On July 31, 2008, on behalf of the Greenspace Alliance, Chris Szpak submitted detailed comments on staff’s Preliminary Proposals for the Official Plan Review.

Comments by the Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital

31 July 2008

The Greenspace Alliance is submitting the following comments on the document, Official Plan Review: Preliminary Proposals produced by the City’s Planning, Transit and Environment Department (22 April 2008).

We thank you in advance for considering the Alliance’s comments regarding the OP review. We look forward to taking part in the review process and we hope to have an opportunity to discuss our views in person. The Greenspace Alliance contact for the OP Review is Chris Szpak (tel: (613) 565-0343; e-mail: chrisz@storm.ca).

The Alliance’s comments and suggestions are given in the hope that the policies in the revised Official Plan (OP) will be based on the following principles:

• that the Official Plan provides sufficient protection for greenspace and environmentally sensitive areas:
• that sustainable development should be promoted and that inefficient and wasteful urban sprawl be limited;
• that the policies follow and reinforce the stated strategic directions already agreed to in the Official Plan;
• that the policies conform to the letter and spirit of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS); and
• that the interests of the community as a whole be paramount at the expense of vested or individual self-interest and not the other way around.

The comments follow the sectional structure of the Review. We have no comments and generally agree with the “proposed directions” found under the sections:

• 1.5 Expansion of Urban or Village Boundaries
• 2. Supporting Intensification Through Capacity Management Strategies for Piped Infrastructure
• 5.5 Agriculture
• 6.1 OP and Climate Change/Air Quality – General Provisions
• 6.2 Renewable Energy Installations

Specific Comments

Re 1.1 Growth Projections

• The Alliance is gratified to see that more realistic figures for population growth will be used in analyzing future housing and infrastructure needs.

Re 1.2 Urban Boundary

The Alliance supports a firm urban boundary for the City to last until at least 2031.

• We feel that a firm boundary assists in focussing development efforts towards intensification and thus reducing sprawl. This sends a signal as to the seriousness of the City’s intent to limit sprawl and promote intensification. Any expansion of the urban boundary should only be contemplated at each five-year interval after a set of rigorous criteria is met (specific intensification targets, etc.). Unfortunately, in discussions about the urban boundary, there appears to be an underlying assumption that there will always be an expansion at each review and it’s only a question of degree. Expansion should only be contemplated when the need has been clearly demonstrated.
• According to Staff (page 7), there will be a need for the boundary to include an additional 500 hectares of urban land to meet population projections for the 20 year time period. Given that a thorough analysis remains to be done (particularly for the housing projections), this figure is speculative and premature – we could just as easily maintain that no expansion of the boundary is necessary. We thus look forward to seeing the objective evidence that would justify expanding the current urban boundary.
• We see the identification of areas for future urban growth as reasonable planning practice to be prepared for a possible expansion of the boundary after a 5 year review. An objective process and methodology for identifying these areas should be well established beforehand. It is important for good planning that the identification process be driven by the strategic growth policies of the OP and not by the desires of individual land speculators or by developers who seek their own self-interest. As always, we see the OP as a tool for promoting the best interests of the community as a whole; however, we wonder if the political will will be there to do so. There will always be strong pressure to expand even if the analytical data is not there to justify it.
• We would urge that any expansion of the urban boundary, or the identification of future growth areas, should avoid the inclusion of agricultural lands, and significant wetlands, forests and meadows.

Re 1.3 Intensification

The Alliance supports greater intensification and the setting of minimum intensification targets within built-up areas.

• An overall target of 40% of all new urban dwellings to be achieved through intensification is a good base to work from, but there should not be anything stopping it from being higher if the assessments of individual urban areas indicate that this is feasible. In other words, 40% , as the starting point, should be the minimum.
• A big question is how minimum intensification targets are to be set – there is no discussion or proposal regarding the analytical methodology (ideally unbiased) that could be used, outside of a general comment that analysis and consultation will be held. What will be the analytical approach? Or, are minimum targets going to depend on what self-interested parties want and push for (e.g., developers, groups such as the Alliance, etc.)?
• Under “Condition for successful implementation of an intensification target” – Section 1.3.3.7 –, we propose that the amount of available greenspace also be considered. With greater intensification, whatever greenspace is available takes on that much more importance for safeguarding the local quality of life of the community.

Re 1.4 Rural Development

The Alliance agrees that villages should be the focus of rural development and that development in the general rural area be kept to a minimum.

• The PPS allows for “limited development” outside of Villages but leaves it up to the municipality to define what this means. In our view, the current politically-driven policy of allowing country lot subdivisions does not follow the intentions of the PPS, and goes against all the fine arguments for preventing sprawl and designing sustainable communities as previously expressed by Staff (e.g., Document 10-1 – Country Lot Subdivisions, PDC Agenda 49, April 2003). As in our OP appeal, we still hold to the principle that allowing country lot subdivisions is a “bad” form of development. However, we recognize that there could be a need for some “limited” development. We would strongly suggest that this development be strictly constrained by the PPS’ stipulation that “development shall be appropriate to the infrastructure which is planned or available, and avoid the need for the unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion of this infrastructure”. A condition that falls nicely into the proposed “future urban areas” policy found on page 24.
• If it is a question of meeting population growth, it could be argued that intensification and the eventual expansion of the urban area should suffice, however, the provision of “choice” is brought into the discussion as a basis for considering other residential “opportunities such as country lot subdivisions”. The provision of “choice” has never been identified as one of the City’s guiding principles and, we doubt that it constitutes the basis for good planning. Indeed, allowing “choice” as exemplified by country lot subdivisions undermines the stated strategic intentions of the OP and the PPS.
• If “limited” residential development is to take place in the general rural area, it should be in the form of “conservation subdivisions” as described in the section on development outside of villages (page 51). Other models could also be considered such as community farms, gardens, etc.
• The Alliance maintains its constant position that lands designated as Rural Natural Features (RNF) should be exempt from development. If needed, there should be enough land outside of RNFs in the general rural area to accommodate any additional development.

Re 3. Employment Lands Strategy

• Employment lands often contain considerable greenspace. We feel that the OP should mention this and that the owner of the lands be responsible for maintaining such greenspace in a good state.
• We would suggest adding the following wording to Section 3.6.5 policy 6, after k: l)“Any role that greenspaces (in the Employment area parcel being considered for removal) may play in providing links in the City’s Greenspace system, and/or in providing recreational space for employees in the Employment area”.

Re 4. Urban Design

As stated in the White Paper on Intensification “Section 37 of the Planning Act enables a municipality to permit increases in height and or density in return for community amenities. Currently, the City does not make use of this provision. Community amenities may include building design and public art, public cultural facilities, affordable housing units, childcare facilities, improvements to rapid transit stations, and other such facilities or services”. The Alliance thinks that the City should make use of this provision. It should also explicitly include parks, playing fields, etc. as possible services, over and above the minimum requirement for parkland.

Re 5. Rural Land Use

Re 5.1: The Alliance agrees with the proposed policies under Development in Villages.

Re 5.2: We repeat our opposition to country lot subdivisions under Development Outside of Villages. However, if CLSs are still to be allowed, then we would agree with introducing the proposed policy 6 (d).

Re 5.3 Rural Servicing: Groundwater Resources

We applaud the City for taking a serious look at groundwater resources through the initiation of a Groundwater Management Strategy and the fact that it includes consideration of groundwater as an additional “infrastructure system” to be utilized by potential residents. The Alliance is concerned that, as mentioned in the rural development section, the impact of residential development in the general rural area on groundwater resources is unknown.

Re 5.4 Rural Servicing: Alternative Servicing

The Alliance agrees with the proposed amendment but it would like the City to be clearer on how this policy will be followed in practice as the record seems to show that it discourages use of alternative services. For example, we do not feel that the recent “servicing” decision regarding the failing services in the Manotick area demonstrates that the City is ready to use alternative servicing.

Re 6.3 Ottawa’s Natural Environment System

The Alliance is happy to see that, in order to conform to the 2005 PPS, Ottawa’s natural environment will receive increased policy protection in the OP.

• The Alliance agrees with the proposed direction of the amendments but it is concerned about landowners altering their sites if they are in danger of being designated as environmentally “significant”. As already witnessed, some landowners have ravaged their wetlands to prevent them from being designated provincially significant. What measures can be placed in the OP to prevent this type of action?
• In the proposed amendments, we would suggest adding to new policy 1(b) (OP section 2.4.2) “… and municipally rare species and natural communities”.
• In the definition of significant woodlands (new policy 1(c) and Annex 1), the criteria stipulate that the woodlands have to be “within 5 metres of a surface water feature such as a creek, drain, pond or a wetland” – we do not see the rationale for this criterion and suggest leaving it out.
• In the proposed policy 3, the process should be described when determining the “need” for an EIS “for any development proposed within or adjacent to the Natural Heritage System”.
• In the added text found in policy 7(b) regarding Natural Environment Areas (OP section 3.2.1), further to the need for an EIS when development within 120 meters of a significant wetland is proposed, it is stated that: “Development and site alteration will not be permitted within the feature or on adjacent lands unless it has been demonstrated through the Environmental Impact Statement that it will have no negative impacts on the natural feature or its ecological function.” The use of the term “feature” is confusing when referring to a NEA, as opposed to an UNF or a RNF. We would thus propose striking out the words “natural feature or” in the context of a NEA.
• In section 3.2.2 Policy 3, we would suggest removing “works subject to the Drainage Act”. We do not see the rationale for including this exemption.
• We note that Amendment Section 3.2.4 – Rural Natural Features, appears to satisfy the requirement resulting from OMB Decision no. 0724 (21 March 2007), PL031324 for a clarification of the OP’s policy on lands adjacent to RNFs.
• Section 3.2.4. Policy 2. states: “The provisions of Section 3.7.2 for the General Rural Area also apply to Rural Natural Features. In addition any development (a) involving the creation of more than one lot…” Section 3.7.2 of the current Official Plan allows in policy 3 (g) country lot subdivisions as governed by Section 8. We do not wish to allow those in Rural Natural Features. We propose that Section 3.2.4, policy 2, be amended to read “the provisions of Section 3.7.2 also apply to Rural Natural features except for policies 3 (g) and 8”. Policy 2 (a) should then be amended to “involving the creation of one lot”.
• In Annex 1, the colours for Agricultural Resource Areas and Rural Natural Features should be made more distinct.

Protection of Endangered Species

With reference to OP 4.7.4 – Protection of Endangered Species, the Alliance believes that the current language is not sufficient in meeting the requirements of the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA) 2007. The new act prohibits damage or destruction of habitat for species at risk (those listed as endangered or threatened on the Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List). As well, recognizing that “Preventing Species becoming At Risk is key, Species of Concern will need to have a management plan to ensure their habitat is protected for future generations”. It would appear that the City should not only state that it needs to protect the habitat of endangered species but also explicitly indicate in the OP how it will go about doing so. We are particularly concerned about habitats that are small in area and not yet covered by rural/urban feature or NEA designations.

Re 6.4 Compensation Policy

The Alliance agrees with the Staff’s position on not compensating landowners for the loss of development potential and value that may occur when their lands are identified as provincially-significant wetland, or in a similar fashion, as other environmentally significant lands. We support the “proposed direction” and in particular the need to implement a public education and awareness campaign. The proposed direction speaks of stewardship programs. Other methods, such as covenants and land trusts, should also be considered.

Summary of Proposed Policy Changes (OP Document 2)

• In Section 5.4: Policy 4, we do not object to this addition but the policy should include the following wording: “The public will be given notification of all such changes through a public advertisement within 3 months of the change”. As well, any amendments could promptly be reflected on the website version of the OP, with the changes MARKED and DATED.
• More explanation is needed for change 5 to Schedule A, and changes 1 and 2 to Schedule B.
• Changes are required to Schedule B south of Hunt Club, west of the CPR ROW, east of the Airport Parkway. Schedule B shows the land as Airport lands. This is not so, but it appears to be an old error from previous Schedule Bs.