The City’s Official Plan

Great vision, but key issues put the plan at risk

 By Carolyn Mackenzie

 The City’s draft new Official Plan (OP) has great vision, but it is hobbled by some key problems.

Ambiguous language will continue to seed conflict and destroy trust

Too many resources are spent on navigating development fights. And it looks like the new Official Plan will continue this dynamic by once again raising the expectations of developers and communities, albeit in opposite directions.

Why? Because while the new OP has some great vision, it continues to use permissive and ambiguous language such as “generally up to 9 storeys” along Mainstreet Corridors (Bank and Bronson), and “generally…in a maximum height range of 4-6 storeys” along Minor Corridors (Sunnyside Avenue in Old Ottawa South). Also, “maximum heights will be subject to appropriate height transitions and stepbacks.” But what do “appropriate” and “generally” mean? You can be sure that developers and communities have different opinions.

In the past, city councillors have interpreted these terms generously in favour of developers – they say their hands are tied by ambiguous OP language that takes precedence, and they don’t have clear policy that would set limits and be difficult to appeal. A revised set of zoning bylaws (ZBL) could clarify these terms, but that is years away. And why should we be confident that new ZBLs can’t still be overruled by the more ambiguous and generous OP language? Unfortunately, Ottawa’s series of Design Guidelines are also of little help. They are described as “nice to have” by planning staff and are applied selectively.

We don’t seem to have learned the lesson and included clearer language in this OP. The City is once again setting us all up for a fight.

If council wants to leave open the possibility for additional height, massing and density beyond clear height caps, it should only allow it to happen through a Local Plan – one that takes a closer look at an area outside of the pressure (and politics) of a specific application. A plan that considers and then takes precedence over other language in the OP.

Neighbourhoods don’t seem to matter

The new OP provides little direction in planning for existing, walkable, 15-minute neighbourhoods, although this is where significant intensification is to be directed.

While policies seem to focus on whether sufficient hard municipal infrastructure (water, sewer) is available, there is no similar priority for neighbourhood-level amenities that make them livable (trees and green space, small local shops, walking and biking pathways).

What will be the impact on our neighbourhood fabric of policies like the “Evolving Overlay” that seem to compel approval of applications for four-storey buildings within a large swath of land 150 meters (10 or 12+ lots) on either side of Mainstreet Corridors? This equates to roughly half the area of the Glebe and is potentially transformative. Will neighbourhood amenities be able to keep pace? What is the plan?

If we are serious that neighbourhoods matter, we need agile tools for Local Plans. These would build support for determining how much and where additional density can be absorbed, or indeed leveraged, to benefit a community. Such tools would also establish a plan to identify and fill gaps in amenities, so that they keep pace with development. If we don’t plan for more livable, walkable neighbourhoods, what are we doing?

Modelling the Intensification Plan: the City’s black box

In late July, after many requests, the City released its “Intensification Modelling Report” intended to estimate the extent of increased development needed to achieve the City’s intensification goals. Will we reach intensification objectives, or are we permitting too much? What are the projections for the number of new housing units to be built, and what type will they be (large or small units)? Will 70 per cent be ground-oriented? Where are they likely to go under the new plan?

The Intensification Modelling Report does provide some data: number of lots, number of building permits, turnover rates (i.e., percentage of lots redeveloped) and “uptake” (the extent to which developers take advantage of basic or “as-of-right” permissions).

But it is essentially a black box – a device whose internal workings are hidden or not readily understood. It makes assumptions, some of which have large implications for the results – but they are based on what? Staff said they undertook sensitivity analysis – where is it and what did it tell them? Where a range of values is given, it’s impossible to tell how the range was applied – as weighting or as potential scenarios? And little indication of how “the math” actually works – in other words, a black box that doesn’t inspire confidence.

Notwithstanding, the City projects that over the next 25 years the OP will unlock 50,000 large (i.e. ground-oriented, family-sized) housing units – roughly what we will need. But it will also enable the potential for roughly double the needed 43,000 smaller apartment units, most in taller buildings in Hubs (areas close to LRT stations), along Corridors, and in the four storeys enabled within neighbourhoods.

Small units that aren’t needed are unlikely to be built. But those that are will largely be in buildings higher or larger than existing ones. Differences in building heights can add interest to a streetscape, but I’m picturing something that looks like a bad set of teeth – bigger and higher buildings of questionable benefit (and possibly negative impacts) in some locations and gaps in others.

The Official Plan goes to council in October, an impossible schedule. And we deserve a clearer understanding of what development the new Official Plan will enable over the next 25 years. Before approving the OP, councillors should satisfy themselves that this plan adds up to what we say is important to the future livability of our city.

Carolyn Mackenzie is chair of the Planning Committee of the Glebe Community Association.