 Canada Square 105 344 18 1999 33 Canada Square and 25 Canada Square together form a single complex, see above for details.
11 1 Cabot Square 89 292 21 1991 Occupied by Credit Suisse.[23]
12 5 Canada Square 88 288 16 2003 Occupied by Bank of America Merrill Lynch.[16]
13 25 Cabot Square 81 265 17 1991 Occupied by Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley also occupies the nearby 20 Bank Street as its European headquarters.[24] The architect was Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.
14 25 North Colonnade 80 262 15 1991 Occupied by the Financial Conduct Authority as its headquarters.[16] The architect was John McAslan and Partners.
15 20 Bank Street 68 223 14 2003 Occupied by Morgan Stanley as its European headquarters. Morgan Stanley also occupies the nearby 25 Cabot Square. It was designed by Skidmore, Owings & Merrill.[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Wharf

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Dennis Mills? The guy who stood by TPA and its' shenanigans?

http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000682

He couldn't have moved anything along other than grandiose promises.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

Dennis Mills? The guy who stood by TPA and its' shenanigans?

http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=9&t=000682

He couldn't have moved anything along other than grandiose promises. AoD

lol...there was a lot more to it than that even. There were three 'developer' majors involved in a tussle over ownership of some of the land and property, and ironically, it was the predecessor owner to LaFarge that ended up being the honest broker in dealing with them. There were beatings and criminal threats involved. I'm not going to name names, I only caught the edge of it as an observer, some of it has gone on record if you care to dig, and there's some 'unpleasant' history on Mills himself, but we did have some useful meetings. City Hall politics is still tied into it to this day. Nuff said.
Meantime:

Cement firm rejects plan for Port Lands - The Globe and Mail
The firm that has run a cement terminal on the Toronto Port Lands for more than 80 years says it has no intention of moving and has “serious questions” about the latest attempt at transforming the waterfront site.

A revised plan to kick-start development on the Port Lands goes before Mayor Rob Ford’s executive committee on Monday. The revitalization – the product of a year-long collaboration between the city and Waterfront Toronto – envisions the creation of a mixed-use neighbourhood anchored by a riverside park along a new naturalized mouth of the Don River.

Unlike previous plans, the latest revisions take into account the existence of nearby industry, specifically the privately owned Lafarge facility and Redpath Sugar. New drawings released last month show families picnicking with the cement plant in the distance and winter scenes with ships moored along dockside paths.

However, the drawings do not include the heavy truck traffic in the Port Lands that accompanies the flow of cement to the city’s busy construction industry, generated by the Lafarge facility.

A letter from a Lafarge executive to the mayor, councillors and Waterfront Toronto CEO John Campbell, obtained by The Globe and Mail, indicates there is still work to be done on the plan.

“Lafarge intends to remain at our current location and any redevelopment must reflect this,” said the letter, sent on Friday.

“We appealed the original redevelopment plans on the grounds that they did not contain clear and explicit provisions for the continued operation of our facilities. These concerns remain,” the letter states.

Lafarge moves about 400,000 tonnes of cement through its Polson Street facility each year, an operation that requires access to the port for ships full of cement powder and generates a steady flow of heavy truck traffic to supply Toronto’s construction industry.

The letter notes that without access to the harbour, it would take 40,000 heavy trucks on Toronto streets to deliver materials now brought by water and asks for more certainty that the new river mouth and changes to the slip will not impede the ability of ships to dock. The letter also asks that improvements be made to “minimize truck/pedestrian conflicts” as more people use the area.

As well, the company expresses concern about vague plans for a “catalyst site” on the harbour adjacent to their land. The site is envisioned as a public venue that would draw visitors to the area. [...]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/cement-firm-rejects-plan-for-port-lands/article4531154/

What's the latest, anyone know?

Quick Google shows this:
https://cases.legal/en/act-ca1-414012.html

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

lol...there was a lot more to it than that even. There were three 'developer' majors involved in a tussle over ownership of some of the land and property, and ironically, it was the predecessor owner to LaFarge that ended up being the honest broker in dealing with them. There were beatings and criminal threats involved. I'm not going to name names, I only caught the edge of it as an observer, some of it has gone on record if you care to dig, and there's some 'unpleasant' history on Mills himself, but we did have some useful meetings. City Hall politics is still tied into it to this day. Nuff said.
Meantime:


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/cement-firm-rejects-plan-for-port-lands/article4531154/

What's the latest, anyone know?

Oh yes, there is a lot of back history to Mills - kind of an aside to this so let him be what he is, yesterday's politician.

Just look at the WT report - they left LaFarge alone (but the plans foresee the day when their site will get redeveloped and the shoreline naturalized).

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

I'll add this again in a separate post, since the 'challenge' is far more than LaFarge:

Toronto (City) (Re)




Ontario Municipal Board

Commission des affaires municipales

de l'Ontario







ISSUE DATE:

May 1, 2015

CASE NO(S).:

PL030412







PL030514







PL060106







PL101091





The Ontario Municipal Board has received appeals under subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, from a decision of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to approve in part, the new Official Plan for the City of Toronto, as adopted by By-law 1082-2002, to provide policy direction in the six municipalities of the former Metropolitan Toronto

MMAH File No.: 20-OP-2002

O.M.B. File No.: Various files (See Schedule “1”)

O.M.B. Case No.: PL030412



The Ontario Municipal Board has received appeals under subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from a decision of the City of Toronto to approve Proposed Amendment No. 257 to the Official Plan of the City of Toronto to redesignate lands identified as the Central Waterfront

O.M.B. File No.: O030096 (See Schedule “2”)

O.M.B. Case No.: PL030514



The Ontario Municipal Board has received appeals under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, against Zoning By-law 1049-2006 of the City of Toronto

O.M.B. File No.: R060297 (See Schedule “3”)

O.M.B. Case No.: PL030514



3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot) has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to the Official Plan of the City of Toronto to redesignate lands municipally known as 429 Lakeshore Boulevard and 324 Cherry Street, to allow for commercial and residential uses

O.M.B. File No.: O060034

O.M.B. Case No.: PL060106









3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot) has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to By-law 438-86, as amended, of the City of Toronto to rezone lands municipally known as 429 Lakeshore Boulevard and 324 Cherry Street, to allow for commercial and residential uses

O.M.B. File No.: Z060015

O.M.B. Case No.: PL060106



The Ontario Municipal Board has received appeals under subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, from a decision of the City of Toronto to approve of Proposed Amendment No. 388 to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No. 10-117319 SPS 00 OZ

O.M.B. File No.: PL101091 (See Schedule “4”)

O.M.B. Case No.: PL101091



The Ontario Municipal Board has received appeals under subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, from a decision of the City of Toronto to approve of Proposed Amendment No. 389 to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto

Approval Authority File No. 10-117319 SPS 00 OZ

O.M.B. File No.: PL101092 (See Schedule “5”)

O.M.B. Case No.: PL101091



The Ontario Municipal Board has received appeals under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, against Zoning By-law 1174-2010 of the Cityof Toronto

O.M.B. File No.: PL101093 (See Schedule “6”)

O.M.B. Case No.: PL101091



CASTAN Waterfront Development Inc., 1147390 Ontario Limited, 161774 Ontario Limited, 2017919 Ontario Limited and Marland III Corporation (“Castan”) have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. p.13, as amended, from Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to the Zoning By-law 438-86 of the City of Toronto to rezone lands respecting 351& 369 Lake Shore Boulevard East to permit mixed-use redevelopment
OMB File No.: PL101094

OMB Case No.: PL101091













Schedule “1”


Appellants to the City of Toronto New Official Plan (PL030412):

O.M.B. FILE No.
APPELLANT NAME
Appeal No.
Schedule
O030146

Pier 27 Toronto Inc. (formerly Avro Quay Limited)

27

B

O030219

Castan Waterfront Development Inc.

42

B

O030138

Harbour Remediation and Transfer Inc.

66

E

O030275

3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot)

68

B

O030167

Lafarge Canada Inc.

77

E

O030121

Ontario Power Generation

99

D


Schedule “2”


Appellants to the Official Plan Amendment No. 257 of the City of Toronto

(PL030514 – O003396):

File No.
PARTIES
Site
O030219

Castan Waterfront Development

20 Polson St. 176 Cherry St., and 215, 351 & 369 Lake Shore Blvd. E.

O030219

1147390 Ontario Limited and Queen's Quay Avante Limited (formerly 1617774 Ontario Limited)

215 Lake Shore Blvd. E.&178 Queens Quay E. (FedEx)

O030275

3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot)

429 Lake Shore Blvd. and 324 Cherry St.

O030146

Pier 27 Toronto Inc. (formerly Avro Quay Limited)

25 Queens Quay East



Canadian Pacific Express & Transport Ltd.

150 Commissioners St. & 155 Villers St.



Concord Adex Development Corp

Railway Land Central & West



Korex Don Valley ULC

21 Don Valley Parkway

O030167

Lafarge Canada Inc.

54 Polson St and 535 Commissioners St



Ontario Film and Television Studio Owners Association

Central Waterfront Secondary plan area

O030121

Ontario Power Generation

440 Unwin Avenue



Michael Shapcott (Toronto Disaster Relief Committee)

General appeal – Housing Policy





Schedule “3”



Appellants to the Zoning By-law 1049-2006 of the City of Toronto (PL030514 – R060297):

APPELLANT NAME
Site
Redpath Sugar Ltd. (formerly Tate & Lyle)

95 Queens Quay East

QQE 162 Inc. (formerly Gemess Investments Ltd.)

162 Queens Quay East

Kintork (Ontario) Limited and Nuko Investments Limited

143-177 Lake Shore Blvd E & 130 Queens Quay E.


Schedule “4”


Appellants to the Official Plan Amendment No. 388 of the City of Toronto (PL101091):

APPELLANT NAME
Site
3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot)

429 Lakeshore Blvd. & 324 Cherry St.

1307547 Ontario Limited, 1341665 Ontario Limited, & 1536165 Ontario Limited

15-55 Polson St. & 222-238 Cherry St.

Royal Canadian Yacht Club

11 Parliament St.; 130 & 150 Cherry St.

Lafarge Canada Inc.

54 Polson St.

Toronto Waterfront Studios Inc.

225 Commissioners St.

Castan Waterfront Development Inc. & others

20 Polson St. & 176 Cherry St.

1337194 Ontario Inc. & 2034055 Ontario Limited

309 Cherry St.


Schedule “5”


Appellants to the Official Plan Amendment No. 389 of the City of Toronto (PL101092):

APPELLANT NAME
Site
3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot)

429 Lakeshore Blvd. & 324 Cherry St.

Royal Canadian Yacht Club

11 Parliament St.; 130 & 150 Cherry St.

Toronto Port Authority

30 Bay St. & 60 Harbour St.







Schedule “6”


Appellants to the Zoning By-law 1174-2010 of the City of Toronto (PL101093):

APPELLANT NAME
Site
3C Lakeshore Inc. (formerly Home Depot)

429 Lakeshore Blvd. & 324 Cherry St.

Royal Canadian Yacht Club

11 Parliament St.; 130 & 150 Cherry St.

Lafarge Canada Inc.

54 Polson St.

Joseph Haupert

307 Lakeshore Blvd. E.

Castan Waterfront Development Inc. & others

20 Polson St. & 176 Cherry St.

1337194 Ontario Inc. & 2034055 Ontario Limited

309 Cherry St.





APPEARANCES:



Parties

Counsel





Daniels HR Corporation

Daniels QQ Corporation

M. Flowers





QQE 162 Inc.

J. Park





City of Toronto

R. Robinson





Redpath Sugar Ltd.

C. Lantz





Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp.

A. Leibel





Pier 27

C. Tanzola

AMENDING DECISION DELIVERED BY K. J. HUSSEY



[1] In accordance with Rule 108 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, whereby the Board may at any time and without prior notice to the parties correct a technical or typographical error made in a decision or order, the Decision and Order issued on December 18, 2014 is hereby amended by replacing Attachment “2” to that decision with Attachment “2” to this decision.





[2] In all other respects, the Board's Decision remains the same.



“K. J. Hussey”

https://cases.legal/en/act-ca1-414012.html