Ontario Municipal Board Hearing WITNESS …...Ontario Municipal Board Hearing WITNESS STATEMENT of...

Ontario Municipal Board Hearing

WITNESS STATEMENT of Wendy Nott, FCIP, RPP City of Ottawa Official Plan Amendment No. 76

PL 100206 December 3, 2010

WITNESS STATEMENT of

WENDY NOTT, FCIP, RPP

CITY OF OTTAWA OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 76

OMB CASE NO. PL 100206 Table of Contents

A. Introduction Page 1

B. Background

C. List of Issues to be Addressed Page 2

D. Summary of Conclusions Page 3

E. Context for My Opinion Page 5

F. Response to Issues Page 12

G. Recommendations to the Ontario Municipal Board Page 37

December 3, 2010 Page 1

WITNESS STATEMENT

of WENDY NOTT, FCIP, RPP

CITY OF OTTAWA

OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 76 OMB CASE NO. PL 100206

A Introduction

1. I am a Senior Principal of Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited with over thirty years

experience as a consulting land use planner. My experience includes, among other matters,

work on behalf of both private and public sector clients in the preparation of comprehensive

Official Plans/Official Plan reviews, preparation of Secondary Plans, community master plans,

urban design guidelines and plans of subdivision.

I am a Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Planners and a Registered Professional Planner and

my curriculum vitae is attached to this Witness Statement as Appendix ‘A’.

2. Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited was retained by Taggart in March 2010 to assess

the appropriateness of the land use policy framework and land use designations proposed

within City of Ottawa Official Plan Amendment No. 76 (‘OPA76’) as adopted by Council on

June 24, 2009.

3. Where reports, documents and correspondence, minutes etc. are referenced in this Witness

Statement, they will be contained in a consolidated Document Book which will contain

materials to be used by all witnesses appearing on behalf of the City of Ottawa and the

appellants at the hearing and I may refer to all documents contained therein.

4. I will also provide planning evidence as is necessary to provide context to my evidence and the

witness statements of other consultants representing the appellants at the hearing.

5. My opinion is derived from and relies on the analysis, conclusions and recommendations of

other professionals including those of Altus Group Economic Consulting (‘Altus’), Malone

Given Parsons Ltd. (‘MGP’) and FoTenn Consultants Inc. (‘FoTenn’) who are retained by

Taggart and/or GOHBA.


6. My testimony will also rely on all documents referred to herein including, but not limited to,

Official Plan Amendment No. 76, its attachments and related staff reports, background studies

and Committee/Council discussions and dispositions. The documents to which I may refer in

my evidence will be contained within a consolidated Document Book.

B Background

7. As necessary, I may provide factual background information regarding the preparation and

adoption of OPA 76, if this information has not previously been provided through the witness

statements or evidence of the City of Ottawa and/or the witness statements or evidence of

experts appearing on behalf of GOHBA and Taggart.

C List of Issues to Be Addressed Pursuant to the Issues List, my evidence will address the following issues:

Issue 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?

Issue 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)?

Issue 6 Are the proposed housing mix and minimum density provisions within OPA 76 for

residential development within the urban boundary appropriate and reasonable to accommodate the

projected growth?


Issue 7 Are the proposed intensification and (intensification) density targets within OPA 76

appropriate and consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement?

Issue 8 Is the proposed requirement in policy 3E in Section 2.2.1 that "an urban expansion will

only be considered if the intensification target of this plan has been met" consistent with the 2005

Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with other policies in the City of Ottawa Official Plan, and

does it represent good planning?

Issue 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?

Issue 11 Does OPA 76 add sufficient land within the City of Ottawa's Urban Area to meet

projected residential/housing needs for the City and, if not, how much land should be added to the

Urban Area to meet projected residential/housing needs?

D Summary of Conclusions

8. The overall conclusions are provided below and are discussed in further detail in the balance

of this Witness Statement:

• Adopting a 2031 planning horizon and 15-year land supply for residential uses, in

contrast with a 2031 planning horizon and 20-year land supply for all other land uses

(and related Infrastructure, Transportation and other related Master Plans) is not

consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement and with matters of Provincial

interest and does not conform with the City’s existing Official Plan.

• Adopting a 15-year land supply for residential uses does not represent coordinated,

integrated and comprehensive planning and as such, there will be consequential

effects on related matters such as economic development, employment growth,

housing affordability, infrastructure planning and implementation, capital budgets, and

so on.

• There are at least two inter-related concerns arising from the limitation on a residential

land supply to 15 years, while contemplating 20 years of land supply for all other uses,


both of which impact on the municipality’s ability to achieve an integrated, coordinated

and comprehensive approach to planning:

o The quantum of residential land requirements would be different (i.e. greater) if a consistent 20-year residential land supply were applied: and,

o The geographic distribution of these residential land requirements may be different as the methodology to determine the urban boundary expansions may have been framed or applied in another way when considering a larger quantum of residential land supply to be achieved.

The geographic distribution of the residential land requirements will be the subject of

a subsequent phase of this hearing; however, the quantum of the land requirements

will affect the subsequent distribution.

• Based on the analysis undertaken by Altus, the City’s projections understate the overall

housing requirements, leading to a further understating of the need for additional

residential lands.

• Based on the analyses prepared by Altus and MGP, the City’s projections of housing

requirements by type also do not appropriately reflect the housing propensities of its

future residents and that creates a further deficit of (specifically) low density residential

lands.

• A number of the proposed policies contained within OPA 76, as adopted, will further

constrain the ability to achieve an appropriate residential land supply within the

planning horizon of the Official Plan.


E Context for My Opinion The following provides a summary of the matters considered at arriving at my overall

conclusions.

E.1 Ottawa’s Historic Context for Long-Term Planning in Ottawa

9. I have reviewed Ms. Sweet’s (FoTenn) witness statement in regard to the history of planning in

the (current) City of Ottawa and may refer to this information in my testimony.

10. The in-force Ottawa Official Plan was the first Official Plan prepared for the City of Ottawa as

amalgamated in 2001. Its preparation commenced in 2001 with the Ottawa 20/20 consultation

and the Official Plan was one of five growth management plans (e.g. Transportation,

Infrastructure, Human Services and Talent) that were intended to “… set out the City's blue

print for where we want to be in 20 years, and how to get there.”

11. As the amalgamated City’s first Official Plan it was based on a clearly-stated 20-year planning

horizon and growth projections to 2021 were provided. The Official Plan’s final approval was

secured by the Province in 2003.

12. The 2003 Official Plan did not propose any significant urban boundary expansions and the only

urban boundary expansion that occurred between 2003 and the commencement of the current

Official Plan review (culminating in OPA 76) was the inclusion of approximately 450 hectares of

land between Kanata South, Kanata West and Stittsville (which was the result of a 2005 OMB

decision).

E.2 The Role of an Official Plan

13. As most simply described, an Official Plan is a document that sets out the “What” and “Where”

of a municipality’s future physical form. In principle, it provides a future view of “what” a

municipality’s anticipated growth will be and “where” it should be accommodated. Determining

the physical change that is to be expected then permits a municipality to consider the many

inter-related social, economic and environmental factors which influence, and are influenced

by, the quantitative and geographic distribution of the projected physical growth.

14. An Official Plan is not a statute and therefore is not to be applied in a regulatory or narrow

fashion but it is a statement of municipal policy as to ‘what’ future growth is expected and

‘where’ such growth should be directed and accommodated physically, having regard to the

above-noted matters.


15. Section 1.1 of the Official Plan (as proposed to be amended by OPA 76) states:

“This Plan sets a policy framework for managing growth in ways that will reinforce the qualities of the city that are most valued by its residents: its distinctly liveable communities, its green and open character, and the landmarks and landforms that distinguish Ottawa from all other places.”

16. Section 1.1 further states:

“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 2031. It is a legal document that addresses matters of provincial interest defined by the Provincial Policy Statement under the Ontario Planning Act “.

This statement of what the Official Plan is intended to do is consistent with the ‘what’ and

‘where’ purposes of an Official Plan and is also indicative that the Plan is intended to address

and implement matters of Provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act and the

Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’).

17. In order to determine the ‘what’, a municipality must establish a planning horizon. Once the

planning horizon is established, a quantification of the amount of growth (of all types) that may

need to be accommodated over the assumed planning horizon would be undertaken.

Therefore, the preparation of growth projections (as established in Figure 2.2 of the Ottawa

Official Plan) is an important component of an Official Plan, once a planning horizon has been

established.

18. At the outset of its Official Plan Review process, the City undertook such projections and

arrived at population, households and employment forecasts to the year 2031. It is clear from

all relevant staff reports that the planning period was to comprise at least 20 years and the

planning horizon was to be 2031 and that (Staff report: May 2007):

“The Official Plan review will investigate the adequacy of both employment and residential lands to around 2031.”

Further, that the Official Plan review would

“Evaluate options for urban growth against criteria including infrastructure and transportation costs, environmental impacts, range of housing choices and other criteria for the 20-year planning period and beyond.”

This principle of a 2031 planning horizon was consistently referenced by staff up to and

including the June 2009 report which provided the final recommendations for amending the

2003 Official Plan.


19. As currently approved, Figure 2.2 provides growth projections to 2021 and these are proposed

to be revised to a 2031 planning horizon through OPA 76. These growth projections were

approved by Ottawa Council early in the Official Plan review process (November 2007) and the

2031 planning horizon formed the basis for all subsequent components of the Official Plan

review and related reviews and updates to the City’s master plans (including the

Transportation and Infrastructure Master Plans). These projections were also identified as the

basis for determining urban land requirements and did not break-out certain land uses (e.g.

residential).

20. Council adopted reference projections of 1,136,000 population, 496,000 households and

703,000 jobs by 2031 as the basis for the Official Plan and related Master Plans review.

These projections are under appeal and are addressed through Issue 3 of the Issues List.

E.3 Matters of Provincial Interest

21. The Planning Act (Section 2) identifies an extensive list of matters of Provincial interest

including:

Provincial interest 2. The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board and the

Municipal Board, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as,

(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;

(b) the protection of the agricultural resources of the Province;

(c) the conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base;

(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest;

(e) the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water;

(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

(g) the minimization of waste;

(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; (h.1) the accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to

which this Act applies;

(i) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities;

(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing; (k) the adequate provision of employment opportunities;


(l) the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the Province and its municipalities;

(m) the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies; (n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests;

(o) the protection of public health and safety;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development; (q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit

and to be oriented to pedestrians. 1994, c. 23, s. 5; 1996, c. 4, s. 2; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (1); 2006, c. 23, s. 3.

These matters of Provincial interest are also to be addressed in municipal Official Plans, key

among which are several matters of Provincial interest relevant to this phase of the hearing on

OPA 76 (those with emphasis added above). Section 1.1 of the Official Plan (as discussed in

Paragraphs 15 and 16) indicates that the Plan is also intended to address and implement

matters of Provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, noted above.

22. The Planning Act (Section 16.1) further requires that an Official Plan contain goals, objectives

and policies established primarily to manage and direct (emphasis added) physical change and

the effects on the social, economic and natural environment. The Official Plan intent, as

expressed in Section 1.1, suggests that the Official Plan will implement this requirement of the

Planning Act.

23. Section 1.1 of the 2003 Official Plan states: “The Official Plan is not a tool to limit growth but

rather to anticipate change, manage it and maintain options.”

E.4 The Provincial Policy Statement (2005)

24. As the City’s previous Official Plan was adopted/approved prior to the establishment of the

2005 Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’), a (statutory) component of the Official Plan review

which culminated in OPA 76 is to ensure Official Plan consistency with the broad range of

policy matters addressed by the 2005 PPS.

25. Part I of the 2005 PPS requires that both 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. The PPS is a key part of the Province’s policy-led planning system and

anticipates that local municipal policies will implement the PPS and further, as required by


Section 4.5, the local Official Plan will be the “most important vehicle for implementation of the

PPS”. This policy-led Provincial planning system is therefore intended to be implemented by a

local policy-led planning system of which a primary implementation vehicle would be a

municipal Official Plan.

26. Part III of the PPS also supports a comprehensive, integrated and long-term approach to

planning, and recognizes the linkages among policy areas addressed by the PPS and

recognizes the complex inter-relationships among environmental, economic and social factors

in land use planning. The relevant portions of the PPS are intended to be read and applied in

their entirety (Part III and Section 4.3).

27. Section 1.2.1 of the PPS also specifically directs that a “coordinated, integrated and

comprehensive approach should be used when dealing with planning matters within

municipalities”.

28. A further discussion of the relevant policies of the PPS is found under each Issue in Section F

of this Witness Statement.

E.5 Coordinated, Integrated and Comprehensive Planning

29. As previously noted, Section 1.2.1 of the PPS specifically directs that a “coordinated, integrated

and comprehensive approach should be used when dealing with planning matters within

municipalities” and Section 2 of the Planning Act directs the coordination of planning activities

of public bodies (which I interpret to mean both within a municipality and/or other public

agencies, as well as between municipalities and/or other public agencies).

30. According to the Oxford Dictionary:

“Coordinate” means: cause things to function together or occupy their proper place as parts of an inter-related whole. “Integrated” means: combined into a whole; united; undivided. . . . ; uniting several components previously regarded as separate. . . . “

“Comprehensive” means: complete; including all or nearly all elements, aspects, etc. (a comprehensive study). . . .

31. As noted above, both the matters of Provincial interest set out in the Planning Act and

Provincial policies contained in the PPS instruct municipalities to undertake land use planning

in a coordinated, integrated and comprehensive fashion. This reflects the complexity of land

use planning from both policy and development perspectives, as the process must analyze,


evaluate, consider and balance the numerous inter-related physical, social, economic and

environmental factors that are entrenched in planning.

32. Even without these Provincial directives regarding coordinated, integrated and comprehensive

planning, in my opinion, it represents good planning to conduct a comprehensive planning

review on this basis.

E.6 Housing Mix, Density and Ratios

33. In assessing its residential land requirements, the City undertook a number of analyses

regarding future residential land requirements, including the City’s overall growth projections;

White Papers; and an intensification forum, as well as ongoing consultation with the

homebuilding industry, which resulted in the preparation of a ’Residential Land Strategy for

Ottawa: 2006 – 2031’ (February 2009). All forecasts in this report, which informed OPA 76,

were based on a 2031 planning horizon.

34. A number of scenarios for housing requirements by type were undertaken using differing

assumptions regarding the proportion of new housing by type. In all scenarios, an urban

boundary expansion was warranted.

35. Based on the analyses undertaken by MGP and Altus, the City’s proposed projected housing

demand by housing type does not reflect the appropriate dwelling type propensities for the

projected households. This has a significant effect on the number of low density residential

units required and therefore the amount of additional residential land supply required,

irrespective of the number of years of residential land supply (i.e. 15 years or to 2031) being

applied.

36. Staff also recommended revising the minimum overall development densities in greenfield

areas requiring a community design plan from 29 units per net hectare (2003 Official Plan, as

reflected in a number of subsequent Community Design Plans) to 32 units per net hectare

(which was based on 26 units per net hectare for single-detached dwellings; 34 units per het

hectare for semi-detached units; 45 units per net hectare for townhouses; and, 150 units per

net hectare for apartments (February 2009 report)). However, in approving OPA 76, Council

directed that the minimum overall development densities in greenfield areas be increased to 34

units per net hectare.


37. The minimum densities are higher than recent market trends have been achieving, but are

being advanced as a municipal policy initiative to promote (among other matters) the building

of liveable and ‘complete’ communities; to advance sustainable growth management; to

promote transit-supportive development; and. to secure cost-effective infrastructure provision

(as discussed further in Issue 6).

E.7 Residential Intensification

38. Staff also recommended that a range of between 36% and 44% of new units are to be

achieved, over various time periods, through intensification and identified primary

intensification areas (such as the Central Area, Town Centres, Mainstreets, Mixed-Use Areas,

Enterprise Areas and areas within 600 metres of rapid transit stations).

39. Inclusion of such proposed intensification and (intensification) density targets are intended to

implement the PPS and policies of the 2003 Official Plan; however, barriers to intensification,

both operative and community-based, will continue to affect the achievement of these targets.

40. Notwithstanding these intensification targets, as the majority of these units are acknowledged

to be in apartment form, this intensification does not make a significant contribution to the total

demand for lower density housing as identified by MGP and Altus.

41. Based on the analyses undertaken by MGP and Altus, there are concerns regarding the

proposed percentages of intensification units that may be achieved within the planning horizon.


F Response to Issues Pursuant to the Issues List, my evidence will address my response to the issues set out in

Section C of this Witness Statement, as summarized below:

Issue 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?

42. The 2005 PPS requires that both 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.

43. Part V/Section 1.0 of the PPS (‘Building Strong Communities’) directs that municipalities shall

identify a sufficient supply to meet projected needs for up to 20 years (unless an alternative

time period has been established by a Provincial Plan or other Provincial planning exercise;

this is not relevant to Ottawa). For the commencement of the Official Plan review process, the

City proposed to align its planning horizon with 2031; a typical Census year. All related

background documents and analyses conducted between 2007 and 2009 (including the

coincident reviews of the Transportation, Infrastructure and other Master Plans) were

undertaken with this 2031 planning horizon. Therefore, a 2031 planning horizon for the City’s

Official Plan would be consistent with the PPS and Provincial interests. The Ministry of

Municipal Affairs and Housing (the approval authority for OPA 76) was provided with the City’s

2008 Preliminary Proposals Report (which reflected a 2031 planning horizon) and indicated no

concern with this planning horizon notwithstanding that, as of the date of that report, it

technically represented a 23-year planning horizon. Staff reported the Ministry’s position on

this matter in May 2009.


44. The adjustment to the land supply for residential land uses to 15 years did not occur in the

Official Plan Review process until Council’s final consideration of the matter on June 10, 2009

and the modified version of OPA 76 was adopted by Council on June 26, 2009.

45. As currently approved, Section 2.2.1 of the Official Plan (without OPA 76) provides policies that

a sufficient land supply will be provided within the urban area to meet the City’s 20-year

requirements for housing, employment and other purposes and that every five years, the City

will comprehensively review the need to designate additional land to meet its requirements

based on the forecasted demand for housing and employment over the (next) 20-year period

and an assessment of whether the existing land supply can meet the (next) 20-year

requirement through consideration of permitted land uses and policies to create a more

compact development pattern. As currently approved, Section 2.2.1 the Official Plan (without

OPA 76) also includes reference to the Provincial requirement to maintain a minimum 10-year

supply of land designated and available for residential development and residential

intensification.

46. The planning horizon for all other land uses and matters contained within the Official Plan, as

amended by OPA 76, remains as 2031 as is reflected, for example, in policies such as:

• The Role of the Official Plan (Section 1.1): to guide its physical development to the

year 2031;

• Strategic Directions (Section 2); Despite 2031 projections, the Plan accommodates a

15-year residential land supply and 20-year land supply for other non-residential uses;

• The Challenge Ahead (Section 2.1); accommodating approximately 145,000 new

homes in Ottawa and 170,000 jobs by 2031;

• Figure 2.2: Projected Growth in Population, Households and Employment; all

projections are to 2031;

• Managing Growth within the Urban Area (Section 2.2.2 and Figure 2.3): setting

intensification targets to 2031;

• Transportation (Section 2.3.1): identifying road requirements and establishing modal

shares to 2031; and,

• Developing Communities (Expansion Areas) (Section 3.12): sufficient urban land to

support the residential demands of the projected population to 2031;


47. The Planning Act (Section 16.1 and 16.2) establishes the contents of a municipal Official Plan

including mandatory and discretionary components:

16.(1) An official plan shall (emphasis added) contain,

(a) goals, objectives and policies established primarily to manage and direct (emphasis added) physical change and the effects on the social, economic and natural environment of the municipality or part of it, or an area that is without municipal organization; and

(b) such other matters as may be prescribed.

And discretionary components:

16.(2) An official plan may (emphasis added) contain,

(a) a description of the measures and procedures proposed to attain the objectives of the plan;

(b) a description of the measures and procedures for informing and obtaining the views of the public in respect of a proposed amendment to the official plan or proposed revision of the plan or in respect of a proposed zoning by-law; and

(c) such other matters as may be prescribed.

Therefore, pursuant to the Planning Act, one of the mandatory components of an Official Plan

is to manage and direct, not restrict, physical change (i.e. growth). By applying a shorter

planning horizon to the future residential land supply, in my opinion, Council took action to

attempt to restrict residential growth by constraining the residential land supply to15 years,

which is not consistent with the Planning Act requirements for Official Plans.

48. Staff commented in their reporting to Council (Official Plan Review Preliminary Proposals

Report: April 2008) that the proposed Official Plan review was intended to be an update and

not a return to first principles. With respect to a planning horizon, the 2003 Official Plan

incorporated a 20-year planning horizon.

49. Staff also reported that Provincial limitations on planning horizons in Official Plans (i.e. up to 20

years) was insufficient for the planning of major infrastructure such as transit, arterial roads

and trunk services.

50. Differing planning horizons by land use type would impede a municipality’s ability to achieve an

“appropriate range and mix of employment opportunities, housing and other land uses” as

there are inter-relationships between and among land uses (for example, achievement of

commercial development potential is dependent upon an appropriate customer base and,

attracting and maintaining employment is dependent upon a suitable labour force which

requires appropriate housing).


51. Further, Section 1.1.3.9 of the PPS provides a framework for the expansion of settlement area

boundaries at the time of a comprehensive review (in this instance, the Official Plan review)

including the “accommodation of the projected needs over the identified planning horizon” (i.e.

in the singular). This policy, which is relevant and applicable to all land uses, not just

residential uses, does not anticipate different planning horizons for different land uses. The

identified planning horizon for OPA 76 as a whole is 2031. In my opinion, the limitation of the

residential land supply to 15 years is not consistent with the intent of Section 1.1.3.9.

52. Section 1.4.1 provides an additional and specific land budget policy requirement for residential

lands, that being a minimum 10-year supply of land to accommodate projected requirements of

current and future residents through residential intensification/redevelopment and ‘designated

and available’ (as defined) residential lands within a regional market area. It has been

accepted that, in order to maintain a minimum 10-year supply at all times, an initial designation

of a 15-year supply is necessary to ensure that a minimum 10-year supply remains at the

subsequent 5-year Official Plan review. During the Official Plan review process, staff

acknowledged the need for the City to maintain the minimum 10-year supply noted above (e.g.

Official Plan Review Preliminary Proposals Report: April 2008).

53. While the PPS provides this additional land budget requirement for residential lands (Section

1.4.1) such land budget must still be based on the overall projected requirements of current

and future residents of the City of Ottawa and it does not eliminate the requirement to provide

sufficient land within the overall planning horizon (Sections 1.1.2 and 1.1.3.9).

54. The City’s proposed change to the time horizon for calculating residential land requirements

from 20 to 15 years appears to be based narrowly on Section 1.4.1, which is only one of many

policies in the 2005 PPS. The PPS requires the application of all relevant policies to address

the policy that a “coordinated, integrated and comprehensive approach be used when dealing

with planning matters within municipalities”. In my opinion the change in the term of the land

supply for residential lands at the end of the City’s comprehensive Official Plan review

represents an effort to restrict growth for an interim period (i.e. 15 years) instead of providing a

sufficient supply to meet projected needs for up to 20 years. In my opinion, given the planning

horizon of 2031 in OPA 76, Section 1.1.2 of the 2005 PPS requires a land supply to meet

projected needs for all land uses, including residential, to 2031.


55. As the regional market area, Altus and MGP have determined that the proposed residential

land supply within OPA 76 will not result in the City maintaining the required minimum 10-year

residential land supply (which requires a 15-year supply at the outset) for low density housing)

which is not consistent with Section 1.4.1

56. Section 1.7 of the PPS provides a policy framework for ‘Long-Term Economic Prosperity’ which

encompasses a number of key parameters, including the optimization of the long-term

(emphasis added) availability and use of land, resources, infrastructure and public service

facilities. Therefore, the PPS provides clear policy direction that the municipality should

appropriately be looking at the longer term (undefined in the PPS) and then implementing its

long-term vision within the planning horizon referenced under Section 1.1.

57. In my opinion, adoption of a 15-year supply of land for residential uses in the urban area is not

in conformity with the currently-approved City of Ottawa Official Plan with respect to:

• The Strategic Directions of the current Official Plan indicate that the Plan: “ …outlines

the broad policies that will govern growth and change in Ottawa over the next 20 years”

and does not contemplate a 15-year supply of residential lands;

• All projected growth of population, households and employment contained in OPA 76

(Figure 2.2) is now based on the 2031 planning horizon;

• That (Section 2.1) “This Plan meets the challenges of growth over the next 20 years by

pursuing strategic directions in four key areas including ‘Managing Growth’ …”;

• That “The land within the urban boundary represents a 20-year supply of urban land”

(Section 2.2.1) and further, that “Sufficient land is designated in the Official Plan to

meet the demands for a range and mix of employment opportunities, housing and other

land uses to meet the projected needs for 20 years.” Policy 2.2.2 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.” In my opinion, the proposed 15-year

supply of residential lands does not conform to these existing approved policies in the

Official Plan (and thereby, necessitated inappropriate amendments to such policies to

effect Council’s decision to adjust the residential land supply);

• Conducting a comprehensive review of urban land requirements every five years

(Section 2.2.1.3) based on an assessment of forecasted demand for housing and

employment in the 20-year period. OPA 76 proposes to adjust this policy to direct that


comprehensive reviews on a go-forward basis will now be based on forecasted

employment land demand for a 20-year period and a 15-year period for residential

lands, the net result of which will be a perpetuation of non-integrated and non-

coordinated planning for residential versus all other land uses within the City;

• In addition, the Official Plan continues to reference (for example, Section 1) exclusively

a 2031 and a 20-year planning horizon;

• If the proposed 15-year residential land supply is insufficient to accommodate the full

range of residential uses for the Official Plan’s 2031 planning horizon, there is no basis

on which to determine where the projected housing and population growth to 2031 will

occur geographically. A coordinated and integrated approach to long-term planning for

land and infrastructure should consider the geographic distribution of residential

development, in combination with other related land uses designated in the Official

Plan, and not just the total amount of growth over the planning horizon.

• The existing policies that direct a forecasted demand for land for housing and

employment in the 20-year period and an assessment of 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; and,

• The potential inability for the City to achieve its stated objective (Section 2.2.19) of

moving towards a balance of jobs and housing in communities, particularly in areas

outside the Greenbelt.

58. The 15-year residential land supply may result in constraints to certain components of the

housing market (in particular, low density housing as identified by MGP and Altus) which, in

turn, may inflate the costs of this type of residential land and increase the resultant cost of this

type of housing.

59. I further agree with Ms. Sweet that common practice among Ontario municipalities in planning

for the long-term is at least 20 years or, in the alternative, a planning horizon close to 20 years

that generally coincides with a traditional census interval. I have never, in my experience,

observed a singular Official Plan having one planning horizon with dissimilar extents of land

supplies for different land uses.

60. OPA 76 introduces a new policy (Section 2.2.1.7) wherein the City proposes to commence a

further review of land demand/supply for all land uses in 2012, for completion in 2014 (as


further discussed under Issue 10 of this Witness Statement). This is not a substitute for

implementing a proper residential land supply based on the projected population for the

approved 2031 planning horizon under the current Official Plan review which culminated in

OPA 76.

61. In my opinion, having a different planning period for urban residential lands does not represent

good land use planning as it has the potential to result in:

• An uncoordinated, non-integrated and non-comprehensive approach to establishing

and managing the City’s future growth outlook;

• A resultant inability to properly integrate the many inter-related social, economic and

environmental factors which influence, and are influenced by, the quantitative and

geographic distribution of the projected physical growth based on a dual planning

horizon;

• A potential disengagement of planning for infrastructure and the long-term distribution

of growth;

• A deficit between residential land supply (by type) and market demands, which may

result in inflated residential land costs and decreased housing affordability;

• The potential inability for the City to achieve its employment forecasts and/or its stated

objective of moving towards a balance of jobs and housing in communities, particularly

in areas outside the Greenbelt; and,

• Increased pressure for the conversion of non-residential lands within the urban

boundary, for residential uses.

62. In my opinion, the appropriate time horizon for the City’s urban residential land supply is 2031,

consistent with the City’s planning for all other land uses and infrastructure and reflective of the

background analyses and reports prepared in conjunction with the Official Plan review

including the complementary Master Plans. Such planning horizon was reviewed by the

Ministry and considered to be acceptable, is consistent with the PPS and reflective of matters

of Provincial interests.

Issue 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)?

63. As previously noted, a coordinated and integrated approach to long-term planning for land and

infrastructure should consider the geographic distribution of residential development, in

combination with other related land uses designated in the Official Plan, over a coordinated

planning horizon.

64. In November 2007, Council directed that such projections be used as the basis for the Official

Plan and related Master Plans review:

“That Council adopt the Reference Projection of approximately 1,136,000 population, 496,000 households and 703,000 jobs in the City of Ottawa by 2031 as the basis for the Official Plan and related Master Plans review.”

While the Master Plans have proceeded and been completed on this basis, the planning for

residential lands supplies was altered during Council’s final consideration of the Official Plan

review in June 2009.

65. Staff’s recommended approach to the urban boundary component of the Official Plan Review

(Ottawa Official Plan Review Preliminary Proposals: April 2008) was to both “Establish an

urban boundary to 2031” (although at that time, the quantum of such expansion was to be

subject to further consultation with GOHBA) and to “Identify areas for future urban growth

(beyond the term of this Plan). Consistent with the policies in the OP today, these areas would

be of sufficient size to develop a new community or complete an existing community. They

would be designated Future Urban Area on Schedule B as an overlay.” The need to further

expand into these Future Urban Areas would then be assessed at each subsequent Official

Plan review; however the principle of ‘where’ such expansion would occur would inform and

facilitate the long-term, efficient planning for related infrastructure. Therefore, it was staff’s

recommendation that the City look at long-term future growth and then specify an urban

boundary expansion sufficient to 2031 within the context of that longer-term vision. From the

outset, it was never the intention that this Official Plan review process look at short-term or

interim planning horizons (i.e. less than 20 years or 2031) on either a comprehensive (i.e. all

land uses) or use-specific (i.e. residential) basis. Various policy revisions proposed within OPA

76 are to modify existing policies to reflect a 15-year residential land supply.


66. The Transportation Master Plan (2008) is based on population and employment growth

forecasts to 2031, including the geographic distribution of population growth in the urban area

outside the Greenbelt. However, the Official Plan as proposed to be updated through OPA 76

now proposes to accommodate only 15 years of residential land supply, and presumably, this

would impact the geographic considerations of the Transportation Master Plan. Therefore, the

coordinated and integrated planning process between the Transportation Master Plan and

Official Plan has been undermined by Council’s decision to adopt OPA 76 with a 15-year land

supply for residential uses and a 2031 planning horizon (and related land supply) for all other

land uses and aspects of the Official Plan.

67. Similarly, the Infrastructure Master Plan (2008) is based on population and employment growth

forecasts to 2031, including the geographic distribution of population growth in the urban area

outside the Greenbelt. A similar disconnect between the Official Plan and this master plan has

now been created through OPA 76.

68. In a report dated January 28, 2009 on the tabling of the Draft OP and Revised Infrastructure

Master Plan to the joint Agricultural and Rural Affairs/Planning and Environment Committee

(February 2, 2009) staff noted (for example) that both master plans are based on a 2031 (or

then 22-year) planning horizon. The report goes on to state:

“In many ways the Master Plans are supporting documents to the Official Plan in that they provide strategies to facilitate growth in particular locations or at particular densities. On the other hand, the Master Plans can be significant determinants of growth patterns. The ability of a light rail system to shape the way the city grows is unparalleled in recent history. The Plans therefore must be implemented in unison to achieve Council’s objectives for the future of the City (emphasis added).”

69. As previously noted these master plan reviews were initiated coincident with the Official Plan

review and used a coordinated planning horizon of 2031. Therefore, the clear aim of the City’s

Official Plan review process was that there was to be an integrated, coordinated and

comprehensive process with other relevant master plans due to each of these components

being dependent on, or affected by, the other plans. It was not until Council’s final

consideration of OPA 76 that the land supply for residential land was revised to15 years.

70. Section 1.1.1g) of the PPS directs that healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by

“ensuring that necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are, or will be available to

meet current and projected needs”. By contemplating two differing planning horizons between


residential and all other land uses, the coordination of infrastructure and public service facilities

could be impeded. Sections 1.1.3.2a and 1.1.3.8 of the PPS specifically direct or encourage

land use patterns that are “appropriate for, and efficiently use the infrastructure and public

services facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or

uneconomical expansion”. The timing of infrastructure and public service facility requirements

to accommodate the development of different land uses based on two differing planning

horizons could conflict and result in such inefficiencies. It is my understanding that the

economics of residential land development tend to better support necessary infrastructure

expansions (which expansions may complement or facilitate the development of other land

uses, which in turn support the development of ‘complete communities’).

71. Further, the policies of Section 1.6 of the PPS reference that “Infrastructure and public service

facilities shall (emphasis added) be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective

manner to accommodate projected needs” and that “Transportation and land use

considerations shall (emphasis added) be integrated at all stages of the planning process.”

Both of these policies direct coordinated and integrated planning of infrastructure

requirements. Implementing a land supply of different duration for residential versus all other

land uses will impact on the ability to achieve this policy directive. As an example, Ms. Sweet

discusses the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel in her witness statement. There would also be

a concern regarding the sizing of major servicing infrastructure extensions.

72. In my opinion, the adoption of the 15-year land supply for residential uses does not

appropriately reflect other City policy documents and referenced master plans which are based

on a 2031 planning horizon. Such detachment of the Official Plan from these other critical

master plans is inconsistent with the requirement to undertake coordinated and integrated

planning for infrastructure to serve the 2031 population and employment forecasts through

incremental expansions to the urban area.

73. There are at least two clear inter-related problems which affect infrastructure planning arising

from the limitation on residential land supply to 15 years, while contemplating 20 years of land

supply for all other uses:

• The quantum of residential land requirements would be different (i.e. greater) if a

consistent 20-year or 2031 planning horizon were applied: and,


• The geographic distribution of these residential land requirements may be different as

the methodology to determine the urban boundary expansions may have been framed

or applied in a different way when considering a larger quantum of residential land

supply to be achieved.

In my opinion, this has resulted in incremental urban boundary expansions being proposed in

OPA 76 which may ultimately result, among other matters, in infrastructure not being

adequately sized in the first instance to support the 2031 planning horizon and/or infrastructure

being planned for the wrong location(s). As discussed later in this Witness Statement (Issue

10), distribution of this lesser amount of land based, in part, on a land supply based on a 15-

year time period may represent an incremental boundary expansion that results in a less

efficient development and land use pattern when contrasted with geographic distribution

analyses/decisions that are based on the larger amount of urban land requirements.

Issue 6 Are the proposed [greenfield] housing mix and minimum [greenfield] density

provisions within OPA 76 for residential development within the urban boundary appropriate

and reasonable to accommodate the projected growth?

74. OPA 76 (Section 2.2.2.17) proposes a housing mix for greenfield development requiring

community design plans (prepared after June 9, 2009) of :

• At least 45% but not more than 55% single-detached dwellings;

• At least 10% apartments; and,

• The remainder comprising multiple dwellings other than apartments.

The latter includes semi-detached dwellings.

This housing mix represents an adjustment from the 2003 Official Plan which permitted a

housing mix containing up to 60% single-detached and semi-detached dwellings.

75. The City’s proposed minimum densities for ‘greenfield’ development in areas subject to

community design plans (34 units per net hectare overall) are higher than recent market trends

have been achieving in greenfield development. This proposed housing mix represents an

adjustment from the 2003 Official Plan which required an overall average of 29 units per net

hectare for single-detached, semi-detached and townhouses


76. In my opinion, from a policy perspective, both the ‘greenfield’ housing mix and the proposed

minimum densities for ‘greenfield’ development in new community design plan areas are

generally appropriate and reasonable as a means to implement the City’s objectives to (among

other matters) build liveable and ‘complete’ communities; advance sustainable growth

management; and secure cost-effective infrastructure provision. Such policies are consistent

with the PPS policy framework to promote housing densities that efficiently use land, resources

and infrastructures and supports alternative transportation modes and transit (Section 1.4.3d)).

Such densities will also support efficient residential development and land use patterns that

efficiently use infrastructure. Such housing mix and minimum densities for ‘greenfield’

development in community design plan areas would also be supportive of the City’s proposed

higher-order transit network, including the 2008 Council approval of the Transportation Master

Plan which includes a rapid transit network plan to 2031 incorporating LRT and BRT transit.

77. The appropriateness and achievement of the proposed greenfield housing mix and greenfield

density targets for community design plan areas can be evaluated and considered as to their

appropriateness and effectiveness at each subsequent, statutory (i.e. 5-year) Official Plan

review (including an update, as required, of the infrastructure master plans) and adjustments

made, as necessary, after a full technical and public review

78. Implementation of an adequate supply of residential lands to address projected housing

requirements to a 2031 planning horizon through OPA 76 will not undermine the achievement

of these greenfield housing mix and density targets.

Issue 7 Are the proposed intensification and [intensification] density targets within OPA

76 appropriate and consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement?

79. The PPS (Section 1.1.3.5) directs that municipalities ‘shall’ establish and implement minimum

targets for intensification. Therefore, in my opinion, the identification of specific areas in which

intensification will be focused and the principle of providing density targets related thereto, are

an appropriate component of a policy framework that will implement these Provincial policy

objectives. This is the first time that the City has included minimum density targets for

intensification (Section 2.2.2.6 of OPA 76) but, as noted above, part of this Official Plan review

is to implement the 2005 PPS (which was not in effect when the previous (2003) Official Plan

was undertaken).


80. Inclusion of such proposed intensification and (intensification) density targets is consistent with

the ‘Guiding Principles’ and other policies of the 2003 Official Plan which seeks, among other

matters: to concentrate growth within the designated urban area in order to allow for a

development pattern/density that supports transit, cycling and walking; promote intensified

development in geographic locations that are strategically aligned with the transportation

network; make efficient use of existing infrastructure; and, allow for the cost-efficient provision

of new infrastructure and municipal services.

81. The ability of the City to meet these intensification targets is dependent, in part, upon its ability

to address infrastructure servicing constraints in certain areas of the City, which are identified

in the updated Infrastructure Master Plan. Therefore, there is no certainty that such servicing

constraints will be resolved in an efficient and cost-effective manner in order to enable the full

achievement of the intensification targets within the planning horizon(s) provided for such

targets (i.e. 2031 and post-2031) in Section 2.2.2.6.

82. The appropriateness and achievement of the proposed intensification and (intensification)

density targets should be evaluated and considered at each subsequent, statutory (i.e. 5-year)

Official Plan review (including an update, as required, of the infrastructure master plans) and

adjustments made, as necessary, after a full technical and public review, as set out in Section

2.2.2.10 of OPA 76).

83. However, the establishment of intensification and (intensification) density targets is not a

substitute for providing a full range of housing opportunities and an adequate supply of

designated and available residential lands for a minimum 10-year period (as discussed further

under Issue 10), nor a sufficient supply of residential lands to the 2031 planning horizon

(Issues 1, 10 and 11).

84. It is important to note that notwithstanding these intensification targets, there are policies

proposed in OPA 76 that could impede the achievement of these targets such as: not

permitting intensification targets to be used as a rationale to approving increased development

height or density (Section 2.2.2.11a); and, restricting a review of community design plans and

secondary plans (Section 2.2.2.11b) for the purposes of achieving intensification and density

targets within the time-frame of the Official Plan. Such policy restrictions could frustrate the

City’s achievement of its intensification and density targets by limiting opportunities for

implementation through other planning instruments.


85. The policies noted in Paragraph 84 are also not consistent with the recommendations of the

Residential Land Strategy for Ottawa: 2006 – 2031’ (February 2009) wherein staff noted a

number of strategies on the matters of zoning and built-form, to support intensification

including:

• Revising relevant performance standards in the City’s current zoning by-law to support

intensification;

• Ensuring the City’s by-law accommodates the intensification targets, even where this

requires ‘up-zoning’ of lands;

• City-initiated re-zoning of intensification areas; and,

• Clarifying where additional building height should be permitted.

Staff noted that, only where these coordinated strategies have been implemented would the

City oppose other re-zonings that are advanced as necessary to achieve intensification targets.

86. The policies of Section 2.2.2.11 noted above were not recommended by City planning staff as

part of the Official Plan review but rather were revisions proposed by Council members during

Council’s final consideration of OPA 76 in June 2009.

87. In addition, in order to monitor the City’s progress to achieving the proposed intensification

targets within OPA 76 (unrelated to future urban expansions), a clear methodology as to their

application needs to be established to identify, calculate and monitor those areas and

developments that will qualify as intensification.

Issue 8 Is the proposed requirement in policy 3E in Section 2.2.1 that "an urban

expansion will only be considered if the intensification target of this plan has been met"

consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with other policies in the

City of Ottawa Official Plan, and does it represent good planning?

88. Irrespective of the 2031 population/household forecast assumed in this matter, the 2005

Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) (Section 1.1.2) directs municipalities to ensure that

sufficient land ‘shall’ be made available through:

• Intensification and redevelopment; and,


• If necessary, to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of employment

opportunities, housing and other land uses, designated growth areas.

89. As noted above, the PPS (Section 1.1.3.5) directs that municipalities ‘shall’ establish and

implement minimum targets for intensification. A planning policy ‘target’, in my opinion, is an

informed objective which a municipality would apply reasonable efforts to attain. Ottawa’s

proposed reasonable efforts regarding intensification include identifying areas where more

intensive development will be directed and providing development density targets for those

areas (as are proposed in OPA 76) and establishing an inter-departmental ‘Intensification

Implementation Group’ (as is proposed by Ottawa) whose mandate will be to reduce technical,

regulatory and design barriers to achieving intensification targets (as proposed through the

City’s Residential Land Strategy, February 2009).

90. Intensification targets in an Official Plan, in my opinion, provide policy direction, but are not to

be implemented as prescriptive regulations (particularly when proposed to be tied to future

urban expansions) when seeking to achieve consistency with other components of the 2005

PPS (which must be read as a whole) and conformity with other objectives and policies of the

comprehensive Official Plan.

91. The 2005 PPS (Section 1.2.2(c)) states that minimum targets for intensification and

redevelopment ‘should’ be met before expansion of urban boundaries in accordance with

Section 1.1.3.9 of the 2005 PPS. Section 1.1.3.9 anticipates that settlement area boundary

expansions can be undertaken where a comprehensive review demonstrates that there are

insufficient lands available through intensification/redevelopment and (existing) designated

growth areas to accommodate projected growth over the identified planning horizon (i.e. in this

case 2031) as contemplated by Section 1.1.2 of the PPS.

92. Section 1.2.2(c) places an emphasis on achieving intensification targets but, in my opinion,

does not do so in a manner that would prohibit urban area expansions if such targets were not

met. While the PPS anticipates that future land supplies will comprise both

intensification/redevelopment and, if necessary, greenfield development areas, it is not

prescriptive in directing that a settlement area boundary expansion can only go forward upon

the advancement and achievement of intensification/redevelopment targets. Therefore, in my

opinion, policy 3E in Section 2.2.1 is not consistent with the PPS when read holistically (as

required), as it seeks to impose such a restriction.


93. The 2005 PPS (Section 1.1.3) also states that Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth

and their vitality and regeneration shall be promoted. Significant potential impacts on housing

affordability in the interim, arising from expected long-term land supply constraints and thus

inflating land costs, could affect the City’s ability to be both a focus of growth and the

importance of maintaining its vitality particularly as it relates, in this case, to the supply of low

density residential lands, as identified by Altus and MGP.

94. By comparison, the 2006 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (‘Growth Plan’)

provides specific requirements for minimum annual amounts of residential development to be

secured by intensification (Section 2.2.3) within the built-up area and further advanced through

minimum development densities within greenfield areas (Section 2.2.7). Notwithstanding the

above-noted policies, the Growth Plan (Section 2.2.8) does not preclude further settlement

area expansions on the basis of the attainment of these intensification requirements.

Therefore, even where the relevant Provincial policy is more prescriptive as to how its policies

are to be implemented through area municipal Official Plans, it does not propose to restrict or

prohibit any future settlement area expansions on the basis of the failure to achieve

intensification targets, even where those targets are as explicit as those found in the Growth

Plan. Rather, a further comprehensive review of population/employment forecasts and land

supplies would be undertaken to determine the need for additional settlement area expansions.

95. As previously noted, the appropriateness and achievement of the proposed intensification and

[intensification] density targets should be evaluated and considered at each subsequent,

statutory (i.e. 5-year) Official Plan review and adjustments can be made, as necessary, after a

full technical and public review, as required by Section 2.2.2.10 of OPA 76.

96. In my opinion, policy 3E in Section 2.2.1 also does not represent good planning as, should

further (and ongoing) urban area expansions be precluded until such time as the intensification

‘targets’ are ‘achieved’ (which I assume to mean that intensification sites are constructed), it

would result in a deficiency in the provision of an adequate supply for lands for a full range of

housing types within the City (and potentially, for other land uses). In particular, intensification

areas are intended to accommodate primarily multiple-family forms of housing (predominantly

apartments). Therefore, low density residential land supplies to accommodate current or future

projected growth would be impacted by such policy restriction on future urban expansions.


97. This in turn could also result in adverse effects on housing affordability as a result of limited low

density land supplies increasing the basic cost of such land as noted by staff in Ottawa Official

Plan Review Preliminary Proposals (April 2008) which states: “Limitations on the urban land

supply will contribute to increased land values within Ottawa.” The City’s Official Plan

advances the principle of ‘Liveable Communities’ which includes, among other matters,

“appropriate housing at a price people can afford” and recognizing that “appropriate and

affordable housing for all residents is a fundamental building block of a healthy, liveable

community.” (2003 Official Plan: Section 2.5)).

98. Such restriction on urban boundary expansions may also result in households seeking low

density housing forms outside of the City’s designated urban area (i.e. to villages within the

City’s municipal boundary, to other bordering municipalities (including within Quebec) or to

countryside subdivisions (although these are now subject to a five-year moratorium).

Therefore, providing a constraint on this potential supply of low density housing within Ottawa,

the net potential effect will be (among other matters) to increase the potential for intra-regional

sprawl, increased commuting, increased transportation congestion; lessened air quality; and,

an imbalance between housing and jobs. These concerns were identified by staff (Ottawa

Official Plan Review Preliminary Proposals: April 2008) which states:

“Ottawa is part of a larger commuter shed as described in the White Paper “Development in Greater Ottawa-Gatineau”. If there is too sharp a contrast between what is available in Ottawa and in the surrounding municipalities, we may see Ottawa’s share of the metropolitan population (which has been stable for the past three decades) start to decline. That comes with its own price tag regarding impact on City transportation infrastructure, impact on greenhouse gas emissions and so on.”

99. Further, if the City does not provide sufficient residential land of an appropriate type to

accommodate its projected population, this could have consequential effects on its ability to:

• Attract employment uses, as one of the location parameters for employers is the

availability of appropriate housing for its employees;

• Attract a full range of commercial uses, as such uses are dependent upon a full range

of households (and employment uses) requiring a broad variety of commercial services;

• Attain its 2031 employment forecast by attracting the appropriate work force;

• Attain its Official Plan objective for a balance of jobs/housing; and,


• Achieve balanced assessment which in turn, affects the municipality’s financial well-

being.

The City may also experience increased pressure for the conversion of non-residential lands

within the urban boundary for residential uses.

Issue 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?

100. In my opinion, the addition of only 230 hectares of land to the City’s urban boundary is not

consistent with the PPS as, among other things, it:

• Would not result in the promotion of efficient development and land use patterns

(Section 1.1.1a)) as 230 hectares represents the City’s estimation of a 15-year

residential land supply. Distribution of this lesser amount of land based, in part, on a

15-year land supply, may represent an incremental boundary expansion that results in

a less efficient development and land use pattern when contrasted with geographic

distribution analyses/decisions that are based on the larger amount of urban land

requirements (as discussed further below);

• Would not result in an appropriate geographic distribution of the proposed 230

hectares of gross residential lands required in OPA 76 as the approach taken was to

include incremental expansions to existing designated urban lands, in a few locations

across the City. However, should a larger quantum of gross residential lands be

required based on adjustments to the overall housing projections and/or housing

propensities/housing types, and a residential land supply that address requirements to

the 2031 planning horizon and projected population, then the resultant geographic

distribution of these land requirements could potentially result in the establishment of a

‘new community’ outside of, but contiguous to, the City’s existing urban area. For

example, a larger concentration of population may require more than just gross

residential lands in order to achieve a complete and balanced community (for example,

additional higher-order commercial facilities) and such land requirements are not

accounted for within the definition of ‘gross residential land’. Therefore, the total land


requirements for an urban expansion would be potentially greater than just an

expansion to accommodate gross residential lands.

By comparison, the City’s last urban area expansion (a portion of the Fernbank

community) was approximately 490 total hectares in size and the remaining portions of

the Fernbank community were included in the City’s urban area by both OPA 76 and

OPA 77 for a total expansion of 674 total hectares (of which 20 hectares are classified

by the City as ‘constrained’). In this situation, additional mixed use and commercial

lands were required to service this new community.

• Would not result in the sustainable financial well-being of the City (Section 1.1.1b)) as it

could have consequential effects on the achievement of other municipal objectives

such as its 2031 employment forecast, its ability to attract an appropriate work force;

establishing a effective capital budget where there are different planning horizons

between a variety of land uses and, cost-effective and coordinated planning and

implementation of infrastructure over the long-term;

• Would not accommodate an appropriate range and mix (Sections 1.1.1 and 1.4.1) of

(in particular) residential land uses, as such land addition does not provide an

adequate amount of land to accommodate projected low density housing needs (based

on either a 15-year land supply or 2031 planning horizon) due to the assumption of

significantly different housing propensity considerations and/or differing 2031

population projections;

• Would not efficiently use existing or planned infrastructure (Section 1.1.3.2) as the City

has undertaken planning for such infrastructure to 2031 as evidenced by the

Transportation and Infrastructure Master Plans (among other matters);

• Would not result in a coordinated, integrated and comprehensive approach in dealing

with planning matters within the City (Section 1.2.1), as the proposed land addition is

intended to address residential land supplies for an additional 15 years, whereas

planning for the balance of land uses to secure a healthy, liveable and safe community

(Section 1.1.1) is being undertaken to 2031; and,


• Would not maintain a minimum 10-year supply of ‘designated and available’ residential

lands for an appropriate range of housing types and densities (which means an initial

land supply of 15 years).

101. As previously noted, the policies of Section 2.2.1.3 as currently approved direct a

comprehensive review of urban land requirements every five years (Section 2.2.1.3) based on

an assessment of forecasted demand for housing and employment in the 20-year period. OPA

76 proposes to adjust this policy to direct that future comprehensive reviews will now be based

on forecasted demand for a 20-year period (i.e. to 2031) of lands for employment and other

land uses and a 15-year period for residential lands, thus perpetuating a fundamental

disconnect between long-term planning for a full range of land uses and infrastructure through

the application of different planning periods.

102. The City proposes to address the long-term urban land supply through a policy directing further

study between 2012 and 2014 (Section 2.2.1.7) as follows:

“Council shall provide funding in 2012 to permit an examination of the supply of demand for land for employment, housing and other purposes to meet the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement with the results of such study to be submitted to Council no later than June, 2014. The long-term urban land needs of the City will be examined as part of the Choosing Our Future public engagement process. The results of the Land Evaluation and Area Review (LEAR) review and a review of the Mineral Resource policies will also be used to inform the next comprehensive update of this Plan.”

This policy was not proposed by planning staff in the May 2009 version of OPA 76 presented to

Council for its consideration in June 2009, where this additional policy was then inserted upon

motion from Council.

103. However, as previously noted, the geographic distribution of the currently-proposed 230

hectares would preclude a potentially different evaluation and decision process regarding the

distribution of total urban land requirements to 2031 (including, as proposed by this policy

itself, agricultural land and mineral resource area matters). Section 1.1.3.7 of the PPS directs

that designated growth areas (i.e. urban area expansions) “occur adjacent to the existing built-

up area and shall have a compact forms, mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient

use of land, infrastructure and public service facilities”. Adopting differing planning horizons,

and therefore differing quantums of land budgets to be satisfied, may preclude the City from

considering different opportunities for the extension of its urban area. As previously noted, a


coordinated and integrated approach to long-term planning for land and infrastructure should

consider the geographic distribution of residential development, in combination with other

related land uses designated in the Official Plan, and not just the total amount of growth over

the planning horizon.

104. Further, while the proposed land addition itself is insufficient in absolute terms, the impacts are

exacerbated by the inclusion of Section 2.2.1/Policy 3E which then proposes to restrict future

urban areas expansions (i.e. at the next statutory five-year Official Plan review) until the

intensification ‘targets’ have been ‘met’ (as discussed under Issue 8) and Section 2.2.1.3 which

directs that all urban boundary considerations (i.e. future Official Plan Reviews) will continue to

be based on providing only a further 15-year residential land supply .

105. In my opinion, the proposed 230-hectare land addition also does not represent good planning

as it represents an incremental approach to the City’s overall growth management strategy and

such incremental decisions may impact both the City’s ability to achieve its projected 2031

population and employment forecasts in a manner which complements and supports its other

policy objectives and may impact on the appropriate geographic distribution of urban land

requirements.

Issue 11 Does OPA 76 add sufficient land within the City of Ottawa's Urban Area to meet

projected residential/housing needs for the City and, if not, how much land should be added

to the Urban Area to meet projected residential/housing needs?

106. Based on the analyses undertaken by Altus and MGP, in my opinion OPA 76 does not add

sufficient land to the City’s urban area to meet the projected housing needs due, among other

matters, to:

• The use of a restricted time period (i.e. 15 years) for the provision of a residential land

supply whereas the adopted planning horizon of 2031 should have been applied;

• The application of inappropriate demographic criteria in arriving at the housing

propensities and housing unit requirements based on the projected population growth;

• Based on the most current information, the City’s overall population projections

understate the amount of growth expected over the planning horizon; and,


• Based on ongoing updates by Altus regarding the amount of existing residential land

supply which indicates to-date that such residential land supply was over-stated during

the OPA 76 process.

107. Providing an appropriate supply of residential land at this Official Plan review is necessary and

appropriate given that, as previously noted, the 2003 Official Plan did not advance any

significant urban boundary expansions. Further, the policies of OPA 76 propose to continue to

restrict future urban residential land needs assessments to 15 years (Section 2.2.1.3) and to

prohibit urban area expansions unless intensification targets are met (Section 2.2.1.3). While I

do not support these policies, if approved, they could provide significant obstacles to

addressing future residential land requirements in subsequent Official Plan reviews.

108. In my opinion, the proposal to commence a study of employment, housing and other land

requirements in 2012 for reporting to Council in 2014 (Section 2.2.1.7) does not provide

sufficient assurance that the deficiency of urban residential land requirements currently

identified by Altus and MGP will be addressed by the next 5-year Official Plan review. It is

clear that the policy only directs that a study be undertaken and there is no certainty that the

results and recommendations of this study will be implemented through an Official Plan

amendment. Section 2.2.1.5 of the 2003 Official Plan requires that additions to the urban land

supply will only occur during the City’s 5-year review of its land supply.

109. Altus and MGP have prepared two independent assessments of gross residential land

requirements set out below.


COMPARISON OF ALTUS AND MGP ANALYSES

CRITERIA MGP Update Altus

2006 Base Population (source)

870,800 (City)

812,100 (Census)

2031 Population Projection (source)

1,136,000 (City)

1,158,550 (Altus)

Housing Propensity Assumptions

MGP Altus

Required (Adjusted) Housing Units in Ottawa, 2006 - 2031

147,400 154,000

Required (Adjusted) Housing Units in Urban Area, 2006 - 2031

134,100

140,200

2006 Housing Unit Supply

- Greenfield Supply

- Intensification (Target %)

99,400

35,550 (26%)

98,100

47,700 (34%) Net Greenfield Residential Development Density (units per net hectare)

30 upnh 34 upnh

Net-to-Gross Ratio 45% 50%

Gross Residential Land Requirement (ha)

2,510 2,815

Notes: MGP analyses commence at mid-2006 Altus analyses commence at the end of 2006, except Census data which is mid-2006 2006 housing unit supply is based on the updated data compiled by Altus. Figures have been rounded.

110. While there are differences in some of the assumptions underlying these assessments, both

MGP and Altus conclude that additional gross residential lands are required to meet the City’s

projected housing needs to 2031; in the order of 2,510 to 2,815 gross hectares, which

represents a range of 305 gross hectares (a range of approximately 10 - 12%). This range may

be revised based on ongoing discussions regarding refinements to the existing land supply

data.

111. These land requirements are well in excess of the 230 hectares provided for in OPA 76 (for a

15-year land supply) and the 850 hectares recommended by staff.


112. MGP’s analysis can be summarized, in part, as being based on the following:

• Acceptance of the City’s population projections to 2031 prepared in 2007 (more up-to-

date projections were later released in 2010 by the Ministry of Finance);

• MGP’s professional opinion regarding housing propensities based on the City’s

expected population growth;

• A lesser proportion (26%) of new housing being accommodated through intensification

than that assumed by the City;

• A greenfield development density (30 units per net hectare) and housing mix that is

more reflective of what MGP believes will be developed (as opposed to what may be

planned); and,

• A lower net-to-gross ratio (45%) for determining gross residential land requirements.

113. Altus’ analysis can be summarized, in part, as being based on the following:

• 2006 Census data and Ministry of Finance population projections to 2031;

• Altus’ professional opinion regarding housing propensities based on the expected

household growth in the City;

• A proportion (34%) of new housing being accommodated through intensification

greater than MGP;

• A greenfield development density (34 units per net hectare) and housing mix that is

reflective of the City’s policy initiatives; and,

• A net-to-gross ratio (50%) for determining gross residential land requirements greater

than MGP.

114. Altus has updated, as practicable, the City’s residential land supply as of 2006 (and such

updating is continuing in consultation with the City).

115. As noted, Altus has included the most recent population forecasts prepared by the Ontario

Ministry of Finance and I agree that these forecasts should be considered.

116. Land supply requirements should be based on the best information available.


117. Although MGP has expressed concerns with the City’s greenfield housing mix, greenfield

development densities and net-to-gross assumptions, its primary analysis does use a

conservative population projection when compared to the Altus projections.

118. Both consultants adopt assumptions regarding the proportion of required housing requirements

to be satisfied by units created through intensification based on different definitions of what

units should constitute ‘intensification’ and accordingly, constitute part of the City’s 40%

intensification target or the 26% or 34% targets recommended by the consultants.

119. Intensification initiatives are advanced within the policies of the 2003 Official Plan and OPA 76

and further are consistent with the PPS. As previously noted, the majority of units created

through intensification do not address the low density housing requirements and the City’s

assumption of a higher proportion of units through intensification will not address the shortfall

of residential lands for low density residential units. The application of either MGP’s or Altus’

intensification assumptions in their analyses to determine future residential lands needs would

not undermine the City’s policy initiative to establish and monitor ‘targets’ for intensification.

120. In my opinion, there is more risk in ‘under-designating’ future urban residential land supplies,

than in ‘over-designating’ such land supplies.

121. ‘Under-designating’ can lead to, as previously noted, incremental and uncoordinated decisions

and investments. An under-designation through this Official Plan process will not necessarily

be corrected through the proposed future study and subsequent Official Plan review, as noted

above.

122. Where an ‘over-designation’ of land occurs the result will most probably be that such lands may

not proceed to development until a later period than originally projected. However, the City has

the ability to control the phasing and timing of development through its municipal planning

documents and development approvals processes.


G Recommendations to the Ontario Municipal Board

123. It is my recommendation to the Board that it direct the City to implement an urban expansion in

the order of 2,510 to 2,815 gross residential hectares. The ultimate geographic distribution of

these lands will further refine the actual number based on a detailed geographic review of

available and appropriate lands for urban expansion and the application of good planning

principles including, for example, identification of logical urban boundaries (e.g. use of

definable elements such as roads, natural features, etc).

124. Further, in my opinion, the difference in the range between the Altus and MGP projections to

2031 (i.e. 305 gross hectares or approximately 10 - 12%) is reasonable given the extent of the

projection period.

125. It is my professional planning opinion that the approval of certain components of Official Plan

Amendment No. 76 (as related to this phase of the hearing of the appeals to OPA 76), as

addressed through the Issues established for this phase of the hearing: is not appropriate;

does not represent good planning; does not have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial

interest: is not consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement; and, is not in conformity

with the 2003 Official Plan. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, I will provide (in

consultation with Ms. Sweet (FoTenn)) a list of the proposed modifications to OPA 76.

_________________________

Wendy Nott, FCIP, RPP December 3, 2010

Executive Vice-President & Senior Principal Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited

APPENDIX ‘A’

CURRICULUM VITAE OF WENDY NOTT, FCIP, RPP

WENDY NOTT , F C I P , R P P Senior Principal and Executive Vice-President

Walker, Nott, DragicevicAssociates Limited

Planning + Urban Design

90 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 701, Toronto, Ontario M4P 2Y3

t: 416-968-3511 f: 416-960-0172 e: [email protected]

EDUCATION:

1977 Bachelor of Environmental Studies (Urban & Regional Planning) University of Waterloo

PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY AFFILIATIONS • Fellow - Canadian Institute of Planners • Registered Professional Planner • Ontario Professional Planners Institute

2004 Joint CIP/OPPI Conference Committee Chair 2003 OPPI/OALA Conference Committee 1999 OPPI Conference Committee 1995 APA/CIP Conference Committee Public Policy Committee Ontario Municipal Board Liaison Committee

• Advisory Committee of the Ryerson University School of Urban and Regional Planning

SELECTED EXPERIENCE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS • Processing of applications (Official Plans, Official Plan

Amendments, Zoning By-laws, plans of subdivision, site plans and minor variances) for a wide variety of residential, mixed use, estate residential, commercial and industrial developments, such as: Fernbank Community Design Plan City of Ottawa Metrogate LEED Urban Village Development City of Toronto Sharon Meadows Neighbourhood Town of East Gwillimbury Canadian Tire Store/Warehouse

Re-development (Sheppard Subway) for 370,000 sm of development City of Toronto Canadian Tire store (Toronto Waterfront) City of Toronto Chedoke Browlands Redevelopment City of Hamilton Canadian Tire Store and

High Density Residential Development City of Toronto High Density Mixed-use Development

(St. Lawrence Neighbourhood) City of Toronto Stittsville Urban Village City of Ottawa Master and Secondary Plan Various municipalities Community commercial and City of Toronto

large-format retail facilities and Southern Ontario Municipal Official Plan/Zoning

matters affecting the Canadian Petroleum Petroleum industry Products Institute Residential Plans of Subdivision Various municipalities Residential infill/intensification Various municipalities High Density Residential developments City of Toronto

Wendy is well known to municipalities across Southern Ontario for her ability to construct innovative policy, zoning and guideline documents such as Official Plans, Secondary Plans, comprehensive zoning by-laws and urban design guidelines, successfully defending these documents before the Ontario Municipal Board on numerous occasions.

Her accomplishments extend into the land development realm and are exemplified in her comprehensively planned communities and neighbourhoods across Southern Ontario, consisting of both small and large-scale communities and redevelopment projects combining a mix of residential, commercial, institutional, recreational and industrial uses.

Wendy Nott joined Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited in 1977, becoming a Principal in 1984.

Throughout her career, Wendy has applied her substantial land use planning experience and knowledge representing clients in expropriation and Ontario Municipal Board proceedings.

Wendy was appointed as a ‘Fellow’ of the Canadian Institute of Planners in 2004; in recognition of her standards of professional practice and contributions to the planning community at-large.






Advice on Provincial Growth Plan Various municipalities Implementation Solar Energy Installations Various municipalities Conversion of industrial buildings

to residential uses City of Toronto Site Feasibility Analyses Various municipalities Secondary Plan/Industrial Subdivision

for Ontario Realty Corporation Town of Oakville

EXPERT EVIDENCE • Ontario Municipal Board hearings for a multiplicity of development

proposals (Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-laws, plans of subdivision, site plans and minor variances).

• Successful hearing on behalf of Delterra and Brookfield Homes to expand the Ottawa urban area boundary

• Ontario Municipal Board hearings on a wide variety of public sector matters.

• Expropriation and Lease Arbitration proceedings. OFFICIAL PLANS • Town of Mono Official Plan Review • City of Brantford • Town of Halton Hills • Town of Halton Hills Urban Area Study (Official Plan Review) SECONDARY PLANS • Taunton Community City of Oshawa • Brock/Taunton Major Central Area Town of Whitby • Civic Neighbourhood Town of Grimsby • Georgetown West and Georgetown South Town of Halton Hills • Brock/Thickson Community Central Area Town of Whitby STUDIES / REVIEWS • Growth Management Study Town of Mono • Visual Impact Assessments Town of Caledon • Oak Ridges Moraine Plan Implementation Town of Mono • Aggregate Extraction Policies Review Niagara Escarpment Ministry of Energy and Environment. Commission • Aggregate Resources Policy Study City of Kawartha Lakes And Township of King • Ontario Site Plan Control Ministry of Municipal Practices Review Affairs and Housing • Silver Creek Subwatershed Study Town of Halton Hills • Subwatershed 19 Study Towns of Caledon, Mono • Acton Urban Area Industrial and Residential Implementation Studies Town of Halton Hills • Residential Intensification Study City of Mississauga ZONING BYLAWS • Comprehensive Zoning By-law and

Site Plan Control Manual City of Brantford






• Zoning By-law Update Town of Mono • Village of Brooklin Town of Whitby URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES • Metrogate Urban Village Development City of Toronto • Downtown Secondary Plan Town of Whitby • Village of Brooklin Town of Whitby • Dundas/Thickson Commercial Area Town of Whitby • Dominion Gardens Design Guidelines Town of Halton Hills • Urban Design Study - Official Plan Town of Halton Hills

Ontario Municipal Board Hearing WITNESS …...Ontario Municipal Board Hearing WITNESS STATEMENT of...

Documents

Transcript of Ontario Municipal Board Hearing WITNESS …...Ontario Municipal Board Hearing WITNESS STATEMENT of...