|
1. URBAN BOUNDARY – PHASE 1 HEARING – NEW INFORMATION/EVIDENCE
LIMITES URBAINES – PHASE 1 AUDIENCE – NOUVELLE INFORMATION/PREUVE
|
Committee recommendation
That Council receive this report for information.
Recommandation du comité
Que le Conseil de prendre connaissance du présent rapport.
Documentation
1. City Clerk and Solicitor’s Report report, 14 January 2011 (ACS2011-CMR-LEG-0004).
2. Extract of Draft Planning Committee Minutes of 25 January 2011 (issued separately).
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l’urbanisme et de l’environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
14 January 2011/le 14 janvier 2011
Submitted by/Soumis par : M.Rick O'Connor, City Clerk and Solicitor/Greffier et Chef du contentieux
Contact Person/Personne ressource : Timothy Marc
Senior Legal Counsel/Conseiller juridique principal
Legal Services/Services juridiques
(613) 580-2424 x21444, timothy.marc@ottawa.ca
|
Ref N°: ACS2011-CMR-LEG-0004 |
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
LIMITES URBAINES – PHASE 1 AUDIENCE – NOUVELLE INFORMATION/PREUVE |
That the Planning Committee recommend Council receive this report for information.
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme recommande au Conseil de prendre connaissance du présent rapport.
BACKGROUND
As part of the amendments made by Bill 51 to the Planning Act, the following provisions were inserted into section 17 respecting Official Plans (similar provisions were inserted into section 34 respecting zoning by-laws).
New evidence at hearing
(44.3) This subsection applies if information and material that is presented at the hearing of an appeal under subsection (24) or (36) was not provided to the municipality before the council made the decision that is the subject of the appeal.
Same
(44.4) When subsection (44.3) applies, the Municipal Board may, on its own initiative or on a motion by the municipality or any party, consider whether the information and material could have materially affected the council’s decision and, if the Board determines that it could have done so, it shall not be admitted into evidence until subsection (44.5) has been complied with and the prescribed time period has elapsed.
Notice to council
(44.5) The Municipal Board shall notify the council that it is being given an opportunity to,
(a) reconsider its decision in light of the information and material; and
(b) make a written recommendation to the Board.
Council’s recommendation
(44.6) The Municipal Board shall have regard to the council’s recommendation if it is received within the time period referred to in subsection (44.4), and may but is not required to do so if it is received afterwards.
The purpose of these provisions is to ensure that Council has the opportunity to consider and provide its views with respect to any evidence that will be placed before the Ontario Municipal Board, particularly where such was not brought before Council when the original matter was considered by the municipality.
Since 1990, it has been the practice of the Ontario Municipal Board to require the exchange of witness statements for moderately or significantly complex hearings (generally any matter for which a hearing of over one week’s duration in scheduled). In order to seek to ensure that a hearing is not adjourned mid-stream in order that new evidence presented to the Board is first brought before Council, a practice has developed whereby when it is determined from the witness statements that new evidence or information is intended to be submitted to the Ontario Municipal Board, such new evidence or information is submitted to Committee and/or Council before the hearing to permit Members of Council, should they so choose, to consider the evidence or information and provide direction to Legal Services.
URBAN BOUNDARY-PHASE 1 HEARING
Also before Committee and Council is a report summarizing the status of the hearings with respect to Official Plan Amendment No. 76. One hearing, with respect to the Endangered Species policies, section 4.7.4, has taken place thus far and the Board has rendered a decision dismissing that appeal. No new information or evidence was submitted in that hearing and thus it was not necessary to bring forward a report concerning the evidence to be submitted to the Board.
The next hearing to take place is the Urban Boundary-Phase 1 hearing. Witness statements were exchanged on December 3, 2010 with a link to all statements being attached at the end of this report. Planning Staff have reviewed the witness statements provided by all parties with a view to summarizing for Committee and Council those which may contain information or evidence that may not have been before Council at the time that Official Plan Amendment No. 76 was adopted in June, 2009. Accompanying each summary of information provided through the witness statement exchanged on December 3, 2010 is a staff response.
The expert witnesses for the appellants are as follows:
· Wendy Nott is a planner called by Taggart
· Robert Feldgaier and Peter Norman are land economists called by Taggart
· Pamela Sweet is a planner called by the Greater Ottawa Home Builders’ Association (GOHBA)
· Lee Parsons and Christina Heydorn are planners and land economists called by GOHBA
· Doug Norris is a demographer called by Paul Johanis
· Matthew Patterson is a professor in the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa called by Paul Johanis
Having reviewed the witness statements provided by all parties to the Urban Boundary-Phase 1 Hearing, it continues to be the position of staff that the urban residential land supply as designated through the Official Plan as proposed to be modified by Official Plan Amendment No. 76 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represents good land use planning. As a result, Planning staff have indicated that they do not recommend any revision to the Urban Area in light of the information and evidence provided through the witness statements.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
As noted in the accompanying report, the cost to the City for external planning testimony is estimated to be $75,000 to $100,000 and the cost for external legal services is estimated to be $250,000 to $300,000 (of this amount $105,000 has already been incurred).
The City Clerk and Solicitor Department has included within its one time funding request monies for the retention of external legal services for the Urban Boundary Hearing.
No identified funding is made available for the retention of external planning witnesses. The cost of external witnesses will be borne by the Planning and Growth Management Department operating budget.
RURAL IMPLICATIONS
In determining the issues for the Urban Boundary – Phase 1 hearing, all parties agreed not to challenged the allocation of 9% of dwelling units and 10% of population to the rural area. While the determination of the amount of lands to be added to the Urban Area by definition means a corresponding reduction of the lands within the Rural Area, it is not anticipated that the Phase 1 hearing would have any further impact on the Rural Area.
If the City is not successful there may be a greater impact on the Rural Area.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Broad consultation occurred in the process leading to the adoption of Official Plan Amendment No 76. A series of three pre-hearings were also held with respect to Amendment No. 76 at which interested persons, who had made submissions with respect to the Amendment or who could otherwise provide a justification, could seek to be added as a party or participant to a hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
The Official Plan of the City of Ottawa, as proposed to be modified by Official Plan Amendment No. 76, implements the environmental objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement.
STRATEGIC PLAN
The Urban Boundary, as amended through Official Plan Amendment No. 76, reflects the following elements of the City’s Strategic Plan.
F. Planning and Growth Management
1. Become leading edge in community and urban design including housing creation for those in the city living on low incomes and residents at large.
2. Respect the existing urban fabric, neighbourhood form and the limits of hard services so that new growth is integrated seamlessly with established communities.
3. Encourage the development of existing employment lands to promote job creation and minimize infrastructure costs.
4. Ensure that City infrastructure required for new growth is built or improved as needed to serve the growth.
C. Sustainable Finances
10. Following the principles of Ottawa 20/20, ensure the review of the Official Plan includes:
a. the impact on the operating and capital budgets of development in each of these areas: inside the greenbelt, within the urban boundary outside the greenbelt, within villages, and in rural Ottawa outside of village boundaries; and
b. a review of the effective measures to direct growth.
DISPOSITION
The City’s legal representatives will advance the position of Council before the Ontario Municipal Board.
DOCUMENTATION
Document 1- Witness Statement Summary and Response
Witness Statements – Issued separately and held on file with the City Clerk
DOCUMENT 1
WITNESS STATEMENT SUMMARY AND RESPONSE
Wendy Nott
Responds to Issues 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11
Staff Response (Issue 1)
Section 1.1.2 of the Provincial Policy Statement requires the municipality to make available sufficient land to accommodate a range of uses, including housing, to meet the needs for a planning horizon of up to 20 years into the future. This implies that less than 20 years is permissible but the City may not provide for more than a 20-year supply of land.
The provision of sufficient land to accommodate the residential needs of the City of Ottawa until 2031 was a large component of the Official Plan review and is addressed in detail by the “Residential Land Strategy for Ottawa 2006-2031”. The projections prepared by the City conform to the maximum 20-year timeframe permitted. In staff’s opinion the designation of land for less than 20 years is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement provided that it is consistent with other provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement, specifically provision of a minimum 10-year supply of residential land.
The City’s Official Plan and Provincial Policy Statement both seek to encourage more compact development. Limiting the supply of land may encourage builders to make more efficient use of the existing land supply and achieve this objective. The Planning Act requires the City to review its Official Plan every five years. This provides regular opportunities to make incremental additions of land in future if there is a demonstrated need.
The City is currently undertaking a planning exercise titled “Choosing our Future” that will address the issue of how the City can become more sustainable and resilient over the next 50 years and beyond. This plan is intended to establish the City’s long-term growth strategy and Council has directed that it be used to inform the 2014 Official Plan Review.
Staff Response (Issue 2)
OPA 76 provides a 20-year supply of land for most purposes, the exception being land for single-detached and semi-detached housing, for which an estimated supply of approximately 18 years is provided. The slightly shorter land supply for these housing types is due to Council not adding approximately 620 gross developable hectares of suburban residential land recommended by staff to provide for 2031. These lands are spread across five different locations, and in the context of the entire urban land supply of approximately 36,000 hectares amounts to an incremental change of 1.7%. The decision not to add this small amount does not create any significant inconsistencies in the Plan and does not affect the co-ordinated, integrated and comprehensive nature of the planning exercise. Moreover, the land provision in OPA 76 is consistent with the requirements of the PPS for the supply of land for housing and other land uses.
· Based upon the Altus analysis of City growth needs using the provincial population projections Ms Nott believes that the City’s projections understate overall housing needs and therefore land supply for the planning horizon. Ms Nott also questions whether this shortfall will be reconsidered at the time of the next review and whether the City will proceed to provide what is needed if additional land is required.
Staff Response (Issue 2)
It is staff’s intention as a starting point in the next review of the Official Plan to update the growth projections to take account of changes in fertility, mortality, net migration, housing propensities and other variables. Based on those results a new analysis of urban land requirements will be undertaken. After consultation, recommendations regarding the urban land supply will be made to Council.
Staff Response
The clearest demonstration of how the City’s assumptions for housing preferences are faring is to compare actual construction to projections by type of dwelling unit. As shown in the following table, over the last four-and-a-half years the share of single-detached housing starts has averaged well below the projected share. Semi-detached units are also below the projection. In contrast, shares of both townhouses and apartments have been higher than projected.
|
Residential Development, City of Ottawa, mid-2006 to Nov 2010 |
||||
|
Housing Starts |
Single |
Semi |
Row |
Apt. |
|
2nd half 2006 |
38.0% |
5.7% |
27.3% |
29.0% |
|
2007 |
43.8% |
4.7% |
31.4% |
20.1% |
|
2008 |
40.6% |
3.0% |
32.0% |
24.3% |
|
2009 |
40.3% |
5.1% |
34.2% |
20.4% |
|
2010 YTD Nov. |
32.6% |
5.7% |
31.9% |
29.9% |
|
Conversions & additions |
0.4% |
0.9% |
0.4% |
98.2% |
|
Total Starts & Conversions |
38.4% |
4.6% |
30.9% |
26.1% |
|
Source: CMHC starts and City building permits for conversions-additions |
||||
|
Projected Units 2006-10 |
42.6% |
5.0% |
29.3% |
23.2% |
|
Source: Residential Land Strategy, Appendix 3 |
||||
Staff monitor building activity annually and the pattern of recent housing activity will help to inform the next revision of the housing projection. At present, there is no reason to believe that the City projection has underestimated the demand for lower density housing; in fact the opposite appears to be happening.
Staff Response (Issue 6)
Recent building activity demonstrates that minimum densities of 34 unit per net hectare (ha) are readily achievable. The City’s 2009 Vacant Urban Residential Land Survey, which covers mostly suburban land outside the Greenbelt, reported the average density of new building was 35.3 units/ha. In 2008 the average built was 33.9 units/net ha.
The same survey also reports that single-detached densities have been rising steadily over the past five years. As shown in the following table, densities have risen by 17.4% since 2005.
|
Density of New Single-Detached Units Outside the Greenbelt |
||
|
||
|
units/net ha |
|
|
|
2005 |
19.6 |
|
|
2006 |
20.3 |
|
|
2007 |
21.3 |
|
|
2008 |
22.1 |
|
|
2009 |
23.1 |
|
|
% change 2005-09 |
+17.4% |
|
Further evidence is provided by the Fernbank Community Design Plan. Since it was adopted after Council adopted OPA 76, it was Council policy that it meet the minimum density provisions in the amendment. The CDP achieved the targets set out in the policy.
The above information indicates that the higher densities required by OPA 76 are clearly achievable.
Staff Response (Issues 7 and 8)
Intensification targets identified in OPA 76 are broad and increase from 36% of new units during 2006-2011 to 44% of units by 2031. The degree of intensification is expected to be achieve in stages over the planning timeframe and is based upon observed levels of intensification that have been experienced and the intention of the City to further intensify some communities. The policies OPA 76 are intended to facilitate this.
The argument that many communities are resistant to intensification is valid but like the City the development industry has an interest in showing the community that intensification can work and be beneficial to communities.
The insertion by OPA 76 of a new Policy 3e in Section 2.2.1 implements the direction given by the Provincial Policy Statement. When the Provincial Policy Statement was updated greater emphasis was placed upon efforts to promote intensification and redevelopment than in earlier Policy Statements.
The Provincial Policy Statement states three things (underlining added):
1. …“sufficient land shall be made available through intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, designated growth areas, to accommodate ...” and
2. also states that the municipality is to:
“maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 10 years through residential intensification and redevelopment and, if necessary, lands that are designated and available for residential development;” and
3. “Planning authorities shall establish and implement phasing policies to ensure that specified targets for intensification and redevelopment are achieved prior to, or concurrent with, new development within designated growth areas”
In the opinion of staff these policies suggest that the Province considers achieving the targets for intensification are as important as, if not more important than, new development in greenfields locations or the addition of new development areas. At a minimum the City should be ensuring that every effort is taken to achieve intensification targets before designating new growth areas. If there is no linkage between intensification and urban expansion there will be no incentive to develop “inward” rather than “out”.
Robert Feldgaier and Peter Norman (“Altus”)
Responds to Issues 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11
Staff Response (Issue 1)
The 1992 Growth and Settlement Policy Guidelines, which in the words of the Sept 14, 1992 press release “For the first time, policies and practices related to growth and settlement have been brought together in one document” did not mention anything about a 10-year supply of land for housing. However, the section on Implementation in the guidelines did make a statement about the appropriate planning horizon for municipal plans as follows:
“Official plans are to include long-term plans which identify the planning jurisdiction’s share of population and employment, forecast over a 15-20 year horizon and the land, infrastructure and public facilities needed to accommodate the population and employment.”
The definition of “Long Term Planning Horizon” in this document was “15 – 20 years”.
The 2005 Provincial Policy Statement uses the same timeframe when it refers to “up to 20 years” as the planning horizon. It also includes the requirement for a 10-year supply of land for housing which originated in the Land Use Planning for Housing Policy of 1989. It is reasonable to assume that a municipality has the option to select a planning horizon of 15 years if it so desires.
Staff Response
The consultants appear to have misunderstood the projections set out in staff reports discussing anticipated growth in adjacent OMATO and QMAG communities. The projections for adjacent areas are not City staff projections. They are projections done by or for each local municipality and were reproduced in City reports based on information from their Official Plans.
The Residential Land Strategy explores how those projections might translate into dwelling units by housing type. To conclude that the City of Ottawa is projecting a shift of low density housing to communities beyond its jurisdiction misconstrues the facts.
In addition, the OMATO-QMAG projections quoted in the City projections reports were prepared before the City’s most recent Official Plan review. Hence whatever development strategy the City pursued could have no bearing on projected development in adjacent areas.
On a final point, the City of Ottawa has no planning jurisdiction over adjacent municipalities. If some wish to pursue a strategy of low density development there is little that the City can do to change that approach.
Staff Response
The Ontario Ministry of Finance (MoF) produces projections for all county-level municipalities every year. The MoF projections are based on applying the most recent growth patterns (births, deaths, migration) to each municipality for the next 25 years. Provincially and nationally the birth rate has been rising and mortality rate falling faster than anticipated. By applying these changes to Ottawa, the 2010 MoF projection for Ottawa appears to be unusually high. However, based on births data available to the City up to 2009 there has been no increase in the birth rate in Ottawa and the variance between actual and projected births is already more than 1,000. Consequently there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the recent MoF forecast.
The MoF projections for Ottawa for the previous several years have been lower than or similar to the OPA 76 projection. They also vary considerably from year to year – for example, the projections for Ottawa in 2031 released in June 2010 are over 5% higher (60,000 persons) than the projections released in 2009.
The City has never used the provincial projections and never been asked to use them by the province. Staff do not recommend they be used for long-term planning as they change every year and are not based on a long-term perspective.
Staff also do not agree that 48% of housing demand over the 2006 to 2031 period will be in the form of single-detached housing. Recent activity, as noted elsewhere in this document, points to a substantially lower figure.
Staff Response
As noted in a response to Ms Nott, actual development in the four-and-a-half years since 2006 has yielded a single-detached share of only 38.4%. There is no apparent need to plan for such a high share of single-detached housing, nor would it constitute good planning.
Staff Response (Issue 10)
Staff concluded in the recommendation to Council on OPA 76 that 851.4 hectares was required for 2031. Based on information currently available, there is no change to the staff recommendation for 2031. The addition of 230 ha of urban land in OPA 76 provides for more than 15 years of land supply for housing, which is consistent with the requirements of the PPS.
Pamela Sweet
Responds to Issues 1, 2 and 10 and concurs with the opinion of Wendy Nott on the other issues.
Staff Response (Issue 2)
OPA 76 provides a 20-year supply of land for most purposes, the exception being land for single-detached and semi-detached housing, for which an estimated supply of approximately 18 years is provided. The slightly shorter land supply for these housing types is due to Council not adding approximately 620 gross developable hectares of suburban residential land recommended by staff for 2031. In the context of the entire urban land supply of approximately 36,000 hectares this land amounts to an incremental change of 1.7%. The decision not to add this small amount does not create any significant inconsistencies in the Plan and does not affect “the co-ordination of planning activities” in any meaningful way.
The land provision in OPA 76 is also consistent with the requirement of the PPS for at least a 10-year supply of land for housing and up to a 20-year supply for all land uses.
Staff Response (Issue 1)
There is some consistency among municipalities in planning for a 20-year timeframe but even the academic literature recognises that there is no definitive number of years. The time frame varies with the province and the planning legislation that applies.
In the Fifth Edition of their book “Planning Canadian Communities” G. Hodge and D. Gordon [1] use two examples to demonstrate that: “The time scale of the plan is determined by factors relevant to the particular community, such as the population and economic growth, the condition of structures, and the need for utilities and amenities”. This publication was cited by Ms Sweet in her witness statement.
Hodge and Gordon continue to point out that … “a common time horizon for plans is 20 years, as in Ottawa’s 20/20 Plan; York Region on the other hand, uses a 15-year horizon”. The City of Ottawa’s planning timeframe for the 2003 Official Plan was in fact 18 years. Interestingly, Hodge and Gordon did not say that the shorter time frame adopted by York Region was not good planning. Provincial policy in Ontario provides for a range that can be between 15 and 20 years and planning for less than 20 years is not inappropriate.
Staff Response
This issue has been addressed in other responses. In summary, OPA 76 is consistent with the land supply policies of the PPS.
Staff Response
As noted in other responses, the City has no jurisdiction over planning matters in adjacent municipalities. However, there is no evidence that the long-term land supply provided by OPA 76 is constraining development to the extent it is causing a shift to other municipalities. (Shifts have occurred for other reasons, such as improved provincial highway access to Ottawa.) In any case, the City is required to update its Official Plan every five years. That provides an opportunity to take corrective action if problems with the supply of land become apparent.
· OPA 76 is not consistent with the City’s OP. OPA 76 was supposed to be an update, not a return to first principles such as changing the planning horizon. The planning horizon of the City’s OP is 20 years and this period was not identified as a matter to be considered and was not a topic consulted on as part of the review culminating in OPA 76.
Staff Response (Issue 1)
OPA 76 was an update of the City’s Official Plan adopted in 2003 and was not a return to first principles. The work undertaken by staff included the projection of urban land requirements to 2031, which was a change from the 2021 horizon of the 2003 OP. Council subsequently chose not to add all of the land required to 2031. They did however, include land that would satisfy at least a 15-year supply of residential land. This satisfies the minimum provincial requirement. The City’s decision recognises that the land needs will have to be reviewed in five years.
Staff Response
At the time that the motion to include these two policies was presented staff were asked to comment on the policies. The staff response was:
… “that staff will review the zoning to ensure there is sufficient zoning in place to accommodate the minimum intensification targets. She (Ms Paterson) interpreted the motion to say that if the zoning is sufficient, the intensification target could not be used as the sole justification for approving additional height or density in excess of the current zoning.”
The staff position is that the two policies were not intended to be read as applying a maximum height or density where these criteria satisfied the intensification objectives but rather they are to confirm that any development beyond current limits must be justified by other social and economic benefits or on the basis of other planning criteria.
· In support of the witness statement contention that the City’s policies have an impact on surrounding municipalities, Ms Sweet includes a memo which outlines key findings from her review of the Official Plans of Ontario municipalities surrounding Ottawa. The findings are summarised as follows:
o None require a certain percentage of growth that must occur through intensification or infill in order to permit expansion of the urban boundary.
o Minimum average density for suburban communities in Ottawa of 34 units/net hectare is higher than the maximum density permitted in many surrounding municipalities.
o Contrary to City staff reports there is no apparent constraint to servicing development in adjacent municipalities.
o Many identify themselves as bedroom communities for Ottawa and propose to capitalize on their proximity to Ottawa to drive their own growth.
Staff Response
Growth trends in municipalities adjacent to Ottawa are included in the most recent edition of Ottawa Counts (“Growth Outside of Ottawa, 2001-2009”) prepared by City staff. This analysis demonstrates that those municipalities are growing at much the same rate as the City of Ottawa. While many recognise the economic benefit their proximity to Ottawa affords, the statistics also reveal that these municipalities are becoming more self-contained. Ottawa Counts “Growth Outside Ottawa, 2001-2009” reports that a lower proportion of their growing work force traveled into Ottawa to work in 2006 compared to 2001. Both Russell and North Dundas Townships, which have been experiencing healthy growth, also face servicing restrictions that may impact future growth and similar hurdles may be encountered in other municipalities over the planning period.
Ms Sweet argues that since many of the plans for these communities use a 20-year planning timeframe and do not link future urban expansion to achieving intensification objectives or establish minimum residential densities in new communities, the City of Ottawa should follow the same pattern. In many cases, the Official Plans of these municipalities were adopted before or soon after the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement came into force. These municipalities are required to bring their planning policies into consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement and will have to address the issues of intensification and sustainable development. Carleton Place is already preparing for a review of their plan. Ottawa’s plan should provide an example to guide those reviews.
Lee Parsons and Christina Heydorn (“MGP”)
Responds to issues 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11
· A 15-year supply is inconsistent with the PPS, as per Ms Sweet. The OP review was predicated on a 2031 horizon and the change to 15 years creates inconsistencies. The land designated does not provide even a 15-year supply.
Staff response (Issue 1)
OPA 76 provides a 20-year supply of land for most purposes, the exception being land for single-detached and semi-detached housing, for which an estimated supply of approximately 18 years is provided. The slightly shorter land supply for these housing types does not create any meaningful inconsistencies in the plan. The land provision is also consistent with the requirement of the PPS for at least a 10-year supply of land for housing and up to a 20-year supply for all land uses.
· Conflicts with the City’s economic strategy.
Staff response (Issue 2)
The City’s 2010 economic strategy, “Partnerships for Prosperity”, has a five-year planning horizon. OPA 76 provides for 20 years of land for employment and for most other purposes. There is no apparent conflict with the economic strategy which seeks to more actively manage the existing supply of employment lands within this five-year window to encourage development that accommodates employment. There is an ample supply of residential land for the next five years and well beyond.
· MGP expressed concerns with the City projection in a 25 October 2007 letter, but agreed to use them anyway. We should now consider using the latest Ontario Ministry of Finance projections for Ottawa, which in combination with updated land supply numbers provided by Altus support adding 2,994.6 ha for 2031.
Staff response
The Ontario Ministry of Finance (MoF) produces projections for all county-level municipalities every year. As noted previously, the City has never used the provincial projections and never been asked to use them by the province. Staff do not recommend they be used for long-term planning as they change every year and are not based on a long-term perspective.
· The City used unreasonable assumptions for future housing preferences, contrary to A) advice from Hemson Consulting, B) 1981 to 2006 census trends, and C) advice from MGP. The MGP analysis compares 1981 and 2006 census data.
Staff response (Issue 5)
Regarding point A), staff agreed with the advice from Hemson and substantially revised the results of the Detailed Methodology contained in the November 2007 projections report. Regarding B), staff undertook extensive analysis of 1981, 1991, 2001 and 2006 census data, not simply a comparison of the two years 1981 and 2006 as done by MGP. The analysis showed there were significant changes between 2001 and 2006. Further longitudinal analysis presented by Dr. Norris in his witness statement suggests the staff projection of single-detached units may be too high for some age groups, contrary to the MGP assertion. Further analysis by staff generally supports Dr. Norris’ conclusion. Regarding C), staff listened to the advice from MGP but did not agree with it. The MGP view in staff’s opinion is that the future will be similar to the past. As stated in the 24 November 2008 staff report to committee, “it is staff’s opinion that the next 20 years will not be like the last 20 years and projections should take that into account.”
Staff assumptions for a shift future in housing preferences away from single-detached and toward townhouses and apartments are also supported by recent construction activity, as noted elsewhere in this document.
· MGP does not support the housing mix and minimum density provisions of OPA 76 as they do not believe they are supported by evidence nor what they believe will be developed. They tested the City’s mix and density assumptions and concluded a range of urban land requirements from 2,256.8 ha to 1,955.6 ha.
Staff response (Issue 6)
The policies for housing mix and minimum densities are designed to achieve two objectives. The first is to ensure that a sufficient number of single-detached houses are built on expansion lands so that even more urban land does not have to be added at a later date to meet the projected demand for singles (the minimum density policy in the 2003 OP was achieved by builders through a higher proportion of townhouses which created a shortage, at least in theory, of single-detached). Second, the policies are intended to increase the density of single-detached units, which are the largest consumer of residential land. That increased density can be achieved is evidenced by what is currently being built in some areas of Ottawa and in other Canadian cities. Further evidence is provided by monitoring of the annual built density of singles in Ottawa, which increased by 17.4% between 2005 and 2009.
· MGP also raises the issue of how “gross residential density” is calculated. They argue a 45% gross-to-net ratio (i.e. for each gross hectare of land, 45% will be used for residential building lots) should be used, rather than the 50% ratio used by staff in the analysis prepared for OPA 76.
Staff response (Issue 6)
The question of what the appropriate gross-to-net ratio should be was the subject of a staff research report completed in 2010 (“A Comparative Analysis of Residential Development Ratios”). That found that while the ratio had declined from what it was in 1980s and 1990s developments, in subdivisions built since 2000 it was 53%, higher than both the MGP figure and the ratio used by staff for OPA 76. Furthermore, given that the land analysis done for OPA 76 removed all identified environmental and other constraint lands, the appropriate ratio for use in the urban land analysis would be 56%. The higher net-to-gross ratio significantly reduces gross land requirements.
· The proposed 40% intensification target is neither reasonable nor attainable. A) The City did not include data for 1998 to mid-2001, which had a lower rate of intensification. B) The City included student residences in its intensification analysis. C) The City did not apply a consistent methodology. D) The City did not comply with policy 4.5 of the PPS, quoted as “municipal official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies…”.
Staff response (Issue 7)
Staff maintain the intensification target is reasonable and attainable. Monitoring of activity from mid-2006 to mid-2010 shows intensification has averaged 36.7%, above the 36% target for 2006 to 2011 in OPA 76.
Regarding point A), data for 1998 through the first half of 2001 were excluded from the analysis of post-2001 intensification rates for two reasons. First, mid-2001 corresponds to Statistics Canada’s post-censal estimate date and was the starting point of the 2001 projection, and secondly because mid-2001 marked a change in the local housing market through the start of what some have termed the “condominium boom”. Data for the late 1990s, while relevant to the longer term trend, represent a different era in the city’s building, displaying an intensification rate of about 26%. Earlier data from 1984 to 1990 showed intensification to be about 15%. What the historical data show is a gradual increase in intensification rates in Ottawa, one which staff believe will continue although at a slower rate of increase.
Regarding B), staff include student residences as part of intensification because people living in residences are part of the population for which the City provides services. That population has been included in the City’s population estimates since 2001 and they are a part of the 2006 population which constitutes the base from which future growth is projected in OPA 76. Construction of student residences is continuing, with 436 new units issued a building permit in October 2010. Because the student population is part of the City’s projected growth, it is therefore appropriate to include the structures in which they live.
Regarding C), monitoring of intensification reported in the most recent edition of the Annual Development Report posted on the City web site applied a consistent methodology from mid-2006 (the start of the OPA 76 projection period) to the end of 2009. The same methodology was also applied to the analysis of permits for the first half of 2010. What MGP is referring to is a proposal from May 2008 for how intensification could be defined, which was distributed at the monthly meeting with GOHBA. Subsequent experience with the definition of intensification and its application by the Province as part of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe[2] led to fine-tuning of the operational definition for Ottawa. The definition now being applied, which includes “the development of vacant and/or underutilized lots within previously developed areas”, more closely fits the definition of intensification in the PPS and in OPA 76 and it is the one now consistently used.
Regarding D), MGP quotes only part of the sentence from policy 4.5 of the PPS. In full it states “municipal official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas.” It is staff’s opinion that the policies in OPA 76 are clear, reasonable and attainable in respect of these objectives.
· The City’s intensification target is too high. The methodology changed from what was proposed in 2008. Policy 3e is inconsistent with the PPS. Target poses risks to the city’s affordability and long-term economic prosperity.
Staff response (Issue 8)
The intensification target and purported change in methodology are addressed under the response to MGP on Issue 7. Policy 3e is consistent with policy 1.1.3.6 of the PPS. If there is a concern that not meeting the intensification target will limit the ability to add yet more urban land, it may be encouraging to know that as of mid-2010 the target for 2006-2011 is being exceeded. It is not apparent that the policy poses a risk to the city’s affordability and economic prosperity. The policy is aimed at, among other things, increasing the financial sustainability of the municipality, which will foster affordability and prosperity.
· Adding 230 ha is inconsistent with the PPS as it does not provide 15 years supply (they estimate 13 years from 2009). At least 490 ha are required to provide a 15-year supply.
Staff response (Issue 10)
Based on the estimates of staff, the existing land supply including the 230 ha added by OPA 76 provides for approximately 18 years of single and semi-detached housing as of mid-2009 (the date of Council adoption). That exceeds the amount required by policy 1.4.1a of the PPS.
· MGP told committee in May 2009 that 2,224.4 ha of urban land were needed for 2031. Based on updated information, 2,507.5 ha is now required to meet residential/ housing needs to 2031.
Staff response (Issue 11)
Staff do not agree with the conclusions of MGP. Specifically, staff disagree with their assumptions in the following subject areas: forecast housing needs by dwelling type; future intensification rates; suburban development densities; and gross-to-net ratios in urban expansion areas. Staff are working with MGP and Altus, consultants for the appellants, to update the land supply to reflect recent approvals and applications, and there may or may not be agreement on that subject. The staff recommendation for 2031 was for an urban expansion of 851.4 gross developable hectares.
Dr. Doug Norris
Issues not listed, but appear to be 3, 4 and 5
· City’s projection is too high because it overestimates the share of immigration attracted to Ottawa.
Staff response (Issues 3 and 4)
Statistics Canada publishes two sets of migration data. Staff use the series that has been published for over 30 years in order to provide a consistent long-term time series. Dr. Norris is using another time series that shows different results. Regardless of the source data used to measure immigration, the essential question is whether the projections in OPA 76 are providing a sound basis for planning in Ottawa. For land use planning, a key test is how the projections are predicting housing market activity. In that regard, the OPA 76 projections are doing an excellent job of forecasting total new units, as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Total housing starts over the 4.4 year period since mid-2006 are only 2.2% below projected. By unit type, projections have overestimated construction of single and semi-detached units by 14% and 11% respectively. Townhouses were underestimated by 3%. Apartments were under-estimated by 9%.
|
Table 1. Residential Development, City of Ottawa, mid-2006 to Nov 2010 |
|||||
|
Housing Starts |
Single |
Semi |
Row |
Apt. |
Total |
|
2nd half 2006 |
1,232 |
185 |
883 |
939 |
3,239 |
|
2007 |
2,722 |
292 |
1,954 |
1,250 |
6,218 |
|
2008 |
2,715 |
203 |
2,136 |
1,625 |
6,679 |
|
2009 |
2,228 |
280 |
1,887 |
1,127 |
5,522 |
|
2010 YTD Nov |
1,805 |
314 |
1,765 |
1,653 |
5,537 |
|
Conversions & additions |
3 |
6 |
3 |
672 |
684 |
|
Total Starts & Conversions |
10,705 |
1,280 |
8,628 |
7,266 |
27,879 |
|
Source: CMHC starts and City building permits for conversions-additions |
|||||
|
Table 2. Projected New Units, City of Ottawa, mid-2006 to Nov 2010 |
|||||
|
Year |
Single |
Semi |
Row |
Apt. |
Total |
|
2nd half 2006 |
1,376 |
161 |
945 |
748 |
3,229 |
|
2007 |
2,751 |
322 |
1,889 |
1,496 |
6,457 |
|
2008 |
2,751 |
322 |
1,889 |
1,496 |
6,457 |
|
2009 |
2,751 |
322 |
1,889 |
1,496 |
6,457 |
|
2010 YTD Nov |
2,522 |
295 |
1,732 |
1,371 |
5,919 |
|
Total |
12,150 |
1,422 |
8,343 |
6,607 |
28,518 |
|
Source: Residential Land Strategy, Appendix 3 |
|||||
In summary, the projections appear to be tracking actual housing growth well. Whether that is because of or in spite of the assumptions made for immigration will be reviewed as part of the next projections update in 2012.
· Applying a longitudinal analysis to the housing propensity data from previous censuses (i.e. tracking the housing preferences of each 5-year age group as it ages) shows the City projection overestimates the preference for single-detached housing. An alternate scenario more consistent with past trends shows over 14,000 fewer single-detached by 2031 compared to the City projection.
Staff response (Issues 3 and 5)
The longitudinal analysis used is a relatively new but insightful technique that staff had not applied when analyzing housing trends. What was used, and also used by MGP, was an analysis of what housing form a given age group (e.g. 60 to 64) chose in each census year analyzed (1981, 1991, 2001 and 2006). A more complete longitudinal analysis than was presented in Dr. Norris’ witness statement has been undertaken by staff using data for every census year since 1981 (including 1986 and 1996) and each five-year age group. Initial conclusions support his contention that, at least for certain age groups, the projected propensities for single-detached housing applied by staff may have been on the high side. The analysis will be further augmented by 2011 Census results for the projections review in 2012.
Matthew Patterson
Issues not listed, but appear to be 6, 7 and 10
· OPA 76 does not support the City’s objectives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The OPA 76 minimum density policy of 32 units per hectare (ha) is too low to support effective transit, and the developers’ arguments would make it even lower.
Staff response (Issue 6)
The minimum density policy for expansion areas was changed from 32 units per net ha in an earlier draft to 34 units per ha in OPA 76 as adopted. Based on an average of 2.5 persons per household, a net-to-gross ratio of 55% and a minimal allowance for jobs in schools and home-based employment, this density provides for slightly more than 50 people and jobs per gross hectare of land. That is within the 40 to 80 people and jobs per ha range required to support “Good” bus service according to the guidelines provided by the province (ref. “Transportation Trends and Outlooks for the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton”, IBI Group, Jan. 2007).
· Intensification and density targets in OPA 76 are too low. Overall densities of at least 35-40 and preferably 50 people per ha are needed to support vibrant transit and walkable neighbourhoods.
Staff response (Issue 7)
The development strategy behind OPA 76 and the City’s OP in general is to encourage intensification and higher densities at rapid transit nodes (e.g. the Central Area, Mixed-Use Centres and Town Centres) and along corridors with good transit service (i.e. Mainstreets), require that developing areas and especially expansion areas meet minimum density targets, but to leave established neighbourhoods largely unchanged aside from small scale infill. All target areas are required to provide at least 50 people and jobs per gross hectare, and in most cases substantially more than that. The 36% intensification target to 2011 and 40% thereafter is considered reasonable in the shorter term. If experience shows that a higher target is feasible, it can be increased at the time of the next OP review to be completed in 2014.
· Proposed urban expansions in OPA 76 are inconsistent with PPS policies 2.2.1 (protection of water features) and 2.3.1 (protection of prime agricultural areas).
Staff response (Issue 10)
The expansion areas in OPA 76 avoid all agricultural land and do not impinge on any identified water features.
Dr. Ranjit Perera
No new material or issues have been identified in the witness statement.
[1] G. Hodge and D. Gordon, “Planning Canadian Communities: An Introduction to the Principles, Practice, and Participants”, Fifth Edition, Thomson Nelson Canada, 2008, pp. 208-209.
[2] See “Implementing Residential Intensification Targets: Lessons from Research on Intensification Rates in Ontario”, The Neptis Foundation, February 2010