On November 2, 2007 Al Crosby wrote to the GA list:
“Hi Folks,
Re: Planning Ottawa http://www.city.ottawa.on.ca/residents/public_consult/beyond_2020/index_en.html, I read the Rural Discussion Papers and White Papers associated with the Beyond Ottawa 20/20 initiative and extracted the 89 questions from the White Papers below. Someone else may want to use them to submit their answers. I must say, it looks daunting for a single resident to provide comments on such a wide diversity of issues. A lot of the questions also relate to Greenspace and the environment, some of which I highlighted in [italics].
I noted that it was a group of rural resident volunteers that wrote up the Discussion Papers on their concerns, so I was wondering if members of GACC were going to write up a Discussion Paper to change to the Official Plan and Master Plan that affect Greenspace.
Is someone from the GACC working on recommending changes to the Official Plan or Master Plans?
Al Crosby”
Al then listed the 89 questions contained in the nine white papers. Later, he submitted the following to the City, and copied it to the GA list on December 5. Find below Al’s introduction, followed by his answers to the 89 questions. He had earlier identified ## 4-6, 15-22, 24-31, 52-56, 68 and 71 as of particular relevance to greenspace protection; these questions are preceded by a star below.
See below for a brief report on the first-ever City Cafe held on November 24, 2007.
Introductory Comments:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my input on the 89 questions ([1] to [89]) from all the White Papers in ‘Planning for the Future’. I had hoped for some specific questions on the big picture regarding Strategic Direction for the cities of Ottawa-Gatineau in the Beyond 20/20 era. If City Council wants residents to have a say in how the city should manage its future growth and to take part in influencing its policies and strategic directions in guiding the Official Plan and Master Plans, then a specific Future City model for the greater Ottawa-Gatineau area is required first. When I was at the City Cafe on 24 Nov 07 discussing the transportation challenge, a women who said she was an urban architect highlighted this problem by drawing a model on the tablecloth based on her work experience in Europe. She and others seemed to indicate that a transportation model was required for both sides of the river to address the specific questions currently being asked by City staff for Beyond 20/20. She indicated that her model used for Paris and its surrounding villages. What was clear to me is that nearly everyone seemed to agree that the Federal, Provincial and Municipal Governments must work together to produce a Future City model as a target for the entire region. The model below may be obvious to planners or urban architects, but it does not have any public visibility or formal acceptance on how greater Ottawa-Gatineau will evolve in the future.
I believe the majority of people living and working in the National Capital Region would like to see, or even participate in, a 2-D or 3-D conceptual modelling exercise that will show what our Future City and its surrounding municipalities will look like around the year 2050. The pros and cons of various competing models can also be discussed, but one model needs to be finalized as a target objective. One individual can put something together fairly quickly for discussion purposes as illustrated in the tablecloth diagram above. Bill Teron also demonstrated such a model can be easily done with his presentation on 21 Nov 07. Mr. Teron’s graphic illustrates a model I do not agree with, but it does include both sides of the Ottawa River.
If other groups like Transport 2000 also produce their own high-level models, the best of all suggestions can be combined. I would definitely like to see such a picture as tangible output of the Beyond 20/20 activity. This type of model or plan must show future light rail routes, bus routes, subways, roads, bridges, industrial park areas, shopping centres, greenspace, greenbelt and the various path/bike way linkages. If possible, the primary zoning designations could be colour coded on such a map. (i.e.. Residential, Rural, Transportation, Institutional, Industrial, Open and Leisure, Environmentally Sensitive, Commercial or Mixed).
Within the context of such a high level model of our Future City, sub areas such as CFB Rockcliffe, Barrhaven South, Riverside South, Rockcliffe Village, Orléans, Mer Bleu and even major Transportation Corridors could be studied in further detail within their respective neighbourhoods and sub communities. These secondary plans can become legally binding Secondary Policy Plans of the Official Plan, or simply Conceptual Design Plan Guidelines. They are an important element of the planning process itself so that future design objectives are much clearer and unambiguous for the general public. The impact of specific Village Plans, Development Plans, Subdivision Plans or Site Plans within communities could be more easily assessed in relation to the magnitude of amendment needed for Zoning Designations, Secondary Policy Plans or Conceptual Design Plans, and the Official Plan. It just seems odd to me that a developer can suggest a Monster Water Park in Ottawa South, or a National Defence Headquarters in Navan, or a huge housing development in Manotick without any regard to an overall City growth plan.
A 2-D or 3-D model is essential to answer some of the specific growth questions being posed at successive lower levels of this planning exercise. Such models must also have input from all levels of Government as well as the public, and … developers. I believe it was the Cheshire Cat in Alice through the Looking Glass that said: ‘If you don’t know where you are going any road will take you there’. I therefore hope the following is useful in addressing where we want to go, and that it is represents the opinions of the silent majority.
Transportation Challenges:
Mona Abouhenidy, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1, 613-580-2424 ext. 26936 mona.abouhenidy ( at ) ottawa.ca
[1] Should the City consider pursuing some or all of these directions (carpools, favouring pedestrians and cyclists, user incentives, price initiatives)? If so, to what extent?
I believe the City needs to pursue all possible options to reduce the number of cars. From my perspective, I have tried the buses as well as biking to work. The former I only tried for a month, and the latter for a year. Traveling by bus was extremely frustrating and inconvenient, wasting a great deal of time. Current surveys seem to support this view. Biking was much more convenient than the bus, and except for logistical problems of taking a shower once I got to work, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. The car however is the most convenient form of transport, and there needs to be a switch to alternate forms of vehicles (electric) that can only operate in the city. Virtu car is something I have also heard about, but I don’t think this will appeal to the masses. Some futurists talk of aero-cars within 50 years so that is something to at least think about. When it comes to light rail, I would prefer an overhead monorail system along the major roads but it has to have secure access especially at night. You can’t leave people in the middle of nowhere. We have travelled in large European cities like Dublin and London where walking was the preferred mode of transport downtown and pedestrian paths were quite common. What we found convenient was a bus that travelled to tourist sites every ten minutes, and we could get on or off by showing our day pass. The concept should hold true for a shuttle in the downtown core area.
[2] Should the City allocate resources to support transportation system management and transportation demand management programs? Why?
It seems to me that we have an upside down triangle when it comes to resource allocation. Instead of the top 20% of the transportation resources being allocated to management personnel and administration, and 80% to direct service delivery operations, we have 80% of the resources on system management and management programs. I would like to see the actual resource allocation figures for the last 10 years broken down into meaningful and consistent categories to ascertain where the funds are actually going. Once the cost-drivers become clear, what needs to be changed to improve service or reduce costs should become apparent. You may be spending too much money on system management and not enough on bus maintenance or infrastructure support. If not, and expenses are comparable to other cities, then user fees will have to go up.
[3] Should the City plan for infrastructure needs based on peak hour demand or peak period demand? Why?
Normally one plans based on a worst-case scenario such as evacuation plans or emergency situations. For example, engineers design buildings for the worst-case wind scenario within the geographic area and then add another factor of safety such as 5-10%. No one complains about it and in the long run the cost is much less when the building doesn’t collapse during an “unpredicted” tornado.
*[4] Should the City set a strict target to reduce GHG emissions for its own activities such as transit or alternatively should the City pursue broader emission reduction practices (encouraging transit, walking, cycling) that would balance with other City objectives (social, economic, financial goals)? Why?
This question has to deal with human “behaviour change” and what is the “public good”. Smoking, firearms, seat belts, children car seats, smoke alarms, drinking, etc. require strict targets to be set by the authority to protect the majority from the minority. Our democratic system is based on the greater than 50% notion, and limits on all forms of pollutions (air, water, land, noise, garbage, smells, etc.) are absolutely essential. Banning cars (except electric cars) from the city centre would be fine with me in 2050, as long as I could walk or take public transit in safety and comfort. This requires looking at all transportation systems holistically, which we do not do unfortunately.
*[5] What are the other approaches that could be considered to determine community-wide targets for reduction of transportation GHG emissions and pollution?
There are Inputs and Outputs related to GHG and pollution. The causes (inputs) of GHGs have to be reduced, and the emissions (outputs) also have to be reduced somehow. In this regard, I suggest we increase the amount of forest canopy in the city to take the emissions out of the air. The relationship between greenspace and GHGs is not understood. There is a great deal of disinformation unfortunately. Developers must be required to design their buildings to be self-sustaining when it comes to recycling its own water, sewage, garbage and clean air. I have listened to stories of companies that polluted the Hudson River in New York because municipalities did not impose targets on their emissions and pollution outputs. The cost of their pollution was passed on to the local citizens in the form of higher medical costs and huge river clean-up projects. Developers can not be allowed to duck their responsibilities any longer and one approach to reducing GHGs is to ensure they integrate solar, wind, water and sewer systems into their designs such that infrastructure costs, including tree planting, isn’t passed on to the public. True life cycle costs of development must be considered, and when the pros and cons are analyzed, the City planning staff must reject developments that contribute to the problems of pollution. The point made by Rod Bryden was that we have old rules that need to be changed. I believe this is true of the planning act, which should be changed to allow Development Charges cover 100% of the true cost of new infrastructure. See my response in Water and Sewer [82].
*[6] Are Ottawa residents willing to support land use strategies, which either restrict employment growth in specific areas or proactively encourage intensification? Why?
Yes, of course. First, sustainable development is an oxymoron. When land is used for industry, residences or for parkland there is an impact – some positive and some negative. You cannot entertain the notion of unbridled growth. We have already calculated that we need 5 planets to sustain our consumption levels. It is time we recognize that there are limits on available resources and start restricting growth, in terms of cars, people, and buildings. The city needs to be looked at as a sustainable system. It doesn’t grow, and it doesn’t shrink. A city must have a state of balance as a goal between the economic drivers and the well being of each human that lives inside the city’s boundary. The population of a city cannot double without significant impact on land use. If the land use can’t support the population, then limit the population growth until the land use strategies can support the future developments. There are positive aspects of intensification, but they need to be communicated to the public.
[7] Should the City be pursuing the creation of new revenue sources, and if so, of what sort?
This question leaves me in a bit of a quandary. A city exists for one purpose, which is to support its citizens who live together. It is the citizen who pays for services. The citizens can individually pay for the services they want, but it makes much more economic sense when they get together to pay for common services. When the group of citizens living together is small, it is easy define the service required, figure out how much it costs and charge those who want the service a set fee. As the group of citizens living together gets larger, it is more difficult to figure out the common service. Some people want to opt out. Some people want an extra additional service requiring an extra additional fee. Now we need someone to administer the services and the fees. Creating a new source of revenue depends on the service being proposed. Snow ploughing, Libraries, Parks, Buses have a cost and the expenses must be rigorously tracked. If the costs go up, so do the fees, or the taxes. This question has only one answer and that is revenue sources for capital, operations and maintenance can only come from the citizens in one form or another. Either as pay-as-you-go fees, or in the form of annual taxes. Pay-as-you-go fees have merit, but so do universal taxes to provide common services like health care, police/fire protection and education.
[8] What other steps can be taken to fund maintenance and growth of the transportation infrastructure?
In the case of funding maintenance and growth, the method of collecting taxes and fees must be restructured. Money is often spent on things other than what is intended. I believe in flexibility, but if I pay for transportation maintenance through pay-as-you-go fees it is difficult to predict the revenue I am going to receive from year to year. The service operator will find it difficult to plan projects and priorities if funds fluctuate. You cannot ask all citizens to vote on which project should be funded. That responsibility has been given to elected representatives who debate the relative merits of priorities. If you take the east end bridge for example, I have not yet seen a ‘No Bridge’ option for citizens to pick. Why do we need a bridge? Someone has determined that a bridge is needed and it may be true, but they should be able to prove it. Someone may also determine that a road needs widening. If citizens say they do not want a bridge or a road widened, why do you need growth of the transportation infrastructure. I am very happy thousands of cars cannot travel by my house because the road isn’t wide enough. It is a way of reducing traffic. I would prefer to see people walking and cycling by my house. Stop asking everyone to fund infrastructure growth when it is a result of increased development. The people who cause the development should be asked to fund any growth of the transportation infrastructure.
Jobs and Housing in Orléans
Ian Cross, Community Planning and Design Division, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1
613-580-2424 ext. 21595, ian.cross ( at ) ottawa.ca
[9] Is the target of 1.3 jobs per household feasible for Orléans? Why?
I don’t particularly know why this white paper is focused on Orléans. The issue of jobs-to-household ratio is discussed by Jane Jacobs in her classic 1961 book ”The Death and Life of Great American Cities”, and again in “Dark Age Ahead”. She makes the point that all communities need to find the right balance of appropriate land use for their particular neighbourhood. She makes a good case for mixing residential and business use all over the city so that people can live near their jobs and not have to commute hours each way. What I do remember however were examples of planners setting targets like 1.3 jobs per household, without regard to the specific knowledge local residents have in what is needed to make their community vibrant. Let us not make that kind of mistake.
[10] Should the City reconsider the target and let jobs and housing growth in Orléans continue without interference? Why?
I do not believe in laissez-faire management of growth in any part of this city. It is important to have targets and policy objectives, but they cannot be applied in a hard and fast way. One has to design communities for sustainability, mixed use, liveability and safe travel, not to specific targets. The targets should be guidelines in this case. Any target that must be a hard rule is no longer a design target but a design specification or a design standard.
[11] Should the City place restrictions on further housing development in Orléans? Why?
Going back to the issue of balance in life, restrictions are necessary. Think about cutting down the Amazon forest, killing elephants for ivory or letting families have 6-7 children in China. There are restrictions for smoking, children’s seat belts, speeding, drugs, alcohol, loitering, cell phones, etc. Restrictions and laws are necessary for the preservation of the planet and for the well being of its future inhabitants. I do not see any problem with placing restrictions on housing developments anywhere in the city if there is a rationale reason to do so. Freedoms are restricted when individual behaviour begins to harm others.
[12] If restrictions on further housing development in Orléans were introduced, how would such a policy be implemented?
If Orléans of any other community gets together with city staff to create a conceptual plan that integrates itself with their adjacent communities, I would like to see areas for housing development, business, parks, transportation corridors, etc. identified with the appropriate land use zoning. The Official Plan has a Secondary Policy Plan for the small Village of Rockcliffe Park. All such communities need a Secondary Policy Plan that are part of the Official Plan. Future housing developments would then be restricted to the areas outlined in a Conceptual Plan (Secondary Policy Plan of the Official Plan) during the development approval review process. Unless a developer has a public meeting and can make the case for adjustment to the Conceptual Plan/Secondary Policy Plan for that community based on the original goals and assumptions, then the policy would be implemented by not giving approval to the development application. The Conceptual Plan, by definition, would contain the restrictions for development, and the plan would not be a guideline, but rather a community policy document.
[13 ] What incentives could be provided to create jobs in Orléans?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. talked about giving incentives to industry to create jobs in the book ‘The Riverkeepers’. In it, he argues that companies can blackmail one community against another to reduce property taxes in return for creating jobs , which in turn passes the financial burden to the general public for such things as cleanup of industry pollution. The public cannot be finessed into paying subsidies to developers. I would support temporary financial incentives such as reduced taxes for the use of solar power by industry or rebates on hydro if they use electric cars. The use of incentives such as property tax reduction is an extremely risky business as it goes against the principles of the market economy and true capitalism. It also can lead to targeting specific companies for an incentive, which is always a dangerous practice. Incentives should only be used to influence long-term city objectives such as planting trees, reducing electricity, minimizing garbage, etc.. The incentives have to be tied to the goal you are trying to reach, not cost reduction to help profit takers.
[14] Are there other transportation approaches that could be considered?
Like bridges, I have not seen the “No Car” option for citizens to pick. When you travel in downtown Toronto, you can park your car on the outskirts and take the subway into the city centre. From there you can use underground pathways to move from building to building or a free shuttle bus. If Ottawa-Gatineau had a vision for its 2050 future modes of transportation, we might not need to include cars for transportation in the downtown core. You could design pedestrian areas like large airports. As people will probably be pulling some sort of cart when shopping or a briefcase when going to work, this has to be designed into the pedestrian solution for 2050. Walking is healthy as well.
Climate Change and the Official Plan Review
David Miller, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1, 613-580-2424 ext. 21447 david.miller ( at ) ottawa.ca
*[15] How can the Official Plan and related master plans contribute to efforts to mitigate our contribution and adapt to climate change?
The Official Plan and related master plans do not have the higher-level vision and objective statements that Ottawa needs. All I found was Section 2.4.1 – Air Quality and Climate Change that had very little in the way of direction to deal with climate change.
The Official Plan has to contribute to climate change with more specific objectives and goals. I have seen new, conventional buildings (in 2007) that do not have solar panels, that do not have rainwater catchment areas, that do not have roof gardens, that do not have large treed areas for shading pedestrians. Our laws and design standards need to change now. Developers, with the exception of Jonathan Weinsteinde of Windmill, are proceeding with conventional practices and change is too slow. Windmill’s Dockside Green in Victoria is designed to be GHG neutral with the potential of being GHG negative, while treating all its sewage on site and using treated water to flush toilets and for irrigation needs. New standards need to be imposed through statements in the Official Plan and master plans.
The statement from the Official Plan on developing communities does not state anything about protecting the environments air, water, trees, etc. As a “plan”, this is insufficient in telling developers what is expected.
Developing Communities –Large undeveloped lands, called “greenfields”, within the urban boundary serve as locations for new communities or for new development that completes existing communities. Currently, one large area inside the Greenbelt, the former Rockcliffe Airbase, has the potential to be entirely redeveloped. These areas have the opportunity to provide a mix of housing types and a balance between jobs and housing so as to create a balanced community from the outset. These areas will develop with a slightly higher density and greater mix of uses than new communities in the recent past.
The policy on Green Building also seems to only pay lip service to the issue of climate change. We must state in clear “tangible” terms what we expect; like sewage treated on site, being GHG negative, using roof top reservoirs and filtering it for plant watering or toilets, etc. Sustainability goals should not be “certified” at minimum levels, nor simply encouraged by the City. Most buildings being built in Shanghai now treat their own sewage because the current infrastructure isn’t capable of handing the development and population growth and the city does not have the capital to do it. Perhaps it is time to start thinking about making developers pay the real, true costs of the infrastructure requirements, and quit passing it on to the ratepayers.
Green Building Policy for the Construction of Corporate Buildings – Corporate Policy
Policy Requirements
All newly constructed buildings with a footprint greater than 500 square metres (5,400 square feet) must be designed, delivered and certified by the Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC) as being LEED[TM] – Canada “Certified” at minimum.
All newly constructed buildings will incorporate energy efficient features into the building design to meet the standards required by the Commercial Building Incentive Program (CBIP). The City encourages the application of sustainable design principles during retrofit and renovation projects of its current structures where practical.
Historic structures shall be exempt from the requirements of this policy. However, wherever practical, best efforts should be made to incorporate as many of the green building requirements and credits from the LEED[TM] Green Building Rating System as possible, without compromising the historical integrity of the structure.
*[16] Are there measures to be taken to address greenhouse gas emissions from transportation?
From what I can observe, very little is being done to address GHG emissions. See my response in Transportation [5]
*[17] Are the current levels of resource protection adequate?
In 2004, I heard Severn Cullis-Suzuki (Dr. David Suzuki’s daughter) say that a baby in North America consumes more resources in 6 months than a person in the developing world consumes in a lifetime. She also answered this question in 1992 when she was 13 years old: [Youtube item no longer available]. The current level of resource protection is not adequate.
*[18] How can we better connect our natural system?
For one thing, keeping the NCC Greenbelt free from development is a start. From the municipality’s perspective, there is a critical need for parks, woodlands and greenspaces to be designated off limits to development for the future. Developers use the word ‘sanitized’ when they cannot develop natural land. I would like to see a policy that makes 50% of Ottawa’s land area ‘sanitized’ from development.
*[19] How can we better recognize and protect the values associated with tree cover that are important for climate change adaptation and mitigation?
People, as individuals, take such things as tree cover for granted, until it is gone. The only way to recognize and value tree cover is through education. This becomes very difficult when economic values trump social values. We all know how tobacco companies covered up the health effects of smoking and the same is true when developers destroy tree cover. Short-term economic greed will find ways of minimizing any value associated with tree cover. It is only through legislation, study and action that by-laws are put in place that protects the general public. In effect, social values must trump economic values in society and in government. Government is not a business and cannot operate on Capitalism, but on Socialism. To understand what happens when services are privatized for profit you should watch the movie “Sicko” by Michael Moore.
*[20] Can sub-watershed and watershed planning explicitly consider potential climate change scenarios?
Yes, I believe the Ontario government is attempting to do this. It also highlights once again, the need for Federal, Provincial and Municipal governments to work closer together on behalf of the general public. We should not have to duplicate studies and activities in 3 levels of government. Only one should take the lead, and it really doesn’t matter whom, and the rest participate as a team.
*[21] Do we need to provide policies in the Official Plan that provide the ability to require certain environmentally sustainable building design measures such as Green Roofs in some circumstances?
Absolutely. This is something tangible and specific that City’s Green Building Policy should address. The City’s Official Plan is devoid of specific direction like this. I hesitate to enforce specifics about Green Roofs in the Official Plan, because I also like flexibility. Instead, the Official Plan should legitimize (give legal status) to Secondary Policy Plans (Conceptual Plans) for a community to be specific about Green Roofs. These in turn would identify the types of buildings for a specific area in a community and what would be expected of those buildings in terms of environmental sustainability. As you get down to more detail such as Site Plans, the buildings would need to meet ZONING requirements and maximum LEED[TM] Green Building requirements. So, new by-laws would be needed that state prescriptive solutions such as roof gardens, storm water management, less parking spots, on-site waste water treatment, etc. If city costs can be avoided with such action, the money can be used as incentives to developers for a finite period of time.
*[22] How can the Official Plan promote sustainable design and green building measures?
The Official Plan must provide a Strategic Vision for the future rather than a list of policy bullets and vague objective statements. High level targets needs to be articulated in the Official Plan for the entire city as a closed system that is GHG negative. Such targets need to be measurable and enforceable. The city must set aside funds for the maintenance and improvement of its infrastructure through reserve funds. Change is constant, therefore the current negative environmental impacts of building design need to be corrected when a building is renovated. In other words, the OP must make it obvious that buildings have to be upgraded to new standards when renovated in order to meet future environmental requirements. There will be a negative aspect to this strategy as building owners will not attempt renovations or upgrades because of the cost. This is a short-term problem that should be recognized, but I would rather see a building condemned than one that contributes to GHGs. The OP should address this issue by penalizing building owners who do not meet existing building environmental requirements. Eventually, these buildings will be torn down and new venture capital will be used to dispose of the old buildings and replaced by newer, more modern buildings that have sustainable designs.
[23] How can the City encourage renewable energy and how much, if any, direction should the Official Plan provide for siting and assessment of renewable energy projects?
People will only change their behaviour if you can impact them personally. If they can get away with doing nothing they will. Only a few citizens on the fringe will change voluntarily. The current wording of the OP does not sound like direction to me. If we choose to encourage renewable energy projects, then there has to be a direct connection to individuals. As electrical hydro rates go up for example, people will change their energy consumption habits. The City has established programs like recycling and it has also introduced by-laws against smoking. Much more direction is needed in the OP, rather than encouragement. The Future City map of Ottawa in 2050 should be clear on where we will dispose of waste, where we will get our water, and where we will install wind farms and solar panels. To guide future growth you will need policies and strategic direction in the Official Plan that is future oriented.
*[24] What else should be done to better prepare Ottawa to adapt to the effects of climate change?
Education through presentations. Dan Gardner, in a recent Citizen newspaper article on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 page A17 suggested we need a carbon tax. His rationale is a reaction to the latest United Nations report on climate change but he also discusses the complexity of the question. There are repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia and their harsh treatment of woman that make taking action even more paramount than only dealing with climate change. Ottawa needs to take action that works on many issues at the same time, recognizing the complexity of these issues.
Compensation Options for Wetlands and Other Environmental Lands
Judy Flavin, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1, 613-580-2424 ext. 27886 judy.flavin ( at ) ottawa.ca
*[25] Should the City adopt a policy favouring the compensation of landowners for property designated as wetlands? For other natural environment lands?
I am very suspicious when landowners want to be compensated for potential losses when their land is designated wetland or environmentally sensitive. If a landowner bought property, which then became designated a danger area due to local geological and topographical conditions that could cause a landslide, would they be compensated? If people build in a flood plain and their property gets flooded, should they be compensated? What if the land was designated a flood plain before they bought? There is a degree of speculation in this whole question, and I would say that the general public should not compensate speculators who buy land, then ask for compensation based on the intention of rezoning the land at a ‘speculative’ higher value. People who have property that is damaged due to fire or flood normally have insurance to cover their losses. I do not believe the City should adopt a policy of favouring landowners when their property is designated wetlands or a flood plain, or even environmentally sensitive. Either it is, or it isn’t. If the landowner wants to sell the land to the city because it cannot be developed, then the city can purchase the property as undevelopable lands at a fair but modest price. Another option is for the city to waive collection of property taxes until those taxes reach the estimated fair market value of the land in 15 to 30 years. At that time the city would take title to those lands as an expropriation.
*[26] Should compensation apply to all designated property, or only in instances where new wetlands are designated?
When a land designation changes from an economically higher zoning category to a lower economic zoning designation, the form and method of compensation should apply to all such situations, whether wetland or land that that is geologically affected. If an area is zoned R6 and due to geotechnical studies, the city finds that only R1 structures can be supported, the zoning designation should change. I fail to see the logic or causality for providing compensation.
*[27] Should the City allocate more resources to acquire lands in natural heritage areas?
The City needs to set aside a percentage of urban or rural lands to be designated natural heritage or natural environment lands based on objective studies. Funds should then be collected as a specific portion of the property tax base to acquire lands that meet the objective targets. Once the targets are achieved, the taxes are reduced by the portion of the property tax being used to acquire lands, unless something else is targeted for acquisition.
*[28] Should the City set new objectives for acquiring lands in natural heritage areas?
As stated previously, objectives need to be set based on objective studies. Once these objectives are set, goals are identified to reach the objective. It would be very useful to restudy those objectives every 5 years, depending upon the level of public interest in setting new objectives.
*[29] Should acquisitions be opportunistic, or should an explicit policy give landowners the opportunity to sell wetlands when designated?
Acquisitions should be planned as goals or projects to meet the objective. They should also be opportunistic should someone choose to sell land that has been targeted for eventual acquisition. When land is designated wetlands or environmentally sensitive or even designated for a future road bypass through an objective study, the landowner could be given 10-30 years warning and various approaches for fair compensation should be negotiated. If landowners become unreasonable, then the City also has the legal means to have arbitration on the fair exchange of value for expropriation.
*[30] How should the level of compensation be determined?
Value is in the eye of the beholder. It would be best for an objective third party to prepare an estimate of value based on what can legally be done with the land. Compensation can be determined by estimating the value of comparable national properties, or it can also be determined by using a proxy equivalent in another jurisdiction that is publicly owned.
*[31] How should the compensation be provided?
Compensation can be given in cash, or in trade for another piece of land of equal “value”. Or compensation can be the free use of the land until a date when the projected property taxes equal the value of the land at the net present value.
Development in the Greater Ottawa-Gatineau Area
Alain Miguelez, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1, 613-580-2424 ext. 27617 alain.miguelez ( at ) ottawa.ca
[32] How much does Ottawa’s employment market contribute to the growth of adjacent municipalities?
This is a guess, as I know people who live as far away as Kemptville that commute to jobs in Ottawa. I would estimate the figure to be between 30-40%.
[33] Is the growth of adjacent municipalities a factor of their own economic growth or to what extent is their proximity to Ottawa responsible for their growth? Why?
When Ottawa provides museums, sports arenas, arts galleries, airports, music halls, shopping centres, etc. the adjacent municipalities benefit substantially by not having to fund the care, maintenance and upkeep of such facilities including their inherent transportation, waste, sewer and water infrastructure costs. The adjacent communities can have the benefit of a quiet rural life while enjoying the amenities of a large city without having to pay for it. People who come to Ottawa from adjacent communities do not directly support the cost of facilities they use, but rather the retailers in the City of Ottawa who in turn support Ottawa through various taxes on their business.
[34] How much interdependence is there between Ottawa’s labour market and the adjacent communities?
The interdependence between adjacent communities and the labour market is substantial based on the number of license plates one sees from the province of Quebec. One can extrapolate from traffic studies to conclude that 30-40% of morning and evening traffic is going outside the boundaries of Ottawa. I have seen some traffic studies where the automobile inflow and outflow is as high as 75% with only 25% of the cars remaining in the area. Such numbers would indicate that an area does not have the right balance of mixed use. A Secondary Policy Plan for the area should attempt to redress the problem.
[35 ]Are Ottawa’s urban boundary and development charge policies contributing to the acceleration of development in adjacent municipalities? What should Ottawa do?
The development charge policies are a mechanism to pay for the support and infrastructure costs. Such charges balance the playing field so that adjacent municipalities also get facilities as well as the responsibility for their upkeep. If you had an expensive pool table in your basement and your friendly neighbours kept coming over to use it, but you had to keep fixing any damage they caused to it, pretty soon you would either start charging them or you would want to use something of theirs. This really goes to the need for coordination between the municipalities so that capital costs and support costs can be shared based on use. It also means that common facilities should not be duplicated but shared.
[36] It is suggested by some that the Official Plan’s urban boundary limit creates a shortage of land that drives builders to adjacent communities, and that high development charges have the same effect. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Right now the City of Ottawa does not know whether or not it wants to maintain its green and clean character or become like urban Toronto. Frankly, I do not see an urban boundary when I cross it. What I do see is a large capital region that is being managed in small districts that compete with one another in a negative way. It is akin to the Federal Government and its provincial pieces. One level needs to coordinate the other level and only do what makes sense at the higher level. To answer the question directly, I feel that the land is there for urban use and the development charges are there to offset the cost of support, so if that drives builders to adjacent communities that is fine with me. If you build in Ottawa, then you must pay what it costs.
[37] How much of Ottawa’s infrastructure is used by people who pay property taxes to other municipalities?
My guess is 30-40% based on my earlier comments on traffic flows in to and out of Ottawa in the am and pm. The percentage may be higher if people in other municipalities return after 5pm to go out for dinner, attend concerts or sports events.
[38] Ottawa benefits from the daily influx of commuters who work here, spend in our retail stores and partake in our cultural activities. In your personal experience, do you encounter many people using City services (libraries, park-and-rides, day cares) who live outside of Ottawa?
This question is being asked many ways. The answer is yes.
Ottawa benefits from the daily influx of commuters who work here, spend in our retail stores and partake in our cultural activities.
How much infrastructure capacity are they using while in Ottawa? If we use road traffic as a proxy, then 30-40% of the commuters use that portion of the infrastructure. I would assume this translates into 30-40% of the total infrastructure capacity being used by commuters while in Ottawa.
[39] Is the exchange balance positive for Ottawa? Why?
As a retailer, you want people in your store to sell your products to, therefore you would want everyone to have easy access to your establishment. As a homeowner, you do not want to go far to get the products you want or to your place of work. The question of balance goes back to Jane Jacobs’s observations about a vibrant community being a mix of residents, small shops, large shops, industry and parks working together to create a community. Currently, this exchange balance does not exist. Industry is too concentrated, residential areas are too concentrated. Ottawa needs to decide what it wants in the centre of the city – Congress Centres? Concert Halls? Major Water Parks? Government Office Buildings? Shopping Centres? Condominiums? Or, all of the above? If Ottawa decides to establish a logical balance within its boundaries, then it should not have to worry about adjacent communities. The exchange balance is neither positive nor negative because the City should sustain its own local inhabitants to a set population density and no higher. If it can support a higher density in the future, then it will have to build the infrastructures to support the higher population. The flaw in the logic is trend analysis. People may think the population is growing, and build a lot of infrastructure, but the growth may not materialize. Growth may be though of as temporary, but then it continues to increase. Demographic analysis is very difficult to predict at a local level. To get around the problem, development should pay its own way by funding 100% of the infrastructure when there is a demand. If the population declines and can no longer support the retail business, then the stores will go out of business or move to another community. Smith Falls and Cornwall are good examples of the inability to predict local shifts in jobs and population density.
[40] Should, and can, Ottawa do something to influence the amount of development in adjacent municipalities? What do you think Ottawa should do?
This issue needs to be addressed through governance. When you have people trying to manage what they consider their portion of an area, friction can easily develop. This applies to two neighbours, as well as two adjacent municipalities. Mechanisms are need to put concerns on the table for resolution for the benefit of all. Obviously, when a dispute cannot be resolved, a higher-level authority is asked to make the decision. Unfortunately, for Ontario, this means taking developers to the Ontario Municipal Board who are out of touch with what the people want. When the city tries to mitigate the spread of big box stores for example, developers go directly to the OMB and get decisions that are not in the best interest of the public. The problem here is with the Planning Act so energy needs to be applied at the provincial level to solve this problem. A good governance structure describes the mechanisms organizations use to ensure that its constituents follow established processes and policies. It is the primary means of maintaining oversight and accountability when there are loosely coupled organizations involved. Proper governance will implement common systems to monitor and record what is going on, takes steps to ensure compliance with agreed policies, and provides for corrective action in cases where the rules have been ignored or misconstrued.
[41] Should the City be concerned about the amount of development taking place outside its boundaries? Why?
The City should be concerned about development outside its boundaries because some issues like roads, bridges, greenspace and sewer systems do not depend upon such boundaries. In order to get infrastructure to work harmoniously for the public you need cooperation as well as good governance. It does not make sense when one municipality builds a bike path along a stream or river, which abruptly terminates at the boundary of another municipality where a big box shopping centre is located. A bikeway or cross-country ski trail only works when there are contiguous sections of land and all adjacent municipalities work cooperatively on the interfaces.
[42] What approach can the City take to address growth at the metropolitan level?
Besides improving governance to address growth, the City needs to identify the areas where is makes sense to have residential, industrial or mixed-use zoning. Once the high level model and conceptual plan is developed, then the sub categories of R3, R5, V3 etc, can be defined in Secondary Policy Plans/Conceptual Design Plans. When all conceptual plans are developed for ‘Beyond 20/20’ the City can address the potential growth areas at the metropolitan level or at designated metropolitan areas in that timeframe. I am assuming here that metropolitan level means the current central urban area, or the future urban areas.
Moving Forward with Rapid Transit
Mona Abouhenidy, Community Planning and Design Division, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1
613-580-2424 ext. 26936 mona.abouhenidy ( at ) ottawa.ca
[43] With respect to a transit solution in the downtown, should a transit tunnel be implemented now or be deferred until sometime in the future? Why?
To make a decision upon a transit tunnel without an overall model and conceptual plan is premature. Arguments to build the Lynx stadium may have sounded good to Mayor Jim Watson in the past, but there was no contingency planning evident. Building a transit tunnel may sound good now but without the requisite scrutiny of a study, it may be the wrong decision. Personally, I would prefer an electric or solar powered monorail that is above ground in the post 20/20 period with a great deal of emphasis on security. Budgets should reflect what capital projects are required in the future and taxes should be collected in a reserve to pay for those projects. We do not seem to have capital plans that extend 25 years into the future. Lately, we seem focused on short-term budget cuts.
[44] Should the City designate more lanes for transit in the downtown area and on other east-west roads as means of deferring a transit tunnel? Why?
If you designate more lanes for transit in the downtown, you will add to the noise and pollution that you are trying to avoid in the climate change section. I would say no to this question. People will always complain about traffic problems. It is part of life. By the time 20/20 rolls around, we will probably have the electric ZENN (zero emission, no noise) cars in the downtown area and people will still be complaining about traffic congestion.
[45] What criteria should be used to guide technology choices (e.g., travel time, ride quality, comfort, capital and operating costs, environmental impacts, frequency, reliability, having a seat, etc.)?
The criteria for me would be reliability, convenience and schedule readability. In the summer, when the weather is usually nice, the buses run on time. But when the weather isn’t cooperating, and you are freezing in winter, the buses seem to be an hour late. I would prefer a stand-alone electric/solar powered monorail system. I used the one in Las Vegas to get around and it was very convenient because it maintained a precise schedule. I could time my arrival to get on the vehicle and it worked perfectly. I kept a map of the route with its departure time with me all the time. I could not do that for a bus. Say that I know the schedule say 9:23 and I time my walk to get at the bustop at 9:22. When I get there at 9:22 – no bus. Either I see it going down the street or I wait another 10 minutes. If I could rely on the mode of transport, I would be more inclined to take it. The other problem with municipal transport is finding the routes to get from one place to another. If it requires too many transfers, I won’t use it. I prefer to see all routes on a convenient map so I can pick the correct line or bus number for the most direct route. Unfortunately, when such maps are posted in bus shelters, they are covered with graffiti and you can’t read them.
[46] Should the City consolidate express routes and expand feeder-line-haul service in order to improve speed and reliability through the downtown? Why?
First, I would prefer higher frequency in the downtown core where buses and cars do not mix. If buses went north-south as feeder lines to a more robust east west light rail system, people would figure out how to get around. Basically, that is what I have observed in my own neighbourhood. Local buses take passengers to the Rapid Transit Centres. If Light Rail is chosen then you need it to be above ground or below ground so it is not delayed by regular traffic or accidents.
[47] Which criteria should be used to guide corridor location choices (e.g. ridership, cost, accessibility, integration with development, etc.)?
You should probably choose a mainstreet for a rapid transit system. As mentioned it should be above or below ground and extremely reliable. If it is on a main street it will get higher ridership as people go from store to store. It is also more secure when there are lots of people around. It should have sheltered transfer nodes as well for summer and winter. Since people will be taking on strollers, bikes, baggage and shopping bags, the design of the vehicle must be overhauled to accommodate what people bring on board.
[48] Should the development of rapid transit continue to focus on connections to downtown or should connections to all regional job centres be encouraged? Why?
The design of the rapid transit system must be part of the overall model of the city mentioned earlier. Geographical job centres could dictate when the transportation corridors go in the future, as well as the bridges across the Ottawa River. Given a satellite view of the region for 2050, it appears that a flattened 8 configuration is needed for Ottawa-Gatineau with the middle of the 8 being in the city centres. As for the top of the 8, it should be on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River, and the bottom part of the 8 should be around Hunt Club Road. The middle of the 8 would be along Montreal Road.
[49] How should the City fund rapid transit infrastructure capital costs?
This is a financial question and there are several major problems with the way the City funds its projects in conjunction with the Federal and Provincial Government. This problem requires further investigation, which is outside the scope of this topic. Nevertheless, for rapid transit, all three levels of government should fund the initial capital costs, but the on-going maintenance and upgrades to the infrastructure need to be funded by the traveling public, including tourists. Estimates of operations and maintenance costs must include a reserve for upgrades. I understand the pressure to keep user fees as low as possible to attract ridership, but this strategy can lead to a precarious funding shortfall when the infrastructure and vehicles need replacement. The City could make a one-time levy through taxes to pay for such a reinvestment, but the fair way of doing this is to explain that the $.50 of the $3.00 ticket is being collected for future upgrade to the system. People can appreciate the fact that $2.50 is for the O&M, and the .50 is a reserve. At the City Cafe, one fellow who worked for Ron Bryden suggested that the Ottawa public transit system be free to all citizens of Ottawa. He mentioned that Portland Oregon does this. Under these circumstances, the capital and maintenance costs would have to be tracked very carefully so that a percentage of property taxes would be sufficient on a yearly basis to support the system, including capital upgrades.
[50] How should the City fund increases in transit operating costs?
Assuming the transit system is a not-for-profit operation and not free, the Income Statement for this service should indicate the expenses over the last 5-10 years. Trends in the various operating costs should be noted each year and put into the next year’s budget. If the transit system is a true pay-as-you-go operation, then you will need to divide the costs by the projected number of riders/year and do the calculation. If it is decided that everyone gets a free pass, then everyone in Ottawa must pay for the transit operating costs. The budgeted costs are divided by the number of people on the tax roll and it becomes part of your annual tax levy. If you do both, then the cost of administration will increase costs. If you privatize the system, then costs will increase even more and service will deteriorate in order for the company to make a profit. To understand what will happens when services are privatized for profit, you need to only watch the movie “Sicko” by Michael Moore.
[51] What are the alternative options to increasing fares, increasing property taxes or special capital levies those listed above?
Instead of consolidating express routes, the City should take the lead and suggest that all transportation modes within the region be consolidated for integrated management within the entire region. It doesn’t make sense to me that the NCC maintains roads and bridges as well as the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau. There are two bus lines and different school boards who operate buses. The public pays for all these services one-way or another including the snow ploughing. There should be a way to reduce costs by combining all transit operations and maintenance costs to provide services to students, shoppers, workers, tourists and seniors alike. As an objective for 2050, I do not see why the 3 or 4 levels of government that are collecting taxes for transit systems cannot provide these funds to a single, central transportation management organization with federal, municipal and rural subcentres.
Ottawa’s Natural Environment System: How Well is it Working?
Judy Flavin, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1, 613-580-2424 ext. 27886 judy.flavin ( at ) ottawa.ca
*[52] What criteria should the City use to define significant woodlands?
Within the City of Ottawa, there are 3 important criteria for defining a woodland: the number of trees, the distance the trees are apart, and the height of the trees. For example, a group of more than 7 trees, less than 7 meters apart and greater than 7 meters high would constitute a significant woodland within the City of Ottawa for me. A significant urban forest could be defined as containing 7 woodlands, with a closed canopy of trees. This would mean you need at least 50 trees to constitute an urban forest. I support clear and unambiguous definitions when it comes to tree protection bylaws. If it is simple and not legalese, everyone will understand it.
*[53] Which strategy should the City adopt to protect woodlands not included in an environmental designation?
In partnership with the Federal and Provincial governments, the City should create a Land Trust so that woodlots and urban forests not in an environmental designation can be protected in perpetuity. This strategy has been floating around for a long time, but it doesn’t have the critical mass of people and leadership needed to get it into operation.
*[54] How can we address cumulative effects? Do we permit a percentage loss from an individual feature? Why?
Natural systems need a clear, defined boundary to be sustainable. A percentage loss of an individual feature by reducing its boundary would definitely reduce its chance of survival as well. In order to sustain healthy environmental areas, they must remain biologically diverse and intact to survive.
*[55] Should we consider the effect of any loss on the total landscape? Why?
Except for diseased or damaged trees, there is no reason to cut down the trees within the City of Ottawa. When developers propose a development in which there is a loss of forest canopy, the City should ensure that a percentage of the area is retained as woodland in order to preserve and meet the 30% forest canopy goal of the Official Plan. The developer should not pay cash-in-lieu if a tree needs to be removed. Instead, the developer should be required to plant trees in another area of the City on public land or environmentally sensitive land held in trust.
*[56] Can we set more complex requirements for the assessment, depending on the nature of the application (e.g., a large subdivision) or the sensitivity of the feature? What could those requirements be?
Setting complex requirements for assessment will not be as good as setting simple requirements to protect natural features. When a large subdivision is being assessed for example, the developer in lieu of parkland dedication should set 30% of the forest canopy aside. If a forest canopy is not available at that subdivision, then the parkland dedication should be increased to 20%, 10% of which should require the creation of a woodland area within that subdivision. This is far short of the 30% if forest canopy existed. This strategy would also serve as a deterrent to developers who selected sites that were covered with forest canopy. It would also add forest canopy that has been destroyed in the recent past by poor development practices. When a single unit on 1/2 acre lot is being assessed for development, then a different strategy is required. If there is a single large tree on the lot there should be an assessment of the landscape plan to protect the single tree. If this is not possible, then the developer once again would be required to plant trees in a 10:1 ratio in another area of the City on public land. There should be no waivers, exceptions or variances on these requirements for single lots if trees are being destroyed. Ottawa will no longer be a clean, green city if strong policies to protect trees are not in place soon.
Residential Intensification: Building More Vibrant Communities
Jack Ferguson, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1, 613-580-2424 ext. 26940 jack.ferguson ( at ) ottawa.ca
[57] How precise should the intensification targets be (e.g., define specific building heights or set proportional to street size, provide ranges or specific targets)? Should these be the basis for Zoning By-law amendments?
Assuming we are discussing planning at the level of a Secondary Policy Plan, the sub zoning categories should be sufficient to define building heights, set backs, park land dedication, forest cover, etc. When communities identify a problem with the Zoning By-law in drawing up their Secondary Policy Plans, then by-law amendments should be proposed if it would apply to any other community across the city.
[58] At how fine a level of geography should targets be set?
The level of geography is dependent upon the level of planning being done. For the entire Region, high level targets would be set as limits for population, tree cover, parks, residential areas, industrial areas, etc. in a conceptual 2-D or 3-D model with maximum heights of buildings being shown for the zoning areas (e.g. R6). Displaying the maximum limits or targets allowed will give the public a better sense of the future possibilities. Conceptual streetscapes would be possible at the Secondary Policy Plan or Conceptual Design Plan for several communities. Widths of setbacks, sidewalks and roads would be targets at this level. Plans of Subdivision, and Site Plans would be discussed by a single community and/or adjacent community such that finer targets such as water, sewer, light, noise, variances, distances to parks, and traffic targets could be discussed.
[59] What additional factors should be in the Official Plan to assess intensification proposals?
One of the issues that is not addressed is contingency planning by developers when something goes wrong with their development proposal. I have attended several public meetings with developers asking what will happen if my foundation cracks or noise from stationery sources is excessive, etc.. The responses are minimal to say the least. The Official Plan does not give any guidance to the public or developer on what to do should water tables be lowered, or trees destroyed, or if a bad design results in excessive noise from garbage trucks and cars, or sunlight is blocked, or snow clearing becomes a problem, or security becomes a concern. When such problems do arise from a proposal, and members of the public complain about it, the developer can simply ignore the individual and do nothing. The Official Plan should have a section to address various administrative, then legal recourses that a single individual can use to address problems caused by such development proposals.
[60 ]Are the ‘low hanging fruit’ opportunities for intensification used up in the city, leaving only the difficult sites, the contentious locations and as a result, will it be necessary to push the urban area further and further out?
There are many areas in the city that have ample opportunity for intensification. The perceived problem rests with wanting the cheapest land to maximize profits. As the various areas within the urban boundary are more expensive, it cuts into the bottom line and this pushes development further and further out where land is cheaper. Our community owns a 4-acre site in the City and we all share the property taxes for this land. If developers were to propose a good design that blends well with our community, I am sure most in our community would agree to intensification in our area. Unfortunately, the maximization of profit causes significant problems. Developers will tell us they want title to the land first, whereas we say show us your design concept first. This would be a good example of a community that wants to have a say it what is being developed in their neighbourhood, and have actually bought the land to ensure that happens.
[61] To what extent does the Zoning By-law support the Official Plan?
There needs to be a more logical connection between the Official Plan and the Zoning By-laws. I have found that Zoning Amendments occur far too often and developers find ways to avoid any Official Plan amendment with ‘exceptions’ and ‘variances’. As an illustration, I tried to find a policy base in the Official Plan for a Noise and Noise Attenuation Study for a development. The OP wording implies that such studies in meeting the Noise Zoning By-law may be a condition of development approval. It is only when someone at a public meeting raises the noise issue that such conditions become part of the Approval Letter, otherwise no such study will be done. There should be a minimum set of plans and studies explicitly required in the Official Plan so that common problems will be studied. Asking for Groundwater Studies, or Noise Studies, or Landscape Plans after a problem arises is too late, and the ordinary citizen does not have enough experience with development to ask the right questions at the outset.
[62] Should the City create a process for the development proponent to consult with the community on certain types of intensification proposals before it accepts a development application?
The City’s current process already allows for pre-application consultation with the adjacent communities, but I believe developers try their best to avoid it. This is when citizens should raise questions, and where conditions for development approval such as Noise Studies will be added. I have participated in pre-application consultation sessions with developers but there is no way to influence their designs. The developer holds these sessions as ‘information sessions’ with plans that are already far too advanced to make any changes suggested by the community. When the pre-application consultation meeting is held, the developer should provide plan, side and elevation views at the conceptual level so that changes will be more easily accommodated. They should not be discussing site plans at this early stage of the process.
[63] How could this best be done?
If I was a developer, I would not want to spend a lot of time and money on site plans and studies if it is going to be rejected by the community. Therefore, developers should only propose conceptual drawing at Step 1 of the Development Application Review Process. It is at this point the developer will get feedback on the local situation such as traffic problems, or private wells in the area or adjacent Environmentally Sensitive Areas to consider.
[64] How can the City and development proponents clearly demonstrate the potential impacts of a proposal?
Once Step 1 – Pre-Application Consultation and Step 7 – Community Information and Comment Session are completed, the public should have sufficient understanding of the proposal and their impacts. In order to avoid costs for needless studies, there should be a standard set of studies required that state the impacts of the development on key common issues such as noise, traffic, light, sewers, water (and groundwater), air, smells, garbage and security. Following Step 1 the public should be able to check off one or more of these standard studies for a more detail presentation at Step 7. If there are still concerns following Step 7, then City Staff would conduct Step 8 with the developer and the community in preparation for Step 10 – Notice of public meeting. Hopefully all issues will have been resolved by then, but anything that has not been resolved will be presented in detail at this last meeting. It is at this point that City Staff listen to the final arguments on the issues and make their recommendation to committee or council. Any controversy or a letter from a community president should also remove delegated authority from staff, rather than the Councillor. There are situations where Councillors and Developers want quick decisions and delegated authority is an easy way to avoid any community input or objection. The Development Application Review Process becomes meaningless when this happens.
[65] Should the Official Plan be more prescriptive by establishing urban design rules or should we continue to use design objectives?
I believe rules are essential for guidance to developers and community alike, but ideally, the process should bring about compromise solutions through discussion without the need for excessive rules. The Development or Variance Review Process must have a mechanism to resolve such problems. If a church want to expand and the ‘rules’ say a parking lot must be expanded, but neither the church proponent nor the community want an expanded parking lot, then there should be a way to over-rule the rules and standards. Rules cannot become substitutes for not thinking through a design solution. To cater to every eventuality, there will be too many rules and it will become too confusing, and impossible to administer.
[66] We do not yet have a seamless ‘design culture’ at the City that influences and informs both the development approvals process and the City’s own capital works projects. What needs to be done in this regard?
When you hear about developers such as Bill Teron proposing roads through the Ottawa Greenbelt with small villages along the way, you begin to wonder if the City is reactive or proactive regarding future planning of development and capital works. I have stated previously that the City staff needs to act on behalf of the citizens by listening to what they have to say. Despite what influential people such as Rod Bryden, Bruce Firestone or Bill Teron may say about the beauty and culture of Ottawa, they want to make money as their bottom line objective. In her book “Shock Doctrine – The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”, Naomi Klein talks about opportunism by the leaders of industry in a crisis. Beyond 20/20 is definitely not a crisis, but it still is an opportunity for developers and leaders of industry to use these opportunities to propose grandiose ideas that will benefit themselves. The public, on the other hand, does not consider the economic factor of making money their primary objective in community building. The public wants efficiency, convenience, peace and security for their city, and they are actually willing to pay for it. What is missing is that they do not understand the objectives of a proposal and how it fits within the larger plan. The public does not want their taxes dollars used to subsidize or assist developers by funding sewer, water and transportation infrastructure required for their new developments. We have seen plenty of these housing developments and they are not pretty.
[67] How should a developer demonstrate that a proposal achieves Council’s design and compatibility objectives?
The developer must start with the Official Plan and hopefully the Conceptual Design Model for the Future City. Let us assume Canada Lands Company proposes 20 – 28 storey apartment buildings for the surplus federal land in Rockcliffe. Developers will do this so that the community will fight to reduce the number and height of the buildings so that the developer ends up with 10 – 14 storey buildings that they want. Such proposals should not even be attempted in the first place, but they often are in the real world. (eg. Karen Way) When I heard about the NCC proposal for a Metcalfe Mall in early 2000, I wondered how such a proposal even got started. Eventually, a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers agreed with the critics that the NCC proposal would damage too many heritage buildings. Although companies like CLC and organizations such as the NCC say they will follow the City’s development review process, their processes take on a life of their own. For developers to demonstrate that their proposals achieve the City’s design and compatibility objectives, there needs to be a conceptual design with objectives that you can compare the proposal against.
*[68] How do we intensify in a way that enhances the liveability and attractiveness of targeted growth areas?
Using more mixed use zoning designations and better planning of streetscapes can intensify the liveability and attractiveness of designated growth areas. Urban planners seem to think they have the answers to this question, but history indicates that they cannot design liveability and attractiveness into a community. These dimensions can only be a function of the people who will live in the community. Unfortunately, developments can reinforce ghetto areas by only catering to specific income levels and packing units into very small areas without the requisite play areas, pathways, convenience stores, office areas, parking spaces and open spaces.
[69] How do we address the interface between areas targeted for growth (e.g. a Mainstreet) and adjacent stable residential areas?
The answer to this question and a few of the previous questions is ably explained in Jane Jacobs book, “The Death and Life of Great American Cities”. I cannot do justice to her explanation but her description of the interconnections made sense to me. I should be able to walk or travel (in my electric car) to do groceries, play, and work. I would also be able to watch out for my neighbours through better street design. Small park areas, footpaths, shade trees and eyes on the street are very important to harmonize the interfaces between office buildings, stores and apartments. Creating large areas with big box stores runs counter to creating a community philosophy. Such areas become very dangerous, especially at night. Would stacking the big box stores into one tall building be better? Would a tall building with commercial shops on the ground floors, apartments in the next, offices on the next, a school on the next, a church in another, a gymnasium in another and a park on the top make sense to anyone? Should the city adopt vertical zoning categories for buildings in the future?
[70] To what extent is additional control warranted and necessary in order to achieve ‘good’ intensification and facilitate its acceptance in our communities?
I am not very fond of the word ‘control’ when it comes to ‘good’ intensification. Good intensification has to be based on best practices and standards of excellence. The ‘good’ ideas for intensification should not have to be controlled. The ideas should be debated by people with different points of view for a win-win solution. In Canada, we tend to allow a majority opinion to surface that becomes the norm or standard. When these norms are challenged, then the process should be flexible enough to invite debate and to be changed if necessary. Changes should not stopped by a minority opinion. This does not mean building or implementing a project by ‘trial and error’ either, but by gathering opinion and expertise to weigh the impacts of change and choosing an altered course toward the future which is more beneficial to the majority.
*[71] How can intensification be coordinated with the provision of infrastructure capacity, transportation capacity, public open space, community centres, cycling facilities, sidewalks, and so on?
The direct answer to this question is by developing a ‘best of breed’ city strategic, tactical and operational planning process that is easy to understand and has simple elegance in application. If anyone tries to go from point ‘a’ to point ‘b’ without planning, there is a high probability they will end up in trouble. If you have never taken the trip before, the probability is even higher that you will get lost along the way. The city already has an adequate planning process, but it is very complex and difficult to understand. I suggest the process be simplified and made more linear; going from the high level model for the future vision of the region down to the site plans using a clear and unambiguous flow chart. In so doing, the impacts concerning land claims, infrastructure capacity, transportation capacity, public open spaces, community centres, cycling facilities, sidewalks will be addresses at the appropriate step at the appropriate level of planning. The danger with planning is that you can end up constantly measuring and changing the design, but never implementing. Since the city can set a specific number of design reviews before approval is given to implement, it should be possible to only do conceptual, preliminary and final reviews for a development in a targeted intensification area. Coordination with the public should be done at each level as explained previously.
[72] How can the City contribute to enhancing the liveability of neighbourhoods experiencing intensification?
All neighbourhoods can withstand change and intensification, if they can understand what is happening and why through better communication. When people do not know what is happening, or they are excluded from participating in what is happening, that is when problems arise. The City can enhance liveability if its city planners act as agents for the community, providing formal updates and asking for input from the public through the neighbourhood community associations. The planning for intensification is more critical to communication than the actual implementation. Construction is bothersome from a noise, vibration and traffic viewpoint when it is closer than 500 metres so most people are oblivious to any intensification being planned until it starts. Neighbourhoods that are close to areas undergoing intensification need city planners to act as an ombudsman to deal with enhancing liveability issues. Most neighbourhoods have Community Presidents, and keeping them properly informed can enhance liveability. The wards in the City do not reflect the neighbourhoods, so it is difficult to deal with councillors on neighbourhood issues. When problems need to be raised during the intensification period Community Presidents should be able to deal with issues and communication in a timely manner. Adjacent neighbourhoods should also have input on the landscaping plans at the interface of the change. The list of Ottawa neighbourhoods, not wards are listed on Wikipedia for information. 1.Central Ottawa 2. East End 3. South End 4. West End 5. Gloucester 6. Kanata 7. Nepean 8. Cumberland 9. Goulbourn 10. Osgoode 11. Rideau (Marlborough, North Gower) 12. West Carleton (Fitzroy, Torbolton, Huntley)
[73] Can the City better support its strategic efforts to achieve intensification within its practices, processes and regulations?
The city has fairly good practices, processes and regulations to support intensification, but the processes are not there for intensification only. Intensification cannot be an end in itself, especially when the infrastructure or geography cannot support it. The processes should support good strategic planning. It would be nice if everyone could grow forever, but all communities experience a cycle of birth, growth and decline. It is up to the people in the community as well as their elected representatives to ensure that the city’s strategic planning phase identifies areas in decline for some sort of rebirth phase. Currently, strategic efforts do not focus on communities in decline, nor infrastructure in decline; but rather, new communities and new infrastructure. The City could better support its strategic efforts by finding the right balance of resources to deal with both.
[74] Might a greater measure of intensity targets be attainable in new suburban housing developments?
If high intensity targets mean greater housing density, then the model city to look at is Shanghai, China, which probably has the highest density/square foot over the smallest footprint. Houston, Texas has the highest density/square foot with the largest footprint and you need a car to go anywhere. If there is a desire for 75-storey apartment blocks all within a 10 square kilometre radius somewhere need Ottawa, then the City’s Master Plans or Village Plans should include it as a target area for intensification. At this point in time, the idea should be tabled and discussed for the 2050 Future City model. If such a Future City model has higher intensity targets for surrounding suburban areas then there will be less resistance as the 2050 date approaches. If the future vision is clear, people should not balk when plans to get there are tabled for approval. With such a Future City model, developers will know which areas can accommodate their developments and which areas will not. They should study the Neighbourhood Secondary Policy Plan and contact the community leaders with their ideas. By contacting the communities first, a greater measure of intensity may be attained due to better communication, understanding and greater trust.
[75] How can we influence the suburban housing market to respond differently?
The city can influence the suburban housing market to respond differently by providing the parameters for buildings in a given area through the logical use of zoning designations and regulations. If someone wanted to build a plant beside the Ottawa River with a current zoning designation of EW would it get approved and would the zoning be changed? By creating a model of the Future City with public input, the housing market will have no choice but to respond differently. Currently developers seem to have short-term ideas and plans such as Water Parks, Congress Centres or Concert Halls without a clue where they should properly be located in the region.
[76] Should we be rethinking how we build our suburban mainstreets and town centres?
This is a definite yes. I have been to the South Keys Big Box Shopping Mall and I found it necessary to drive from one store to another. On the other hand I have walked along Beechwood in Vanier and Wellington in Hintonburg and found the experience fairly pleasant. This does not mean I want to replicate Beechwood, Wellington or Preston Street everywhere in Ottawa as a ubiquitous town centre. Large shopping centres have their place in the City, but it goes back to what is the most logical use of the land for a given location and area. Can it be accommodated within the 2050 2-D or 3-D model for the Future City and region? At a Public Open House for the Rockcliffe Airbase, someone suggested a Golf Course for that area. Does it make sense? Canada Lands suggested they build a Highstreet and the currently popular “urban village”. Does that make sense? Developers can propose Water Parks and Casinos for Lansdowne Park, but whether or not it makes sense really depend upon the specific Secondary Plan or Conceptual Design Plan for that area. Such future plans rarely exist. If the mainstreets and towncenters in some areas need rethinking, then the City should assist the community by making suggestions for renewal when their area seems to be in a state of decline and needing renewal. Each community should have a capital reserve for their area for such reconstruction projects, but that is a whole other subject for discussion under improvements in Finances and Budgeting. I also noted that Gatineau is attempting to create an “urban village” concept that will offer a school, community centre, park, cultural activities and shops within walking distance of residents living in the suburban Le Plateau neighbourhood in the Aylmer and Hull sectors. Their City officials have identified 17 existing “urban villages” within their city and they have decided that a new community core was needed in the Plateau neighbourhood. Does it make sense? Without the bigger picture showing both sides of the Ottawa River, it may not be a logical location.
[77] Should we be requiring a greater mix of housing types?
The answer to this question is … it depends. In some communities, like Rockcliffe Village, I suspect they prefer their unique type of housing types. It would be difficult to build a “different” type of housing in that area. In other communities they may want more office buildings for jobs, in other communities a mix of housing, or a concert hall. Some may even want a water park. In my view, the War Museum made sense to locate it on the Rockcliffe Base back in the 1990’s, but somehow it ended up on LeBreton Flats. I would suggest that if the model of the city allows for Conceptual Design Plans in a given community, then the community should be given ideas for a variety of possible building alternatives or public facilities that are being suggested by developers. Developers should not propose mixed housing within a community just because that is the flavour of the day, but that seems to be what is happening. Even smaller companies like Domicile or ARK Construction are proposing 4-storey residential condominiums along Montreal Road without the benefit of Secondary Policy Plan for the area. Residents in the area can be left totally unaware that this type of housing is planned for the future rather than commercial, and they have no way of judging whether they should stay or sell to facilitate housing intensification. If we do require a greater mix of housing types it must be planned from the top down. Suddenly putting a 21 residence building on a 1/2 acre lot between 2 single family homes seems to indicate we have an unplanned vision of where we are going regarding housing types.
[78] How can we use intensification to contribute to more interesting urban design, more and different amenities, community resources and greater variety and choice of housing, employment, shopping and leisure opportunities in our suburbs?
I think it was Dr. Suzuki who did a TV series on communities in Europe with a bias toward environmental housing options. His point was that the people in Europe have had a lot more experience with community building than we have had in North America. His program made it obvious that there were hundreds of communities within neighbourhoods and that variety was a key element of keeping these communities vibrant and interesting. Intensification should happen where it makes sense to do so based on what the people in that community want. There are many urban areas across the Ottawa Region that may be ready for intensification, but I think these communities should design their own interesting homes, facilities, and select the type of leisure activities within their area that aligns with the age and character of their community. There will be a natural tendency for seniors to live in one part of town and younger people or students in another. The same is true of large building complexes where age, ethnicity, and income become differentiating factors. Developers can provide new and more interesting intensification ideas to a community for consideration. In the end, it is the residents of that community who must live there, and therefore they should make the choice using the planning tools provided by the City.
Supporting Growth in Ottawa: Water and Sewer Challenges
Jennifer Phillips, Planning, Transit and the Environment Department, 110 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, ON K1P 1J1, 613-580-2424 ext. 27947 jennifer.phillips ( at ) ottawa.ca
[79] Should the City increase its ability to analyse the potential impact of growth on existing water and sewer infrastructure systems in high-pressure growth areas or continue to assess impacts when individual development applications are received?
The City should analyze to what extent the current infrastructure can support future housing developments and resulting population increases. Growth may need to be restricted in certain areas. The City should then analyze the cost and extent of new infrastructure based on a Future City model of the region in 2050.
Thereafter, the City should assess the need for specific additional infrastructure as individual development applications are received and they should charge the developers the full cost of infrastructure additions through a capital project. Following that, the City should designate a portion of the property taxes from the new inhabitants into a special reserve for that community so that upgrades to the infrastructure can be financed at the end of its design life, or for emergencies such as a broken water main. As with condominium fees there is a tendency to keep taxes low, but this is due to faulty economic analysis of infrastructure system deterioration and depreciation.
[80] Should the City ensure that water and sewer infrastructure studies and plans are complete and adequate before land-use or development plans are completed and approved at each planning level (OP, CDP, subdivision plans, etc.)?
Absolutely. This is exactly what should be done by the city. Make sure however, that you do not ask developers for detail in studies and plans at the site plan level or worst at the CDP and OP level when it is just a concept. The detail required should be commensurate with the level of planning required for the conceptual, preliminary and final approvals.
[81] Should the City concentrate more on increasing revenues and finding new sources of revenue or focus on decreasing its costs?
The City should focus equally on revenue and costs. Both factors are very important and essential components of the Income Statement (Revenue – Expenses). Such financial statements should be accurate, fairly detailed so you can identify the cost drivers, and available to the taxpayer for viewing on the web.
[82] Do you support limiting development each year to the level that the City can support through available revenues in its DC reserve funds?
In my answer to question [79], the City should not limit development to those supported through the Development Charge reserve fund. The DC Act appears to be in need of streamlining for ease of interpretation. Basically, Development Charges should cover all capital costs (100%) associated with extending or enhancing roads, transit ways, sewers and wastewater, storm sewers, parks, community centres, and sports facilities due to a development, whether a village, subdivision or site. Opportunities should not be lost for a water park, concert hall or a congress centre due limited DC funds. Either the development pays for the additional infrastructure as part of the total cost, or the development is not approved. Changes to the DC Act are required. Such an idea is not new, as I have heard Jack Diamond, a respected Canadian architect say the same thing about taxpayers subsidizing developers about 3 years ago.
[83] Do you support the investigation of the potential benefits of a utility commission?
I do not support setting up a utility commission as an alternative management strategy or model. Frankly, this would be an unnecessary management cost in my opinion adding another level of bureaucracy. We already have a very complex governance structure and I would only support investigations to streamline the process and improve governance for each service.
[84] How do we ensure that the water and sewer infrastructure is funded and built to adequate levels of service when the communities are intensifying and there are concerns about the impacts of climate change?
When there is intensification through development, the development should pay for the total costs associated with their proposal. Citizens living in the area should have contributed to a reserve for maintenance and upgrade of their infrastructure at the end of its design life. When there is a capital upgrade required, there may be cost savings to retrofit and expand the infrastructure for intensification. In these instances when it is not new infrastructure, the city and the developer would share the overall cost of infrastructure renewal on the ratio of replacement-to-new infrastructure.
[85] Should the City account for intensification by constructing larger infrastructure in its rehabilitation programs without a contribution from DC funding?
The City should not construct additional infrastructure for growth trends or phantom growth scenarios. Standards of service should be applied to the area being developed and if additional infrastructure is required, it should be added at that time, but sized to meet the Future City model. The City taxpayer has contributed to facilities such as the Lynx Stadium as well as the supporting infrastructure. These endeavours have now become a white elephant and a burden to the taxpayer. Not only does the unused infrastructure deteriorate, upgrades are usually necessary at public expense when trying to sell it.
[86] Should developers pay the full cost of specific water and sewer projects required to support their individual developments in intensification areas?
Yes, they should.
[87] If the City were to play a more active role in the monitoring, modelling and protection of groundwater resources would you agree with an increase in taxes or area-based fee to do this?
Any service that is being provided by the city for the ongoing safety, monitoring, security or protection of its people, air, earth, water and nature should be fully funded through taxes and fees by the public. There is a caveat to this statement however. Taxes and other revenue fees collected for a service need to reflect the actual costs and expenses of that service in the City’s annual financial reports. If the cost of a service is considered excessive, then the service should be studied with public input and if necessary phased out or modified.
[88] Should the City plan to provide full municipal services to all or some additional villages to achieve rural growth and intensification?
The City should provide services to additional villages outside the municipality using the same principles as with any developer. The village should pay the full cost of the specific water or sewer projects that are required, then the City would provide maintenance and upgrades with fees or taxes being levied on the property owners that use the service. One financial model for collecting revenue should meet all expansion of service requirements in urban and rural areas. As the city gets more efficient at providing services, and the expenditure reports get more accurate, recommendations to reduce the cost of service can be made based on the actual facts.
[89] Should the City play a more active role in overseeing the management of private wells and septic systems?
Since I live in Ottawa, and we are using well water rather than municipal drinking water, I find this question particularly relevant. I was surprised and astonished to find out that the Provincial Government’s Clean Water Act only applies to municipal drinking water systems and not existing private wells within the City. We have been through two rounds of well pollution caused by nearby construction. In both cases, the Municipal and Provincial staff did not know whether or not ‘private wells and septic systems’ were within their jurisdiction. Eventually, responsibility seemed to rest with the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority who had expertise in the matter, but clarity on responsibility is still vague. I would support through an annual fee or property taxes, a specific service that ensured that aquifers and the quality and quantity of groundwater resources were maintained for all urban and rural citizens. I expect this would include the watershed as well. I would also want to be assured that there was no duplication of this service by both Municipal and Provincial governments and the RVCA. As a client, it would not matter to me if this type of service is more cost effective at the provincial jurisdiction level or the municipal level. I would rather have a service done well at one level of government, rather than poorly in two different levels. Should this indeed become a municipal service, the City needs to introduce a municipal zoning by-law category called ‘well head protection’ area in order to minimize the negative effects of major excavation projects within and adjacent to such a zone. The Clean Water Act would also need to reflect that ‘private’ wells within a municipal boundary are included in the definition of a municipal drinking water system, rather than a private non-municipal drinking water system. The aquifer and groundwater are part of the geography and topology of the City that will need protection in the future for both the plant species and those of us with wells for drinking water.
~~~~~
City Cafe, 24 November 2007
Between 150 and 200 people spent the morning of Saturday, November 24, at Lansdowne Park, attending the City’s first-ever “City Cafe”. The official invitation was by Mayor Larry O’Brien but he was a no-show. Instead, after chief planner Nancy Schepers’ introduction, Councillor Peter Hume spoke, challenging some of the conventional wisdoms about what makes for acceptable urban planning in Ottawa. Then entrepreneur Rod Bryden held a long and rambling speech which had nothing particularly to do with a fresh look at the Official Plan or the White Papers except in so far as it promoted private sector entrepreneurship and his project, Plasco Energy.
Participants then made their way to any of the dozen or so tables in accord with the topics covered in the staff White Papers, where they were confronted with a list of questions loosely based on the matters covered in the papers. A staff facilitator pretty much pushed everyone to deal with the questions and took copious notes. After 25 minutes the cowbell rang and you moved to another table. There was time to visit five tables altogether.
As with the November 3 Rural Workshop, it is difficult to say what it all means. I believe a “What we Heard” report is in the making.
Erwin Dreessen
P.S. Media coverage: Two pieces by Janice Kennedy in The Ottawa Citizen of Sunday November 25, 2007 [not online].
Update: The “As We Heard It” report for this City Cafe is [no longer available online].
The discussion at the French language tables is summarized in one page here: [no longer available online]
~~~~~
What Councillors thought about the White Papers
On November 9, 2007 Planning and Environment Committee members held a facilitated discussion on the White Papers. Here is a summary of their comments: [no longer online].