WITNESS STATEMENT OF PAMELA SWEET - FCIP, …...Ontario Municipal Board Hearing WITNESS STATEMENT OF...

Ontario Municipal Board Hearing

WITNESS STATEMENT OF PAMELA SWEET - FCIP, RPP

City of Ottawa

Official Plan Amendment No. 76

PL 100206

December 3, 2010

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario

OMB File No. PL100206 City of Ottawa

Official Plan Amendment No. 76 Urban Boundary Phase 1 Hearing

December 3, 2010

WITNESS STATEMENT of PAMELA SWEET, FCIP, RPP

A. WITNESS QUALIFICATIONS

1. I am a professional land use planner and Vice-President at FoTenn Consultants Inc., a planning and urban design firm with offices in the City of Ottawa and in the City of Kingston with experience in Eastern Ontario and in other parts of Canada. Prior to my position at FoTenn, I was the Director of Policy and Infrastructure Planning with the former Region of Ottawa- Carleton. I am a Fellow Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (FCIP), and a Registered Professional Planner (RPP) of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. I have over 35 years of planning experience, with expertise in policy analysis and land use planning, and I have been qualified as an expert witness at the Ontario Municipal Board. A copy of my Curriculum Vitae is attached to my Witness Statement as Exhibit 1.

B. RETAINER

2. I was retained in June 2010 by the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association (“GOHBA”) to provide a planning opinion regarding the planning horizons established for residential land uses and other land uses in OPA 76. In the course of my review I considered among other documents, the Planning Act, 1990 Chapter P.13, the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), the City of Ottawa Official Plan, Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) 76 and all documentation related to the OPA process, including but not limited to the Transportation Master Plan (“TMP”) and Infrastructure Master Plan (“IMP”).

C. OPINION ON THE ISSUES BEFORE THE BOARD

3. It is my opinion that the decision by Council to adopt a 15-year supply of land for residential uses in the urban area does not have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest, is not consistent with the PPS, does not conform to the City of Ottawa Official Plan 2003, and does not appropriately reflect other City of Ottawa documents. Further, the decision does not represent good land use planning. My Witness Statement will amplify upon this opinion and upon my opinion that: in the City of Ottawa, a planning horizon of 2031 is appropriate; it is therefore necessary to use this planning horizon of 2031 to determine a land supply for all land uses; and that the decision to add only 230 hectares of land to the City’s urban boundary is not appropriate.


4. This statement is my response to Issues # 1, 2 and 10 before the Board, which ask the

following:

1. Is the decision to adopt a 15-year supply of land for residential uses in the urban area, despite the Official Plan providing "a vision of the future growth of the City and a policy framework to guide its physical development to the year 2031", consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the City of Ottawa Official Plan, and does it represent good planning? If not, what is the appropriate time horizon for the City's urban residential land supply?

2. Does the decision to adopt a 15-year supply of land for residential uses and add 230 hectares of land to the City's urban boundary appropriately reflect other City policy documents; including but not limited to the Transportation Master Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan, Greenspace Master Plan (referenced in Section 1.5 of the Official Plan) and other Growth Management Plans (referenced in Section 1.4 of the Official Plan)?

10. Is the decision to add 230 hectares of land to the City’s urban boundary consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the City’s Official Plan and does it represent good planning?

5. Although I was asked to concentrate on issues 1, 2 and 10, I have reviewed the witness statement of Ms. Wendy Nott and I concur with the opinions expressed in her witness statement as they relate to the other issues before the Board.

6. My opinion on issues 1, 2 and 10 are based upon an analysis of the following topics and

categories:

I. Appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest

II. Consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005)

III. Conformity to Official Plan 2003 and Consistency within Official Plan Amendment 76

IV. Adherence to the Principles of ‘Good Planning’ Related to Planning Horizons

a. Official Plan Review Process

b. Recommendations in Academic Literature

c. Current Practices in Other Canadian Municipalities

d. Past Practices in the Former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton

V. Integration with other City of Ottawa Policy Documents

a. Transportation Master Plan (2008)

b. Infrastructure Master Plan (2009)

c. Other Policy Documents

I will summarize my planning opinion using these categories.


Introduction – The Role of the Official Plan in Land Use Planning

7. For a municipality, the Official Plan is the key document for providing direction on matters of Provincial Interest (as identified in the Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act) and for establishing a community vision and providing land use guidance to achieve that vision over a long term planning horizon. The Official Plan paints a broad picture of what is envisioned and where the community will grow. In my opinion, there are three important questions that form the basis for deciding how and where a community will grow:

a. What is the long term planning horizon for future growth?

b. What is the vision for planning and growth over that planning horizon?

c. What are the projections (population, household and employment) and opportunities

for growth over that planning horizon?

8. Of these, it is my opinion that a) the long term planning horizon has to be established first as a fundamental direction to b) and c).

9. Once answers to these questions a) to c) have been obtained, information can be gathered and analyzed in a comprehensive and integrated manner in order to make final decisions regarding growth and development.

10. OPA 76 amends sections of the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan 2003. However, it does not

amend the vision as articulated by the Guiding Principles outlined in Section 1 of the Official Plan.

11. Throughout this Witness Statement, my opinion on Issues 1, 2 and 10 and the categories of

study presented above will be rooted in these basic facts and opinions as to why we plan and the role of the Official Plan in land use planning processes.

I. APPROPRIATE REGARD TO MATTERS OF PROVINCIAL INTEREST

12. Part 1, Section 2 of the Planning Act states that a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the Municipal Board shall have regard to: m) “the coordination of planning activities and public bodies”.

13. Part 1, Section 3(5) of the Planning Act affirms that the decision of a local board, planning

board or municipal Council “shall be consistent with” policy statements that are in effect and issued under subsection (1).

Opinion/Conclusions:

14. It is my observation that the “coordination of planning activities” includes the coordination of land uses and infrastructure. Land uses in communities range from residential (various forms and densities), employment (commercial and industrial), institutional (schools, hospitals, community centres), open space, agriculture and the natural environment. Infrastructure is the basic physical structures and services that support communities including roads, transit, water/sewer/stormwater pipes, etc. It is my opinion that proper growth management requires that all future land uses and infrastructure be planned and designed in a comprehensive and coordinated fashion. It is my opinion that by establishing a horizon year of 2031 to determine


the land supply for all non-residential land uses and infrastructure, but then only providing for a 15 year land supply for residential uses, municipal staff and council cannot effectively coordinate planning activities.

15. It is my opinion that OPA 76 does not have appropriate regard to “the coordination of

planning activities” required by the Planning Act.

16. It is my opinion that OPA 76 is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (issued under Section 3(1) of the Planning Act).

17. Based on the observation above, it is my opinion that OPA 76 does not have appropriate

regard to the above noted sections of the Planning Act.

II. CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT

18. Below I reference PPS 2005 policies that I have had particular regard to as they relate to the issues addressed in my Witness Statement, however there have been several earlier versions of the PPS that touch on these issues. I will summarize the relevant policies of these earlier versions in the three paragraphs that follow.

19. The Land Use Planning for Housing Policy published by the Ministry of Housing in 1989 was the first Provincial Policy Statement regarding housing. In particular, it focused on accommodating a range of housing types that were appropriate, affordable and made efficient use of existing infrastructure. The Policy Statement called for a minimum 10-year supply of residential land to be maintained at all times within the context of a 20-year time horizon.

20. The Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements (CSPS) was approved by the Province in 1995.

The scope of the CSPS was broader than housing; the policies addressed a wider spectrum of land use matters such as community development, economic development, environmental protection and infrastructure. The CSPS required municipalities to provide sufficient land to accommodate population and employment targets for a planning horizon of 15 – 20 years. The CSPS also carried forward the requirement to maintain at least a 10 year supply of land for residential development.

21. In the PPS (1996/1997), policy 1.1.2 requires that municipalities provide sufficient land for a

broad range of land uses, including housing, for a time horizon up to 20 years. The requirement for a minimum 10 year supply of land (“designated and available”) for housing is carried forward in the PPS. The policies of this statement emphasize the importance of an integrated and comprehensive approach to land use planning.

Provincial Policy Statement 2005

22. Part I (Preamble) – “Provincial plans and municipal official plans provide a framework for comprehensive, integrated and long term planning that supports and integrates the principles of strong communities, a clean and healthy environment and economic growth, for the long term.”

23. Part III (How to Read the PPS) – “A policy-led planning system recognizes and addresses the

complex inter-relationships among environmental, economic and social factors in land use planning. The Provincial Policy Statement supports a comprehensive, integrated and long-term approach to planning, and recognizes linkages among policy areas. The Provincial Policy


Statement is more than a set of individual policies. It is intended to be read in its entirety and the relevant policies are to be applied to each situation. A decision-maker should read all of the relevant policies as if they are specifically cross-referenced with each other. While specific policies sometimes refer to other policies for ease of use, these cross-references do not take away from the need to read the Provincial Policy Statement as a whole.”

24. Part V (Policies) –

a. 1.1.1 (Managing and Directing Land Use…) “Healthy, liveable and safe communities

are sustained by: a) promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term; b) accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment (including industrial, commercial and institutional uses), recreational and open space uses to meet long-term needs; c) avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns; …e) promoting cost-effective development standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs;”.

b. 1.1.2 (Managing and Directing Land Use…) – “Sufficient land shall be made available

through intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, designated growth areas, to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of employment opportunities, housing and other land uses to meet projected needs for a time horizon of up to 20 years. However, where an alternate time period has been established for specific areas of the Province as a result of a provincial planning exercise or a provincial plan, that time frame may be used for municipalities within the area.”

c. Section 1.1.3.8 (Settlement Areas) – “Planning authorities shall establish and

implement phasing policies to ensure the orderly progression of development within designated growth areas and the timely provision of the infrastructure and public services required to meet current and projected needs.”

d. Section 1.1.3.9 (Settlement Areas) – “A planning authority may identify a settlement

area or allow the expansion of a settlement area boundary only at the time of a comprehensive review and only where it has been demonstrated that: “a) sufficient opportunities for growth are not available through intensification, redevelopment and designated growth areas to accommodate the projected needs of the identified planning horizon; and b) the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available are suitable for the development over the long term and protect public health and safety;”.

e. Section 1.2.1 (Coordination) – “A coordinated, integrated and comprehensive

approach should be used when dealing with planning matters within municipalities... including: a) managing and/or promoting growth and development; …; c) infrastructure, public service facilities and waste management systems; …; f) population, housing and employment projections based on regional market areas.”

f. Section 1.2.2 (Coordination) – “Where planning is conducted by an upper-tier

municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with lower-tier municipalities shall: a) identify, coordinate and allocate population, housing and employment projections for lower-tier municipalities […] b) identify areas where growth will be directed, including the identification of nodes and the corridors linking these nodes; c) identify targets for intensification and redevelopment […], including minimum targets


that should be met before expansion of the boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy 1.1.3.9; d) where transit corridors exist or are to be developed, identify density targets for areas adjacent or in proximity to these corridors, including minimum targets that should be met before expansion of the boundaries of settlement areas is permitted in accordance with policy 1.1.3.9…”

g. Section 1.2.3 (Coordination) – “Where there is no upper-tier municipality, planning

authorities shall ensure that policy 1.2.2 is addressed as part of the planning process, and should coordinate these matters with adjacent planning authorities.”

h. Section 1.4.1 (Housing) – “To provide for an appropriate range of housing types and

densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area identified in policy 1.4.3, planning authorities shall: a) maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, lands which are designated and available for residential development;”

i. Section 1.4.3 (Housing) – “Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range

of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area…”

j. Section 1.6.1 (Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities) – “Infrastructure and public

service facilities shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost effective manner to accommodate projected needs. Planning for infrastructure and public service facilities shall be integrated with planning for growth so that these are available to meet current and projected needs.”

k. Section 1.6.5.5 (Transportation Systems) – “Transportation and land use

considerations shall be integrated at all stages of the planning process”.

l. Section 6 (Definitions) – Comprehensive Review: “means a) for the purposes of policies 1.1.3.9 and 1.3.2, an official plan review which is initiated by a planning authority, or an official plan amendment which is initiated or adopted by a planning authority, which: 1. is based on a review of population and growth projections and which reflect projections and allocations by upper-tier municipalities and provincial plans, where applicable; considers alternative directions for growth; and determines how best to accommodate this growth while protecting provincial interests; 2. utilizes opportunities to accommodate projected growth through intensification and redevelopment;…4. is integrated with planning for infrastructure and public service facilities; and 5. considers cross-jurisdictional issues.”

m. Section 6 (Definitions) – Designated and Available: “Designated and available: for the

purposes of policy 1.4.1(a), means lands designated in the official plan for urban residential use. For municipalities where more detailed official plan policies (e.g., secondary plans) are required before development applications can be considered for approval, only lands that have commenced the more detailed planning process are considered to be designated for the purposes of this definition.”

n. Section 6 (Definitions) – Infrastructure: “means physical structures (facilities and

corridors) that form the foundation for development. Infrastructure includes: sewage and water systems, septage treatment systems, waste management systems, electric


power generation and transmission, communications/telecommunications, transit and transportation corridors and facilities, oil and gas pipelines and associated facilities.”

o. Section 6 (Definitions) – Settlement Areas: “means urban areas and rural settlement

areas within municipalities (such as cities, towns, villages and hamlets) that are: a) built up areas where development is concentrated and which have a mix of land uses; and b) lands which have been designated in an official plan for development over the long term planning horizon provided for in policy 1.1.2. In cases where land in designated growth areas is not available, the settlement area may be no larger than the area where development is concentrated.


25. The PPS provides direction to municipalities regarding numerous land uses (e.g. housing, employment, parks, etc) and the provision of infrastructure. A key theme in the PPS is the coordination of land uses and the integration of infrastructure in managing future growth. It is my opinion that decisions regarding future land use and the integration of infrastructure cannot be made in a coordinated or comprehensive manner if residential uses are being planned based on a 15 year land supply and all other land uses and infrastructure are being planned based on a 20-year land supply.

26. Planning horizons are generally based on census years. As a result, it is often not possible to

plan for exactly 20 years (e.g. a plan prepared in 2003 is likely based on 2001 data and may project forward to 2021 or 2026 – resulting in an 18 or 23 year planning horizon). In my opinion, at least 20 years is the most appropriate planning horizon for large and growing municipalities such as the City of Ottawa. As such, OPA 76 should extend to census year 2031.

27. The ‘Consultation’ section of the Staff Report dated October 27, 2007 and entitled “New

Growth Projections for 2006-2031: Adoption of Reference Projection as Basis for Official Plan Review”, states: “Provincial policy restricts the City’s Official Plan to a maximum of 20 years, although the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has allowed the current update to extend to 2031. For that reason, the current effort is concentrated on projections to that point.” City of Ottawa Staff confirmed in this report that this approach of using the 2031 horizon year was accepted by the Province.

28. The PPS requires that sufficient land be made available to accommodate an appropriate

range and mix of uses for a time horizon up to 20 years. In part IV of this Witness Statement, under the heading ‘Recommendations in Academic Literature’, I observe that academic literature generally defines long term planning as 20 years plus. Under the heading ‘Current Practices in other Canadian Municipalities’, I observe that, based on the Official Plans reviewed, the majority of municipalities plan based on a 20 (or more) year planning horizon – particularly the large metropolitan and upper tier municipalities. Under the heading ‘Past Practices in Ottawa and the Former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC)’,it is my observation that historically in the Ottawa region, Official Plans have always and consistently been based on a 20 year planning horizon. Based on my research and findings, it is my opinion that 20 years is the minimum long term planning horizon appropriate for large metropolitan and/or upper tier municipalities such as Ottawa. It is my opinion that shorter planning horizons (e.g. 15 years) may be appropriate in small and/or rural municipalities that do not have significant growth or development pressures and may not be planning for large,


expensive and phased expansions of their infrastructural base. For larger, growing municipalities, a 20 year planning horizon is appropriate.

29. It is my observation that the PPS strives to achieve long term prosperity by managing change

and promoting efficient land use patterns. It is my opinion that to manage change, an appropriate planning horizon should be established as one of the first steps in a comprehensive review process. Land use, land supply and infrastructure needs should then be determined based on that planning horizon. Although the City of Ottawa established a planning horizon of 2031 (Staff Report: Scope and Timing of Review – OP/TMP/IMP, April 2, 2007) and assessed land supply requirements as one of the first steps in their comprehensive review, Council later (at the end of the process– Council June 10, 2009) revised the planning horizon for residential uses in order to control the expansion of the urban boundary. In my opinion, this is an effort to control growth by manipulating the established long term planning horizon instead of managing growth based on the long term planning horizon; this undermines the intent of the PPS with respect to long term planning.

30. Later in my witness statement, I will provide my opinion that the reduced time period and land

supply for residential uses (15 years) will likely result in increased “leap frog” development to surrounding municipalities. It is my opinion that leap frog development generally results in increased demands for infrastructure, inefficient land use patterns and lack of attention to cross-jurisdictional issues.

III. CONFORMITY TO OFFICIAL PLAN 2003 AND CONSISTENCY WITHIN OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 76

31. In the Staff Report entitled “Review of the Official Plan and Infrastructure Master Plan – Preliminary Proposals”, dated April 10, 2008, Staff indicates that the five year official plan review is intended as an update, “not a return to first principles”. In the Oxford Dictionary, ‘first principles’ is defined as “the fundamental concepts or assumptions on which a theory, system, or method is based: I think we have to start again and go right back to first principles”. (Oxford Dictionaries: The World’s Most Trusted Dictionaries, Online). Although the meaning of ‘first principle’ isn’t specified in this context, Staff identifies the following “key issues affecting the scope of the review” in their report dated April 2, 2007: Changes to the Planning Act; Affordability and Sustainability; Intensification and Community Design Plans; Enhancing public engagement; Recent trends related to growth management; Review of the Rapid Transit Expansion Study and Ottawa Rapid Transit Expansion Program; Progress made on implementation of the 2003 Official Plan, TMP and IMP; and Update of the Economic Strategy. The planning horizon is not identified as a matter requiring consideration. In fact, 2031 is identified as the planning horizon upon which the need for additional land will be assessed.

32. With respect to public notification and consultation, the preamble of Section 5.2.3 in Official

Plan 2003 (repeated in the Official Plan as amended by OPA 76) states the following: “The City will use these provisions so as to ensure that notification and consultation regarding these types of amendments and plans occurs early in the review process, rather than relying only on the notice of the public meeting. This notification and consultation, well in advance of the required public meeting, will provide the public and public bodies with sufficient mechanisms and time to provide input and allow opportunities for issue resolution well before decisions are made by City Council. Notification and consultation will be provided in a bilingual environment in a cost-efficient, consistent and effective manner.”


33. Section 1.1 of Official Plan 2003 observes that “Over the next 20 years, the City’s population will push past the one million mark and possibly reach 1.2 million.” With respect to this anticipated growth, Section 1.1 states that: “The Official Plan provides a vision of the future growth of the City and a policy framework to guide its physical development to the year 2021.” The same observation and statement are repeated in the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76. However, the year 2021 is revised to 2031 in order to reflect an updated 20 year planning horizon.

34. In Section 1.1, both Official Plan 2003 and the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76

emphasize that: “The Official Plan is not a tool to limit growth but rather to anticipate change, manage it and maintain options.”

35. Section 1.3 of Official Plan 2003 indicates that “The Official Plan has been prepared within

the broader context of the Ottawa 20/20 initiative, a two-year planning process that will prepare the City to better manage growth and change that it will experience over the next 20 years.” This statement is repeated in the Official Plan, as amended by OPA76.

36. Section 1.3 of Official Plan 2003 sets forth a list of guiding principles, including the

following: “a caring and inclusive city”; “a creative city rich in heritage, unique in identity”; “a green and environmentally sensitive city”; a city of distinct livable communities”; an innovative city where prosperity is shared among all”; “a responsible and responsive city”; and “a healthy and active city”. These guiding principles are reiterated in the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76.

37. Figure 2.2 of Official Plan 2003 illustrates, in table format, City of Ottawa population,

households and employment projections for 1991 – 2021. OPA 76 amends the Official Plan by revising the projections for the 2006 – 2031 planning horizon.

38. In the preamble of Section 2.2.1, Official Plan 2003 states that: “The land within the urban

boundary represents a 20-year supply of urban land. The Provincial Policy Statement requires the City to designate enough land for urban development to meet the demand projected for a time horizon of up to 20 years. Decisions about when and where to extend the boundary have major implications for public spending on infrastructure and have major impacts on the city’s form. Assessing the adequacy of the current supply to meet this demand and the need for additional land requires consideration of several factors, in addition to supply and demand. For instance, the quantity of land required for different uses will depend on the average density of development and the mix of land uses achieved over time.”

39. With the exception of minor wording changes, the aforementioned statement in Section 2.2.1

of Official Plan 2003 was included in the Draft Official Plan, as recommended by Staff and dated May 4th, 2009. With respect to urban land supply, the accompanying Staff Report entitled “Comprehensive Five Year Review of the Official Plan Meeting” (Document 2, Urban Growth Management: Main Assumptions) states that: “After detailed analysis, the Residential Land Strategy concluded that by 2031 there is a shortfall of 6,700 single detached and 1,700 semi-detached dwellings. To address this, a total of 850 hectares (ha) is recommended be added to the urban area. The 850 ha represents an addition of only 2.4% to the designated urban area.”

40. In response to Comment 41 in the Staff Report dated May 4th, 2009 (Document 3, Urban

Growth Management – Response to Submissions, Expansion Areas), which asks: “Why does the Official Plan’s 20-year supply go beyond the provincial requirement to designate a 10-year


supply of land?”, Staff responded that “The 10-year supply of land for housing is the minimum amount of land for residential purposes that must be provided under the PPS. Because the Plan is updated every five years, a minimum 15 years must be provided so that a 10-year supply remains at the end of the five-year period.”

41. John Moser, General Manager of Planning and Growth Management, Lesley Paterson,

Program Manager of Land Use & Natural Systems Policy, and Ian Cross, Program Manager of Research & Forecasting provided a PowerPoint presentation during the May 11th, 2009 joint PEC/ARAC meeting. Following the presentation and in response to a question from Committee members regarding required time horizons, Staff replied as follows: “The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) requires municipalities to plan for at least a 15-year residential land supply and no more than 20 years.”

42. During the May 2009 Joint PEC/ARAC meeting, Councillor Holmes moved the following

motion:

“That Document 1 – Land Use - Section 2 – Strategic Directions – Clause 11 ‘Implementation of Intensification and Density Targets’, subclause (a) be amended by adding: Where the existing zoning provisions are sufficient to meet the intensification and density targets in the time frame defined by this Official Plan, these targets shall not be used as a planning rationale for approving additional height or density in excess of the current zoning. And that Document 1 – Land Use - Section 2 – Strategic Directions – Clause 11 ‘Implementation of Intensification and Density Targets’, subclause (b) be amended by adding: Where community design plans and secondary plans contain sufficient development potential to meet intensification and density targets in the time frame defined by this Official Plan, these plans shall not be altered for the purpose of achieving intensification.”

43. The motion was carried. Council Disposition 68 added this text on June 10th, 2009, however

the text was overlooked by Staff and not included in the June 2009 version of OPA 76. The text was added to the final Official Plan as Ministerial Modifications (# 3 and 4), by municipal request.

44. During the May 2009 Joint PEC/ARAC meeting, Councillor Hume moved the following

motion: “Urban Boundary Expansion Limited to Fernbank Lands”. Of importance regarding this motion are the following:

“…the Province requires that municipalities provide for at least a 10-year supply of urban residential land at all times between five year reviews of the Official Plan, which is interpreted to mean at least a 15-year supply of urban residential land is required at the time of each comprehensive review of the Plan…”;

“…the City of Ottawa has sufficient land within the current urban boundary to provide for: an 18-year supply of single detached and semi-detached housing; a 25-year supply of townhouses; opportunities for apartments for well beyond 25 years…”;

“…the Province allows municipalities to designate land for up to 20 years but does not require that the maximum 20 years be planned for…”.


45. The motion was lost on a division of 7 to 4.

46. During the June 10, 2009 Council Meeting, Councillor Hume moved the same motion (68/7), which was carried on a division of 12 to 11. Councillor Hume moved a follow-up motion (68/8) with instructions to amend the text of OPA 76 to reflect a 15 year forecast/horizon/period for housing and residential uses vs. a 20 year forecast/horizon/period for non-residential land uses. Motion 68/8 was carried.

47. As a result of the Council motions 68/7 and 68/8, the preamble to Section 2.2.1 in the Official

Plan, as amended by OPA 76, reads: “Sufficient land is designated in the Official Plan to meet the demands for a range and mix of employment opportunities and other land uses to meet the projected needs for 20 years. In the case of housing, this Plan designates sufficient land for 15 years”.

48. Section 2.2.1, policy 2 in Official Plan 2003 states that “Sufficient land will be provided in the

urban area to meet the city’s 20-year requirement for housing, employment and other purposes.” This statement was carried over unchanged into the Draft Official Plan, as recommended by Staff and dated May 4th, 2009. As a result of the Council motions 68/7 and 68/8, the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76, reads as follows: “Sufficient land will be provided in the urban area to meet a 15 year forecast for housing and a 20 year forecast for employment and other purposes.”

49. Section 2.2.1, policy 3 in Official Plan 2003 indicates that “Every five years, the City will

undertake a comprehensive review to assess the need to designate additional land to meet its requirements. This assessment will consider such matters as: a) The forecasted demand for land for housing and employment in the 20-year period; b). The current supply of developable land within the urban boundary, its distribution within the city, and its potential to be developed for housing, employment and other purposes; c) The Provincial requirement to maintain a 10-year-year supply of land designated and available for residential development and residential intensification and a three-year supply of residential units with servicing capacity in draft-approved or registered plans; d) The extent to which the existing land supply can meet the 20-year requirement through reconsideration of permitted land uses; e.) The effectiveness of planning policies designed to create a more compact development pattern.” With only minor wording changes, this policy was carried over into the Draft Official Plan, as recommended by Staff and dated May 4th, 2009. As a result of Council motions 68/7 and 68/8, the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76, includes the following changes: “a) The forecasted demand for land for employment in the 20-year period and housing in the 15-year period; […] d) The extent to which the existing land supply can meet the 20-year forecast for employment lands and the 15-year forecast for residential lands…”

50. In Official Plan 2003, as amended by OPA 76, Figure 2.3 establishes density targets for

various areas in the City including the Core Area, Mixed-Use Centres, Town Centres and Arterial Mainstreets. Figure 2.3 indicates the current density of each area identified in people and jobs per gross hectare and then identifies a target for each area at 2031 and in some cases, post 2031. Section 2.2, policy 7 states that “for those locations identified in Figure 2.3, all new development within the boundary of the designation will be required to meet these density targets”.

51. In the Draft Official Plan, as recommended by Staff and dated May 4th, 2009, section 2.2.2,

policy 11 states the following: “In support of the above noted minimum intensification and density targets and for all lands in the target designations: a) The zoning applying to the target


areas will be reviewed and, if necessary, amended to enable achievement of the minimum targets. Any necessary amendments will be carried out in consultation with the neighbourhood involved. b) Community design plans and secondary plans related to the target areas will be prepared or reviewed and, if necessary, amended to enable achievement of the minimum targets. Any necessary amendments will be carried out in consultation with the neighbourhood involved. c) Development applications will be assessed against the minimum targets within the context of all other policies of this Plan.

52. As a result of the motion by Councillor Holmes and resulting Ministerial Modifications 3 and

4, the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76, adds the following text to policies 11 a) and b), respectively: “Where existing zoning provisions are sufficient to meet the intensification and density targets in the time-frame defined by this Official Plan, these targets shall not be used as a planning rationale for approving additional height or density in excess of the current zoning. [Mod 3.] Where community design plans and secondary plans contain sufficient development potential to meet the intensification and density targets in the time-frame defined by this Official Plan, these plans shall not be altered for the purpose of achieving intensification. [Mod 4.]

53. In Official Plan 2003, Section 2.2.3, policy 5 emphasizes that “In all urban communities

outside the Central Area, opportunities will be sought to balance housing and employment opportunities. A ratio of at least 1.3 jobs per household will be reflected in the amount of land designated for employment and residential development within each of the three urban communities outside of the Greenbelt as shown in Figure 2.3.” This policy is carried forward in the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76, in Section 2.2.2, policy 19.

54. In Official Plan 2003, the preamble to Section 2.3 reads as follows: “Land use and infra-

structure issues are strongly inter-related and together form a cornerstone of the City’s growth management program. Of key importance in this respect is the link between land-use patterns and transportation facilities. The provision of transportation infrastructure deeply affects land-use patterns because it brings a new range of destinations “closer” and encourages travel to them. This influences residents’ decisions about where to live and work, and may change where businesses choose to locate within the city. Land-use patterns affect the performance of transportation systems and the travel options realistically available to residents. For instance, low-density, single-use areas cannot support a frequent transit service and thereby encourage private automobile use, while higher-density mixed-use centres provide concentrated destinations that are more easily served by good-quality transit. Likewise, the provision of urban infrastructure – such as drinking water, wastewater disposal and drainage – shapes development patterns by making more intense use of the land base possible. Thus, policies governing the extension and upgrade of infrastructure can provide key levers for managing urban growth. If the city is to grow in an efficient manner and achieve the vision set out in this Plan, it is essential that land use and infrastructure policies be “pulling” in the same direction.” This wording is carried forward in the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76.

55. Section 2.5.1 in Official Plan 2003 states that: “The City’s growth management strategy

includes intensification of development in the urban area over the next 20 years…”. With a minor change to the sentence structure, this sentence was carried over into the Draft Official Plan, as recommended by Staff and dated May 4th, 2009. As a result of Council motions 67/8 and 68/8, the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76, states that “… the City’s growth management strategy includes intensification of development in the urban area over the next 15 to 20 years…”.


56. In Official Plan 2003, Section 2.5.3, policy 1 notes that “The City will recognize that schools form part of the building blocks of any community, not only in providing education to children, but also amenity space and resources to the neighbourhood.” This text was carried over into the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76.

57. In Official Plan 2003, the preamble of Section 2.5.4 states that “Good park and leisure areas

are well-distributed within communities, easily accessible from homes and linked to the Greenspace Network”. This text was carried over into the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76.

58. Section 5.4, policy 1 in Official Plan 2003 states: “The Plan should be read as a whole to

understand its comprehensive and integrative intent as a policy framework for priority-setting and decision making.” This wording is carried over into the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76.


59. It is my observation that the Official Plan review was intended to be an update, not a return to first principles. Staff clearly identified the key issues affecting the review; none of the key issues considered reducing the 20-year planning horizon or land supply. It is my opinion that ‘first principles’ includes the ‘guiding principles’ established as part of the Ottawa 20/20 process as well as other basic tenets such as the 20 year planning horizon. The 20 year planning horizon is truly an underpinning of the plan in the sense that it was used – in the 2003 review and again in the OPA 76 review - as the basis for all analyses related to demography, land supply and the pattern of future development. It is my opinion that the 20-year planning horizon established as part of the 20/20 process and Official Plan 2003 is a’ first principle’ of the Official Plan and that revising it represents a return to first principles, not an update.

60. It is my opinion that Council’s decision to change the residential land supply to 15 years did

not provide stakeholders or the public with an opportunity to consider the implications for managing future growth. Although the City of Ottawa spent 2 years reviewing and updating the Official Plan, there was no opportunity for meaningful input regarding the 15-year land supply for residential uses.

61. It is my opinion that Staff’s responses during the OPA 76 process to questions regarding land

supply policies in the PPS were incorrect. In their responses, Staff treated (i) the requirement to provide sufficient land for all land uses over a time horizon of up to 20 years and (ii) the requirement for a minimum 10 year supply of residential land (interpreted as 15 years with the Official Plan review period) as one policy, concluding that municipalities are to plan for at least a 15-year residential land supply and no more than 20 years. In my opinion, there are two separate requirements. The intent of the PPS requirement for a minimum 10-year supply of residential land (through infill, intensification and lands that are designated and available) is to ensure that the City will not ‘run-out’ of residential land and negatively impact the achievement of a balanced housing supply. The purpose of the separate and additional requirement to provide up to a 20 year supply of land for a range and mix of uses, including residential, is to require municipalities to analyze long term population, housing and employment trends in order to determine how to plan all future growth (land uses, infrastructure, etc.) in a coordinated, appropriate and efficient manner. Once a planning horizon is selected (and in OPA 76, it is to the year 2031), a land supply to meet the projected needs of all land uses for that horizon shall be provided. The intent of each of these two


policies is very different and in my opinion – these differences may not have been adequately explained to the Committee or the public.

62. It is my observation that the main thrust of the policy direction in the Official Plan (2003), as

it relates to strategic directions for managing growth and change, is for an integrated and coordinated approach to land use (e.g. housing, employment, parks, schools, greenspaces, community services, etc.) and infrastructure decisions. This intent is expressed time and time again in Sections 1, 2 and 5 of the Official Plan. Moreover, the Official Plan emerges from the Ottawa 20/20 process, which uses five growth management plans, to achieve an integrated and comprehensive approach for achieving the future vision for Ottawa over a 20 year planning horizon. It is my opinion that by adopting a 15 year supply of land for residential uses versus a 20 year supply of land for non-residential land uses and infrastructure, it is not possible to achieve the integrated and comprehensive decision making sought in the Official Plan. Decisions regarding where to live are directly related to decisions regarding where to work, where to shop, where to go to school and where to recreate.

63. Infrastructure decisions affect, and are affected by land use considerations. The City uses

language such as “strongly inter-related”, “forms a cornerstone” and “the provision of Transportation infrastructure deeply affects land use patterns”. In my opinion, there’s a disconnect with adverse implications of using a time horizon for residential planning that is different than the time horizon for other land uses and infrastructure.

64. It is my observation that as a result of the motion moved by Councillor Holmes regarding

intensification (and resulting Ministerial Modifications 3 and 4), amended policies 11 a) and b) (Section 2.2.2) now state that if the current zoning and/or development potential within an approved CDP or Secondary Plan are sufficient to meet the density targets for that area, the targets cannot be used as a rationale to permit additional height or density on a property. The Official Plan as approved establishes minimum density targets for specific areas which each new development is required to meet. While it is unclear how the amended policies above will be used, in my opinion, the motions seem to establish the minimum targets as maximums, which may be used to support the status quo (no change) and to oppose intensification of properties that may be ideally suited for additional height or density. It is my opinion that Section 2.2.2, policy 11 a) and b) in the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76, contradict the purpose of the density targets established by OPA 76 as well as the policy direction for intensification carried over from Official Plan 2003.

65. It is therefore my opinion that OPA 76 is not in conformity with certain sections of Official

Plan 2003 and that there are inconsistencies within the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76.

IV. ADHERENCE TO THE PRINCIPLES OF ‘GOOD PLANNING’ RELATED TO PLANNING HORIZONS

Official Plan Review Process

66. An important component of good and effective land use planning is a fair and transparent process. The following paragraphs outline the Official Plan review process as it relates to planning horizons and land supply.

Scope and Timing

67. The Official Plan review was initiated on April 2, 2007 with a Staff Report to Planning and Environment Committee (“PEC”), Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (“ARAC”) and


City Council (“Council”) regarding the scope and timing for the review of the Official Plan (“OP”), Transportation Master Plan (“TMP”) and Infrastructure Master Plan (“IMP”).

68. The Staff Report (April 2, 2007) indicated that the review was being initiated in response to

the Planning Act requirement to review the Official Plan every five (5) years. In the Report, Staff stated that the main focus of the review was to ensure that there is sufficient urban land for future housing, employment and greenspace, with an overall goal of a sustainable community.

69. The Staff Report (April 2, 2007) affirmed that the Official Plan review would investigate the

adequacy of employment and residential lands to 2031 and that the updated population projections would permit an evaluation of urban land requirements – to confirm or expand the boundary. The Staff Report was carried by Council (May 23, 2007).

70. Key issues affecting the scope of review were identified as the following in the Staff Report:

changes to the Planning Act; affordability and sustainability; intensification and community design plans (“CDPs”); enhancing public engagement; recent trends related to growth management; the Rapid Transit Expansion Study; and progress made on the implementation of the 2003 IMP and TMP.

Consultation Strategy

71. A Consultation Strategy (dated July 25, 2007) for the OP, TMP and IMP review was presented to PEC and Council in August/September 2007. The four stage strategy involved informing and engaging councillors and the public, proposing policy directions based on the consultations and soliciting input on the Draft OP, TMP and IMP. Throughout the consultations, 2031 was cited as the planning horizon for growth management.

Preliminary Proposals

72. Preliminary proposals for changes to the OP and IMP were put forward in a Report to PEC on April 10, 2008. The Report reiterated that the review was intended as an update, not a return to first principles. The most significant changes were summarized in relation to the following: intensification in the urban area; expansion of the urban boundary; and amount of rural development. In the preliminary proposals it is noted that some additional urban land will be required to meet the requirements of the planning period to 2031.

73. In a letter dated August 14th, 2008, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”)

responded to the City of Ottawa’s Preliminary Proposals Report (dated April 10, 2008). The letter provided the City with comments regarding policy matters of provincial interest. In the letter, MMAH recognized the City’s anticipated growth over the next 20 years (“Recognizing the City’s anticipated growth over the next 20 years…”) and recommended assessing and reviewing (among other things), the province’s policy direction regarding density and employment targets. MMAH did not make any comments to the effect of revisiting or limiting the planning horizon, but rather indicated the urban boundary adjustments proposed to accommodate land uses over a 20 year planning horizon must be justified based on a comprehensive review. MMAH also directed the City of Ottawa to “Places to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe” for direction on efficient growth management. It is notable that the “Places to Grow” plan was based on a 25-year planning period.


Review of OP and IMP

74. In November 2008, Staff put forward a report (dated November 17, 2008) to PEC recommending to Council that Staff table amendments to the Draft Official Plan and Infrastructure Master Plan in January 2009. The report highlighted significant changes to the Official Plan which included: need for additional urban land; need for a post 2031 analysis through the “Choosing Our Future Project”; intensification in the urban area; design and compatibility; rural settlement; and wetlands. Changes to the Official Plan were documented in “Document 1” to the report.

75. With respect to the planning horizon, the Report (November 17, 2008) reiterated that staff’s

analyses were based on the 2031 time horizon approved by Council in 2007. Supporting documentation to the Staff report included the Residential Land Strategy, which revealed a requirement for an additional 850 ha of urban land over the planning period (2031). This need for urban land was highlighted in the Report.

76. With respect to coordination, Staff indicated in the report that the Official Plan provides

direction to the IMP and TMP, which in turn reflect the Official Plan. A theme in this report is the importance of coordinating infrastructure and land use planning.

Draft Official Plan and Infrastructure Master Plan

77. In January 2009, Staff prepared a report entitled “Tabling of Draft Official Plan Amendment (Comprehensive Five Year Review) and Revised Infrastructure Master Plan”, dated January 28, 2009. The report tabled the Draft Official Plan Amendment and Revised Infrastructure Master Plan and was presented at a Joint ARAC and PEC meeting on February 2, 2009. The report recommended that “staff be directed to circulate the proposed amendment to the City of Ottawa Official Plan (Five-year Comprehensive Official Plan Review) as detailed in Document 1 and the revised Infrastructure Master Plan as detailed in Document 2, and to schedule a public meeting for March 31, 2009.”

78. The purpose of the Staff Report was to confirm the process and timeline for the adoption of

the OPA, highlight updates to certain policies and report on matters that were not available for discussion at the November 2008 PEC meeting. The requirement for an additional 850 ha of land to the 2031 planning horizon was reiterated.

Public Meeting for OP and IMP

79. On May 4, 2009, Staff prepared a Report for a Joint PEC and ARAC meeting recommending the adoption of the Official Plan Amendment (including expansion areas) and direction to Staff to forward the amendment, as adopted, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”). In the report, Staff recommended that an additional 850 ha of urban land would be required to meet the estimated demand for single detached and semi-detached dwellings over the planning period (2031). Staff also indicated that “the assumptions concerning intensification and the need for urban expansion have generated the most controversy of all aspects of the Official Plan Review”. Document 2 and 3, which accompany the report, were prepared by Staff to reiterate the key assumptions regarding urban growth and respond to submissions related to growth management and growth projection methodology. In Document 2 of the report, Staff recapped the key facts and assumptions underpinning issues such as “requirement for no urban expansion”. In relation to the option to “leave the projections as is and plan for a slightly shorter time period”, Staff responded as follows: “That would mean instead of a 22-year supply of land for all housing types, the single and semi-detached supply


would be about 18 years. There is an oversupply of land for townhouses, about 25 years, and an even larger supply of apartment potential. A slightly smaller supply of land for single and semi-detached may marginally constrain the market, but an 18-year supply is essentially the same as when the 2003 Plan was adopted. In five years the next OP review will update the supply-demand analysis and make appropriate recommendations.”

80. During the Joint Meeting (May 2009), staff provided the following response to a question

from the Committee: “The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) requires municipalities to plan for at least a 15-year residential land supply and no more than 20 years. Toronto is allowed to plan for 30 years. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) does not have a problem with the City of Ottawa planning up to the year 2031 to coincide with a census year.”

81. During the May 2009 Joint PEC/ARAC meeting, Councillor Hume moved the following

motion: “Urban Boundary Expansion Limited to Fernbank Lands”. Of importance regarding this motion are the following:

“…the Province requires that municipalities provide for at least a 10-year supply of urban residential land at all times between five year reviews of the Official Plan, which is interpreted to mean at least a 15-year supply of urban residential land is required at the time of each comprehensive review of the Plan…”;

“…the City of Ottawa has sufficient land within the current urban boundary to provide for: an 18-year supply of single detached and semi-detached housing; a 25-year supply of townhouses; opportunities for apartments for well beyond 25 years…”;

“…the Province allows municipalities to designate land for up to 20 years but does not require that the maximum 20 years be planned for…”.

82. The motion was lost on a division of 7 to 4.

83. During the June 10, 2009 Council Meeting, Councillor Hume moved the same motion (68/7),

which was carried on a division of 12 to 11. Councillor Hume moved a follow-up motion (68/8) with instructions to amend the text of OPA 76 to reflect a 15 year forecast/horizon/period for housing and residential uses vs. a 20 year forecast/horizon/period for non-residential land uses. Motion 68/8 was carried.

Ministerial Modifications and Decisions

84. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 26 of the Planning Act, Official Plan amendments undertaken as part of a five-year review must be approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. MMAH reviewed Official Plan Amendment No. 76 as adopted by City of Ottawa Council on July 10, 2009 and proposed a number of draft modifications. Staff reviewed the draft modifications and recommend that some be supported, some be supported with further modifications and that some not be supported. Staff also suggested some additional technical revisions.

85. On December 9th, 2009, Council endorsed the proposed modifications to OPA 76 with minor

changes.

86. On December 24, 2009, OPA 76 was approved, as modified by the MMAH.



87. Throughout the five-year Official Plan review, the 2031 planning horizon was used to formulate and update the policies that will guide growth and development in Ottawa over the long term. This horizon was recommended by Staff, recognized by MMAH, approved by City Council in 2007 and then used by City of Ottawa Staff in every aspect of the update to the Official Plan including public consultations, policy formulation and reporting to PEC, ARAC and Council.

88. Based on the documentation included in the joint witness statement of Mr. Lee Parsons and

Ms. Christina Heydorn , MGP and GOHBA worked with Staff throughout the review process from 2007-2009. While many issues were discussed between GOHBA and City Staff (intensification, density, projections, dwelling type propensities, etc.), the planning horizon (2031) was never at issue.

89. It is my opinion that Council contradicted itself, and made a decision that is not consistent

with the PPS, by keeping the 2031 horizon year but changing the 20 year land supply for all land uses to the 15 year land supply for residential lands.

90. To change the planning horizon to 15 years for residential uses at the very end of the process

did not provide stakeholders and the public with an opportunity to consider the implications that this would have on managing future growth particularly as it relates to complete communities, transit and infrastructure. Nor was the change discussed in advance of the public meeting to allow for input and opportunities for issue resolution.

Leapfrog Development in Adjacent Municipalities

91. On October 12, 2007, City Staff prepared a report entitled: “Beyond Ottawa 20/20: Tabling of the Official Plan Review White Papers”. On October 27, 2007, PEC received for information the White Papers. One of the White Papers prepared was entitled “Development in the Greater Ottawa-Gatineau Area”.

92. This White Paper discussed the amount of development (residential and non-residential) in the

municipalities that surround Ottawa on both sides of the Ottawa River that form part of the Greater Ottawa-Gatineau Area and explored the following issues: a) Ottawa as the Greater Area’s Growth Driver – How much does Ottawa’s employment market contribute to the growth of adjacent municipalities? b) How Ottawa’s Policies Impact Development outside the City – Are Ottawa’s tight urban boundary and high development charges contributing to the acceleration of development in adjacent municipalities? c) Use of Ottawa’s Infrastructure by Non-Residents– How much of Ottawa’s infrastructure is used by people who pay property taxes to other municipalities? d) Addressing Growth and Development Across the Greater Area – Should, and can, Ottawa do something to influence the amount of development in adjacent municipalities? With respect to issues a) – d), the White Paper observes the following:

a. “It is fair to say that Ottawa’s employment market contributes, to varying degrees, to

the growth of adjacent municipalities. In many cases it contributes to a great degree.”

b. “It is important to remember that the City of Ottawa has maintained a relatively stable share (two-thirds) of the metropolitan population since 1976 (it has even increased its share slightly).” The report emphasizes that other municipalities have their own growth boundaries, infrastructure constraints and approaches to land use planning. It


also recognizes that adjacent municipalities will always be able to offer development opportunities at prices that Ottawa cannot match – but that there are trade offs for those lower prices (e.g. long commutes).

c. “Roads are probably the most significant piece of infrastructure used by non-

residents.” The White Paper notes that most trips made by those living in adjacent municipalities are by private vehicle and that this will affect Ottawa’s sustainable transportation goals. Nonetheless, the White Paper recognizes that commuters who work in Ottawa are likely to shop in Ottawa’s stores, dine in Ottawa’s restaurants and partake in Ottawa’s cultural and leisure opportunities – which benefits the commercial tax base.

d. “It is important to be aware of the fact that the adjacent municipalities have their own

growth constraints. All municipal Official Plans have growth boundaries, and all municipalities have infrastructure capacity limitations. Therefore, independent of any initiative Ottawa may take to influence the amount of development taking place outside its borders, growth in adjacent municipalities is already under existing frameworks and constraints.” The White Paper notes that: “It would be valuable for Ottawa and for the metropolitan area in general to acquire knowledge of these frameworks and constraints to gain a complete picture of development potential across the entire area.” The White Paper also encourages collaborative discussion with surrounding municipalities, but recognizes that aside from lobbying provincial governments, there is little Ottawa could realistically do to limit growth in adjacent communities.

93. As a follow-up to our review of the White Paper prepared by City of Ottawa staff, FoTenn

conducted a review and analysis of growth management policies in the Official Plans of adjacent municipalities. The objective of the review and analysis was to gain a better understanding of how the growth management policies in adjacent municipalities might affect future growth in Ottawa, and in particular leap frog development from Ottawa to the adjacent municipalities. A copy of the memo prepared by FoTenn and entitled “Growth Management Policies and Planning Horizons in other Municipalities”, is attached to my Witness Statement as Exhibit ‘2’.

94. FoTenn reviewed the growth management policies in the following Official Plans: County of

Prescott and Russell (upper tier) Official Plan; Official Plan of the Urban Area of the City of Clarence-Rockland (lower tier); Lanark Official Plan (upper tier); Carleton Place Official Plan (lower tier); Municipality of North Grenville Official Plan (lower tier); United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Official Plan (upper tier); County of Renfrew Official Plan (upper tier); Gatineau Official Plan (upper tier).

95. FoTenn’s research did result in some findings worth noting and considering in the context of

planning horizons. The findings are as follows:

a. Official plans for many of the surrounding municipalities are based on a 20 year planning horizon for all land uses.

b. Generally in the municipalities studied, the planning horizon was identified as one of

the first steps in the Official Plan review process and the boundary expansion, where necessary, was based on the growth projections for the planning period. In other words, boundary expansions were designed to manage the forecasted growth.


c. Many of the Official Plans recognize that the municipality operates, in part, as a

bedroom community for Ottawa. In some cases, municipalities are striving to capitalize on their proximity to Ottawa as a means to drive growth. For example, Section 2.4 (municipal roles) of the Official Plan for the Urban Area of Clarence Rockland states the following with respect to the municipality’s role: “a dormitory town that offers large, fully serviced lots intended for single detached dwelling houses in the vicinity of the City of Ottawa”. Of further importance, a report prepared by Stantec on behalf of the City of Rockland, entitled “Planning Rationale Report: Urban Boundary Review”, February 2010, states the following with respect to recent rapid growth: “This change came about during the Census period, which gives reason to anticipate that the current and future periods will see even more growth drawn to Clarence-Rockland and Rockland, particularly in consideration of tighter land use controls now being imposed within the City of Ottawa” (Stantec, 2010, p.17).

d. The Official plans for many of the surrounding communities set targets related to

density and/or housing type for future development. Notably, the maximum density permitted in surrounding municipalities is often less than or equivalent to the proposed minimum average density target for developing communities within Ottawa but outside the greenbelt (34 units per net hectare).

96. I have reviewed the Joint Witness Statement of Robert Feldgaier and Peter Norman

highlighting that the City of Ottawa staff’s projections imply a sizeable shift of single-detached housing starts to Ontario Municipalities adjacent to Ottawa (OMATO) with a large increase in persons commuting into Ottawa. With a closer examination of the City of Ottawa projections and the policies in OPA 76 that provide for only a limited expansion of the urban area of the City, this shift outside the City will likely promote lower densities, less compact communities and less efficient use of land, longer commutes and more cars on the road. In my opinion, the City’s policies should be aimed at discouraging, not promoting, these results.

97. As an example of the type of pressures and discussion that take place around infrastructure

required as a result of commuting to areas outside the City of Ottawa boundaries, I note the discussion and decision regarding Ottawa Road 174 (OR 174):

a. Ottawa Road (OR) 174 commences at Highway 417 (known as "the split") and runs

eastwards to the eastern boundary of the City of Ottawa. The road continues east into the City of Clarence-Rockland, where it is known as County Road 17 - a "primary artery" under the control of the County of Prescott-Russell.

b. From Highway 417 to just past Trim Road, OR 174 is a five and then four-lane "city

freeway" which is planned to be expanded to six lanes to Jeanne d'Arc by 2022 (Table 8.4 of the City of Ottawa Transportation Master Plan (TMP) 2008). East of Trim Road, OR 174 is a two-lane urban, and then rural, arterial road, which according to the 2008 TMP is not planned to be expanded. OR 174 was formally under the responsibility of the Province but was downloaded to the City (then the Region of Ottawa-Carleton) in 1997.

c. In December 2009, a Staff Report was prepared which outlined the results of an In-

Service Road Safety Review study for the section of OR 174 which runs between Trim Road and the eastern City boundary. OR 174 continues easterly into the County


of Prescott-Russell as County Road 17. This report went to the City's Transportation Committee on December 2nd, 2009 and to City Council on December 9, 2009.

d. The "background" section of the Staff Report identifies the users of Highway 174 as:

"Since the opening of Highway 417, the road is mainly used by commuters and local residents, with some through traffic coming from the City of Clarence-Rockland and the Masson (Quebec) ferry's users. Also, it crosses Cumberland Village and the growing suburban areas connected to OR 174."

e. With respect to the capacity of OR 174, the report indicates that: "The traffic record

indicates that the Average Daily Volume (AADT) is close to 19,000 vehicles. In theory, a highway facility such as this segment of OR 174 has a capacity to carry 20,000 vehicles. Within the current geometric configuration, this road has limited capacity to absorb any additional traffic."

f. At the December 2nd Transportation Committee meeting, Councillor Jellett stated that

"growth is not occurring within the City of Ottawa, but outside, from neighbouring communities". The Councillor voiced his opinion that a road widening is required for Highway 174 and that the province needs to take back control of the road, a sentiment that the local MPP for the area also supports.

g. Following the exchange of the above noted comments, the Transportation Committee

carried the following motion:

Whereas on April 25, 2008, the City informed the Government of Ontario by letter that it is prepared to provide the necessary authorization to the Province of Ontario or to the United Counties of Prescott and Russell to conduct an Environmental Assessment for the widening of the Highway 174 (Trim Road easterly to Rockland) as agent for the City of Ottawa; and

Whereas the City has not received a response from the Government of Ontario; and

Whereas a safety audit of the Highway identifies areas where widening and other measures could improve the safety of citizens using the road;

Therefore be it resolved that the City once again request the Government of Ontario to conduct an Environmental Assessment on widening the road.

h. At the meeting held on December 9, 2009, Council rejected this second request to the

Province to conduct an Environmental Assessment.

i. Section 3.3.3, Policy 8 of the County of Prescott-Russell Official Plan states: "Council recognizes that growth and development in the west part of the United Counties has resulted in increased pressures on the capacity of County Road 17 to provide a safe and efficient transportation link to the City of Ottawa. The widening of County Road 17 from a two lane arterial to a four lane arterial from the intersection of County Road 8 to the corporate limits of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell at the intersection of Canaan Road is considered to be a priority by County Council. As such a study will be undertaken by the Public Works department to evaluate the feasibility of widening this arterial and until such time as this study is completed no new


development will be permitted which requires direct access to the above noted section of County Road 17."


98. It is my observation that many of the municipalities outside/surrounding Ottawa seek to attract residents that commute to Ottawa for work and other activities. These municipalities also have or intend to provide sufficient land to accommodate a 20-year supply of single and semi-detached housing. I have read the joint witness statement prepared by Robert Feldgaier and Peter Norman and based on the opinions and conclusions in that Witness Statement, it is my opinion that reducing the land supply for residential uses to 15 years will result in increased leapfrogging to surrounding, more affordable municipalities.

99. In their decision to reduce the land supply to 15 years, Council failed to recognize the

potential impact of a reduced supply of land for single and semi-detached units and that this might constrain the market.

100. Instead of providing opportunities for single-detached residential land uses in Ottawa closer

to services, transit and existing infrastructure, the effect of the shifting lower densities to municipalities outside the City of Ottawa will result in less efficient use of land and infrastructure, less compact communities and more commuting by car.

101. It is my observation that the surrounding municipalities offer and encourage residential

development at lower densities than permitted in Ottawa’s urban area. It is my opinion that the densities established by the City of Ottawa will limit choice and variety of housing, which will result in people choosing to move to surrounding municipalities in order to purchase single or semi-detached dwellings with traditional suburban lot sizes.

102. The reduced land supply for residential uses in the City of Ottawa (15 years), the inadequate

land supply for lower density housing and the lower densities permitted in surrounding municipalities will result in increased leap frog development over the planning period. Increased leap frog development will mean amplified pressure for new infrastructure in the City of Ottawa, increased energy use for commuting and less efficient land use patterns.

103. It is my observation that growth outside the City of Ottawa and the resulting commuting from

outlying municipalities has and will continue to have impacts on the City’s infrastructure. An example is the Ottawa Road 174/County Road 17, which is almost at capacity, with commuters from the County of Prescott and Russell and Gatineau contributing significantly to the number of vehicles using the road. The neighbouring County of Prescott-Russell has identified the widening of their section of this road as a priority, however there is a lack of willingness on the part of the City of Ottawa to take steps to widen their section this road (e.g. the need to request an environmental assessment). Leap frog development has and will continue to place demands on Ottawa’s infrastructure capacity. As such, it is my opinion that the City of Ottawa must be careful to avoid policy decisions that will lead to increased leap frog development. The City must also recognize the reality of leap frog development and address it through comprehensive planning.

Recommendations in Academic Literature

104. In Planning Canadian Communities: An Introduction to the Principles Practice and Participants, Fifth Edition (2008), Gerald Hodge and David Gordon state that “The time scale


of the plan is determined by factors relevant to the particular community, such as population and economic growth, the condition of structures, and the need for utilities and amenities. Modifying the existing government, building new facilities, and paying for the public infrastructure all take considerable time. A common time horizon for plans is 20 years…” (pp. 208-209).

105. With respect to planning horizons, Hok-Lin-Leung expresses the following: “Advanced

formulation of policies/plans: this includes a policy framework from which a 20 to 25 year land use plan is developed, which in turn serves as the bases for a set of five to six year land development plans and one year improvement programmes.” (Land Use Planning Made Plain: Second Edition, 2003, p.21)

106. Gerald Hodge defines a comprehensive plan as a 20th-century planning concept. He states

that: “Its underlying premise is that of a long-range plan (possibly for 20 years or more) for the overall physical development of the community, which can be used to guide both public and private development efforts.” (Planning Canadian Communities: Fourth Edition, 2003, p. 139)


107. It is my observation that although academic literature is not conclusive regarding an ideal time horizon for long term planning, recognized planning sources generally identify long term planning as 20 years plus.

Current Practices in Neighbouring Municipalities

108. The Official Plans of several municipalities surrounding Ottawa were reviewed, including the City of Clarence Rockland and the Township of Russell (United Counties of Prescott and Russell), Carleton Place (County of Lanark), North Grenville (County of Leeds and Grenville) and Gatineau. All of the Official Plans reviewed establish a planning horizon of 20 years or more. A copy of the memo prepared by FoTenn and entitled “Growth Management Policies and Planning Horizons in other Municipalities” is attached to my Witness Statement as Exhibit 2.

109. Growth Plans and Upper Tier Official Plans for the various Canadian Metropolitan areas

studied (Greater Golden Horseshoe, Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal) have planning horizons in excess of 20 years.


110. It is my observation that although long term planning horizons vary from municipality to municipality, the most common horizon is 20 years or more. It is my opinion that as one of the country’s largest cities, a horizon (and land supply) of at least 20 years is necessary for effective long term land use and infrastructure planning.

Past Practices in Ottawa and the Former Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC)

111. Prior to amalgamation in 2001, growth in Ottawa was managed by the policies in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. The first RMOC Official Plan, adopted by Council in 1974 and approved in 1976 established a 30 year planning horizon (Section 2.1.1(1)) and based its


long term planning strategy and the Plan “on the assumption that population in the planning area could increase to one million persons in approximately 30 years”.

112. In the Official Plan for the RMOC adopted in 1988, approved by the OMB in September 1989

and amended by Official Plan Amendment 1 in June 1990, the designation of urban land was based on accommodating the households and jobs which may occur by 2011 (21 to 23 years). (Section 1.4)

113. In the 1988 RMOC Official Plan (Section 2.1.2), land was included within the area designated

for urban development to provide for an orderly and competitive land market. Council’s objective (Section 2.2.2.3) was “To designate sufficient land in the urban area to meet projected requirements to 2011, including a surplus to ensure orderly market operation”.

114. The former (and last) RMOC Official Plan, adopted in 1997 and approved by the OMB in

1999, had a planning horizon to 2021. This horizon allowed the Region’s Official Plan to include objectives for regional growth and development over the next 25 years. (Section 1.4)

115. The 1997 RMOC Official Plan also indicated that “The Plan also designates more land for

residential use than is required within the planning horizon. Again, this provision is intended to foster competition and help reduce housing prices”. (Section 2.4)

116. The evolution of the urban boundary from the 1974 RMOC Official Plan to the City of Ottawa

2003 Official Plan is characterized by regular boundary expansions at each Official Plan review. Because of the geographic composition of the urban area, new urban land has historically been added as planned urban communities outside of the Greenbelt.


117. Historically within the Ottawa region, Official Plans have planned for development beyond the twenty year time horizon. The population, household and employment projections were based on at least a twenty year time period. The resulting urban land and residential land requirements were met by designating enough land for the twenty years and beyond.

118. Provision of lands for residential development and infrastructure requirements was based on

this twenty year (or greater) time frame, creating an expectation and sequencing of development that made for a comprehensive and integrated approach for municipal planning.

119. Incremental additions to urban boundaries have been made in the past while still recognizing

the need for compact and complete communities, provision of transit and alternative modes of transportation. Ottawa continues to be a liveable community made up of neighbourhoods inside the Greenbelt with infill and intensification opportunities and three major urban areas with the potential for well planned additions to those urban areas.

V. INTEGRATION WITH OTHER CITY OF OTTAWA POLICY DOCUMENTS

Transportation Master Plan (2008)

120. Chapter 1 of the TMP establishes 2031 as the planning horizon and indicates that planning for transportation infrastructure will be on the basis of the needs of residents and businesses and will “support the development pattern identified in the Official Plan.” No updates have been prepared since the adoption of OPA 76.


121. As established in both Chapter 2.4 and Figure 3.1, the ‘Transportation Vision’ and ‘Future

Travel Patterns” are based on a planning horizon of 2031.

122. Chapter 3.2 iterates the importance of integrating land use and transportation decisions in the following statement: “The Official Plan recognizes that land use and transportation systems strongly influence each other, and emphasizes the development of compact, integrated land uses to encourage a shift from automobile travel to walking, cycling and public transit use. In particular, achievement of a 30% peak hour transit modal split by 2031 will require careful coordination of land use and transportation.”

123. In the Capital Works Plan (Chapter 8.1), the Plan lists planned infrastructure projects to 2031.

124. The PPS (Section 1.6.5.4) promotes a land use pattern, density and mix of uses to minimize

the length and number of vehicle trips and support plans for public transit. The Transportation Master Plan (page iv) encourages compact developments with a mix of use.

Infrastructure Master Plan (2009)

125. Section 1 and 1.3 of the IMP establish a planning horizon of 2031, making reference to the horizon established in the “2009 Official Plan”. No updates have been prepared since the adoption of OPA 76.

Greenspace Master Plan (2006)

126. Like the Transportation and Infrastructure Master Plans, the Greenspace Master Plan was prepared as part of the Ottawa 20/20 initiative. Although it was not approved by Council until 2006, it uses the same planning horizon as the Official Plan and other Master Plans, which at the time was 2021.

127. Section 1.2 of the Greenspace Master Plan iterates that “The City’s Official Plan for land use

is supported by master plans for transportation and piped infrastructure, and calls for development of a master plan to create a blueprint for the city’s greenspaces.”

The Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel (DOTT) Environmental Project Report

128. Section 1.0 of the Environmental Project Report indicates that the purpose of the Report is to assess “the effects of the proposed Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel (DOTT) project on the social, physical and natural environments.” The report was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Environmental Assessment.

129. In section 1.4.1 of the Report, the TMP is recognized as the document that identifies

infrastructure needs to support projected population and employment numbers, using a planning horizon of 2031. As part of the TMP, extensive modeling is used to determine travel demand over the planning horizon.

130. Section 3.3.1 of the Report states that “the model development begins with the City’s

approved population and employment growth projections and the related land use planning principles. Available serviced land, assumptions about in-fill development and the types of development allowed under the Official Plan were used to create a distribution of population and employment. This distribution is then used to forecast City-wide travel demands for 2031.” Figure 3.1 entitled “Major Growth Areas – 2031 Planning Horizon” illustrates the


geographic distribution of the growth in both population and employment levels across the planning regions. The City’s current projections predict a 2031 population of 1,136,000, with employment levels projected to increase to 703,000. The projections are under appeal as part of the OPA 76 appeals.


131. The TMP and IMP were updated based on a planning horizon of 2031, which was the horizon originally identified in the Official Plan for all land uses. These master plans seek to integrate infrastructure and land use planning decisions in order to ensure that infrastructure is planned and implemented in an efficient and sustainable manner. It is my opinion that in absence of locating and providing land for housing and residential uses to 2031, it is not possible to plan for infrastructure in an integrated, efficient or sustainable manner. For example, the DOTT Environmental Report and associated modeling is based on the 2031 planning horizon established in the TMP. However, as a result of the 15 year time horizon established in OPA 76 for residential uses, it is not possible to make assumptions regarding serviced land and the location of all land uses to 2031.

132. The leapfrogging of lower density development to municipalities outside the City of Ottawa

will likely impact on the TMP’s vision for compact communities that minimize vehicle trips and increased use of transit.

133. The Master Plans are often used to inform other studies and policy documents such as

Environmental Assessments. As such, the 2031 planning horizon identified in these master plans is being used as the basis for other plans and studies, which, like the TMP and IMP, will no longer be consistent with the Official Plan.

134. It is my opinion that although the Greenspace Master Plan has not been updated since 2006, it

is intended that this plan be coordinated with the other Master Plans and with the Official Plan. I anticipate that in the next update, the planning horizon for the Greenspace Master Plan will be 2031. It is my observation that the policies of the Greenspace Master Plan strive to coordinate the planning of greenspaces with planning for infrastructure and other land uses. It is my opinion that the proposed supply for residential uses will result in a disconnect with long term green space planning.

D. CONCLUDING OPINION

135. The decision to adopt a 15-year supply of land for residential uses in the urban area will result

in an inability to plan future growth in a comprehensive and integrated manner. For this reason, proposed Official Plan Amendment 76 does not have appropriate regard to certain matters of provincial interest identified in the Planning Act and is inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and is not in conformity with Official Plan 2003.

136. The decision to adopt a 15-year supply of land for residential uses in the urban area does not

represent good planning. The 5 year Official Plan review was identified as an update, not a return to first principles. It is my opinion that the 20 year planning horizon is truly an underpinning of the plan in the sense that it was used – in the 2003 review and again in the OPA 76 review - as the basis for all analysis related to demography, land supply and the pattern of future development.


137. Throughout the five-year Official Plan review, the 2031 planning horizon was used to formulate and update the policies that will guide growth and development in Ottawa over the long term. This horizon was recommended by Staff, recognized by MMAH, approved by City Council in 2007 and then used by the public, the development industry and by the City of Ottawa Staff in every aspect of the update to the Official Plan. It is my opinion that the decision to change the residential land supply to 15 years did not allow an opportunity for meaningful input as the decision was made at the end of the process and that there was no opportunity for stakeholders to consider the implications for managing future growth.

138. Although long term planning horizons vary from municipality to municipality, the most

common horizon is 20 years or more. Twenty-plus years is also the long term planning horizon frequently cited in academic literature. It is my opinion that as one of the country’s largest cities, a horizon (and land supply) of at least 20 years is necessary for effective long term land use and infrastructure planning.

139. The majority of surrounding municipalities have or intend to provide a 20 year supply of land

to accommodate all land uses. It is my understanding, based on the opinions and conclusions in the joint witness statements prepared by Robert Feldgaier and Peter Norman and by Christina Heydorn and Lee Parsons, that reducing the land supply for residential uses to 15 years will result in a significant lack of opportunity for low density dwellings within the City of Ottawa. Constraining the land supply may have negative impacts on affordability within the City of Ottawa and may result in increased leapfrogging to surrounding, more affordable municipalities. Increased leapfrogging will amplify pressure for new infrastructure, increase energy use for community and result in less efficient land use patterns, all of which are inconsistent with the PPS.

140. The supporting Master Plans (e.g. TMP, IMP GBMP) and other policy documents rooted in

the master plans are based on a planning horizon of 2031. The Master Plans and other supporting policy plans are intended to support and function in an integrated manner with the Official Plan. It is my opinion that by adopting a 15-year land supply for residential uses, these supporting master plans and policy documents become disconnected from the Official Plan for the purpose of long term planning.

141. On the basis of all evidence provided, it is my opinion that the decision by Council to adopt a

15-year supply of land for residential uses in the urban area does not have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest in the Planning Act, is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), does not conform to the City of Ottawa Official Plan 2003, does not appropriately reflect other City of Ottawa documents and does not represent good planning. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the decision to add only 230 hectares of land to the City’s urban boundary is not consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, is not in conformity with the Official Plan and does not represent good planning. In my opinion, a planning horizon and land supply (for all land uses) to 2031 is appropriate.


E. RECOMMENDATION

142. I recommend that OPA 76 be modified to address the issues raised and the opinions expressed in this witness statement. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, I will work with Ms. Wendy Nott to provide a list of proposed modifications to OPA 76.

December 3, 2010

Pamela Sweet, FCIP, RPP Date Vice-President FoTenn Consultants Inc.


REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

In addition to City publications, reports and dispositions, below is a list of reports and documents reviewed in preparing this witness statement.

1) Mercier, Pierre (Stantec). February 2010. Rockland Urban Area Expansion

Planning Rationale Report.

2) Hodge, Gerald and Gordon, David. 2008. Planning Canadian Communities: An Introduction to the Principles Practice and Participants, Fifth Edition

3) Leung, Hok-Lin. 2003. Land Use Planning Made Plain: Second Edition

4) Hodge, Gerald. 2003. Planning Canadian Communities: Fourth Edition.

5) Oxford Dictionaries: The World’s Most Trusted Dictionaries, Online. November

2010. http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0298600#m_en_gb0298600

EXHIBIT 1

Curriculum Vitae for Pamela Sweet

FoTenn Consultants Inc. - 223 McLeod Street - Ottawa, Ontario - K2P 0Z8

PAMELA SWEET

Curriculum Vitae

EXPERIENCE

FOTENN CONSULTANTS INC, OTTAWA January 2001- Present

FoTenn Consultants Inc., Vice President and Principal

Involved in a wide range of planning matters, policy preparation, project management, development approvals, environmental assessments, transportation and strategic planning. Experienced group facilitator. Responsible for the preparation and coordination of public policy documents, research and planning analysis for private and public sector clients, with special emphasis on sustainable communities planning. Responsible for public engagement and consultation. Involved in the administration and management of the Company. Qualified expert witness at the Ontario Municipal Board and the Court of Appeal. REGION OF OTTAWA-CARLETON (1989 – 2000)

Director, Policy and Infrastructure Planning 1996- 2000

Planning and Development Approvals Department

Responsible for the leadership of a group of approximately 34 planners, engineers and support staff with a budget of $2.0m Operating and $42m Capital. Responsible for the preparation, monitoring and implementation of the Region’s Official Plan, Transportation Master Plan and

Water and Wastewater Master Plans. The division was responsible for Environmental Assessments for new infrastructure, long range planning, projections, transportation modeling and research. Reorganized Department as part of the Corporate Review of Services and was Project Co-ordinator for the light rail pilot project, which was approved by Council in 1999.

Director, Policy Division 1989 - 1996

Planning and Development Approvals Department

Directed and co-ordinated the activities of the Policy Division which was responsible for keeping the Official Plan current, conducting studies on the physical, social and economic conditions in the Region, developing policy towards land and housing and its development, and recommending programs to implement policies. Headed a major Official Plan Review (1994-1997) that integrated the Transportation and Water and Wastewater Master Plans with the Official Plan.

Co-ordinator, Regional Strategic Planning Project Team 1995 - 1996

Under the direction of the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Planning, was responsible for the preparation of a Corporate Strategic Plan, which included a major “Visioning” process. Produced the Community Vision (1996) that guided Council for four years.

FoTenn Consultants Inc. - 223 McLeod Street - Ottawa, Ontario - K2P 0Z8

CITY OF CUMBERLAND (Formerly Township of Cumberland) 1980 - 1989

Director of Planning

Progressively responsible for the functions of the Planning Department including preparation of reports for Planning Advisory Committee and Council. Oversaw the approval process for development applications. Prepared Zoning By-laws, and Official Plans and Amendments. Supervised planning staff of 4 to 5 plus consultants. Acted as a witness before the Ontario Municipal Board. Prepared the Rural and Urban Official Plans and a major development plan for Orleans. CITY OF GLOUCESTER (Formerly Township of Gloucester) 1978 - 1980

Intermediate Planner III

Duties included preparation of long range planning reports including the Township Official Plan, Population and Employment statistics and general planning reports for Council.

ONTARIO MINISTRY OF HOUSING 1974 - 1978

Community Planner III

Community Planning Advisory Branch and Policy Co-ordination Group

In Ottawa, duties included providing advice and technical assistance on planning procedures and ministerial policies to municipalities in Eastern Ontario. While in Toronto worked for the Assistant Deputy Minister.

EDUCATION

Harvard University, John F. Kennedy Program for Senior Executives in the School of Government State and Local Governments

1994

Queens University Master of Urban and Regional Planning 1978

Carleton University Honours B.A. Geography 1972

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS / CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMUNITY

• Registered Professional Planner (RPP), Ontario Professional Planning Institute.

• Canadian Institute of Planners - Fellow (FCIP)

• Conference Chair and Co-Chair of National CIP conferences 1982 and 2001

• President of Canadian Institute of Planners, 1984-85 and ongoing contributions to CIP/OPPI

• Member of Lambda Alpha International

• Board of Directors, Ottawa Macdonald Cartier International Airport Authority, 2001-10

• Trustee Ottawa Library Board, 2004-10

SPECIAL DISTINCTIONS

• Awarded Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Planners, 2001

• Rideau District High School Hall of Fame, 2009

• Queens University Alumni Achievement Award, 2010

EXHIBIT 2

Memo – Growth Management Policies and Planning Horizons in other Municipalities

MEMORANDUM

Page 1 of 5

DATE: December 1st 2010

FROM: Pamela Sweet, FoTenn Consultants Inc.

SUBJECT: Growth Management Policies and Planning Horizons in other Municipalities

‐ In support of Pamela Sweet’s Witness Statement‐

FoTenn has reviewed the Official Plans for a variety of municipalities in order to understand how planning horizons and growth management policies in other municipalities compare with those in the City of Ottawa Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76. This memo presents a review of the following: 1) Growth management policies for residential development in the Official Plans for municipalities surrounding Ottawa; and 2) Planning horizons for select municipalities across Canada. 1. GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES

To understand how land use policies in the City of Ottawa relate to growth management policies in surrounding municipalities, FoTenn compared the relevant sections of the Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76, with the relevant sections of the Official Plans for six (6) surrounding municipalities. The main focus of the review was the following: land available for residential development; density targets – overall and by dwelling type; and servicing constraints.

Policies and Documents Reviewed

FoTenn reviewed the following documents:

1. City of Ottawa’s White Paper: Development in the Greater Ottawa‐Gatineau Area.

2. Policies in Section 2 and 3 of the Official Plan as amended by OPA 76.

3. Policies in the Official Plans of the following municipalities:

• United Counties of Prescott and Russell:

o United Counties of Prescott and Russell Official Plan, Council adopted May 23rd 2006

o Official Plan of the Urban Area of the City of Clarence‐Rockland, Council adopted October 2004

• United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry

o Official Plan for the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, adopted by Council July 18, 2005, approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing August 18, 2006, consolidated January 15th, 2009

of 5

• County of Renfrew

o County of Renfrew Official Plan, adopted by County Council March 27, 2002, approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing June 16, 2003, consolidated January 2009

• Municipality of North Grenville

o Municipality of North Grenville Official Plan, adopted by Council May 11, 2009, approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing August 20, 2009, Order by OMB, February 19, 2010

• Ville de Gatineau

o Schéma d’aménagement et de développement (Upper tier Official Plan), adopted October 1999

• Town of Carleton Place

o Official Plan on the Town of Carleton Place, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved April 19th 2005

Key Findings

• Although the Official Plans for surrounding municipalities target certain densities, they do not require that a certain percentage of growth occur through intensification or infill in order to permit the expansion of the urban boundary. Rather, the municipalities generally plan for an urban land supply to meet the projected needs over the planning horizon – based on market demand.

• The minimum average density target for developing communities outside of Ottawa’s greenbelt is 34 units per net hectare (du/nh). This minimum average density is higher than the maximum density permitted in many of the surrounding municipalities.

• Based on the Official Plans reviewed, it does not appear that significant servicing constraints exist for the municipalities surrounding Ottawa, contrary to the City of Ottawa’s assumption in their White Paper. The Municipality of North Grenville notes that existing infrastructure is not sufficient to accommodate growth over the 20 year planning horizon – but does not specify whether there is a constraint to providing the future capacity required.

• The Official Plans for many of the surrounding municipalities studied predict that the municipality will experience increased growth as a result of its strategic location (in close proximity to Ottawa). Some of the municipalities identify themselves as bedroom communities for Ottawa. The following Official Plan extracts exemplify this statement:

of 5

o Town of Carleton Place

‐ "A significant portion of the labour force commutes into the City of Ottawa on a daily basis for employment due to the close proximity of Carleton Place to Ottawa." (Section 1.3.2).

‐ "Transportation efforts should be focused on developing commuter services to Ottawa…" (Town of Carleton Place Strategic Plan 2007, section 2.6).

‐ “Relative to Ottawa, the price of housing in Carleton Place is low. Resale units are at least $48,115 less than the same unit in Ottawa” (Town of Carleton Place, Community Situational Analysis, January 2007).

o County of Renfrew

‐ “Development of New Infrastructure – The further expansion of Highway 417 from Ottawa into the County will provide the impetus needed for new private/public sector commercial, tourism and industrial developments as well as encourage expansion and investment within existing business.” (Section 1.4)

o Municipality of North Grenville

‐ “The Municipality is strategically located twenty (20) minutes from the Nation's Capital, Ottawa, the international airport and the border with the United States at Ogdensburg, New York.” (Section 2.0)

o United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry

‐ “The United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry enjoys a strategic location in eastern Ontario. It lies within commuting distance of Ottawa, Gatineau, Montreal and Cornwall, with a combined market area of over 3 million people. The most significant rail, highway and water transportation corridors in Canada pass through its borders.” (Section 1.01)

o United Counties of Prescott and Russell

‐ “The roles of Rockland have evolved since the last Official Plan from a regional centre, a manufacturing town and a dormitory town to the following: (....) c) a dormitory town that offers large, fully serviced lots intended for single detached dwelling houses in the vicinity of the City of Ottawa.” (Section 2.4)

o Ville de Gatineau

‐ «position concurrentielle par rapport aux possibilités de développement du territoire de la Ville d’Ottawa » (a competitive position in regards to development potential in the City of Ottawa) (Schéma d’aménagement et de développement, Section 5.1).

2. PLANNING HORIZONS

The planning horizons for select municipalities surrounding the City of Ottawa were reviewed because the planning horizons and land supply in neighbouring municipalities has a direct impact on growth and growth management in the City of Ottawa. This review was extended to other metropolitan areas in Canada. Because some large Canadian cities are experiencing significant growth and growth pressures,

of 5

it was decided that it would be valuable to explore how these cities are managing long term land use planning. Key findings

• Of the Official Plans reviewed, it is observed that the City of Ottawa’s Official Plan, as amended by OPA 76, is the only municipality that establishes a different (and reduced) land supply/ planning horizon for residential uses.

• Metropolitan areas in Canada generally base their long term planning on a horizon of at least 20 years. Metropolitan Vancouver plans for a 30 year period; this planning horizon covers a longer period than the 20 years mandated under the British Columbia Local Government Act (Part 25, policy 850);

• A majority of the municipalities surrounding Ottawa base their Official Plans on a planning horizon of 20 years.

The following tables are provided:

• Table 1 – Planning Horizons for Municipalities Surrounding Ottawa

• Table 2 – Planning Horizons for Select Canadian Metropolitan Areas

of 5

Table 1 ‐ Planning Horizons for Municipalities Surrounding Ottawa

United Counties of Prescott and Russell Town of Carleton Place Official Plan, approved by MMAH in April 2005

Municipality of North Grenville Official Plan, adopted by Council May 11, 2009, approved by MMAH August 20, 2009, Order by OMB, February 19, 2010

Gatineau Schéma d’aménagement et de développement, adopted October 1999 (Upper tier)

United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Official Plan, adopted by Council, July 18, 2005, approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing August 18, 2006, consolidated January 15th, 2009

County of Renfrew Official Plan, adopted by County Council, March 27, 2002, approved by the MMAH, June 16, 2003, consolidated January 2009

United Counties of Prescott and Russell Official Plan, Council adopted May 23rd 2006 (Upper tier)

Official Plan of the Urban Area of the City of Clarence‐Rockland, Council adopted, October 2004 (Lower tier)

20 year planning horizon (2006‐2026) (Section 1.3)


20 year planning horizon (Section 1.5.1)

20 year planning horizon (Section 2.4)

25 year planning horizon(2000‐2025) (Section 5.1)


13 year planning horizon(2002‐2015) (Section 1.3)

Table 2 – Planning Horizons for Canadian Metropolitan Areas

Greater Golden Horseshoe Metro Vancouver Calgary Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal Upper tier Lower tier Upper tier Lower tierGrowth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, approved and to take effect June 16 2006

City of Toronto Official Plan, OMB approved on July 6, 2006, Consolidated May 2009

Draft Regional Growth Strategy, September 3rd 2010

Metropolitan Plan, approved by General assembly in June, 2009

Municipal Development Plan, adopted by Council in September 2009, Office consolidation April 2010

Schéma d’aménagement et de développement, adopted in March 2005

Plan d’urbanisme, November 2004


30 year planning horizon (Section 1.1)

30 year planning horizon ‐ 2040, with specific growth targets for 2021, 2031, 2041 (Appendix A)

60 year planning horizon (p. 2)

60‐70 year planning horizon ‐ 30 year plan for managing growth and change (Section 1.1)

20 year planning horizon, to 2025 (Section 3.3)

10 year planning horizon (p. 2)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF PAMELA SWEET - FCIP, …...Ontario Municipal Board Hearing WITNESS STATEMENT OF...

Documents

Transcript of WITNESS STATEMENT OF PAMELA SWEET - FCIP, …...Ontario Municipal Board Hearing WITNESS STATEMENT OF...