Planning and Environment Committee

Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement

Minutes 74 / ProcÈs-verbal 74

Tuesday, 25 May 2010, 9:30 a.m.

le mardi 25 mai 2010, 9 h 30

Champlain Room, 110 Laurier Avenue West

Salle Champlain, 110, avenue Laurier ouest

Present / Présent :     Councillor / Conseiller P. Hume (Chair / Président)

Councillor / Conseillère P. Feltmate (Vice Chair / Vice-présidente)

            Councillors / Conseillers M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes, G. Hunter, B. Monette, S. Qadri

Regrets / Excuses:     None

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

No declarations of interest were filed.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification dU procÈs-verbaL

Minutes 73 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of Tuesday, 11 May 2010 were confirmed.

STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR PLANNING ACT MATTERS

DÉCLARATION POUR LES questions SOUS LA Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire

The Chair read a statement relative to the Zoning By-law amendment listed as Items 2 on the agenda.  It was noted that only those who made oral submissions at the meeting or written submissions before the amendment were adopted may appeal the matter to the OMB.  In addition, the applicant may appeal the matter to the OMB if Council does not adopt an amendment within 120 days for Zoning and 180 days for an Official Plan Amendment of receipt of the application.

The Chair explained that a comment sheet was available at the door for anyone wishing to submit written comments on these amendments.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Ratification dU procÈs-verbaL

Minutes 73 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting of Tuesday, 11 May 2010 were confirmed.

COMMUNICATIONS

COMMUNICATIONS

Responses to Inquiries: / Réponses aux demandes de renseignements:

PEC 01-10 – Regulatory Jurisdiction for new cell towers/ Pouvoir de réglementation concernant les nouvelles stations cellulaires

RECEIVED

OTTAWA BUILT HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LE PATRIMOINE BÂTI D’OTTAWA

1.         APPLICATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 90 GUIGUES AVENUE IN THE LOWERTOWN WEST HERITAGE CONSERVATION DISTRICT

DEMANDE DE NOUVELLE CONSTRUCTION AU 90, RUE GUIGUES, DANS LE DISTRICT DE CONSERVATION DU PATRIMOINE DE LA BASSE-VILLE OUEST

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0090                                                         Rideau Vanier (12)

The following correspondence was received with respect to this matter, and is held on file with the City Clerk:

· Letter dated 21 May 2010 from Chantal Patenaude, and accompanying location photos

Sally Coutts, heritage planner, provided an overview of the application and staff’s rationale for recommending approval.  She did so by means of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to questions from Councillor Qadri, Ms. Coutts explained that the proposed construction at 90 Guigues would require variances to be granted by the Committee of Adjustment.  One variance would be required because the development did not meet the minimum lot size for a Planned Unit Development (PUD.)  The site would also require a variance as it did not meet the required rear lot setback for a PUD, although the required amenity space was to be supplied elsewhere on the lot rather than in the rear.  Staff also requested a variance to the front yard setback in order that the new construction matches the setback of the existing building.

In response to questions from Councillor Monette, Ms. Coutts confirmed that the location of the proposed building was currently vacant and is used for parking.  She also confirmed that the there would be five underground parking spaces on the development, which meets the by-law requirements.

Committee then heard from the following public delegations:

Craig Szelestowski, spoke in opposition to the development as presented.  He explained that, while he was in favour of increasing density in the Lowertown West neighbourhood, he had concerns the specific application.  He suggested that the proposed development was incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, and did not take the development of the community in a positive direction.  His specific concerns are summarized below:

· With respect to compatibility, Mr. Szelestowski expressed concern that, although the guidelines speak to respecting the design and materials of the neighbourhood, some of the materials proposed for the new construction did not achieve this.  For example, the plans indicate one side of the building was to be metal cladding, and there is a suggestion white brick would be used, which he suggested were not materials compatible with the neighbourhood.  Also, it is not yet clear what kind of stone would be used, and if it will be compatible.  

· The proposal includes a garage door, and there are no other garage doors on the street. 

· He expressed further concern that the large trees in front of the lot would need to be removed, further emphasizing the incongruence of the building and reducing the area’s green space

· He expressed concern that the construction would impact the business of the adjacent Bed and Breakfast at 104 Guigues Avenue by cutting off its light and traffic to the development rendering its veranda unusable.

· He noted that at a recent community association meeting, he had had received feedback from the community association members and the ward councillor that the proposed development was incompatible.

Councillor Doucet, referencing guidelines that require a porch and a certain amount of area devoted to the street presence, suggested the garage was too dominant a presence.  Ms. Coutts noted that there is no heritage district conservation guideline addressing that issue and explained staff’s assessment was that the design addressed the street in an adequate fashion.  She noted that the Heritage Conservation District is approved by Council and staff considers those guidelines ahead of the Guidelines for Infill Construction in the neighbourhood.  On the issue of garage doors, she noted that a traditional feature of the immediate neighbourhood was carriageway entrances. On the staff felt the setback and design of the proposed underground garage entrance was similar in character to those carriageway features, and thus felt it was appropriate to have the garage door.

In response to questions from Councillor Doucet regarding the light impact on the adjacent property, Ms. Coutts explained that the development would block light to one window on the west wall of 104 Guigues Avenue, which lights the stairway; however, the applicant had offered to pay for the installation of a skylight so that the stairway would be lit. 

Chantal Patenaude, owner of 104 Guigues Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed construction.  She also provided a written submission and location photos of her property, which were circulated and are held on file with the City Clerk.  Ms. Patenaude outlined the following reasons for her opposition to the proposal:

· The construction would be too close to her house.  She suggested the proximity of the new construction to her western wall would block three windows, the rear balcony, and the side of the front veranda and second floor balcony.

· The proximity of the building would deny her access to make repairs to the western wall, veranda and second floor balcony.

· The wall that would protrude at the front of the property would completely block the side of the front porch and second-story balcony, block the view of the new building, and detract from the heritage beauty of her home. She expressed the desire to have that wall indented.

· The proposed construction would result in loss of livelihood.  As the operator of a Bed and Breakfast at 104 Guigues, she suggested the new development would greatly affect the number of tourists staying, both during and after construction.

· The proposed design did not conform to the heritage guidelines and, due to its height and setback, would not fit in with surrounding buildings with the exception of the existing building on the property. 

· She noted that all other buildings on the street were narrow, deep homes with driveways, whereas this development would be built to the limits of the lot, and this does not fit with the design of the street, and it would be the only building without a front entrance and front porch.

· Although modern in design, the building could still retain some architectural details from the past to make it less bulky, more charming, and help it blend in with the neighbourhood.  She cited the nearby Montmartre infill development at 124 Guigues Avenue as an example of compatible development.

· She also expressed concerns with respect to noise and traffic.

In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate, Ms. Patenaude explained the location of the three windows on the west wall of her property, one at the front of the house, illuminating the entrance, hallway and stairwell ant the other two located in the kitchen, providing light and ventilation.  Councillor Hunter expressed surprise that windows were permitted on the side of 104 Guigues, given that it was built at the property line. 

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Ms. Coutts explained that there would be 0.3 metres between the new construction and 104 Guigues Ave at the closest point, moving farther apart towards the back of the properties.  She noted that the applicant had offered to completely repair the western wall of 104 Guigues Ave. prior to the construction.  She indicated, while there was currently no legal agreement to that effect, it could be added as a condition of approval.

Anne Wiltshire, spoke in opposition to the proposed construction.  She suggested that, while the proposal could technically meet the guidelines, in the context of the neighbourhood it would be out of place.  She noted there were examples of good development that had taken place in the preceding years, citing the Montmartre development as one example.  She noted that this very old section of Ottawa was quite small, and suggested its look, feel and character was worth preserving for future generations. 

Barbara Fulford spoke in support of the proposed construction.  She noted that she was the mother of the applicant, and had been the original purchaser of 90 Guigues Avenue in 1988.  She noted the building had been in poor condition the time of purchase, and her family had put a great deal of money into fixing it up.  She provided some background of the history of the property, and noted that the gentrification of Guigues Ave. had begun at the time of their purchase.  She emphasized that the applicant was not a “fly by night” developer.  She suggested the applicant was genuinely interested in environmental considerations and the concerns of the neighbours, and were taking those concerns into consideration and addressing them as best she could.

Ms. Coutts clarified that staff had received a memo from the ward Councillor, Councillor Bédard, indicting his support of the project.  She also indicated that the Community association was formally circulated on the application and had never replied to staff.

Sarah Fulford, owner and applicant, spoke in support of the proposed construction. She did so with the aid of a Power Point presentation, which is held on file with the City Clerk.  The following summarizes the points raised in her presentation:

· Her family had owned the building since 1988, and had a commitment to heritage.

· The site of the proposed building is currently gravel parking lot

· She had approached the heritage committee to ensure the heritage guidelines were being interpreted correctly.

· She had hired Moriyama and Teshima, reputable Canadian architects responsible for the building such as the Canadian War Museum, Ottawa City Hall and the Aga Khan building on Sussex Drive. 

· While not everyone understood the contemporary style of the building, it had clean lines and proportion, with interest gained from different levels of construction.

· She reviewed the architects’ proposed concept plan, layout, and massing, via the PowerPoint.  Features of the concept plan included a courtyard, echoing the courtyards in the Byward Market area, underground parking, gardens, apartments with views, high ceilings, high-efficiency, and accessible units. Vines and trees would be encouraged, which will soften some of the lines, and would be a green roof, giving natural air conditioning and insulation.

· In addition to contemporary trends in architecture, the proposal includes contemporary trends in high-efficiency technology, noting such technologies only pay off if one retains the building for many years.  She noted six apartments are required in order to finance the project

· She sympathized with the neighbour at 104 Guigues with regards to the proximity to the property line, but suggested little benefit in moving the building slightly further away.  She suggested that the three-foot setback required by the by-law would not give much more benefit and use over what is proposed. 

· She reiterated the offer to fix the west wall of 104 Guigues so that it would be in good shape before construction, mitigating concerns about repairs. She noted that they were friends, though on the opposite sides of the issue. 

· She acknowledged that the existing building was the exception, but suggested it was also the nicest building on the street, and the first build.

· She suggested that the porches and balconies provided street life to the development.

In response to questions from Councillor Doucet, Ms. Fulford confirmed that she had offered to install a skylight in 104 Guigues Avenue to preserve light in the front stairway that would be blocked by the new construction.  She noted that, even if she were to build the required distance from the property line, the light to that particular window would still be obstructed.

Having concluded all public delegations, Committee then considered the report recommendations.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

That the owner of 90 Guigues Avenue provide repair of the west wall of 104 Guigues Avenue prior to construction of the new addition to 90 Guigues Avenue.

                                                                                                                      CARRIED

Committee then approved the recommendations of staff and the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee, as amended.

That the Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve the construction of a three-storey apartment building at 90 Guigues Avenue in the Lowertown West Heritage Conservation District according to plans submitted by Sarah Fulford on March 22, 2010 and included as Documents 4 and 5.

2. Issue the heritage permit with a two-year expiry date from the date of issuance.

3. Delegate authority for minor design changes to the General Manager of the Planning and Growth Management Department.

4. That the owner of 90 Guigues Avenue provide repair of the west wall of 104 Guigues Avenue prior to construction of the new addition to 90 Guigues Avenue.

(Note: The statutory 90-day timeline for consideration of this application under the Ontario Heritage Act will expire on, June 20, 2010)

(Note: Approval to Alter this property under the Ontario Heritage Act must not be construed to meet the requirements for the issuance of a building permit.)

CARRIED, as amended

Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability

SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS

PLANNING and growth management

URBANISME et Gestion de la croissance

2.          ZONING - 855 CARLING AVENUE

ZONAGE - 855, AVENUE CARLING

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0077                                                             Kitchissippi (15)

(This matter is Subject to Bill 51)

The following correspondence was received with respect to this matter, and is held on file with the City Clerk:

· E-mail dated 24 May 2010 from Dorothy Graham

· E-mail dated 22 May 2010 from Kathie Steinhoff and Peter Eady

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Armand Ruffo

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Geoff Poapst

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from James Welsh

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Jennifer Zelmer

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Kathryn and David Williams

· E-mail dated 23 May 2010 from Louise Watson

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Shirley Rayes

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Alayne McGregor

· E-mail dated 26 May 2010 from Rob Fennimore

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Laura Henderson and Sean Crowell

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Mary Wilkinson

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Richard Mason

· E-Mail dated 25 May 2010 from Marshall M. Perrin

· E-mail date 26 May 2010 from Geraldine and Daniel Sutton-Long.

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Christine Fennimore

· E-mail dated 26 May 2020 from Richard Cavanagh and Lil Krstic

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Yavor Kresic

· E-mail dated 24 May 2010 from Keith Hobbs

· E-mail dated 24 May 2010 from Brenda Sangster and Shelly Gosse

· E-mail dated 24 May 2010 from Laurie and Ken Hardage

· E-mail dated 24 May 2010 from Robert Keyes

· E-mail dated 24 May 2020 from Kim Meimaroglou

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 from Jack B. Kelly

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 from Amanda Farris

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 from Inga Dybala

· E-mail dated 28 May 2020 from Joanne Kim

· E-mail dated 28 May 2010 from Jason Bennett

· E-mail dated 30 May from Leanna Haythorne and Anil Naidoo

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 from John Doran

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 from Amanda Farris

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 form Jack B. Kelly

· E-mails dated 2 June and 21 April from Renee Payette

· Letters dated 18 and 20 May, 2010 from Michael Polowin on behalf of Dow’s Lake Court Inc.

Simon Deiaco, Planner, provided an overview of the application and staff’s rationale for recommending approval.  He was accompanied by Alain Miguelez, Program Manager, Development Review Process (Urban) and Richard Kilstrom, Manager of Policy Development and Urban Design.  A copy of staff’s PowerPoint presentation is held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to questions from the Chair, Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, explained that the matter would be subject to an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing on 7 September 2010. He explained that it was necessary to bring forward the report to the Committee at the present time because in order to provide Legal Services with instructions from Council as to what position to take before the OMB.  He further confirmed that, should Council take a position other than that recommended by staff, the City would need to retain an outside planner to defend Committee and Council’s decision before the board.  

Councillor Holmes observed that it seemed to be an emerging pattern for applications to be appealed to the OMB when the City does not complete its process in 120 days, thus forcing the matter to Council to obtain direction.  Mr. Marc agreed there had been a few such cases recently, citing 187 Metcalfe Street and 801 Albert Street as examples.  He suggested there was a need to wait and if it was a trend.  He confirmed that the need to retain an outside planner to defend Council’s decision was a further reason for the matter to be brought forward sooner, as the earlier the planner is retained, the better it looks to the board.  Councillor Holmes expressed concern that in such cases they were running out of time for public consultation and impacting the ability for all affected to become knowledgeable about the application and provide comments if they so wished. 

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes with respect to how the potential rapid transit corridor would be protected on the site, staff provided the following information:

· In “Area D,” on Schedule 129, the only permitted use in the three dimensional area measured from grade to a height of 15 metres is a rapid transit network.  While this creates an area where no other use would be permitted, it would not preclude building over top of that envelope, allowing the applicant to optimize their land and allowing the City to protect what is needed to allow the potential LRT connection to be made. 

· The specific technology, track alignment and design for the western rapid transit corridor is not yet complete, and there would be many factors considered in the design and location of the station, and whether it could be on this site.

· LRT staff is comfortable that Area D is appropriate and represents a radius of a turn that can be made by a future train. 

· There is the possibility that a building could be constructed prior to Council obtaining information on the potential design of the rapid transit connection or station, which will likely be 1-2 years in the future. Although currently no application had been submitted for site plan control, the applicants could move forward with a site plan control application and construction.  Through the site plan control process staff would look at refinements to the original concept. 

· As to whether the City could prevent the loss of the capacity to build the station into the building, Mr. Marc confirmed the report would not preclude construction before the City understands the station parameters.  He suggested the only way Council could ensure nothing took place on the site would be to impose an interim control by-law that would take away immediate building rights. 

· While the moratorium on development in the Carling-Bayview Community Design Plan Area would not permit rezoning, it would still allow the applicants to build within the existing zoning. 

Councillor Leadman suggested that, as the ward Councillor, she was not consulted on the report.  She expressed concern that the report recommendations should have been brought forward to her prior to them coming to Committee, notwithstanding the fact that the purpose of the report was to give direction before the OMB.  She suggested that part of the delay in consideration of the report was attributable to the fact that planning staff had not acknowledged that the transit corridor would be impacted, and this had to be determined through a separate study.  She questioned the fact that staff were recommending the approval of 800 parking spaces on the site, even as they were recommending additional height because it is a transit corridor, but.  She suggested this was contradictory to the intent of the planning and intensification model.

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Deiaco explained that the staff recommendation before Committee was to amend Schedule 129 to allow an increase in height, and to require a performance standard that makes retail uses mandatory at grade along Carling Avenue to further advance the policies of the Secondary Plan and mixed-use centre designation.  As to whether this would be a commercial or residential property going forward on the lot, Mr. Marc indicated that he had not been able to clearly identify whether or not it would be commercial or residential.  He expressed his understanding that the report was prepared on the basis that the site would be an office development; however, the applicant had not confirmed that was their intention. 

Councillor Leadman introduced the following motion, to be moved on her behalf by Councillor Holmes:

WHEREAS the zoning of 855 Carling is before Committee and Council;

AND WHEREAS this provides an opportunity to promote transit in the vicinity of the Carling O-Train station, to protect  for a future transit station and to provide for the enhancement  of the variety of uses within a Mixed Use designation fronting on an Arterial Mainstreet;

AND WHEREAS this rezoning has been considered by the Public, Committee, Council and Staff on the basis that the rezoning was sought for non-residential purposes and that if a residential rezoning is sought, the matter should be brought back for further consultation and consideration, and therefore Item c) below has been included to express this determination on the part of Council;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT with respect to 855 Carling:

Planning and Environment Committee recommend to Council that:

A zoning by-law amendment be enacted to provide:

a) that for Area D on Schedule 129 the only permitted use in the three dimensional area measured from grade to a height of 15.0 metres is a rapid transit network;

b) The uses along the ground floor are limited in accordance with the third bullet point under item 2) in the Details of the Recommended Zoning; and

c) With respect to the land located within each applicable zone as of this date, a building containing residential uses shall not be permitted to exceed either the height or the f.s.i. in place on 25 May 2010; and

d) The number of automobile parking places be limited to an amount equivalent to the minimum parking requirement for Area A plus an additional 25 places to provide for flexibility.

And that no further changes be made to the applicable zoning at this time

And that no further notice be given, pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17)

She suggested the motion would provide legal staff with the tools they needed before the OMB.  She suggested that the delay beyond 120 days was unfortunate, but unavoidable due to the lack of attention to the transit corridor.  She suggested that, given the investment the City was making in transit, this site was critical.  She encouraged Committee to support the motion.

Committee then heard from the following Public Delegations:

Michael Polowin, Gowlings, Lafleur, Henderson and Murray Chown, Novatech Consulting, spoke on behalf of Dow’s Lake Court Inc, owners of 865 and 875 Carling Avenue and 140 Hickory Street.  Mr. Polowin indicated that his comments applied to the proposal for a commercial office development, and might be different should the application prove to be something else.  He noted that the massing of the proposed development impacted his client’s land, and expressed concern that the staff report had insufficient regard to Official Plan (OP) policies, particularly with respect to transit and arterial mainstreets.  He noted the arterial mainstreet policies concerning suggest a height of eight stories, and the as of right zoning is 11 stories.  He also noted that the arterial mainstreet zoning suggests the lower height should be adjacent to the arterial mainstreet, rising to the back, while the subject proposal does the opposite.  He expressed further concern with access to the Transitway for properties located to the west, suggesting the development would restrict access for his client’s property.  Written submissions from Mr. Polowin were circulated to Committee members and are held on file with the City Clerk

Mr. Chown referenced a Planning Review report Novatech had prepared for Dow’s Lake Court inc., which was provided to Committee members and is held on file with the City Clerk.  While he indicated that he had no challenge to the general objective of the applicants to increase the amount of buildable space on the property, he asked Committee to consider the following:

· Through negotiations on this application, there should be the opportunity for the City and the proponents to discuss the ability to integrate the development with the Transitway, in particular a Carling Avenue transit station. He suggested the opportunity to do so would be lost if not done now.

· While there was the ability, as of right, to locate a structure on Carling Avenue at 10-11 stories in height, he suggested that did not make it the right thing to do.  He noted the policies and design guidelines for arterial mainstreets emphasize the objective of a human scale of development along those streets.  He suggested there may be the ability to negotiate a compromise to achieve those objectives by reducing the scale of development along Carling Avenue, while compensating for that by increasing heights on the north part of the site in order to accommodate same amount of built space.

· The requirement for some pedestrian and public uses on ground level could provide integration to Carling Avenue, and could provide an active and viable link for pedestrians to the transit station.

In conclusion, Mr. Chown suggested there was tremendous possibilities on the site and hoped Council make the right decision and address the issues raised in his presentation.

Janet Bradley spoke on behalf of Soho Champagne Condominiums Inc., owners of the property at 125 Hickory Street.  She indicated her client supported the proposal, as outlined in the report, for two commercial office towers and.  She suggested the proposal was a good fit, in line with the Preston-Champagne secondary plan and the parent OP.  However, she expressed concern with the possibility that the development would be changed to a residential development.  She indicated that her client has concern that the applicants planned a “bait and switch,” telling everyone the development would be an office building in compliance with the secondary plan, securing the zoning to increase the amount of built form, then switching it to residential, noting that the mixed-use designation allowed either. 

Ms. Bradley proposed that office buildings were more in compliance with the secondary plan, as such Council should consider a zoning bylaw that tailors the uses permitted on the site to that which comply with the secondary plan. In summary, she reiterated that her client supported for a by-law that is tailored to permit the development outlined in the report; however, if the by-law continued to permit residential or development further to the north on the site, her client had concerns with the appropriateness of the development.

Councillor Hunter suggested that the time to have raised concern with the possible residential use would have been at the time of the Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw when the MC mixed use zone was being considered for the site.  Ms. Bradley noted that her client had purchased the land in January 2010, knowing there was an MC zoning on the adjacent property, but knowing that zoning was for a certain height and amount of space.  The concern is that the applicant was seeking a significant increase in height and amount of space.  While she generally had no objection to more residential development in the area, she expressed concern that, while the two proposed commercial towers would front off Carling Avenue, the rumoured residential proposal would have two residential buildings to the rear of the site, immediately adjacent to the low-scale development on her client’s site.  She suggested the issue was one of compatibility of the adjacent use and how the whole area was originally planned

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman as to whether the proposed motion from Councillor Holmes would address her client’s issues, Ms. Bradley maintained that the only way to address the issue was to change the Zoning By-law.  She emphasized that if Council was going to grant more rights, more density, and more height for the site, it should grant those rights in the direction of your official plan, which is office development.

In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate with regards to the Preston-Champagne secondary plan and its relationship to the Carling-Bayview CDP currently underway, staff explained that the two plan areas overlap, but the CDP area is significantly larger than the secondary plan area.  While the secondary plan is an adopted document, the CDP is in process and there could be some further overlap with their respective policies.

Councillor Doucet suggested the subject site at the junction four wards: River Ward, Somerset Ward, Capital Ward and Kitchissippi Ward.  He questioned why staff had not taken time to consult with the councillors of the abutting wards before the matter came to Committee.  In response to the Councillor’s concerns that the process was being driven by the developers and the OMB rather than the citizens and elected representatives, noted that, while there were certainly concerns with that process, the City had to comply with the rules laid out by the Province.  He reiterated that legal staff required Council to make a decision to provide direction before the OMB, and if that recommendation was not in line with staff’s, additional time was required to retain an outside planner.  He maintained that the application could be delayed no further if they were to present an appropriate case before the board.

Councillor Doucet expressed concern that allowing development on the site would eliminate possibilities for connecting a carling avenue rapid transit corridor with the north-south line, which has enormous consequences for the city.

Mr. Miguelez explained the challenge posed by the fact that, while the results of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the western transit corridor was one to two years away, the City was faced with an application under the Planning Act and an appeal to the OMB due to non response.  He indicated that staff had initiated an accelerated process in order to determine what the City needed to do to ensure the possible transit corridor was removed a result of a development on the.  He explained that, in the absence of a competed EA, Dillon Consultants had been retained to do an analysis to establish the requirements of this particular location and how to safeguard the transit corridor.  He outlined the details of how the potential transit corridor would be preserved in Area D of Schedule 129, which provides the required arc for the vehicles to turn. 

Councillor Doucet indicated that, while he was glad to see an effort to protect the corridor, he lacked confident that it would be adequate, indicated he had remaining reservations about the ability for a train or bus to make the turn in the space identified under Area D.  At the suggestion of the Chair, staff agreed to share the results of the Dillon report with Councillor Doucet, so that he could be confident in its recommendations.

Shirley Rayes, Civic Hospital Neighbourhood Association, spoke in opposition to the proposal.  She expressed several concerns, as summarized below:

· The residents and community association received very short notice of the  application, with little time to read and prepare for the meeting

· The community association’s comments are not contained in the report, and they certainly have comments. 

· The community association vehemently opposes the zoning, as it is incompatible with the current neighbourhood.

· The report shows a flawed traffic analysis.  The traffic analysis indicates that there would be serious intrusions into the neighbourhood, as traffic would be directed via a residential street to the failed Queensway ramp at Parkdale.  She suggested that the better access to the Queensway would be via Carling Avenue, noting City traffic experts she had spoken to confirmed this.

· She suggested the community was already being assaulted by a number of development projects, and maintained any request in excess of the current zoning was counterproductive, given the future transit plans, and an affront on the area’s residents.

Ms. Rayes also submitted detailed written comments, which were circulated to Committee members and are held on file with the City Clerk.

Alayne McGregor spoke in opposition to the proposed development.  She also submitted detailed written comments, which were circulated to Committee members and are held on file with the City Clerk. The points raised in her presentation are summarized below

· The proposed development would put significantly more vehicle traffic in a neighbourhood that is already having problems with congestions on many of the streets that are used for neighbourhood traffic.

· The addition of more traffic to the area would make it increasingly difficult for cyclists.

· While the increased height and density of the project is predicated on its immediate proximity to the O-Train, it is still allowing for 800 parking spaces, which she suggested did not make sense. 

· She proposed that, if Council supported the project, should substantially reduce the parking. 

· She noted that the Telus building downtown has 80 per cent of its employees coming in by transit, cycling or walking.  She suggested that, given the excellent transit accessibility of the subject site, the amount of car parking could be reasonably reduced to 160 spaces.

· She suggested the neighbourhood could not support the additional car traffic, particularly in the context of all the new developments which are happening in the same general area.

Councillor Hunter challenged the delegation’s recommendation for reduced parking in development, suggesting this would result in workers seeking street parking in the surrounding neighbourhood.  He suggested this would be to the detriment of surrounding residents and businesses.  Ms. McGregor countered that if there is less parking, many people will look to alternatives such as transit, cycling and walking, and emphasized that there needed to be promotion of those alternatives. 

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, staff confirmed that the modal split being used for the subject property was 30 per cent for the year 2011, rising to 35 per cent in 2016.  Councillor Leadman suggested that, given the transit usage being used to justify the height increase, the amount of parking provided was questionable.

In response to questions from Councillor Qadri with respect to the ancillary parking for the Civic Hospital that was currently located on the site, Mr. Deiaco expressed his understanding that the proposed parking structure would not house those 300 parking spaces, so the hospital would need to make alternative arrangements.

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes with respect to her motion as it pertained to parking, Mr. Miguelez expressed his understanding that the motion limited to an amount equivalent to the minimum parking for area A.  As the Zoning By-law designates lower parking requirements for the more central area A, the motion would have the effect of applying that lower parking limit to the whole property.  Mr. Marc clarified that the motion would limit the parking on the site to 532 parking places.

Mr. Marc further explained that the clause of the motion pertaining to residential development, while somewhat redundant, would to provide the clear intent that if the applicant wished to go ahead with the residential proposal, the matter would have to come back before committee and council for further consultation and decision by council.

Alan Cohen, Soloway Wright, spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He was accompanied by Ron Jack, Delcan, Ted Fobert, FoTenn Consultants, and Mike Casey, Campbell Steel and Iron Works Ltd, owner.

Mr Cohen began by thinking staff for taking the time to meet with the applicants through the process, and indicating that they were partly in support, and partly opposed to the staff recommendations.  The points raised in his presentation are summarized below:

· With respect to the comments made by the previous delegations, Ms. Bradley and Mr. Polowin, he noted they had not mentioned the adverse impact on their clients, and suggested that the legitimacy of their positions would be tested before the OMB. 

· He challenged the suggestion that staff was not aware of the potential for potential land requirement for transit or the potential requirement, indicating that it had been known to the applicants for some time and staff had advised the application would not be processed any further until such time as a discovery was made about the requirement.  It was for this reason the applicants appealed the matter to the OMB, as it could have been a considerable before the matter arose.

· With respect to the limitations on Area D, the potential transit corridor, he proposed that if the City wanted the property for transit purposes, they should buy it.

· With respect to the potential for residential use, he clarified that the 2008 zoning, and the preceding zoning, permits both commercial and residential, and suggested this was in conformity with the OP.  He indicated that he had advised both the OMB and staff the lands could be zoned for office, residential or both and that the residential development might see different performance standards.  He emphasized that the applicants would advise staff, the OMB, and every person within 400 feet know if this were to be the case.

· He explained that the Zoning sought applies to residential and office uses, and the applicants showed an office concept because the office use creates the greatest demand for parking.  He suggested that a residential use would be a lesser impact on parking and traffic.

· In summary, Mr Cohen explained that the applicants support the density and height being proposed by staff; oppose the restrictions on Area D.

· With respect to the proposed commercial uses at grade, he questioned the fact that the City was taking Area D for transit use and imposing the commercial.  He also doubted the ability to find tenants for the commercial space. 

Mr. Jack echoed the comments made by Mr. Cohen, and outlined the results of the Delcan report submitted with the application in May 2009.  The points raised in his presentation are summarized as follows:

· The report analyzed this particular concept plan because it was a potential use of the land and because it generated the most impact in terms of servicing, traffic and parking.

· The report stated that the concept plan illustrating an office development represented only one option for the use of the property, and that a residential or a mixed-use concept may be pursued by the owner.  Each of these options at the intensification proposed is supported by the applicable policy and regulatory framework, and all options are actable with respect to existing roadway and hard service capacity.

· The traffic analysis based on the office concept represents the worst case scenario as it relates to traffic generation and municipal services are available and appropriate for all other options.

· The site is currently zoned mixed-use center, which permits a broad range of uses and that reflects the designation of the land, with an arterial main street designation along the frontage of Carling Avenue.

· Mixed-use centers are defined in the official plan as strategic locations with high potential to achieve compact and mixed-use development, are limited in number and represent opportunities for substantial growth.

· The policies encourage transit supportive uses including offices and residential

· The arterial main street designation on Carling Avenue speaks to encouraging redevelopment and infill on those locations.

· While the OP supports eight storeys on arterial main streets, it provides for consideration of greater building heights where the development fosters the creation of a community focus, where it is at a corner lot or a gateway location or at a location where there are opportunities to support transit at a transit stop or station greater heights will be considered.   He suggested the subject site fit those criteria

· The Preston Champaign secondary speaks to this area of Carling as an important entryway into the Preston community.

· With respect to the requirement for retail at grade along Carling, he expressed the opinion that there was no basis in the policy and regulatory framework for either the mixed-use centre or arterial main streets designation or zoning to specifically require ground floor retail in those buildings.

· He suggested the proposal fit with the mix of uses intended for a mixed use centre, in the context of other uses in the area.  He emphasized that the zoning bylaw states the purpose of both the mixed use center zone and the arterial main street zone specifically is a broad range of uses (office, retail, residential etc) and they can occur as mixed-use buildings separate buildings.

· On the issue of parking, he noted the parking in the area was governed by the Zoning bylaw requirement for uses near a transit station, which sets minimum and maximum requirements.  The 800 spaces is within that range, and in full compliance with the OP.

Ted Fobert spoke to the status of the rapid transit study that affects this area, in the context of the development.  The following is a summary of the points raised in his presentation:

· While the West LRT corridor EA underway would likely identify the preferred corridor in year, the overall EA would not be finished for two years. 

· The corridors to be considered in the current study include the Ottawa River Parkway, the Byron Corridor, Carling Avenue, or some combination thereof, and those corridors and alignment have not yet determined.

· While the City is protecting Area D of the subject site, it is not yet clear whether that parcel would be needed, even if the future O-train corridor is on Carling Avenue

· He proposed that area D was not the only way to connect the north-south line and the Carling corridor, and suggested one alternative could be to use the parcel to the south, currently owned by the federal government.

· With regards to access to the transit stations, he suggested that the proposed development would not prevent access to the existing or any future transit station on Carling, given how people currently access the O-Train and the location of the O-Train trench.

· With regard to station locations, he suggested that if the transit route ended up crossing Area D of the subject site, there would not be a station there because the station could not be on a curve.

Mr. Casey also spoke in support of the proposal.  He began by noting that he had advised Councillor Leadman in 2008 that they would be coming forward with a rezoning for the property, and had subsequently attended a public meeting in the community.  He raised the following additional points:

· After months of working with staff, staff advised that the only way to advance the process was to make an application. He indicated that he would have preferred to have come to an agreement at the staff level with respect to the transit turn.

· He noted that there are other parcels of land at the same intersection that could accommodate a potential transit connection, and emphasized that Area D of the subject property was not the only option. He also confirmed that comments by Mr. Jack that a transit station would make sense on the site.

· He noted that his company owns numerous commercial buildings, some residential, and noted that his brother was the owner of Charlesfort, and had been consulted on the project. 

· He suggested that, if they wanted to go with a residential proposal, they would be satisfied with the heights proposed in the report and, while they might come back for a minor variance, there would be no request for additional rezoning.

· With respect to the parking, he suggested the proposed 880 parking was right in the middle of the range required by the by-law. 

· The intent of the rezoning was to protect both the residential and commercial rights, and a commercial proposal was put forward as that had the greatest impact.

· He indicated that, while they had the right to construct both commercial and residential, they were not certain which would be developed.  He suggested this decision would be based on what opportunities and tenants were available. 

· He suggested the purpose of the rezoning was to provide the appropriate parcel, so that he could respond in a timely manner to opportunities that may arise. He noted that he could not, for example, wait until a tender from the federal government for office space before applying for planning variances, given the length of the application process

· With respect to the discussion about putting retail on the ground floor, he suggested there was no justification for retail on this complex.  He noted that there was little retail along that part of Carling Avenue, and noted previous retail initiatives in his neighbouring buildings had been repeatedly unsuccessful.  He proposed that retail would evolve as ne need arose in the developing area, but suggested it was more likely to happen on the other side of Carling.

· With respect to the height and density, de noted that the City had approved re-zonings for additional height and density for several nearby parcels.  He suggested it would be unfair to deny him those same permissions.

· With respect to the neighbours, he noted that they had consulted with them, and made every effort to work with them, but acknowledged not all issues had been resolved.

· He expressed that he did not want to delay the decision on what could be done with the property for an additional two years while the City decides what to do with the transit corridor and the CDP.  He noted the CDP had already been abandoned once, along with the previous LRT plan, and feared this could happen again.

Mr. Cohen provided additional comments with respect to the motion introduced by Councillor Holmes on behalf of Councillor Leadman.  Firstly, he challenged the statement made in the preamble of the motion that rezoning was being considered by the Public, Committee, Council and Staff on the basis that the rezoning was sought for non-residential purposes.  He maintained that the rezoning was sought to permit residential and/or office.  With respect to the resolutions, he suggested that the first two clauses were already contained in the staff report, and that he did not support the third clause pertaining to the restriction to residential.  With respect to the parking requirement, he maintained the position that what the applicant proposed was within the appropriate range. 

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, the delegations provided the following additional comments:

· Regarding the aforementioned public meeting, Mr. Casey confirmed that the meeting had taken place in 2009, and acknowledged that the Councillor had raised the issue of the LRT EA, and had indicated that she was not certain of whether there would be an impact.

· Mr. Fobert indicated that the Preston Champaign Secondary Plan identifies Carling Avenue between Champagne Street and Rochester Street as an important entry way to the community, encourages enhanced treatment to provide an attractive entrance to the Champagne/Preston area, specifically through the provision of generous landscaping, the development of prestigious buildings, locating parking primarily underground and design that provides good pedestrian connections to the site.  He suggested all these objectives were achieved in the proposal, and reiterated his view that retail is not the most appropriate activity. 

· To the issue of pedestrian links, Mr. Fobert suggested the development would be designed to connect appropriately to future transit.  He emphasized that the proposal was at the concept stage and much design work would be undertaken before completion.

· Mr. Casey: noted that at the public meeting, some residents wanted the proponent to build a link over the O-train trench.  He noted they had investigated this possibility, and the cost of doing it exceeded the benefit.  He noted there had also been a suggestions that, as a condition of approval, the developer build a new Queensway interchange at Rochester, and a large retail grocery store, and he had indicated to residents these would not be pursued.

· On the issue of the transit corridor, Mr. Jack indicated that they had reviewed the Dillon consultants’ report and Area protects one of a number of potential transit links.  There would still be additional options for the corridor if Area D is not protected.

In response to questions from Councillor Qadri, Mr. Casey reviewed the details of the current arrangement with the Civic Hospital for parking on the site.  He noted that until the site is developed, the lease would likely be renewed on a short-term basis, but maintained it was not his responsibility to provide parking to the hospital.  He noted that the owners of adjacent building rent out 300 spaces, as they have parking in that is surplus to their needs.

Lori Mellor, Preston Street BIA also registered her intent to speak to the item, but was unable to attend.

Having completed public delegations, Committee proceeded to questions and debate on the report recommendations and the motion put forward by Councillor Holmes on behalf of Councillor Leadman.

In response to questions from Councillor Leadman, staff provided the following additional information:

· The Carling Bayview CDP currently underway encompasses the subject property.

· The purpose of a CDP is to implement OP policies by working out in further detail the land use, design and other considerations and how they might play out in specific areas.

· In this particular CDP, one of the main things staff is looking at is intensification.  It will also examine urban design in light of the City’s new ability under Bill 51 to strengthen their response to urban design, and may look at the types of uses that would be along the corridor in order to support the new urban structure that the City is trying to achieve.

· Infrastructure is a major consideration of this particular CDP, including piped infrastructure.  It is one of the first to include a Master Servicing Study. 

· Another rationale for looking at this particular corridor is its placement beside the rapid transit corridor, which is where the OP strategy targets much of the intensification.

· With respect to the types of uses required along the corridor to support intensification, staff views the uses that would be required as ones that populate the sidewalks with the type of interaction that one would see in a bustling type of urban area.  This would include retail at grade.

· The Dillon consultant study was completed in late 2009 and subsequently peer-reviewed by Delcan in early 2010.

· With respect to the staff report, it was confirmed that once staff prepare their reports internally, and the report was subject to the normal planning circulation process that is standard for this type of report.

Councillor Leadman reiterated her concerns that she had not seen the report until very late in the process.  She confirmed that, while she was not saying staff’s professional advice would have been different if they consulted with her, she did feel it put her in an uncomfortable position as the ward councillor to have not known the recommendations were coming forward, and led to confusion among the community. She suggested the recommendations may or may not have been different had consultation taken place.  She suggested the motion being put forward by Councillor Holmes on her behalf addressed some of the serious issues with the staff report. 

Councillor Leadman noted that the motion before Committee had been reviewed by legal staff, and was intended to provide direction to legal before the OMB.  She suggested consultation was always important, particularly in an area in particular that is going through a CDP.  She acknowledged the concerns of the development community when a CDP comes forward, but suggested the City was faced with many challenges with respect to intensification, transit and infrastructure.  She suggested it was unfortunate to be doing this through a one-off process, given the cumulative impact of individual applications.

In response to question from Councillor Leadman, Mr. Marc confirmed that, should Council approve something other than the staff recommendation, there would be the requirement to hire an outside planner; however, there would not necessarily be the need to retain outside legal counsel.  The City Clerk and Solicitor would make the determination on whether the file would be handled in-house or by external counsel, based on a number of factors such as workload.

With respect to Area D, Mr. Marc explained that while the report recommendation and the motion provide for the preservation of “Area D” as something that could be potentially used by a rapid transit system, they do not mandate that the City acquire Area D.  He suggested if it were later determined that Area D was required, the City would need to enter into negotiations to purchase the land, and if those negotiations were unsuccessful, explore expropriation.

In response to questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Deiaco explained that the application would have been deemed complete shortly after3 June, 2009 commencing the 120 day timeline under the Planning Act.  He indicated that signs went up on the property on 30 June, 2009, and notice would have gone to the Ward councillor, community associations in Ward 15, and whoever requested notice.  He indicated that, based on the notes left by the previous planner, he did not believe the councillors in the abutting wards were notified. 

Councillor Hunter suggested that the ward councillor should have organized a consultation with the Community, as had occurred with a property owned by the same company in his ward.  Mr. Deiaco confirmed that there was a pre-application community consultation meeting.

As to why it did the matter did not come to Committee and Council sooner, Councillor Hume suggested this was because the City needed to determine what right of way needed to be protected for LRT.  Councillor Hunter suggested there had been plenty of time for the item to have appeared on the Committee agenda.  He further noted that the OP contains provisions directing what should be done when an application to amend the zoning by-law is submitted and a community design plan has not been approved, and suggested these requirements had been met for the subject application.  He suggested committee should be considering the application on its merits and suggested Committee vote in conformity with the staff report.

Councillor Holmes agreed that the subject property was an appropriate site for intensification, and referenced the previous and ongoing CDP processes for the area.  With respect to the motion, she requested its recommendations be split for voting purposes.  She noted that the motion addressed the importance of protecting Area D for the potential rail plan, an suggested to preclude the ability for rail to make the turn would be unconscionable, and to have an underground parking garage at that curve would impede the ability to do so underground, which may be necessary.  She expressed her support for the requirement for ground-floor retail capacity, and questioned the applicant’s assertion that it would be difficult to find tenants.  She suggested it would contribute to the kind of activity that would attract people to Preston Street and surrounding area.  Further, she hoped the development would include pedestrian access through the site to the transit station, and hoped where would be many more people coming by transit bicycle, walking, as hoped for in the OP.

In response to questions from the chair regarding the likelihood for success before the OMB, should the motion be approved, Mr. Marc provided the following assessment.  He suggested that the first four clauses (A-D) of the motion stood a reasonable chance of success before the board.  However, the subsequent resolution that no further changes be made to the applicable zoning at this time, could be a greater challenge given the site’s location.

In response to concerns raised by Councillor Hunter that the first clause of the motion did not serve to protect the transit corridor below grade, Councillor Holmes agreed to amend the motion to provide that Area D would be protected for transit from below grade up to 15 metres above grade.

Councillor Hunter suggested that for Council to allow the developer one height for an office, but not allow that height for the residential as recommended in the motion was contrary to the policies that the majority of councillors had approved in the OP.  He suggested staff had done a good job ensuring the application was tested in all aspects of the OP regarding mixed use centres and intensification.  While he recognized the concerns of the councillor and some residents, he felt that from a City-wide perspective, the better use of the site was the one that put forward by in the staff report.  He indicated his opposition to Councillor Holmes’ motion and his support for the staff the recommendations.

Councillor Doucet reiterated that the subject site was located at the junction of four wards, and expressed his dismay that the abutting councillors were not notified.  He suggested the subject site was the only point of connection for a potential Carling transit line to the north-south line is this point, and as such was a very important piece of property for the City.  He suggested all the City’s official planning calls for that to be the location, and expressed concern that the City was not taking all possible precautions to protect it.  He referenced his experiences on a recent visit to Chicago, noting how much public land had been protected in that city, its transit and pedestrian connections and effective planning.  He suggested that, while Ottawa may not be a world-class city like Chicago, it should aim to be best in its class, and to give away such a vital piece of land as the subject site was not the way to achieve it. 

Councillor Leadman spoke in support of the motion.  She reiterated her support for the recommendations of the motion to protect the transit, require main street ground floor retail, require the applicants return to Council to approve any residential use, and reflect in the parking requirement the high transit modal splits are used to support the requested density.  She suggested the motion would provide an appropriate decision for legal staff to bring forward to the OMB, and supported intensification in keeping with the OP and the smart growth principles of intensification.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

WHEREAS the zoning of 855 Carling is before Committee and Council;

AND WHEREAS this provides an opportunity to promote transit in the vicinity of the Carling O-Train station, to protect  for a future transit station and to provide for the enhancement  of the variety of uses within a Mixed Use designation fronting on an Arterial Mainstreet;

AND WHEREAS this rezoning has been considered by the Public, Committee, Council and Staff on the basis that the rezoning was sought for non-residential purposes and that if a residential rezoning is sought, the matter should be brought back for further consultation and consideration, and therefore Item c) below has been included to express this determination on the part of Council;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT with respect to 855 Carling:

Planning and Environment Committee recommend to Council that:

A zoning by-law amendment be enacted to provide:

e) that for Area D on Schedule 129 the only permitted use in the three dimensional area measured from below grade to a height of 15.0 metres above grade is a rapid transit network;

CARRIED

f) The uses along the ground floor are limited in accordance with the third bullet point under item 2) in the Details of the Recommended Zoning; and

CARRIED

g) With respect to the land located within each applicable zone as of this date, a building containing residential uses shall not be permitted to exceed either the height or the f.s.i. in place on 25 May 2010; and

LOST

YEAS (2):       Councillors C. Doucet, D. Holmes

NAYS (5):       Councillors M. Bellemare, P. Feltmate, G. Hunter, S. Qadri, P. Hume

h) The number of automobile parking places be limited to an amount equivalent to the minimum parking requirement for Area A plus an additional 25 places to provide for flexibility.

                                                                                                                      LOST

YEAS (2):       Councillors C. Doucet, D. Holmes

NAYS (5):       Councillors M. Bellemare, P. Feltmate, G. Hunter, S. Qadri, P. Hume

And that no further changes be made to the applicable zoning at this time

                                                                                                           LOST

YEAS (1):       Councillors C. Doucet

NAYS (6):       Councillors M. Bellemare, P. Feltmate, G. Hunter, D. Holmes; S. Qadri, P. Hume

And that no further notice be given, pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17)

                                                                                                           CARRIED       

Mr. Marc pointed out one additional correction to be made to the staff recommendation, to change the reference to “Schedule 249” to “Schedule 129.”  Committee then approved the report recommendation, as amended.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 855 Carling Avenue from MC[24] F(2.5) Schedule 129 and MC F(1.5) to MC[24] F(4.1) Schedule 129, as shown on Document 1 and as detailed in Document 2, as amended by the following

a. that for Area D on Schedule 129, the only permitted use in the three dimensional area measured from below grade to a height of 15.0 metres above grade is a rapid transit network;

And that no further notice be given, pursuant to the Planning Act, subsection 34(17)

Carried as amended

Councillor C. Doucet Dissented

3.         BY-LAW REVIEW AND MODERNIZATION - RESPONSE TO INQUIRY PEC 05-09

RÉVISION ET DE MODERNISATION DES RÈGLEMENTS MUNICIPAUX - RÉPONSE AU DEMANDE DE RENSEIGNEMENTS NO. PEC 05 - 09

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0014                                City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville

(Deferred from the meeting of 11 May 2010 / Reporté de la réunion du 11 mai 2010)

That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information.

CARRIED

COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY

VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS

4.         STRATEGIES TO MANAGE OTTAWA'S EMPLOYMENT LAND SUPPLY

STRATÉGIES DE GESTION DES TERRES SERVANT À DES FINS D'EMPLOI À OTTAWA

ACS2010-ICS-CSS-0006                                City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville

Johanne Levesque, Director of Community Sustainability and David Powers, Officer, Economic Development, were present to answer questions from Committee.

Committee heard from the following Public Delegations:

Sol Shuster, Chair of the Greenbelt Coalition of Canada’s Capital Region, began by providing some background information on the Coalition.  A copy of the coalition’s vision, objectives and goals was circulated and is held on file with the City Clerk.

He spoke in opposition to aspects of the report that referenced development in the Greenbelt.  He noted that staff had previously produced a document in 2008 that proposed a portion of the greenbelt be turned into residential development, which he suggested had been thoroughly discredited.  He suggested the present report represented another assault on the Greenbelt, as the consultants’ report recommended further private employment uses of the Greenbelt in lands leased by the airport authority, and along the 417 and 416 corridors.  He emphasized the coalition’s position was to ensure there was no new residential, commercial or institutional buildings in the Greenbelt.

He suggested that, while staff may see the Greenbelt as a land bank for private development projects, the Federal Government has the foresight to create a publicly owned Greenbelt for all Canadians out of reach of the local municipal governments who are prone to developer pressures.  He proposed that the greenbelt should not be used as a solution to poor planning by staff and Council over the years.  He suggested the Greenbelt had been carved up enough by infrastructure, which had impacted its wildlife and plant corridors and proposed that any development along its major corridors would further fragment the greenbelt, and suggested this to be unacceptable. , which in our view would be totally unacceptable. He emphasized that the Greenbelt was not simply a collection of the environmental hotspots surrounded by farms and scrub lands; rather, he suggested the ecological integrity provided by large unbroken area of undeveloped land was just as important as the intrinsic value of the most important areas considered in isolation.  In addition to its environmental values, he suggested the Greenbelt had important aesthetic public ownership, agricultural, lifestyle, and recreation values.

In conclusion, Mr. Shuster asked Committee to amend the recommendation to recommend that the Planning and Environment Committee endorse the concepts for managing Ottawa’s employment lands contained in this report and approve them for inclusion in the City’s Economic Development Strategy refresh, except for the suggestion the City proposed to the NCC that Greenbelt land along highway 416 and 417 be turned into employment lands and the establishment of a joint planning initiative with the Ottawa International Authority to develop airport land into business parks.

Erwin Dreessen, advisor the Greenbelt Coalition of Canada’s Capital Region spoke in opposition to certain aspects of the staff report.  He noted that there was much to be commended in the report, including recommendations that the City should promote balancing employment in all areas of the City, and that the use of employment lands should be intensified and that the City should seek cooperation with Public Works Canada in developing a long term strategy for cost effective development of federal office locations.  However, he did not wasn’t to see any more locations within the Greenbelt.

Mr. Dreessen noted that the report concluded that the supply of employment exceeds expected demand by a factor of almost 2.5, and also states that the quality of employment land is a problem, especially the lack of servicing.  He suggested that the opportunities for intensification suggest that land is presently too cheap, and suggested land in Ottawa’s business parks was being wasted.  He proposed it was not evident that bringing piped services to these lands should happen at taxpayers’ expense.

He noted that the phase one report showed that the main drivers of Ottawa’s economy and demand for employment land are the Federal Government, professional scientific and technical services, health care and social assistance, and retail, whereas industrial sectors, are projected to contribute only 6 to 8 per cent by 2031, down from 10 per cent today. He suggested that the reports recommendation to turn Greenbelt land into employment lands for the sake of this minor and declining sector of the economy.  He suggested that a wall of business establishments along highways 417 and 416 would be devastating for connectivity within the Greenbelt, which is vital for wildlife and for people’s enjoyment of the Greenbelt.

Mr. Dreessen indicated his strong opposition to the Airport Master Plan’s proposal to create a large number of business parks around the airport.  He suggested that the qualitative analysis had shown Ottawa did not need more business parks.  Further, the proposed business parks around the airport would be on land of high environmental value.  He suggested the Airport Authority showed no respect for the environment, as was demonstrated by its allowing a swath of environmentally sensitive land north of Alert Road to be clear cut without any environmental assessment.

In conclusion, Mr. Dreessen asked Committee to support the recommendations of the previous speaker to amend the report recommendations with respect to development in the Greenbelt and the Airport Authority initiative. 

Having concluded public delegations, Committee proceeded to ask questions to staff, and discussion and debate on the matter.

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Powers provided the following additional information:

· The report recommendations were the basis of an unbiased objective perspective of the consultant, and represent opportunities identified by the consultant based on their analysis and interviews with the development industry and commercial industry and not recommendations City staff came up with.

· With respect to the recommendations with respect to the greenbelt, he clarified that the recommendations set out by the consultant are is that City staff participate in the NCC Greenbelt Master Plan update to ensure that the following City objectives become part of the NCC’s consideration: to identify airport lands within the Greenbelt appropriate for employment development, and to identify any other residual lands -and the key here is residual lands- within the Greenbelt suitable for employment land use.

· The consultant’s recommendation was based on the fact that the highest demand locations for employment lands are near 400 series highways, as evidenced by the development along such highways going into Montreal and Toronto.  In Ottawa, the highest market demand for the industrial commercial sector is in the east end in the Hawthorne-Stevenage business park area, which is now at 75 per cent capacity, and the Greenbelt now contains any expansion of that particular business park along the 400 series highway 417.         

· City staff understands the sensitive situation regarding the Greenbelt and the City of Ottawa.  Staff think and a more likely  scenario for expanding employment lands would be to look at publicly owned lands that are already within the City of Ottawa boundaries, to look at which lands could be re-designated or re-zoned within the urban area, rather than looking in the Greenbelt.  

· While eventually the City may have to look outside the Greenbelt then if the Greenbelt is not an option, there are some shorter-term opportunities.

Councillor Hunter suggested that, as the consultants weren’t from Ottawa, they missed the point of the Greenbelt.  He suggested that, for most people coming to and leaving Ottawa, their impression of Ottawa’s greenness is based the Greenbelt, which would be lost if the Greenbelt were hidden by a ribbon of development. He noted the consultants were not the first to make such proposals for the greenbelt, but noted those ideas had not gone anywhere in the past.  The Councillor indicated his support for what two delegations had said with respect to development along the transportation corridors.

With respect the land around the Macdonald Cartier International Airport, Councillor Hunter noted it had already designated in our City’s Official Plan (OP) in a way that there will be institutional and employment uses.  He suggested that the land in that area was appropriate, as it is already serviced, and should be redeveloped as part of the City’s intensification policies.  Otherwise, he suggested there would be more pressure to urbanize other lands elsewhere within the City. He expressed his agreement with the reports suggestions with respect to the areas.  The Councillor also noted that Committee was being asked in the recommendations to endorse the concepts in the report, and suggested that if the report was intended as an information report, the word “endorse” should be changed to “receive.”

In response to questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Powers clarified that, while the report had originated as an information report, it was later strengthened to recommend endorsement of the concepts.  He also clarified that the staff-written portion of the report makes no reference to using the lands along Highway 417 and 416, nor was this part of what Committee was being asked to endorse. 

In response to questions from Councillor Monette with respect to what was being done to protect the City’s land supply from pressure to convert it to other uses, Mr. Powers explained that this protection already existed through Provincial Policy Statements that are now included in the City’s OP, which states that such lands cannot be re-designated outside the five-year OP update.  He further suggested that such restrictions were significant, and carried much weight.

Councillor Monette lamented that he had repeatedly seen the City’s employment lands lost to other uses such as residential, and noted that losing such lands meant losing the possibility for future employment in your community.  He suggested that this was of particular concern for suburban communities like Orléans, which does not have a good enough supply of employment lands.  He suggested the City needed to be very firm in the future when they developers approach the City asking to re-designate employment lands. He emphasized the need to look ahead and promote future employment in suburban communities like Orléans, not just in the downtown core.

Mr. Powers raised an additional issue from the report, which was that, while at face value there is an adequate supply of employment lands in Ottawa, such lands are very fragmented and in low-demand locations.

Councillor Bloess spoke with reference to some of the issues raised by Councillor Monette.  He noted that, while the City and the outlying Councillors had been promoting the idea of balanced growth, and suggested the present report did not seem to support how to achieve that objective.  In response to questions from the Councillor, John Moser, General Manager of Planning and Growth Management, noted that in any previous OPs, the City had looked for a balance of employment and residential in the three growth communities in the city, and had determined that there was still a high proportion of residential and not enough of employment in the East. He suggested staff maintain the policies in the OP to reinforce that balance.  He suggested the present report looked at the fact that the location of the available industrial and employment lands was inhibiting the uptake of it, and staff was looking at ways to deal with it.  He maintained the City recognizes the imbalance in work and jobs and we have policies to encourage that balance, and suggested that was probably as much as could be done from a policy point of view at the present time.

Councillor Bloess noted that the report states Ottawa had lost about 35 per cent of its vacant designated employment supply since 2001 due to conversion to other land uses. He suggested that this statement seemed pejorative, but suggested not all such conversions were a bad thing and many were quite positive. He noted that many of the employment lands were fragmented, and some aren’t fully serviced, and suggested in many cases it was better to find suitable development for them, commercial or not, than to have vacant parcels of unattractive employment lands.  He wondered if the City was going to recognize that different lands need a different kind of development and yet still have jobs included, but perhaps be more flexible about the ration.  Mr. Moser noted that the City had been approached recently by applicants who had been waiting to develop their properties for many years.   He indicated that, based on recent discussions with developers, staff’s reaction has been that these sites cannot merely be re-designated on a case-by-case basis; rather, the City needs to step back and find a way to maintain the overall balance of employment with residential.  He suggested the City was not going to abandon its policy with respect to the employment ratio, as they did not want to see parts of our developing communities to be just bedroom communities.  He suggested perhaps the City would need designate some of the lands, re-designate other ones, make the servicing more immediate and try to still create that balance but find a better range of land to be able to accomplish its objectives.  He emphasized that there was not an easy or quick solution, and some property owners may need to continue to wait.

With respect to the Greenbelt, he hoped the report would not give the NCC a signal that they should be looking at the kind of development along the major transpiration corridors such as the Queensway, suggesting this was not the message to be sending to the NCC as they go through their Greenbelt Master Plan.   He emphasized that people do not want to see the Greenbelt touched, and suggested this was the message that Committee should send.

Councillor Jellett began by noting that there were a number of positive things in the, such as the idea of allocating a full-time resource to liaising with the Federal Government to discuss such things as the location of their new office space.  He suggested it was important for the City to be involved in such discussions as it was the only way to accomplish balanced growth.  He noted that there was 400 acres of employment land in the Orléans industrial park, privately owned, and much of which had been sat on for 20 years.  He suggested maybe the City needed to buy this land, get servicing to the land earlier, or provide tax incentives to get the land developed.  He supported that the report would form part of the Economic Development Strategy Refresh process that would be coming forward to the Corporate Services and Economic Development Committee

Committee then approved the report recommendations, as presented.

That the Planning and Environment Committee endorse the concepts for managing Ottawa’s Employment lands contained in this report and approve them for inclusion in the City’s Economic Development Strategy Refresh.

CARRIED

5.         LEASE OF LAND - ENERGY OTTAWA SOLAR PARTNERSHIP

BAIL FONCIER – PARTENARIAT EN ÉNERGIE SOLAIRE AVEC ÉNERGIE OTTAWA

ACS2010-ICS-CSS-0004                                                   RIDEAU-GOULBOURN (21)

Johanne Levesque, Director of Community Sustainability, Michael Murr, Manager of Sustainability Planning and Development, and Robin Souchen, Manager of Realty Services, were present from staff

Committee began heard from the following public delegations:

Bill Eggertson, Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), spoke in support and provided additional comments and recommendations on behalf of the advisory Committee.  Mr. Eggertson read from a detailed written submission, which was circulated to Committee members and is held on file with the City Clerk.  He began by noting that, as EAC was not advised in advance of this proposal, their comments were formulated by email over the long weekend and had not gone through the Committee’s formal voting process.  The following is a summary of the recommendations raised in Mr. Eggertson’s presentation, which he urged Committee consider:

· EAC strongly supports the proposal to participate in the Ontario Power Authority’s Feed-in Tarrif (FIT) program through the installation of 12 megawatts peak of solar  photovoltaic (PV.)

· EAC suggested this proposal be considered a very high priority and that it be finalized at the earliest opportunity to ensure that Ottawa does not lose its place in FIT.

· EAC suggests that Council negotiate a higher lease payment to better reflect prevailing market rates and to valorise the prime interconnection available at this site. The report erroneously says that FIT pays an inflationary increase. The leasing rate actually should be fixed to match the fixed income available under FIT.

· EAC suggests that Council direct Energy Ottawa to aggressively consider other renewable energy technologies that could be installed on the proposed campus in a timely manner, such as solar thermal, geothermal, or wind.

· EAC is discussing how the lease money received by the City should be allocated or how Energy Ottawa should be directed to allocate its revenue, and will come back with further comments on this question.

· EAC suggests that Council negotiate a nominal buyback rate of one dollar at the end of the 20 year contract so that the City is assured of control over the asset.  

· While EAC did not reach consensus on where it is prudent to suggest that the system components be produced locally, it urges that appropriate preference be given to local suppliers when possible, and if feasible.

· EAC suggests that Council direct Energy Ottawa and Hydro Ottawa to ensure that the output from these solar rays can be diverted to consumption in a nearby off-grid demand in the eventually of any grid failure or power outage

· EAC suggests that council direct Energy Ottawa to position their solar rays for maximum public visibility and to take every opportunity to increase public awareness of solar technology both on site and online to demonstrate the solar electricity that these rays will produce, the greenhouse gases they will displace, and the money they will bring to the

Councillor Hunter raised questions with regards to EAC’s recommendation on the price being negotiated.  Mr. Eggertson noted that, in addition to his role on EAC, he was director of the Canadian Association for Renewable Energies, and as such very familiar with the technology and those who had installed it under the FIT program.  He noted that most of the leases and contracts awarded through the FIT program are confidential; however, from the ones he had tracked down, approximately three to four per cent of the value of the electricity was going as a lease payment to the farmer.  He suggested the City of Ottawa should be getting a larger fund from Energy Ottawa.

Councillor Hunter noted that, while the delegation had predicted the bonus rates for the FIT program would be going down over time, the report indicates that the pricing for ground mounted installations is guaranteed for 20 years with annual escalations.  Mr. Eggertson noted that there is no escalation for solar PV, while the four other renewable energy technologies eligible under FIT do receive an escalation clause. He noted that other countries have had to drop their rates for solar, and suggested there was no reason to believe that Ontario could sustain a high rate for too long.

In response to concerns expressed by Councillor Hunter expressed with respect to the rates power ratepayers would be paying for the solar power, Mr. Eggertson noted there was an ongoing debate at the provincial level over what the impact would be for electricity consumers.  He suggested the issue was not that solar PV was excessively high priced, rather it was that conventional electricity was excessively low priced.  He agreed there would be an impact on consumers, and the debate was tied to issues of conservation.   He further confirmed that he was on the power grid, as required to sell his power to the Ontario Power Authority.

Councillor Hunter reiterated his concern that this arrangement would have a negative impact for the customer, who will be paying more for their energy than they are now but would not see any improvement to their service.  He further suggested that the City had not negotiated appropriate compensation for the land, suggesting it was too low.  He also questioned whether the City should be getting in to the business at all, given the cost of solar power forces customers to pay higher rates for their electricity, and hydro ratepayers are the city’s taxpayers. He indicated that he would not be supporting the report.

In response to questions from Councillor Doucet with respect to the land being declared surplus to the City’s needs, staff provided the following additional information:

· Staff consulted with the Environmental Services department and staff is comfortable that the lands could be made available over the 20 year lease agreement. 

· The lands in question are underutilized, and provide the opportunity for the City to generate a new revenue stream and to allow them to be productive in a way that was not possible before.  

· One parcel is the former Nepean landfill site, and the other was purchased as a buffer zone for the landfill. 

· For Parcel A, 441 Moodie Dr., the parcel in question is about a third of a larger property, and the bulk of that larger property is being retained for city use.

Councillor Doucet expressed his concern with getting rid of City-owned lands, given that the City doesn’t own a lot of land, and in the past selling these lands has proved to be a mistake.   However, he suggested that if Committee did not have a problem with the recommendations, he would not prevent it.  

Greg Clarke, Chief Operating Officer, Energy Ottawa, was present in support of the recommendations.

In response to questions from Councillor Monette with regards to Energy Ottawa’s plans for the site, Mr. Clarke provided the following details:

· Approximately 100 thousand panels would be installed on the site

· There is no risk of damaging the land with the panels.  On the former Nepean landfill site, there is a cap that cannot be penetrated.  Therefore, they were looking to use a self-ballasted racking systems will sit on top of the ground.  He noted they would require approval from the Ministry of Environment to use on the old Nepean landfill site.   

· On the buffer, there is more latitude, but Energy Ottawa is still looking at a ballasted system for that location.

· The annual energy produced from the two parcels of land would be enough to power 15 hundred homes year round.

In response to questions from Councillors Qadri, Holmes, Bellemare and Feltmate, staff provided the following additional information.

· There are no future plans for development on the land in question.  In terms of current use, the old Nepean landfill lands are fallow, and are being maintained as a former landfill according to the requirement of the Ministry. For the buffer lands, about a third of the parcel is currently being used at surface for some composting activities. 

· By using the lands for the purposes outlined in the report, they were generating some income for both the City and Energy Ottawa for a piece of property that is not being used for anything at the present time.

· It is staff’s understanding that once the lands were used for the purposes of a solar farm, they would be reassessed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC,) and it is likely that they would be reassessed to become an industrial use, therefore triggering additional property taxes to the City of Ottawa.

·   In terms of the broader question of how that would then link to the City’s employment lands strategy and its designation as employment lands, he suggested staff would need to further investigate that.

· The lands in question currently have no use, as they are caught within the MOE guidelines. 

· The City is not selling the land, but rather declaring them surplus for the purposes of a 20-year lease.  Although the lands will remain in the City’s ownership, the City will lose control of them for 20 years, so realty staff has undertaken the same circulation as they would for a disposal process to ensure there is no future need for 20 years. 

· There would be three possible options for the City at the end of the lease period: the first would be to terminate the project and decommission the site; the second would be to ask for the site could to be transferred to the City of Ottawa; and the third would be to extend the partnership with Energy Ottawa for an additional period of time.

· Under the agreement, the City would still be responsible for meeting its commitments with the Ministry of the Environment and their certificate of approval.

· In terms of the actual solar farms themselves, all of the responsibility would rest with Energy Ottawa in terms of design, construction, operation and maintenance, as would the associated costs.  

· As to whether there was leaching occurring off site, there were no staff from Environmental Services present, however Mr. Murr indicated that he would endeavour to get a response to Councillor Holmes in that regard.

· The recommendation provides that the City Manager be authorized to negotiate and finalize the lease agreement, and the final lease is subject to those negotiations.  Therefore, staff could certainly consider the information that has been put forward by the EAC and look at incorporating certain aspects into the lease agreement.

· Should the City direct that the site be decommissioned at the end of 20 years, the costs of decommissioning would fall to Energy Ottawa, though that cost has not yet been determined. 

In response to questions from Councillor Hunter with respect to the value of the lease, Mr. Murr explained that in assessing a reasonable value for the lease, staff looked to see whether or not there were direct comparables, looked at the lease rate from the perspective of what the City’s typical corporate targets were in terms of investment.  In terms of comparables, Mr. Murr explained that they are very difficult to come by and commercially confidential.  Staff was only able to identify one comparable, which was with the Town of Perth and the deal they have with a private sector firm. The current proposal is very consistent, if not better than what Perth is receiving from their private firm. Perth’s lease arrangement is more complex as it has a combination of a lump sum front end payment, plus an annual revenue stream, plus contributions to other community organizations, but it works out to roughly $1000 per acre, compared to the per acre value of  approximately $1700 per acre being worked out with Energy Ottawa. .

With respect to the City’s corporate target, Mr. Souchen explained how the lease rate was calculated based on property values.  As it is a landfill with no utility that can’t be built upon, so determining the value for the land surface rights was quite difficult.  Staff looked at it as if it was a parcel of land one or two concessions away, put a value on it internally supported that value with other documentation.  The city’s offering price was $2100 an acre, and the resulting negotiations arrived a agreed price of $1700 an acre, for the 70 acres that are being used at net acreage.  As the property would then be taxed, and the City will expect a share of the tax bill at around $400 an acre, the City would be earning close to the original asking price.  Mr. Murr added that another factor in the negotiation was the fact that Energy Ottawa is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hydro Ottawa, and is consequently owned by the City; therefore, the City can anticipate and increase to the Hydro Ottawa dividend that flows back to the City.

In response to further questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Murr confirmed that the current composting facility would continue on the site, and Environmental Services has ensured that the portion of the lands can be made available while still their operations on the larger property.  He further confirmed that other previous leases on the site – an archery club and a remote-control flying club – were no longer in effect.

In response to further questions from the Councillor as to why the City was not considering the same arrangement with Energy Ottawa as they did with the producers of methane gas on the site, which is five per cent of revenue, Mr. Murr suggested that this would not be a reasonable comparison given that they are different businesses and cost structure.  In this case, he suggested all the risk would be borne by Energy Ottawa, and the calculations were based on the factors previously noted.  Mr. Clarke added that the capital cost to invest in solar was significantly than the landfill gas energy facility.  He noted the FIT program rates were set to provide developers with a modest rate of return, which dictates what kind of lease payments are available.

Councillor Hunter reiterated that the proposed arrangement would be at the expense of hydro consumers, and felt that he could not support it on an ethical and moral basis.  He suggested that nowhere in the world had the production of wind turbine farms or solar farms resulted in the closing of coal powered plants or natural gas powered plants, because alternative capacity is required when the wind doesn’t blow or sun doesn’t shine. He suggested the FIT program was too generous and the proposed facility would be at the cost of residential consumers, business consumers, and institutional consumers like the City of Ottawa that will be paying more for their electricity.  He indicated that he would not be supporting the report recommendations.

Moved by Councillor S. Qadri

WHEREAS there was a typographical error in Recommendation 2(b)

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT recommendation 2 (b) be amended to change 61.9 metres to 69.1 metres

                                                                                                            CARRIED

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT THAT the Environmental Advisory Committee recommendations be provided to staff for discussion in the negotiations with Energy Ottawa

CARRIED

Committee then approved the report recommendations, as amended, with noted dissents.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Approve an agreement between the City of Ottawa and Energy Ottawa for the development of a Solar Energy Park near the Trail Road Waste Facility, as part of an enhanced partnership with Energy Ottawa as the City’s preferred energy partner;

2. Declare two parcels of land near the Trail Road Waste Facility, described as:

a. a portion of 4041 Moodie Drive containing an area of approximately 51.7 acres, and legally described as being CON 4 (RF) PT LOT 5 RP;5R3526 PT OF PT 1 LESS;4R10987 PART; and

b. a portion of 4022 Trail Road, commonly known as the former Nepean Landfill containing 69.1 acres, and legally described as part of Lot 9, Concession 4, Rideau Front, formerly in the Township of Nepean

as being surplus to the City’s needs; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and finalize the lease agreement for a period of twenty (20) years for the lands referred to in Recommendation 2 to Energy Ottawa Limited based on the terms and conditions described in this report.

4. That the Environmental Advisory Committee recommendations be provided to staff for discussion in the negotiations with Energy Ottawa

                                                                                                            CARRIED, as amended

Councillor G. Hunter dissented.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAUX

6.         WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN - ANNUAL REVIEW

PLAN DE VALORISATION DE L’EAU

ACS2010-ICS-ESD-0020                                City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville

The following correspondence was received with respect to this item:

· Environmental Advisory Committee - Letter dated 18 May 2010, Memo dated 13 May 2010, and additional written submission dated 21 May 2010.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council:

1. Receive this evaluation of the City’s Phase I Water Efficiency Plan (2007-2009).

2. Approve program changes for 2010 as set out herein.

3. Approve changes to Water Efficiency Strategy targets set out herein.

CARRIED

INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE

7.         COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF STORM AND SANITARY SERVICE BACKWATER VALVES - COUNCIL MOTION 71/11

EXAMEN COMPLET DES CLAPETS ANTI-REFOULEMENT DES ÉGOUTS SÉPARATIFS ET PLUVIAUX - MOTION DU CONSEIL 71/11

ACS2010-ICS-INF-0006                                  City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the City’s Sewer Design Guidelines to require the installation of a backwater valve on the sanitary service lateral for all new home construction.

CARRIED

CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

BUREAU DU DIRECTEUR MUNICIPAL

CITY CLERK & SOLICITOR

SERVICE DU GREFFIER MUNICIPAL & CHEF DU CONTENTIEUX

8.         DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY BY CITY-OWNED TREES – VERBAL UPDATE

DOMMAGES CAUSÉS À DES PROPRIÉTÉS PRIVÉES PAR DES ARBRES APPARTENANT À LA VILLE – COMPTE RENDU VERBAL

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0020                             CITY WIDE/ À L’ECHELLE DE LA VILLE

David White, Manager of Litigation and Labour Relations, provided a verbal update with respect to the issue of damage to private property by City-owned trees.  He was accompanied by David Barkley, Manager of Forestry Services.  The following points summarize Mr. White’s presentation, which included background and the City’s present situation from a policy and legal perspective on the issue of trees and trees litigation, and outlined what could be done on a go-forward basis to re-examine the City’s policy..

· In 1997 the former City of Ottawa adopted a policy that provided a broader discretion to staff to have a tree that may be causing damage to private property removed.

· In 2005 concerns were raised about the application of that policy, in particular the removal of some mature trees within the Centertown Heritage Conservation District.  Those concerns prompted a Council motion and approval of a moratorium on the removal of any further trees, pending a report being prepared at the time on the City’s forest strategy

· The subsequent policy report, approved by Council in 2006, noted that the increasing social and environmental importance of trees in the City, and outlined a revised assessment process for foundation damage claims by the City’s trees.  The approach emphasized removal of trees as a last resort, and suggested a tree should be retained even after the assessment process determined that the implementation of mitigation measures would not absolutely guarantee that future damage might occur.

· The report outlined a number of such mitigation strategies.  It also noted that there was a paucity of legal guidance on whether the City was liable for damage claims.

· The City’s approach to management of its rural and urban forests was in keeping with the policy objective of preserving greenspace and the importance of trees in the community, as identified in the Ottawa 20/20 plan, it identified the need to preserve greenspace and the importance of trees in the community.  

· Since the approval of that 2006 tree preservation by-law, staff has taken the position that the causing of foundation damage does not of itself characterize a tree as dangerous.  The City dealt with the claims through the ordinary claims process, while trying to preserve the tree through means available.

· The Council policy became the subject of the litigation in Guinan v. City of Ottawa, which was filed in 2007.  There have been some other tree foundation damage claims filed. 

· From a litigation strategy, it was determined that Guinan case should be a test case, in the hopes of receiving some sort of judicial guidance with respect to the City’s approach.  In that case, the issue was the City’s refusal to remove the tree, and whether the City’s mitigation measures were sufficient to prevent future damage

· Council received an In-camera briefing on the litigation in May 2008, and the request for the court order went to trial in 2009

· To date, Council’s policy and directions, the City has resisted efforts by other property owners to force the removal of City trees, particularly when premised on the speculation that the tree might cause future damage.

· The Guinan case has shown that the courts will be sympathetic to property owners who want the City to remove trees that might be causing damage to their properties, and that case suggests the rights of affected property owners will be given precedence over the policy considerations that have prompted the City’s approach to date.

· An appeal was commenced in that case under the authority of the City clerk and Solicitor to the Ontario Court of Appeal, to preserve the City’s legal rights and recognizing a desire for guidance from that court on the issue of the City’s liability and the policy defences the City had advanced. The Council policy became the subject of the litigation in Guinan v. City of Ottawa.

· On 14 April 2010, Council directed that the Guinan appeal be abandoned, and to date that appeal has been abandoned and the City has moved, in consultation with the City Forester, to remove the tree in question.

· Based on the guidance that was provided in the Guinan case, legal services also sought to deal with the remaining tree litigation in the ordinary course, and in some of those cases the City has moved to remove the trees at issue, and is going about a process of assessing reasonable damages in those cases

Mr. White circulated a proposed resolution to Committee, which would direct staff staff to examine the legal, operation impacts of providing a broader discretion to staff when such cases arise and to ensure that, based on the guidance we from the Guinan case, that the City continues to strike the right balance between the rights of private property owners and the City’s desire to protect the urban and rural forests.  Councillor Holmes agreed to move this resolution.  It was noted that should the motion pass, the Council referral listed as Item 1 on the Confidential Agenda would be tabled, removing the requirement to resolve In Camera.

Moved by Councillor D. Holmes:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning and Environment Committee direct the City Forester and City Clerk and Solicitor, jointly and in consultation with the City’s Forest and Greenspace Advisory Committee, to conduct a comprehensive review of By-Law 2006-279 to ensure that it strikes the appropriate balance between promoting the environmental stewardship values reflected in the City’s Forest Strategy while respecting the rights of other property owners and to report back to the Committee by the end of May 2011 with any recommended by-law amendments.

CARRIED

As a result of the above-noted motion, Committee agreed that the Council referral motion listed as item 1 on the Confidential Agenda was tabled.

9.         STATUS UPDATE - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE INQUIRIES AND MOTIONS - FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 11 MAY 2010

RAPPORT DE SITUATION - DEMANDES DE RENSEIGNEMENTS ET MOTIONS DU COMITÉ DE L’URBANISME ET DE L’ENVIRONNEMENT POUR LA PÉRIODE SE TERMINANT LE 11 MAI 2010

ACS2010-CMR-CCB-0048                             City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville

That the Planning and Environment Committee receive this report for information.

RECEIVED

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

SERVICES FINANCIERS

10.       CAPITAL ADJUSTMENTS AND CLOSING PROJECTS - RATE SUPPORTED

AJUSTEMENT DU BUDGET DES IMMOBILISATIONS ET CESSATION DE PROJETS FINANCÉS PAR REDEVANCES

ACS2010-CMR-FIN-0031                               City Wide/À l'échelle de la Ville

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve the budget adjustments as detailed in Document 1;

2. Authorize the closing of capital projects listed in Document 2, the funding of deficits as identified and the return of balance of funds to funding sources.

3. Approve a net decrease in debt authority of $3.422 million as a result of recommendations 1 and 2;

4. Permit those projects in Document 3 that qualify for closure, to remain open; and

5. Receive the budget adjustments in Document 4 undertaken in accordance with the Delegation of Authority By-law 2009-231, as amended, as they pertain to capital works.

CARRIED

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS

Councillor / Conseiller Monette

11.       BRUYÈRE CONTINUING CARE – PRIVATE ACCESS FROM ORLÉANS BOULEVARD

            MOTION – VOIE D’ACCÈS PRIVÉE À L’ÉTABLISSEMENT DE SOINS CONTINUS BRUYÈRE À PARTIR DU BOULEVARD ORLÉANS

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0016                                                                      orlÉans (1)

The following correspondence was received with respect to this matter, and is held on file with the City Clerk:

· Letter dated 25 May 2010 from T. Bruce Wittet

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Klaus Beltzner

· Letter dated 9 May 2010 from Marcel Tremblay

· E-mail dated 21 May, 2010 from Michael Hawkes

· E-mail dated 21 May, 2010 from Ginette Bussiere

· E-mails dated 16 and 19 May, 2010 from  Paul Hamelin

· E-mail dated May 19, 2010 from Glendon Todd, Glendon

· E-mail dated 18 May 2010 from Hank Johnson

· E-mail dated 18 May 2010 from Lise Auger

· E-mail dated 17 May 2010 from Donald and Carol Despré

· E-mail dated 14 May 2010 from Mike Brownhill

· E-mail dated 12 May 2010 from Trevor Stark

· E-mail dated 11 May 2010 from Monique and Frank Groulx

· E-mail dated 11 may 2010 from John and Charmaine La Fave

· E-mail dated 10 May 2010 from Sharron Smith

· E-mail dated 10 May 2010 from Brian Holmes

· E-mail dated 9 May 2010 from Richard Jette

· E-mail dated 9 May 2010 from Larry Kenney

· E-mail dated 8 May 2010 from Peter Lys

· E-mail dated 5 May 2010 from J.P. Chartrand and Gwen Reimer

· E-mail dated 16 and 19 May 2010 from Dennis and  Julie Smulski

· E-mail dated 17 May 2010 from Carolyn Holmes

· E-mail dated 17 May 2010 from Monica  Connolly

· E-mail dated 20 May 2010 from Richard et Adèle Gauvreau

A petition was also submitted on 25 May 2010 by John La Fave, containing 172 signatures from residents of St. Louis Drive, Ravine Way and Hiawatha Park Road, in support of Councillor Monette’s motion.  A copy is held on file with the City Clerk.

Committee began consideration of the item by hearing presentations from the following public delegations:

Joe Duquette, 15-year resident of St. Louis Drive, spoke in support of the motion.  He expressed four reasons why Committee should support the motion, which are summarized as follows:

· An extension of Orléans Boulevard is needed to reduce an excessive traffic influx associated with Bruyère Continuing Care’s planned expansion of the Saint-Louis Residence and construction of three new seniors’ apartments on Hiawatha Park Road. 

· St. Louis Drive and Hiawatha Park Road were not designed to support the present traffic load, and the situation stands to worsen.  The proposed motion would go towards solving long-standing traffic problems that have yet to be satisfactorily rectified.

· If the extension is approved, the resulting lower traffic load to St. Louis Drive and Hiawatha Park Road would substantially reduce the expected traffic vibration damage to nearby homes, especially during the construction period.  This issue has been a continuing problem, as all homes on both streets are built on a deep clay base. The Ward Councillor’s office has received a report prepared by residents on both indicating, with approximately 25 per cent of homeowners detailing recurring damage they have experienced in their homes associated with traffic vibrations.

· The road extension would provide an alternate access egress route to the residents and the apartment complex, for use in case of emergency if the presently proposed single is blocked for any reason.

· Hiawatha Park Road, the sole access route to the project, has insufficient ancillary infrastructure to support the project. The road contains no amenities, no sidewalks, crumbling sides, and is dangerous for users. 

In conclusion, Mr. Duquette emphasized that any improvements to Hiawatha Park Road would not solve the traffic problems on Saint-Louis Drive, and proposed that the extension as proposed by councillor Monette was the only real solution.  He indicated that the presentations by subsequent delegations would further support the points raised.

Dennis Smulski, resident of St. Louis Drive for over 25 years, spoke in support of the motion.  He began by expressing his support for the Bruyère proposal, suggesting it was a worthwhile project, but one that should be done correctly.  In his presentation, Mr. Smulski provided background information on the residence, the surrounding roads, and traffic concerns that had emerged in the area.  His specific points are summarized as follows:

· The site plan submitted by Bruyère only calls for one access into the residence, which is also the sole access to Roslyn Avenue and the five attached finger roads.

· When Saint-Louis Drive was designed and built in 1982 it was built to support approximately 194 homes, and since then the expansion of the surrounding road network and neighbourhood has resulted in many additional homes required to use the road, and this will continue.

· The original plan was to temporarily permit bus travel to utilize St. Louis Drive pending completion of the Airport Eastern Parkway. In 1974 the former regional government official plan for the extension of the Eastern Parkway included an exit onto Orléans Boulevard, with a road spanning the ravine into the residence. 

· When in 1996 the plan for the development of the Eastern Parkway was dropped from the official plan, and the City of Gloucester embarked on a program to dispose of the parcels it was holding in Hiawatha Park.  However, no consideration was given to revamp the existing infrastructure now that the parkway was no longer going to be built

· He expressed concern with the single entrance/exit off Hiawatha Park Road and the possibility of it being blocked in an emergency situation. While the City’s Deputy Fire Chief has stated that the present single entrance/exit is not in violation of the applicable codes, he has indicated that the Ottawa Fire Service would support the request for secondary means of access into the area as it is preferable to have a secondary road in an emergency situation.

· At the recent public meeting, Bruyère stated they would use a gravel access road where possible for the construction of the three apartments. He suggested all construction traffic use this route to protect homes from the additional vibration cracks and added traffic stress.

In conclusion, he encouraged Committee to support the motion.

Renée Payette, resident of Ravine Way, spoke in support of the motion. Specifically, she proposed that the current proposed single access to the new facility via Hiawatha Park Road was in violation of many provincial and municipal policies, including the provincial Planning Act, and the City’s Official Plan.  She raised the following points:

· The proposed Bruyère village would be the showcase for continuing care and a model for future villages for healthy aging in Ontario.

· For purposes of comparison, she noted that the 19-acre Orléans town centre currently under development was located on a four lane collector road with multiple accesses, while the proposed 27-acre retirement village would have only one local access road.

· She reviewed examples of similar seniors’ villages in other cities, noting they are all situated on major collector roads.

· She suggested that using Hiawatha Park Road as the only access road to the

· Specifically, she suggested the road did not comply with the policy of connecting buildings in spaces through a network of roads and sidewalks that are accessible to all people with physical or sensory disabilities, as stipulated in Section 2 of the OP. 

· She suggested the lack of sidewalks was not in compliance with the Planning Act, which states sidewalks must be provided along transit routes; nor was it in compliance with the OP, which states large areas must be easy to get to and travel through by foot, by bicycle, transit, car and in this case, wheelchair.  The lack of sidewalks also violates the City’s sidewalk policy and the sidewalk technical design guidelines.

· She noted that the City’s road corridor road planning and design guidelines include establishing a vision for the road that is well matched to its plan function.  She noted one of the functions of the proposed facility was the teaching, promoting and advocating healthy aging and offering services to all of the seniors in Orléans, and proposed the use of Hiawatha Park Drive as the sole entrance did not fulfill this function. 

· She suggested the plan violated Section 3 of the Planning Act, which says that the necessary infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to meet current and projected needs, and support the protection and safety in the community.

· She further suggested having Hiawatha as the sole vehicular access in violated Section Four of OP, which states development that has the potential to generate a significant amount of vehicular traffic should be oriented on streets other than the local streets whenever the opportunity exists.

· With respect to the local streets, she noted Hiawatha could only be accessed by two local roads - Ravine Way and St. Louis Drive.  Ravine Way is narrow due to the calming measures installed by the City due to traffic volume and speed concerns, and has no sidewalks.  Saint-Louis Drive, the primary route for all emergency vehicles, and traffic accessing village, has several traffic concerns, a transit and heavy pedestrian and cycling traffic.

· She suggested the current plan violated Sections three and four of the OP, which provide that uses servicing wider parts of the City will be located at the edge of neighbourhoods on roads where the needs of the land uses can be easily met and impacts controlled, and that the development with the potential to generate significant amounts of vehicular traffic should be located on arterial or major collector road. She suggested those OP policies supported the rationale for the motion to extend Orléans Boulevard, the major collector road adjacent to the property.

In conclusion, she suggested that the current planned access did not represent vision that the City of Ottawa wanted to project in showcasing the new Bruyère facility.

J.P. Chartrand, resident of St. Louis Drive since 1996, spoke in support of the motion. He noted that, as a self-employed consultant with a home-based office, he was in a good position to observe traffic levels on the street.  He began by indicating his support for the project proposed by Bruyère Continuing Care.  His presentation centred on the issue of traffic volume and traffic flow patterns on the surrounding streets. Detailed traffic frequency tables and other supporting documentation were submitted and circulated to Committee. The following summarizes the points raised in his presentation:

· He challenged the assertion put forward by one of the traffic studies that mean traffic volume on Saint-Louis and Hiawatha was very low, and would increase after the village expansion by only one vehicle per minute during peak times.

· He noted that, as an adjunct research professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Carleton University, he had some professional backgrounds about the use of means and quantitative research.

· He challenged the traffic counts included in the Delcan study, which were done on as part of the application process to undertake the development.  Delcan’s one hour traffic count at the intersection of Saint-Louis and Hiawatha at a peak time between 3:30 and 4:30, reported a mean traffic volume of 1.68 vehicles per minutes. The report then estimates that the extension of the village would raise the mean value to just over 2 vehicles per minutes.

· He explained that since then, other traffic counts have been done, including a number of informal counts done by himself and another resident, and a formal city traffic study on April 12.  He indicated that the informal counts and the City count showed that peak time traffic volume to be considerably higher than what Delcan had reported, up to 164 vehicles per hour during one peak period, 26 vehicles per hour more than what Delcan predicted we would get as total traffic volume after the expansion of the village.  Traffic counts undertaken by the City, and informal counts undertaken by himself and another resident, indicate different results.

· While the mean traffic flows of both studies suggest that traffic volume is typically very low, he suggested that, based on observation of how traffic actually flows on the street, mean vehicle per minute statistics did not truly represent actual traffic flow patterns. He noted traffic is uneven and highly clustered, with periods of very low traffic volume and periods of high traffic volume.  He suggested that during off-peak periods, the clustering of traffic was not as intense, and periods of higher traffic volume are much shorter.  In peak times clustering is a lot more intense and much longer lasting.

· He stated, based on videos recorded of traffic volume at the intersection of Hiawatha and Saint-Louis Drive, that the range in actual traffic volume between peak and off peak time varied from zero vehicles per minute up to 11 vehicles per minute, with the mean vehicle per minute varying significantly from 1.8 to 5.3 vehicles per minute during peak time. 

· He suggested the additional traffic that would be caused by the village expansion would be just as clustered as the present traffic flow, which would exacerbate the present safety concerns of neighbourhood residents and make our streets undesirable places to live.

In conclusion, he proposed that extending Orléans Boulevard as outlined in the motion would prevent high traffic intensity from increasing even further and might even alleviate some existing traffic clustering by redirecting traffic away from Saint-Louis Drive.

John La Fave, 20-year resident of Saint-Louis Drive, spoke in support of the motion. His presentation spoke to the issues of the community, residents, street safety, traffic volume, vibrations, and the lack of infrastructure.  He raised the following points:

· There are concerns with the traffic that would be generated and the site plan that directs all traffic onto Hiawatha Park Road, accessed by St. Louis Drive.

· He suggested that had Saint-Louis Drive been designated as a transit route and constructed to a transit route standard, and had residents’ concerns and proposals put forward in the early 1990s been addressed, the issue would not exist.

· On the issue of vibration damage, he noted the houses in the area were built on leda clay, and referenced papers included in his written submissions from the NRC and Natural Resources Canada with respect to the issue of leda clay disturbances and traffic induced vibration’s impact on houses.

· He provided an overview of a comparison that had been done of the excavation load for a home on Roslyn Avenue, with that anticipated for the proposed village expansion.  He noted the excavation of the home had resulted in the removal of thirty eight truckloads of soil. He anticipated that, based on the footprint of the expansion, there would be 1193 truckloads of soil removed, representing or 2386 transits.  Detailed data was provided in the written submission.

· He maintained that the site plan did not provide the necessary road structure for a massive expansion in development.

· He echoed the concerns of the previous delegations with respect to there being a single proposed access for emergency vehicles, which could be blocked by accident or incident.  He proposed that the extension of Orléans Boulevard would provide an alternate route for fire and emergency vehicles to the residence and the residential community north of the ravine.

· He proposed that a second access road would also help reduce the excessive traffic volume on nearby residential streets and allow improvements to Hiawatha Park Road, such as provision of sidewalks or bike paths, without isolating and putting at risk the occupants of St. Louis Residence and the residential community north of the ravine.

In conclusion, Mr. La Fave reiterated his support for the Bruyère project and the need for a worthy access road to reach it, emphasizing that the project should be done, and should be done right

The five preceding presenters, Mr. Duquette, Mr. Smulski, Ms. Payette, Mr. Chartrand and Mr. La Fave, provided a detailed joint submission, supporting documentation and a PowerPoint presentation.  Copies of this submission were circulated to members of Committee and copies are held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to questions from vice-chair Feltmate with regards to the requirement for an environmental assessment, Karin Smadella, Program Manager, Development Review Process (Suburban East) explained that, because the proposed access would be part of a private site, it could be dealt with through the Planning Act.  She explained that whatever design was undertaken for an access from Orléans Boulevard would be part of Bruyère’s Site Plan submission, and they would require supporting studies if they were crossing the ravine and attempting to enter into the floodplain overlay.

Jeffrey Dale, resident of Ravine Way, spoke in support of Councillor Monette’s motion and in support of the proposed program by Bruyère Continuing Care.  He suggested the project would be a very important piece of economic development project for the east end of Ottawa.  With respect to the traffic issues raised by the other delegations, he proposed that the traffic problems of the area had been known for years.  He suggested traffic was reaching the facility via roads that were not designed or able to handle transit, commercial traffic or patterns of the shift workers accessing the site.  He noted that the report indicated a bridge would be required, at an incredible cost; however, he noted it was a very small ravine and had had other crossings by culverts.  He suggested there was an opportunity to address the traffic issues in the community by using a culvert system to extend over Orléans Boulevard.

Councillor Doucet expressed his sympathy for the concerns of the residents, drawing a parallel to the immense traffic impacts that would be caused by the proposed development of Lansdowne Park in his ward.

Liliane Delaquis-Boisjoli, resident of St. Louis Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposed motion.  She expressed concern with the potential impacts that crossing the ravine would have, as it was so close to a protected area containing many plants, animals, birds and other wildlife.  She predicted that if the ravine was crossed in order to alleviate the traffic, it would have the affect of allowing drug dealers to access the other side near the bicycle path, and she expressed concern that the bicycles and pedestrians would have share the same route as cars. 

The delegation noted that she had lived on St. Louis drive for many years and had never seen any damage or movement due to traffic vibration.  She acknowledged that the road, where many trucks pass, was not very nice, but suggested that this was the case for many other nearby roads.  She agreed that there were problems with Hiawatha Park Road, but suggested that many of the seniors accessing the new facility via the entrance on Hiawatha would do so by transit rather than by car.  In conclusion, Ms. Delaquis-Boisjoli recommended that the access to the facility could be better served by Hiawatha Park Road than an extension of Orléans Boulevard.  She further noted that the proposed extension would be very expensive, and the taxpayers would be paying for it.  In response to questions from Councillor Doucet, Ms. Delaquis-Boisjoli expressed her agreement with the previous delegations that the present road was too narrow, and perhaps it could be repaired and expanded.  However, this should be done instead of creating a new access route.

Daniel Levac spoke on behalf of Bruyère Continuing Care.  He noted that Bruyère was in the business of running hospitals and long term care homes, and was entering business of affordable housing and assisted living in response to a need identified by the United Way and the City of Ottawa in the Affordable Housing for Seniors Framework.  He emphasised that the village model proposed for the site would allow seniors to age in place, have healthy and secure lifestyles, and have access to affordable assisted living.

Mr. Levac noted that Bruyère Continuing Care was a non-profit institution and a tenant on the lands in question, and not a private developer.  As such, he maintained that the project could not absorb infrastructure costs such as bridges and roads and still meet the objectives of affordability and feasibility, emphasizing they would not proceed with the project if it resulted in rents that were beyond the means of the identified group.   He highlighted that we Bruyère had secured a $5.4 million grant from the Federal and Ontario Affordable Housing Program, received pursuant to a tendering process by the City of Ottawa, and one of the conditions of that grant was that constructions must start by August 14.  He confirmed that the project would not be feasible without the grant. 

In conclusion, he expressed that Bruyère Continuing Care supported the motion, but could not add to the cost of the project.  In response to questions from Councillor Feltmate, Mr. Levac confirmed that, not only does Bruyère lack the capital funds to build a private access road to Orléans, they also lack the operating funds within the rent structure to maintain the road.  He noted that the current site development submitted to the City plan proposed the use of the existing streets.  The traffic study conducted showed that there was no requirement for additional access, as the traffic impact to the streets would be negligible.

Jean Bartowiak, President and CEO of Bruyère Continuing Care, spoke in support of their proposed expansion.  He noted that, for the first time, the facility would be able to be part of the community, rather than segregated from the neighbourhood, and expressed a desire to maintain happy relations with the neighbours.  He expressed support for any decision Committee and Council made that would support the project as part of the neighbourhood and support the ability of residents in Orléans to age in place.  He hoped the City would support any means to ensure the project would go forward in a timely manner, to meet a need in the community. 

Marc Thibault, Orleans Chamber of Commerce, was registered to speak, but departed prior to consideration of the item.  Vice-chair Feltmate read his comments into the record, and they are held on file with the City Clerk.  His comments indicated his support for the expansion of the Bruyère facility, suggested the project had numerous advantages to the community of Orléans, and that the transportation issues could be resolved.

Bruce Wittet, resident of St. Louis Drive, also registered to speak, but departed prior to consideration of the item.  His detailed written comments were circulated and are held on file with the City Clerk.  

Having concluded all public delegations, Vice-chair Feltmate turned the recommendations over to Committee for additional questions to staff, discussion and debate.

In response to questions from Councillor Monette, Planning and Growth Management staff provided the following additional information:

· The $4.5 million dollar cost estimate for the construction of the bridge link to the facility was a figure provided to staff by Bruyère

· There are many unknowns, and the costing of all potential options for accessing the site from Orléans Boulevard would be hard to estimate. 

· If the motion were to be approved by Committee, it would rise for consideration by City Council at its meeting of 9 June 2010.

· If the motion were supported by Council, it would require a major redesign of Bruyére’s submission, given that the primary access would now be from Orléans Boulevard.  This could significantly affect timelines for approval

· If the proposed access would cross the ravine, there is potential that a rezoning would be requires as they would impact the floodplain overlay area.  This would also have a significant impact on timelines.

· While staff is not familiar with the construction staging for the proposed plan, Bruyère has submitted a site plan for all the buildings.  As such, the timing of the groundbreaking would likely be affected even if they do not build the whole project right away.

· As to whether they could proceed with the first three buildings without delay, and access the site from a different angle such as via the crossway, staff indicated they would need to determine how the access from Orléans Boulevard would impact the different phases of construction, which is difficult to do given they had not yet seen the details of such a proposal.

· As to whether there would be the ability to provide the link in such a way that would not impact the timing of the groundbreaking, it was suggested that the only way this could happen was if Bruyère separated that portion of the site plan and asked for approval for just the three units; however, this was difficult to determine without them demonstrating how they would leave options open where the crossing could take place, and may still impact the deadline.  

Councillor Monette emphasized that, if Committee approved the motion, staff should provide further details on the feasibility and impacts of proceeding with the motion at the June 9 Council Meeting.  He suggested there was probably be a way of doing the extension that would cost much less than $4.5 million, such as the option proposed at a recent public meeting to approach the access from a different angle, by going over the crossway. He maintained there was a need to have an analysis of whether this could be done.

In response to further questions from Councillor Feltmate with respect to the need for environmental assessment, Ms. Smadella confirmed that if they were to complete the access as a private road or change what they were currently proposing, Bruyère would be required to complete a full range of supporting studies, environmental or otherwise, if they were going to cross a ravine or any environmentally sensitive areas; however, as a private road it would not be subject to the municipal class EA process.  She confirmed that this would likely be a lengthy process.  As to how a potential private road would be maintained, Ms. Smadella explained that, as a private road on private lands, it would generally be paid for by the owners.  She pointed out that the Council-approved Strategic Plan specifically states that new development in the City shall be self-financing.

Councillor Hunter suggested that if Council approved Councillor Monette’s motion and provided Bruyère with a road at a cost of $4.5 million to the taxpayers, this could slow their site plan approval process enough that they would lose the window of opportunity to obtain their infrastructure stimulus funding. Ms. Smadella agreed that this was a fair assessment.

In his concluding remarks, Councillor Monette stated that he needed to have analysis done in order for Council to make a decision. He expressed the opinion that Bruyère would be able to build the access road by building towards the crossway, and thus not affect when they would be shovel ready; however, he wished to have staff’s interpretation of that and a legal opinion.

The Councillor suggested that, while the road would technically be a private road, it would be serving a very public institution.  He expressed his complete support for the Bruyère centre and did not want to jeopardize their project, which would be one of a kind and a model for the rest of Canada for how seniors can age gracefully.  He reiterated the concerns of the residents and agreed that St. Louis Drive was not an adequate road to support this kind of traffic.  He believed the concerns of the residents with respect to the impacts of construction vehicles, buses and other traffic.  He noted the Orléans Boulevard issue went back decades, and suggested it should have been done decades ago. He also indicated that he would continue to work towards upgrading Hiawatha Park Road, echoing the concerns of the delegations with respect to emergency access and service issues.  

The Councillor emphasized that he was not asking Bruyère to pay for the road, nor was he necessarily asking Committee to support a $4.5 million project, reiterating that he felt it could be competed for much cheaper than that.  In conclusion, he encouraged Committee to support the motion so that it would rise to Council on June 9, and allow Council to make an informed decision with all the information in front of it. 

Committee then considered Councillor Monette’s recommendation.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend to Council that a private access from Orléans Boulevard is needed at the Bruyère Continuing Care Centre, and that such private roadway be required to cross the unnamed ravine at a location approved by all relevant agencies, at the City’s cost.

CARRIED

YEAS (4):       Councillors M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, B. Monette, S. Qadri

NAYS (3):       Councillors P. Feltmate, D. Holmes, G. Hunter

Councillor / Conseiller Doucet

12.       MOTION - REDUCTION IN CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKING FEES FOR 1115 BANK STREET

RÉDUCTION DU MONTANT DU RÈGLEMENT FINANCIER DES EXIGENCES RELATIVES AU STATIONNEMENT POUR LE 1115, RUE BANK

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0017                                                    capital/capitale (17)

That the Planning and Environment Committee approve that the new restaurant to be located at 1115 Bank Street not be required to pay this Cash-in-lieu of Parking fee by reducing the charge to one dollar per slot for the three spaces the By-law requires.

CARRIED

Councillors G. Hunter and M. Bellemare dissented.

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

ARTICLES DES CONSEILLERS

Councillor / Conseillère Leadman

13.       MORATORIUM ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CARLING-BAYVIEW COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN AREA

MORATOIRE SUR LES PROJETS D’AMÉNAGEMENT VISÉS PAR LE PLAN DE CONCEPTION COMMUNAUTAIRE DU SECTEUR CARLING BAYVIEW

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0019                                      kitchissippi (15) SOMERSET (14)

Committee received the following correspondence with respect to this matter, which is held on file with the City Clerk:

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Amanda Farris

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Armand Ruffo

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Geoff Poapst

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Kathryn and David Williams

· E-mail dated 23 May 2010 from Louise Watson

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Shirley Rayes

· E-mail dated 21 May 2010 from Alayne McGregor

· E-mail dated 21 May from Clifford and Felicity Garrard

· E-mail dated 26 May 2010 from Rob Fennimore

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Laura Henderson and Sean Crowell

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Mary Wilkinson

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from David Gladstone

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Richard Mason

· E-Mail dated 25 May 2010 from Marshall M. Perrin

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Rosarina Tassone-Avella & Saverio Avella

· E-mail date 26 May 2010 from Geraldine and Daniel Sutton-Long.

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Christine Fennimore

· E-mail dated 26 May 2020 from Richard Cavanagh and Lil Krstic

· E-mail dated 25 May 2010 from Yavor Kresic

· E-mail dated 24 May 2010 from Dietlind and Frank Gardell

· E-mail dated 24 May 2010 from Keith Hobbs

· E-mail dated 24 May 2020 from Kim Meimaroglou

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 from John Doran

· Comments dated 25 May 2010 from Inga Dybala

· E-mail dated 28 May 2020 from Joanne Kim

· E-mail dated 28 May 2010 from Jason Bennett

· E-mail dated 30 May from Leanna Haythorne and Anil Naidoo

Councillor Leadman began discussion of this item by introducing her motion and provided some background information on the Community Design Plan (CDP), the Master Servicing Study and why she had brought it forward to Committee.   The following provides a summary of the more salient points:

· The initial Community Design Plan (CDP) for the Carling-Bayview corridor had started back in September 2005, subsequently put on hold, and recently recommenced. 

· The corridor follows along the O-train line, and as such was a site for high intensification, and she suggested one of the main of the CDP was to look at how to maximize the potential of those lands. 

· A Master Servicing Study will form part of this particular CDP, which is the first of its kind in the existing urban area.  The servicing study will provide a high-level look at water distribution, waste water collection and storm drainage infrastructure and is intended to describe how new development areas is to be serviced.  

· Master Servicing Studies are now needed to support a CDP given, as they identify existing infrastructure capacities, conditions and alignments; they assess potential impacts of CDP on infrastructure.  This is particularly important in an older area, where the infrastructure is old, as development charges don’t apply to existing infrastructure or upgrading that infrastructure and the cost becomes the responsibility of the tax payer.

· One the things the servicing study does is identify capital projects phasing and funding mechanisms where the City needs to spend the money to improve infrastructure in order to achieve the intensification that the CDP will bring forward.

· Key issues facing the CDP area include the fact that some of the major infrastructure in the area is old, the location of existing major infrastructure constrains key development properties, there are existing combined sewer overflow issues, historical urban flooding issues, and a large number of land owners and stakeholders.

· This type of CDP that the City is bringing forward will add pressure to the City’s infrastructure capacity.  Therefore, the CDP and Master Servicing Study must work in tandem. 

The Councillor emphasized the need to work with developers to achieve some of the water, wastewater and sanitary management issues, suggesting that if the process could not be done in concert with the development community, the plan would not have a good outcome. In conclusion, the Councillor emphasized that there were many crucial elements related to the CDP and Master Servicing Study, and to allow development to move forward while the study was underway would not give the opportunity to evaluate the implications of CDP options.

Councillor Leadman acknowledged that there had not been much time for consultation with developers or the community on her motion, and suggested the motion could be deferred for a few weeks to allow more time to work with the development community on a plan, emphasizing that she wanted them on board.

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes with regards to whether the moratorium would be considered voluntary, Mr. Kilstrom confirmed that a developer could still submit his application and appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) should the application not be processed within 120 days.  He further suggested that Councillor Leadman was proposing deferral for a few weeks in order to have the proposed moratorium be more like the situation that was undertaken in Westboro, where there was cooperation from the development industry.

On behalf of Councillor Leadman, Councillor Holmes moved the following motion to defer the matter:

That the item be deferred to the June 22^nd meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee, to be the first item of business on that agenda

Mr. Kilstrom suggested June 22^nd would be a workable date for consideration, although he suggested it would be a busy Committee meeting.

On the issue of deferral, Councillor Hunter noted that numerous developers had waited until late in the day for the item to be considered, and questioned the value of deferral for a few weeks.  He noted that a CDP was by definition a plan developed for a community that will undergo significant change.  He suggested that accepting a CDP was accepting that there would be significant change.  He suggested that unless the delegations present were willing to support deferral, they should consider the item immediately.

The following public delegations spoke to the issue of deferral:

Alan Cohen, Soloway Wright, spoke against deferral. He was accompanied by Mike Casey, Arnon and John Doran, Domicile. He expressed his wish that somebody had advised the delegations of the possibility of deferral earlier in the day, given they had been waiting for the item.  He questioned the value of deferral, suggesting his clients did not support a moratorium and that this would not change.  He noted the Official Plan (OP) already provided a test for development where there is no CDP, and further noted Council could refuse site-specific applications.  He suggested there would be no support for the moratorium from the development community, and for smaller developers in particular it would be a particular problem.  He recommended Committee make their decision today and let the delegations speak to the substance of the matter

Mr. Casey noted that he had paid for the time of his legal and consultants to stay in order to discuss the matter, and spoke against deferral. He indicated his desire to deal with the matter immediately, given many of the major players were already present and the issues would not change in a month.   He suggested the proposed moratorium would take in a very large area, impacting several of his properties, and recommended against it.  He further noted that the CDP process had initially begun in 2005, and was abandoned, and feared it could be abandoned again.  He suggested one party that was not present, but would be negatively affected by a potential moratorium, was the Humane Society, which was counting on selling their land for a higher and better use.

Councillor Leadman noted that in the case of Richmond Road there had been consultation and an agreement with the development community to hold off on development during the CDP process.  She expressed that her purpose for recommending deferral was to allow consultation with the community of the moratorium, to see if a solution could be reached to phase in development and work with the community to develop a plan for the corridor that would not put undue pressure on the City’s infrastructure.

Mr. Cohen invited the Councillor to meet with his clients, but did not think the threat of interim control or moratorium was the best way to deal with the development community.  Councillor Leadman suggested that if discussions proceeded, the solution might not be a moratorium, but rather a working agreement for the CDP corridor.

Councillor Doucet suggested that when the City commences CDP processes, there was an influx of development proposals, not all of which would be approved under the CDP.  He suggested this was reminiscent of when the City enacted the tree bylaw, resulting in the cutting down of many trees before the by-law came into effect.  He indicated his support for the moratorium.  Mr. Cohen indicated that he had received no calls or indication from developers wanting to make an application prior to the CDP.  He suggested that the reason one sees an influx of applications in any one area is due to market, and the attractiveness of the area, and that such applications were unrelated to the CDP.

Councillor Holmes suggested the moratorium would be voluntary, as applicants would have the right to appeal to the OMB if the city did not process applications within 120 days.  She suggested the purpose of deferral was to allow time to discuss with the development community the objectives of the CDP and how to work together on the impending planning conundrums.  She did not think the moratorium was intended to be antagonistic, noting it was not an interim control bylaw. Mr. Cohen suggested that there was nothing to suggest the moratorium would be voluntary, and maintained that developers did not actually want to go to the OMB.

Chair Feltmate suggested that discussions with developers could result in any number of strategies.  She suggested that, instead of deferral, Councillor Leadman could withdraw the motion, have discussion with the development community, and bring it back in the appropriate form based on those discussions.

Councillor Leadman indicated that the purpose of bringing forward the report was to have that discussion and debate, and the reaction was that there was not enough time for consultation with the development community.  She withdrew her motion, and indicated she would have discussions with the development community and staff.

Chair Feltmate hoped that the community would meet with the Councillor so that they could all move forward together as a community.

In addition, the following delegations were registered to speak to the substance of the matter, but did not speak:

Amanda Farris, Civic Hospital Neighbourhood Association; Janet Bradley, Borden Ladner Gervais, on behalf of Soho Condominiums ant 125 Hickory; Janet Bradley and Wiliam D. Buchanan on behalf of DCR Phoenix Development Corp; Paul Webber, Bell Baker LLP;

Alayne McGregor and Shirley Rayes.

The following recommendations were withdrawn by Councillor Leadman:

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommended to Council that:

1.  Staff not schedule any rezoning within the Carling-Bayview Community Design Plan Area for a public hearing until the Community Design Plan has been submitted to Committee and Council for adoption;

2. Staff be directed to monitor applications to the Committee of Adjustment to ensure that applications to the Committee of Adjustment are not being made to circumvent this moratorium on rezonings and that the results of such monitoring be regularly reported to the Ward Councillors;

3. The City Clerk and Solicitor be directed to seek a planner to be on retainer to defend the position established in this motion.

WITHDRAWN

IN CAMERA ITEM*

POINT EN HUIT CLOS*

The matter was discussed in open session, eliminating the necessity to resolve in camera.  Minutes of this discussion can be found under Item 8 of the regular agenda, Damage to Private Property By City-Owned Trees – Verbal Update (ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0020). As a result of the motion approved in relation to that item, Committee agreed that the Council referral motion listed as item 1 on the Confidential Agenda was tabled.

1.         MOTION – RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS INVOLVING DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY BY CITY-OWNED TREES

MOTION – RÈGLEMENT DES DEMANDES D’INDEMNISATION POUR LES DOMMAGES CAUSÉS À DES PROPRIÉTÉS PRIVÉES PAR DES ARBRES APPARTENANT À LA VILLE           

ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0015 CITY WIDE / A L’ECHELLE DE VILLE

Referred by City Council at its meeting of 14 April 2010/ Renvoyée par le Conseil municipal à sa réunion du 14 avril 2010

TABLED

INFORMATION PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED

INFORMATION DISTRIBUÉE AUPARAVANT

A.        ORIGIN/DESTINATION SURVEY - 1357 BASELINE ROAD

Enquête origine/destination - 1357, chemin Baseline

ACS2010-ICS-PGM-0096-IPD                        CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

RECEIVED

OTHER BUSINESS

AUTRES QUESTIONS

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The meeting adjourned at5:25 p.m.

Original signed by                                                 Original signed by

Caitlin Salter-MacDonald                                     Councillor P. Hume

Committee Coordinator                                     Chair