Planning Committee on September 22, 2015 will consider key components of the redevelopment of the former CFB Rockcliffe. The Greenspace Alliance sent in the following comment today:
To: Members of Planning Committee, and Melody Duffenais, Committee Coordinator
Cc: the other Members of Council, and Dawn Whelan, Council Coordinator
Re: Planning Committee, Item 3, Agenda 14, 22 September 2015 –
Community Design Plan, Master Servicing Study and Official Plan Amendment for the Former Canadian Forces Base Rockcliffe.
Dear Councillors,
We decline to appear before you in person as a form of protest against the manner in which planning staff practices public engagement.
Chaos and confusion prevailed when a deadline for comments was set just a few days after the public meeting of June 25; a quick change of heart only partially remedied the problem. In Document 6 before you today (oddly entitled “…Comments Received during Public Technical Circulation…”), if we are to judge by how the four pages of comments the Greenspace Alliance sent in are reflected in it, the nature of the actual comment is either ignored or elusive and any response is mostly perfunctory and dismissive. Then, in coming to Planning Committee earlier this month, staff failed to send notice to all who should have received it, forcing a delay. Even the simplest things, it seems, go wrong.
Did Councillors not ask that, in future, they be provided with the actual comments received? You may wish to remind staff that, once Bill 73 becomes law, views of the public will have to be given more prominence and request that staff get into the habit.
How sharply this contrasts with the response from Canada Lands Company , which we had cc’d on our letter of July 2. It was thoughtful, helpful and gives hope that, despite the City’s constrictions, something good could happen on this land.
We were surprised to learn in the staff report (p6) that the Public Advisory Group’s mandate was to provide input and advice to the proponent on ways to improve the draft consultation materials for presentation to the broader public. Luckily that is just a spin the City is putting on the PAG’s role, not unlike the subservient role it wants its Advisory Committees to play. Under CLC’s guidance, the discussions in this PAG ranged much wider, consistent with its mandate which was to serve as: “…a forum for discussion, communication and collaboration with responsibilities on all fronts, reporting back to the respective communities while CLC reports back to the rest of the team.”
The Community Design Plan states that, along with the CDP, a Secondary Plan, Zoning and overall Plan of Subdivision would come forward together (p119). But there is no Zoning and Plan of Subdivision in the package today. Why not? There is no explanation in the staff report. What’s more, the Secondary Plan (p12) foresees that zoning by-law amendments may request changes in density or height. How does that provide certainty?
Principle #3 in the CDP states: “The community will enhance the existing natural environment. It will include an integrated greenspace strategy that protects key natural features where the open space is part of a functioning ecological and natural framework.” And the staff report correctly states: “The CDP identifies the goal of protecting existing groupings of significant trees and locates these in parks, or adjacent to parks in protected natural and open space areas” (p5). But this goal is nowhere reflected in section 2.5 of the Secondary Plan which lists the policies that apply to all parks. Maximizing tree retention is therefore not a requirement. Why not? The CLC sees it differently — again, see the response to our letter. Most telling is its comment that it will direct its landscape architects not to be influenced by the designs displayed in the Parks Master Plan — designs which would obliterate most of the existing vegetation.
In fact, in contrast to the comprehensive CDP, the Secondary Plan is mostly about buildings, roads and other hard infrastructure. When will our planners become sensitive to the principle of designing with nature, as mandated in the Official Plan (s. 2.4.2, policy 2-e; s. 4.7.1, policy 2-d) and put it on par with road design and building heights?
Page 6 of Appendix A states: “A separation distance of 23m between the tower portion of buildings is to be provided.” Between the tower portion and what?
Words like “encouraged” and “generally” have no place in a legal document (Appendix A, p7, thrice).
We are pleased to see that stormwater facilities will not count towards meeting the legislative requirement for parkland (Appendix A, p9). We wish the same reasoning would hold to counter KNL’s stance about stormwater ponds and the 40% requirement that governs open space dedication in Kanata.
Surface parking is to be located within the interior of development blocks (Appendix A, p9) and private driveways cannot access 24- or 26-m ROW streets (ibid.) but the City will not support back lanes (p10). Why not?
The Secondary Plan requires a Master Concept Plan for each development block and wants to see the average density in each block meet the minimum requirement. How does that promote more comprehensive planning?
We applaud in principle the inclusion of a Low Impact Development project but have not had the opportunity to examine it in detail.
In conclusion, we do recommend adoption of the proposals before you, hopefully with some amendments, essentially on the strength of the representations by CLC. The City, it seems, in several instances is more a hindrance than a help.
Regards,
Erwin Dreessen
Co-chair,
Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital
Al Crosby reports:
I attended the Planning Committee meeting on 22 Sep 2015 and spoke to the CFB Rockciffe item on the agenda. The Rockcliffe decision approved the CDP, Master Servicing Study, Storm water Management LID project, and the Official Plan Amendment. The Site Plan and Zoning By-law were not mentioned.
I tried to put forward a suggestion to Planning Committee for the City to use a small team to assess and analyze “public input”, because people in general feel that the public is not being engaged in the decision making process and that the comments that they submit are ignored.
Others have also noted that the City’s process simply allows for “public input” but nothing really happens afterwards. My suggestion to Planning Committee was a little test to see what would happen with my “public input”. Well – nothing happened. There was no reaction at all from the Planning Committee. Perhaps I planted the seed of an idea as the councillors obviously need specialists to help them to analyze issues and make the right decisions for the public good. There appears to be no official mechanism to collect, assess or analyze “public input” on proposals such as Community Design Plans, Design Guidelines or budget priorities.
What I did note today however is that if you can get your MP, Councillor, former Councillor or someone with a familiar face to present your ideas to Planning Committee, then it will definitely get their attention as well as that of the media. For those with a significant issue or a serious objection, it might be a good idea to go through your councillor first rather than staff. This may be the only way you can actually get action on your issue before Planning Committee makes a final decision. I noted that the councillors did discuss the issues brought up by these high profile presenters from “sprinklers” in homes to prevent fires, to creating a new road to the Sir George-Étienne Cartier Parkway. A lot of these issues were already discussed during the nine Public Advisory Group meetings so it was obvious the councillors were raising old issues that had been rejected by the public. I would have thought that major issues would have been referred to specialists rather than debated at the planning meeting just before approving the plan. I also felt sorry for some councillors who were trying to get answers to concerns but couldn’t. I also felt sorry for some staff members who had to come up with quick, accurate responses on the spot, giving answers that were superficial at best.
Also carried was a motion on the subject of Client Relationship Leaders within the Planning Department. When making a presentation to the Planning Committee it can be a totally new experience for some members of the public. I watched one poor fellow ask about sewer and water mains and while getting his answer from Canada Lands his 5 minute time allocation ran out and he could ask no further questions. It was painful to watch. It occurred to me that if the city has Client Relationship Leaders to help developers, then I think they should also help Community Associations and other individuals navigate the committee approval processes as well. I would recommend that members of the public try asking their councillor for help and advice from these new Client Relationship Leaders on the tricks to making presentations to committees. For example, have two people submit a Request to Speak Form and then the two of you will have 10 minutes to make your points instead of 5.
I hope this feedback is useful to others in the future.
Al Crosby
The CDP, Master Servicing Plan and Official Plan Amendment for former CFB Rockcliffe was approved by Council on 14 Oct 2015:
http://app05.ottawa.ca/
The Zoning By-law Amendment was approved (with amendments) by Planning Committee on December 8, 2015 and flipped to Council the following day:
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=6414&doctype=MINUTES (Item 25)
Council’s decisions were not appealed. For discussion of the further development stages on this land, please visit << CFB Rockcliffe redevelopment: Wateridge Village >>.
