STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR PLANNING ACT MATTERS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 2007

DÉCLARATION POUR LES questions SOUS LA Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire PRÉSENTÉES AVANT LE 1ER JANVIER 2007

Chair Hume read a statement relative to the Zoning By-law Amendment listed as Item 2 on the agenda. He advised that if anyone appeals City Council’s decisions on these proposed amendments to the Ontario Municipal Board but does not make oral submissions at this public meeting or does not make written submissions before these proposed amendments are adopted by City Council on 13 January 2010, then the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) may dismiss all or part of this appeal.

STATEMENT REQUIRED FOR PLANNING ACT MATTERS SUBMITTED POST JANUARY 1, 2007

DÉCLARATION POUR LES questions SOUS LA Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire PRÉSENTÉES APRÈS LE 1ER JANVIER 2007

The Chair read a statement relative to the Zoning By-law Amendments listed as item 3 and 4 on the agenda. He advised that only those who made oral submissions at today’s meeting or written submissions before the amendments are adopted could appeal to the OMB. The applicant may also appeal the matter if Council does not adopt an amendment within 120 days (zoning) and 180 days (Official Plan) of receipt of the application.

LOCAL ARCHTECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LA CONSERVATION DE L’ARCHITECTURE LOCALE

1. LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE NAME CHANGE

COMITÉ CONSULTATIF SUR LA CONSERVATION DE L’ARCHITECTURE LOCALE - DEMANDE DE CHANGEMENT DU NOM DU COMITÉ

ACS2009-CCV-LAC-0004 City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve that the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee’s (LACAC) name be changed to the ‘Ottawa Built Heritage Advisory Committee (OBHAC).

CARRIED

Infrastructure Services and Community Sustainability

SERVICES D’INFRASTRUCTURE ET VIABILITÉ DES COLLECTIVITÉS

PLANNING and growth management

URBANISME et Gestion de la croissance

2. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 143 DIDSBURY ROAD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS 30 GOULBOURN FORCED ROAD) (PHASES 2 AND 3)

PLAN OFFICIEL ET ZONAGE - 143, CHEMIN DIDSBURY (AUPARAVANT DÉSIGNÉE COMME 30, CHEMIN GOULBOURN FORCED) (PHASES 2 ET 3)

ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0002 Kanata North (4)

(This application is not subject to Bill 51)

The following submission was received with respect to this item, which is held on file with the City Clerk:

· Letter dated 8 December 2009 from Lisa Dalla Rosa on behalf of Richcraft Homes, in support of the application

Councillor Feltmate noted the subject property was located in somewhat of an awkward area at the juncture of Terry Fox Drive and the Highway 417 interchange. She noted the report’s statement that the proposed development could be supported after the construction of the Earl Grey/Terry Fox underpass or the widening of Terry Fox between Palladium Drive and Campeau Drive. In response to the Councillor’s questions regarding what development could proceed without the completion of those two projects, Burl Walker, Planner III, explained that a low traffic-generating use such as a hotel could potentially proceed with some local road modifications, without the requirement of constructing the underpass or the widening of Terry Fox Drive. He suggested this would be determined through review of the Transportation Impact Assessment required as part of the Site Plan application. Michael Wildman, Manager of Development Review, Suburban Services, further noted there is a holding designation on the site, which would not be lifted until the balance of the required works is undertaken. He reiterated that a public process would be followed and assured the Councillor that both she and Councillor Wilkinson, the ward Councillor, would be involved in that process.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council:

1. Approve and adopt an amendment to the Kanata Town Centre Site-Specific Policies in Volume 2-B of the Official Plan to redesignate 143 Didsbury Road from a "Low Density Employment Area - Special Policy Area 5" designation to a new "Mixed-Use Centre" designation, as detailed in Document 5; and

2. Approve an amendment to Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 143 Didsbury Road from an “IL7[1434]-h” (Light Industrial Subzone 7, Exception 1434, Holding) zone to an “MC[1434] H(45)-h1-h2-h3-h4” (Mixed-Use Centre, Exception 1434, Height 45 metres, Holding 1, Holding 2, Holding 3, Holding 4) zone, as shown in Document 1 and detailed in Document 6.

CARRIED

3. ZONING - 3817, 3835 AND 3843 INNES ROAD

ZONage - 3817, 3835 et 3843 chemin innes

ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0216 innes (2)

(This matter is subject to Bill 51)

The following submissions were received with respect to this item, which are held on file with the City Clerk:

· E-mails dated December 6 and December 7, 2009 from Gary Fairhead, and supporting documents.

Councillor Bloess wished to note the correspondence that had been received identifying issues of concern in relation to this application. He suggested that most of those concerns would be addressed through the Site Plan. He noted there had been several community meetings and the applicants had narrowed the scope of the project. He suggested that, while some of the height concerns with were not likely to be resolved, the objections would form part of the public record on this matter.

Gilles and Heather Lafontaine had registered their opposition to the report recommendation, but were not present at the time this item was considered.

Greg Mignon, Novatech Engineering, was present in support of the application.

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the Zoning By-law 2008-250 to change the zoning of 3817, 3835 and 3843 Innes Road from R2N - Residential Second Density Zone, Subzone N to R4Z - Residential Fourth Density Zone, Subzone Z as detailed in Document 2 and as shown in Document 1.

CARRIED

4. ZONING - 3860 - 3930 riverside drive

ZONAGE - 3860 - 3930, PROMENADE RIVERSIDE

ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0221 RIVER (16)

Brian Casagrande and Julie Dolezel, Fotenn Consultants, were present in support of the application

(This matter is subject to Bill 51)

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve amendments to Zoning By-law 2008-250, to change the zoning of 3860 and 3930 Riverside Drive:

a. From GM1 [108] H(137a.s.l.) (General Mixed Use Subzone 1, Exception 108, Maximum Building Height 137 Metres Above Sea Level) to GM1[1719] S215 H137a.s.l.) (General Mixed Use Subzone 1, Exception 1719, Schedule 215, Maximum Building Height 137 Metres Above Sea Level),

b. From O1C (Open Space Subzone 1C) to GM1[1719] S251 H(137a.s.l), (General Mixed Use Subzone 1, Exception 1719, Schedule 215, Maximum Building Height 137 Metres Above Sea Level)

c. From GM1[108] H(137a.s.l.) (General Mixed Use Subzone 1, Exception 108, Maximum Building Height 137 Metres Above Sea Level to EP (Environmental Protection Zone, and

d. From O1C (Open Space Subzone 1C) to EP (Environmental Protection Zone);

as shown in Documents 1 and 2 and detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

5. RIVERSIDE SOUTH COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN UPDATE

MISE À JOUR DU PLAN DE CONCEPTION COMMUNAUTAIRE DE RIVERSIDE-SUD

ACS2009-ICS-PGM-0213 Gloucester-South/sud Nepean (22)

The following submission was received, which is held on file with the City Clerk:

· Letter dated 8 December 2009 from Lisa Dalla Rosa on behalf of Richcraft Homes, in support of the application.

Councillor Desroches wished to thank Richard Kilstrom, Manager of Policy Development and Urban Design, and Chris Brouwer, Planner III for their work on the Community Design Plan update, as well as stakeholders and members of the community who worked constructively towards the report.

That Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council approve the update to the Riverside South Community Design Plan as shown in Document 2 and as detailed in Document 3.

CARRIED

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAUX

6. drinking water Quality Management System Annual report for 2008 Services

Rapport annuel 2008 du système de gestion de la qualité de l’eau potable

ACS2009-ICS-ESD-0003 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Dixon Weir, General Manager of Environmental Services, indicated the report on promoting the City’s drinking water would be coming forward in January or February of 2010, though the specific date had not yet been determined. He confirmed that he would advise the Councillor once that date had been set. In response to further statements from the Chair, Mr. Weir confirmed that the funding requirements for that report’s recommendations would be included in the 2010 rate budget.

That the Planning and Environment Committee and Council:

1. Receive the Drinking Water Quality Management System Annual Report for 2008 Services;

2. Approve the delegation of authority to Operational Top Management, as defined in the report, to approve minor revisions to the Operational Plan as described in Document 3 of this report; and

3. Endorse the minor wording changes, as set out in Document 3 of this report, to the Quality Management System Policy.

CARRIED

CITY OPERATIONS

OPÉRATIONS MUNICIPALES

COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

SERVICES SOCIAUX ET AUX COMMUNAUTÉS

7. 2009 UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY HOUSING STRATEGY

LE POINT SUR LA MISE EN ŒUVRE DE LA STRATÉGIE DU LOGEMENT DE LA VILLE 2009

ACS2009-COS-CAS-0018 CITY WIDE/À L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE

Stephen Arbuckle, Manager of Housing, Colleen Hendrick, Manager of Policy, Evaluation & Community Partnerships, and Stanley Wilder, Planner II in the Policy Development & Urban Design Branch, were present to provide Committee with an update on the implementation of the City’s Housing Strategy. Staff spoke to a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk.

In response to questions from Chair Hume Mr. Arbuckle clarified that the costs for affordable housing units, as outlined in the presentation, did not represent the entire capital costs to build the unit.

Councillor Hunter noted there were three types of housing classified under “affordable housing” – private sector units (built to a certain income percentile,) traditional rent-geared to income units, and supportive housing. He suggested these three types be broken out into different categories so that when it is reported how many affordable housing units are built, it is clear which of each kind are built and where the emphasis should be. Mr. Arbuckle explained that the affordable housing program from 2003 did not anticipate rent-geared-to income. He noted that most affordable housing built since 2003 does not provide a deep subsidy. The only way the City has been able to provide a deep subsidy is through rent supplements. He suggested that, as the City is working within the same funding envelope from the Province, it is a matter of reallocating that envelope to ensure a mix of housing types between those with the ability to provide deep subsidy and those for mid-income.

In response to questions from Councillor Hunter with reference to the three projects announced by the federal government earlier in the week, Mr. Arbuckle explained that residents moving into those units would pay on average 80 per cent of the average market rent. The fact that capital is going into the project requires the proprietors to offer those units at a lower rent than the market rent. He confirmed this 80 per cent target changes as average rents go up. In response to further questions from the Councillor, Mr. Wilder explained that in the affordable home ownership program buyers must remain in the home for 20 years, after which point the loan is forgivable. Should they sell before that, they must repay the loan plus a certain percentage of the appreciation.

Mr. Wilder noted that the housing policy in the Official Plan (OP) looks for affordable home ownership up to the 40^th income percentile, which amounts to $207 thousand. He explained it has been a challenge to achieve that target. Currently, condominiums are the only product meeting this target, whereas the needs of families are not being met as few town homes are being built under this threshold. He noted the prices for resale homes have also gone up. He further explained that the under the Affordable Home Ownership Program, the affordability target is $275 thousand. He noted this is a small program, with only 60 to 70 approvals the previous year, and the funding is limited.

With regards to the rental market, Mr. Wilder explained that the affordability target is the 30^th income percentile, which represents a cost of approximately $1050 for a two-bedroom apartment. He noted it is a landlord’s market in the city, with Ottawa well below the three per cent vacancy figure that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation considers to be a healthy market; therefore, as units are vacated landlords can raise the rents. He noted there is very little new private development in the rental market.

Councillor Hunter suggested that restricting the land supply and forcing urban intensification is raising housing prices, and the City’s planning actions are causing a problem for the City’s housing strategy.

Councillor Holmes suggested developers were not building rental units because they are making so much money on condominiums. In response to questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Arbuckle confirmed that seniors on the waiting list for affordable housing wait the shortest length of time, at approximately two to three years. While he did not have the precise figures, he acknowledged it was conceivable that someone on the chronological list could wait seven or eight years. As to why there is new construction of seniors housing when the greater need is for family housing, Mr. Arbuckle explained that this was due to stipulations in funding for the Canada Affordable Housing Program. He noted stimulus funding from the federal and provincial governments stipulates the percentage of seniors housing to be built, with two thirds of the funding dedicated towards seniors housing. He noted the City has advocated in its submission to the Province is for local control over how housing is developed, as Ottawa’s needs may be different from those of other areas. He referenced a recent 64-unit townhouse development that had been approved, as an example of affordable family housing

Councillor Harder inquired if there was any way of tracking where families live while on the waiting list for affordable housing. Mr. Arbuckle suggested some of those families live in homes they cannot afford, while some others are living in shelters. The Councillor suggested that if there were already living in some large housing communities, perhaps the City could work with those large landlords to determine if it would be in the best interests of the City to subsidize their rents. Councillor Harder indicated that she would be interested in seeing a review of the possibility of expanding the rent supplement program. Mr. Arbuckle noted that approximately 1500 of the City’s rent supplement units are with private landlords, including some of the larger private landlords. He noted staff was always looking for opportunities to get more townhouses for families. He suggested that if Committee or Council directed staff to come back with a report on how the City can expand the rent supplement program, staff would be happy to do so. Councillor Harder indicated she would be interested in seeing such a review, and suggested it could be more affordable and in the short and long term, and provide more stability for families.

In response to questions from Councillor Monette with regards to funding Commitments from other levels of government, Mr. Arbuckle noted it is yet unclear how much funding would come from the provincial and federal governments in the next three years, although they do talk about the program expanding. He noted this program did not require a commitment from the City other than the usual dispensing of fees. With respect to what staff is doing to ensure federal and provincial contribution, Mr. Arbuckle explained that the City had made a submission to the Province on their long term housing strategy, and was advocating at a bureaucratic level to obtain a commitment from them as soon as possible. He suggested there is a movement across the country to have the federal government re-enter the affordable housing field, as they are the level of government with enough money to push a national policy.

Chair Hume noted that it has been a longstanding municipal sector-wide policy that the Federal and Provincial government should bear largest share of responsibility for funding these programs. He noted that until recently both the Province and the Federal Government left the responsibility to the municipal government. He suggested the most recent funding through the stimulus program was the first indication that the Federal Government were interested in funding this program. He also noted that the federal housing minister had only recently begun attending the regular meetings of provincial housing ministers.

In response to comments from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Arbuckle concurred that rent supplements are more attractive to private landlords when the vacancy rate is high. He noted staff works closely with private landlords to engage them and continue to get them interested in taking on rent supplements. He acknowledged there is always some turnover in the rent supplement field, and explained that the City has included rent supplements in some new affordable housing projects to ensure that they have a layering effect of affordability in those projects.

In response to further questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Arbuckle explained that as soon as someone moves into a unit, as long as they continue to qualify, they will continue to receive their rent supplement even if the landlord terminates their agreement with the City or vice versa. He noted the City has several agreements with private landlords that have been terminated but they still have tenants in those projects receiving rent supplements, which they City is still obligated to provide until they choose to move out.

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

RECEIVED

Councillor / Conseillère Harder

8. COMMUNITY SIDEWALKS – MATTAMY SUBDIVISION, HALF MOON BAY

TROTTOIRS COMMUNAUTAIRES – LOTISSEMENT HALF MOON BAY DE MATTAMY

ACS2009-CCS-PEC-0032 City wide/ À l’échelle de la Ville

The following submissions were received with respect to this item, which are held on file with the City Clerk:

· E-mails dated December 3, 4 and 8, 2009 from Klaus Beltzner

Mike Wildman, Manager Developmental Review, Suburban Services, provided the following background information, and staff’s feedback on the proposed recommendations:

· The newer high-density neighbourhoods have very short setbacks from the front of a home to the edge of the right-of-way followed by a sidewalk. The concern from residents is that the setback from a vehicle parked in the driveway to the sidewalk is too short to provide adequate sight lines.

· This issue originated from an incident where a cargo van was pulling out from a driveway and the driver was unable to see a child on a tricycle that was travelling on the sidewalk. Following this incident, the ward Councillor, Councillor Harder contacted staff requesting an examination of how the sidewalk standards are being applied on tighter, high-density local streets.

· The Community Design Plan (CDP) aims to acquire sidewalks on all higher classification roads such as arterials and collectors, as well as where possible on most local streets; however, it is not absolute to require sidewalks on local streets.

· Staff was asked to review a request from the developer to delete all of the sidewalks in the neighbourhood. Staff did not support this request, feeling that pedestrian mobility was an important aspect of the over all community design, which they wanted to achieve.

· Staff was asked to complete a comprehensive review, working with the Councillor and developer, to identify which sidewalks should be required from a first principles point of view.

· Staff was of the view that some of the sidewalks could be removed on some local streets that did not have a destination (such as a park or school.) In these areas, often the only traffic on the street was the residents themselves and therefore a sidewalk was not considered as critical. This is common throughout the City.

· Staff feels the current proposed plan works to address the concerns of the Councillor and the developer while still providing for the required pedestrian connectivity within the broader neighbourhood.

Responding to questions from Councillor Holmes, Mr. Wildman explained that, as the City strives to achieve the densities required through the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and the Official Plan (OP), it has resulted in tighter setbacks from the front of the garage to the right of way, which is also narrow. He indicated staff is presently reviewing these issues as they try new urban approaches to achieve higher densities.

In response to questions from Chair Hume, Mr. Wildman clarified that in the old City of Ottawa, curb-to-curb distance on a local street was generally nine metres. Now, an 8.5 metre distance curb-to-curb is standard. He concurred that the issue at hand was that the houses are more forward on the street leaving a shorter distance from the curb to the garage. Councillor Harder indicated that what is before committee today were what the developer had submitted to staff in response to her concerns, which staff had provided to her, noting that she had not made any changes to the current plan.

In response to questions from Councillor Doucet, Mr. Wildman reviewed the plan of the area, showing where sidewalks were originally planned and where their deletion was being recommended. He referenced a location map, which is held on file with the City Clerk. He noted in the areas where deletion was being proposed by the developer there was no destination apart from the houses themselves, thus the only people likely to be walking within that neighbourhood are the homeowners themselves.

Councillor Bellemare noted there were a variety of different neighbourhoods and street patterns, and the City is evolving towards a new urbanism philosophy in some newer subdivisions. He noted that older suburbs have traditionally had sidewalks on major arterials and collector roads, but not on local streets. He suggested the trade-off is that local streets have been wider and, arguably, safer for pedestrians to walk on. In response to the Councillor’s questions, Mr. Wildman explained that in the newer areas the legal right of way may be narrower, but the curb-to-curb width is generally the same throughout the City, at 8.5 or 9 metres in old Ottawa. He noted that in the inner core, there was some variance in the width of right of ways, with some narrow, and others more traditional. He also confirmed that not all downtown local residential streets have sidewalks.

In response to further questions from Councillor Bellemare with regards to whether the inclusion of sidewalks on local streets was a first principle of “new urbanism,” Mr. Wildman explained that the CDP refers to providing sidewalks on “most” of the local streets, but is not absolute. In principle, staff is in favour of the sidewalks where there is a destination such as a park or a school on a local street. Where a local street only services the local residents, there is more flexibility. He noted staff is working out the transition to the new PPS and OP densities, along with these right of way widths, and how to provide good pedestrian linkages in a safe and efficient way. He acknowledged it was a challenge and noted staff is looking to revisit some sidewalk standards, such as the location of the sidewalks relative to the curb line.

Councillor Bellemare noted that the street width for an older suburb such as Beacon Hill is wider than a local street in new types of developments. Mr. Wildman explained that most of the local streets in such areas are 8.5 metres curb to curb, but there are some “minor collector roads” from old Gloucester that have wider roadways.

Councillor Bellemare suggested there would likely be a savings for the City if they did not have to clear those sidewalks; however, the trade off is a less safe environment for pedestrians, especially in winter. Mr. Wildman noted that some local roads that connect the non-destination streets would maintain a sidewalk connection. He noted there are local streets throughout the City of without sidewalks and, and he did not feel this was necessarily unsafe for purely local, non-destination streets. He noted the cars on local streets usually travel slowly, at most 40-45 km/h.

Chair Hume noted that while the curb-to-curb width may be the same, the setback of the house from the street is much different in these new subdivisions. Mr. Wildman concurred that the standard setback from the property line to the facing wall of the house in these subdivisions is shorter than in older areas such as in areas such as Beacon Hill or Alta Vista. Colin White, Program Manager of Development Review Process, Suburban Southwest, reviewed a graphic showing the setbacks for a single detached home in the subject area, a copy of which is held on file with the City Clerk. He noted the shorter distance from the garage to the curb, pointing out that the distance between the garage door and the curb accommodates only one car and provides very little open visual space between the back of the car and the sidewalk. Councillor Harder noted that this issue was compounded in the higher-density areas that contain tightly packed town homes.

Councillor Wilkinson noted that she has had similar problems in her ward and suggested the need to examine the standards throughout the City. She suggested the standards should be such that the setback is different where a sidewalk is planned from where it is not. Further, she noted higher-density development was causing various problems. She suggested that, regardless of how much transit there is, residents would still want at least one vehicle to do errands and other activities, though they may use it less. Chair Hume noted that the matter under discussion was this particular subdivision, and not the overall policy debate. However, he noted that staff would be bringing the policy discussion on sidewalks back to Committee, which would be the subject of a future report. Staff confirmed that this was the case. Councillor Wilkinson hoped the policy would look not just at the sidewalk issue but also other issues that are arising from these types of development. Specifically, she asked that issues around open space and rock outcrops be addressed in the context of the policy debate. Mr. Wildman confirmed staff was working on a number of initiatives to respond to some the issues arising from new urbanism and intensification. He indicated staff would welcome advice from the Councillor as to what should be included in their review.

Responding to questions from Councillor Hunter, Mr. Wildman explained that the report was not recommending removal of any sidewalks that are already physically in place. Mr. White noted the first two phases of the development were well underway and the third phase would commence imminently. The Community is in transition with growth happening all the time.

Councillor Feltmate inquired about the type of lighting being installed, noting that she lives in an area without sidewalks and finds it particularly dangerous in late autumn when it gets dark early and the visibility of people walking on the street is very limited. Mr. Wildman indicated that there would be traditional streetlights, not lawn lights, and these would meet the Council-approved lighting policy and give a much broader illumination than lawn lights.

Klaus Beltzner, resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed recommendations. He made reference to several photographs he had taken of streets in the Half Moon Bay development, which are held on file with the City Clerk. His concerns and comments are summarized below:

· He suggested some of the roads, such as River Mist Road, were really collector roads and noted they had no sidewalks, whereas nearby Cambrian Road has sidewalks on both sides of the road, therefore there is a disconnect for pedestrians.

· He noted cars parked on a crescent with no sidewalks, suggesting that the sightlines were not improved by the lack of sidewalks.

· He noted that on Water Music Bay Crescent, houses are already built, where the sidewalks are to be deleted, there is grass abutting the curb. He suggested this signified there was no intention of installing sidewalks.

· He noted Council has indicated it wants walking to be a major transportation mode, but he suggested this was not happening. He suggested childhood obesity problems could be attributed to children being unable to walk from where they live without going on the road.

He concluded by challenging the removal of sidewalks, suggesting it does nothing to make the City more walkable. Mr. Beltzner noted the City had made it a policy to have a walkable city, and suggested that to allow that objective to be defeated through zoning and making the city completely car oriented would be a mistake.

Councillor Qadri noted that the photos shown by the delegation were of single-family homes, not the higher-density areas, which he suggested were the areas of particular concern to the ward Councillor.

Upon the conclusion of the public delegations on this item, Committee briefly discussed the following related motion, to be moved by Councillor Qadri on behalf of Councillor Harder:

Be It Resolved THAT, subject to the standard public consultation requirements, staff be directed to bring forward an Official Plan Amendment to delete the requirement for sidewalks along Madrid Ave, Waterlily Way and Kenton Ave across Blocks 8, 9, 10, 11 & 23.

Tim Marc, Senior Legal Counsel, indicated that he had drafted the motion for the Councillor. In response to questions from the Chair, Mr. Marc clarified that the motion sought direction from Committee to have staff bring forward a report on a possible OP amendment to delete the requirements for the sidewalks. He maintained the motion did not indicate that staff would recommend any particular course of action; rather, it stated they would observe the statutory process so that when the matter comes back, Committee would have the necessary statutory authority to make a recommendation to Council. With the agreement of the Chair, Councillors Harder and Qadri agreed to put the motion forward as a Notice of Motion, to be considered at a future meeting.

With regards to the report recommendations, Councillor Harder noted that they were only one piece of the work she and Councillor Qadri had initiated to provide a holistic look at all of the City’s policies to see how they fit with the new higher-density suburban areas. She noted the City generally builds sidewalks in order to encourage people to walk, and provide them a safe place to do so. She maintained this was not the case in the area in question. The councillor challenged the conclusion made by the delegation that there was no intention to build sidewalks in the areas where the grass had already been put down. She explained that most couples moving into this community either have small children or would have them in the future. She maintained that this issue was initiated by the community, not the developer.

With regards to the larger issue, Councillor Harder informed Committee that she and Councillor Qadri had created a panel, whose members include developers and City staff, to look at the City’s policies in relation to new suburban areas. She suggested if the City insists on putting sidewalks everywhere going forward, it would not work because they do not fit and people would not have any license over their front lawns. She suggested a report on the broader issue would be coming back to Committee in September. She noted they were looking for another Councillor from the urban area join the panel, but also welcomed involvement from any interested Councillors. In Conclusion, she encouraged Committee to support the report recommendations.

Councillor Hunter indicated his support for the report recommendations. He commented that every few years the philosophy of “neo-urbanism” re-emerges, and suggested the associated smaller lots resulted in problems for the construction and maintenance of the properties, such as difficulties with snow removal. He suggested such problems were compounded by the requirement for sidewalks. He noted that the areas in question are low- traffic areas, and pedestrians are permitted use the road. Referencing areas in his ward, he suggested pedestrians prefer to use the road in winter, as the sidewalks often remain slippery after the snow has melted off the road. He maintained the absence of a sidewalk is not a deterrent to walking, and on local roads with very little traffic, it can be safer for the pedestrians than forcing them onto sidewalks. He suggested the new urbanism philosophy would again fall out of favour and the City would go back to using more land, an abundant resource. He suggested the report recommendations struck a good balance, by maintaining sidewalks on minor collectors and destination streets.

Councillor Holmes noted it was a major struggle for a city to move away from typical suburban construction and design, despite acknowledgement that change is necessary. She emphasized the necessity for the City to encourage development that is more compact and get people out of cars in favour of transit, walking and cycling. She suggested this development is an example of the new way of thinking, and it is a struggle to get people on board any time such a change is made. She indicated she would not support the removal of sidewalks. She emphasized the importance of encouraging people to get safely to their bus routes, and get children walking safely to school. She suggested the fact that suburbs have been designed to force people into cars has not served the city well, and maintained there is a need to redesign suburbs so that people do not require cars for everything. She indicated that, although she understood the concerns in the community, she could not support reducing the sidewalk capacity for the suburban area.

Councillor Qadri noted that although the item deals with sidewalks for Half Moon Bay, the issue is bigger than that that area. He suggested there was no use in following a policy blindly if it creates unsafe conditions. He maintained the sidewalks, which are normally a safety item, create unsafe conditions in this case. He reiterated the point made by Councillor Harder that the visibility is the issue. He suggested a better solution for this area would have been to build up to 500 homes and test them out to see what works. He stated that the standard policy that the City has agreed to becomes and issue when a new type of development is introduced into the marketplace. For example, the City’s has a policy for streetscaping neighbourhoods with trees became an issue for village homes whose only sunlight is through the front window. He reiterated that he and Councillor Harder were working towards solving such issues and identifying where policies need to be revisited.

Councillor Doucet, referencing a presentation he had attended on transportation infrastructure in the in the City of The Hague, noted The Hague has a completely different transportation model from Ottawa’s, with its own transportation priority issues. He suggested this provided a striking contrast to the present discussions. He was unsure as to how to vote on the issue of sidewalks for Half Moon Bay, noting that some areas did not seem to need sidewalks to function while others did. He suggested the pictures shown previously by the delegation illustrated that, with or without the sidewalks, the living environment was unpleasant due to its design, adding that it could have been better designed to be safer, especially for children. He concluded that it would be too difficult for him to vote against sidewalks so he would hesitantly support them. He agreed with Councillor Qadri’s suggestion that work should have been done ahead of time to determine the best option.

Councillor Hunter wished to clarify that there was no shortage of sidewalks in this subdivision, where they are actually needed. He pointed out that Greenbank Road and Cambrian Road show sidewalks, and the proposed deletions were in circles and streets that do not lead anywhere. He thought that, contrary to some opinions, it was a pedestrian-friendly idea because when there are no sidewalks the pedestrians control the street and have the same right of access and use of the street as motorists. He challenged the characterization that there must be sidewalks to be pedestrian-friendly, as sidewalks limit pedestrians to a narrow area.

Councillor Harder noted the large amount of investment the developers and the City were making in cycling routes in this area, suggesting it to be something of a “cycling mecca.” She encouraged Councillor Doucet to support the report recommendations. She noted the developer had found a way to achieve the densities required by policy, and suggested the removal of these sidewalks would allow the residents better quality of life. She maintained the City’s goal should be to maintain a safe, vibrant, accessible and sustainable community, not to stick to a sidewalk policy that may not work.

Councillor Feltmate noted that while Councillor Harder’s residents were asking for these sidewalks to be eliminated, she had heard from residents in her ward who wonder why there are no sidewalks on their streets and see it as an unsafe situation for children. She suggested not having sidewalks would not make the situation any safer, noting with sidewalks there is at least a designated place for pedestrians that is separated from traffic. She suggested in the long term their removal might not be the best solution. She noted the City is not encouraging people to be safe if they are not giving them the tools, including the sidewalks and the pathways.

Councillor Hume noted that Committee seemed to want to debate the policy, but the only matter before Committee was the deletion of some sidewalks in this particular subdivision. He suggested the best scenario would be to have to have a full policy debate about whether flexibility needs to be introduced into the policy to allow developers to tailor a pedestrian network that will meet the needs of the community. He lamented that there was not context to the present discussions, and that this report was setting the stage for other proponents to come forward with similar suggestions for sidewalk deletions in other areas. He indicate he would likely support the recommendation, on the understanding that the existing pedestrian network in the area meets the needs of the Community and will get people to where they need to go in a safe and appropriate manner. However, he suggested the policy debate needed to come forward as soon as possible.

Councillor Harder suggested that this item be deferred until such time as the full policy debate comes forward. She noted that the streets with the half sidewalks would be built anyway, and the only ones that wouldn’t be built until the policy was reviewed would be the interior ones outlined in the report. She suggested the report come back in the spring of 2010.

Mr. Moser noted staffs had met a few times with Councillors Harder and Qadri on the issue of suburban standards, and was looking at a bigger program in terms of advancing intensification. He suggested the sidewalk standards would be one of the short-term goals, and proposed that April would be an attainable timeline to bring forward a report.

Councillor Holmes noted residents would have moved into the subdivision by the time the report comes forward, and suggested it would be more difficult to put sidewalks in once people had moved in as they would be used to having no sidewalks. Mr. Wildman acknowledged there would be an issue with some of the residents, and indicated staff would ask developers to put residents on notice as part of their purchase and sale agreements that there may be a sidewalk.

Moved by J. Harder

That this item be deferred until the policy discussion on the suburban sidewalk standard is before Committee in April 2010.

CARRIED

YEAS (4): G. Hunter, S. Qadri, P. Feltmate, P. Hume

NAYS (3): M. Bellemare, C. Doucet, D. Holmes

That the Planning and Environment Committee recommend Council approve:

1. The deletion of the requirement to construct the following sections of sidewalk in Mattamy’s Half Moon Bay Subdivision:

Phase 1

- All of Foxhound Way

- All of Sunset Cove Circle

- All of Watermusic Bay and River Rock Avenue

Phase 2

- All of Baynes Sound Way and Blue Aster Street

- Nutgrove Avenue north of Blue Aster Street

2. That the subdivision agreement for all lots that have not been conveyed be amended to note that the requirement for the above sidewalks has been deleted and such sidewalks will not be constructed at the cost of the City in the future.

DEFERRED

Councillor Harder noted the issue went beyond the location of sidewalks, and recommended Committee tour these areas for the benefit of members who do not frequently visit these types of subdivisions.

IN CAMERA ITEMS*

POINTS EN HUIT CLOS*

1. APPOINTMENTS TO THE LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - IN CAMERA - PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUALS - REPORTING OUT DATE, UPON COUNCIL APPROVAL

NOMINATIONS AU COMITÉ CONSULTATIF sur LA CONSERVATION DE L’ARCHITECTURE LOCALE - À HUIS CLOS - QUESTIONS PERSONNELLES concernant des particulierS susceptibles d’être identifiés - DATE DE DIFFUSION : sur approbation par le conseil

ACS2009-CMR-CCB-0071 City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Committee approved this item on consent and in open session, thereby eliminating the need to move In Camera.

2. APPOINTMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - IN CAMERA - PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUALS - REPORTING OUT DATE, UPON COUNCIL APPROVAL

NOMINATIONS AU COMITÉ CONSULTATIF sur l’environnement - À HUIS CLOS - QUESTIONS PERSONNELLES concernant des particulierS susceptibles d’être identifiés - DATE DE DIFFUSION : sur approbation par le conseil

ACS2009-CMR-CCB-0074 City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Committee approved this item on consent and in open session, thereby eliminating the need to move In Camera.

3. APPOINTMENTS TO THE OTTAWA FORESTS AND GREENSPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - IN CAMERA - PERSONAL MATTERS ABOUT IDENTIFIABLE INDIVIDUALS - REPORTING OUT DATE, UPON COUNCIL APPROVAL

NOMINATIONS AU COMITÉ CONSULTATIF sur LES FORÊTS ET LES ESPACES VERTS d’OTTAWA - À HUIS CLOS - QUESTIONS PERSONNELLES concernant des particulierS susceptibles d’être identifiés - DATE DE DIFFUSION : sur approbation par le conseil

ACS2009-CMR-CCB-0075 City Wide/à l'échelle de la Ville

Committee approved this item on consent and in open session, thereby eliminating the need to move In Camera.

ADDITIONAL ITEM

POINT SUPPLÉMENTAIRE

APPEAL 36 – TDL GROUP CORP (TIM HORTONS) – DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS – BRIEFING BY LEGAL SERVICES - IN CAMERA - Litigation or Potential Litigation Affecting the City; the Receiving of Advice That is Subject to Solicitor-Client Privilege

Moved by P. Feltmate:

That the Planning and Environment Committee approve the addition of this item for consideration by the committee at today’s meeting, pursuant to section 84(3) of the Procedure By-Law.

CARRIED

Chair Hume advised that there would be a brief In-Camera session to receive a briefing on a settlement proposal by the TDL Group/Tim Hortons with respect to drive-through and restaurants.

The chair confirmed that there would be no motions considered in-camera, and that he would not entertain any procedural motions or directions to staff. He advised that the matter would be coming back as a public matter in February 2010. He confirmed that Committee would adjourn upon the completion of the in-camera session.

Moved by P. Feltmate:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning and Environment Committee go In Camera to receive a briefing on the mediation conducted last week before the Ontario Municipal Board on the above matter, on the grounds that it concerns:

a) Litigation or potential litigation, affecting the City, including matters before administrative tribunals

b) The receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose

CARRIED

* NOTICE / AVIS *

In Camera items are not subject to public discussion or audience. Any person has a right to request an independent investigation of the propriety of dealing with matters in a closed session. A form requesting such a review may be obtained, without charge, from the City’s website or in person from the Chair of this meeting. Requests are kept confidential pending any report by the Meetings Investigator and are conducted without charge to the Requestor.

Les points indiqués à huis clos ne sont pas soumis aux audiences ni aux discussions publiques. Toute personne a le droit de demander une enquête indépendante sur la légitimité de régler certaines questions au cours d’une séance à huis clos. Pour ce faire, le demandeur put se procurer, sans frais, le formulaire approprié en visitant le site Web de la Ville ou en s’adressant en personne auprès du président de la réunion en question. Les demandes restent confidentielles dans l’attente du rapport éventuel de l’enquêteur et n’entraînent aucuns frais pour le demandeur.

NOTICES OF MOTION (FOR CONSIDERATION AT SUBSEQUENT MEETING)

AVIS DE MOTION (POUR EXAMEN LORS D’UNE RÉUNION SUBSÉQUENTE)

Councillor Doucet expressed his intention to request waiver of the Rules of Procedure to consider the following motion, which concerns a building that had been reconverted from a home to a store. Upon brief discussion, the Councillor agreed to bring the item forward as a notice of motion for consideration at the following meeting, in order to give staff the opportunity to review it.

Councillor Doucet:

WHEREAS a recent application to change the use of a the one story building at 1818 Bank Street from commercial retail purposes to a restaurant use has resulted in a deficit of nine parking spots,

WHEREAS at this location, there is sufficient existing parking in the surrounding area to accommodate this change in use,

BE IT RESOLVED that the fee assessed of $23,400 be reduced to $1 per spot for a total of $9

Councillor Feltmate:

WHEREAS the Envirocentre has been a partner of the City of Ottawa for the delivery of environment friendly services as well as providing public education and analysis for Ottawa residents;

AND WHEREAS the City of Ottawa has provided space and support services as is contribution to the operation of the Envirocentre;

AND WHEREAS the remaining 95% of the Envirocentre’s budget comes from sources other than the City of Ottawa;

AND WHEREAS the Envirocentre’s programs have grown and there is increasing public interest in the services that the Envirocentre provides;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Ottawa work with the Envirocentre to increase the space available for Envirocentre staff and consultants from the 600 square foot currently on the ground floor of 110 Laurier Avenue W;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council be apprised of the results of this negotiation in Q1 2010.

Councillor Qadri

Be It Resolved that, subject to the standard public consultation requirements, staff be directed to bring forward an Official Plan Amendment to delete the requirement for sidewalks along Madrid Ave, Waterlily Way and Kenton Ave across Blocks 8, 9, 10, 11 & 23.

The above motion will be considered by Committee at the same time as Item 8 above, which was deferred to April 2010 when the policy on suburban sidewalk standards is considered.

Inquiries

DEMANDES DES RENSEIGNMENTS

No inquiries were introduced.

OTHER BUSINESS

AUTRES QUESTIONS

No other business was considered.

ADJOURNMENT

LEVÉE DE LA SÉANCE

The meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.

Original signed by Original signed by

Caitlin Salter-MacDonald Councillor P. Hume

Committee Coordinator Chair

Minutes 66 / ProcÈs-verbal 66

DÉCLARATIONS D’INTÉRÊT

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Caitlin Salter-MacDonald Councillor P. Hume