By Pepper Parr

September 12th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

 

This afternoon city council will be discussing and debating one of the biggest problems the city faces: Managing the growth.

In a story we published earlier in the month we wrote:

“Assume just two people to a dwelling (and that is quite an assumption) we are looking at between 29 and 42 thousand new dwellings.”

This was in reference to a study that was done in 2008 when the City undertook an Intensification Study to better understand the intensification opportunities in the City which could accommodate growth to 2031. It was recognized at that time that the City’s supply of Greenfield land was diminishing and a more comprehensive approach to planning for intensification was needed.

That study focused on key areas within the City’s urban area and included a site by site analysis to identify opportunities for infilling and redevelopment. This study, which laid out a general framework for longer term growth planning in the City, determined a reasonable estimate of residential units, people and jobs, which could be provided through intensification by 2031. The study also concluded that Burlington was expected to exceed the 40% intensification target in the Growth Plan that is applied Region wide.

The study findings were used to inform the growth analysis work that was undertaken by Halton Region through their Sustainable Halton process, which resulted in population and employment growth forecasts to 2031 as well as intensification and density targets for the City and the other municipalities in the Region.

The city is now preparing their comments and input for the 2041 growth targets, That’s where that “looking at between 29 and 42 thousand new dwellings” comes from. That is a massive number that most people are not fully aware of – the Gazette wasn’t around in 2008 – we would have alerted you.

You can watch the live webcast this afternoon.

They will be talking about your future.

Related news story:

Just how much growth is Burlington going to have to absorb?

By Pepper Parr

September 3, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

 

The City commissioned a Growth Analysis Study to identify an appropriate level of population and employment growth that can be anticipated for the City between now and 2041. The study findings are intended to help inform the growth analysis work being undertaken by Halton Region through the Integrated Growth Management Strategy (IGMS) by providing a finer grain analysis of the growth opportunities within the City of Burlington.

Some of the numbers that are coming out of the reports put the kind of growth the city could be facing in context: an additional 58,321 to 85,863 people and 22,669 to 53,137 jobs between now and full build out.  Full build out is assumed to be post 2041 and represents a conceivable end state where land has been fully optimized.

Assume just two people to a dwelling (and that is quite an assumption) we are looking at between 29 and 42 thousand new dwellings.

That certainly put the 2018 election debate in context.

In 2008, the City undertook an Intensification Study to better understand the intensification opportunities in the City which could accommodate growth to 2031. It was recognized at that time that the City’s supply of Greenfield land was diminishing and a more comprehensive approach to planning for intensification was needed.

The study focused on key areas within the City’s urban area and included a site by site analysis to identify opportunities for infilling and redevelopment. This study, which laid out a general framework for longer term growth planning in the City, determined a reasonable estimate of residential units, people and jobs, which could be provided through intensification by 2031. The study also concluded that Burlington was expected to exceed the 40% intensification target in the Growth Plan that is applied Region wide.

The study findings were used to inform the growth analysis work that was undertaken by Halton Region through their Sustainable Halton process, which resulted in population and employment growth forecasts to 2031 as well as intensification and density targets for the City and the other municipalities in the Region.

Halton Region’s Official Plan Review and Integrated Growth Management Strategy
Halton Region is currently undertaking a review of their Official Plan, as required by the Planning Act. The Region’s Official Plan Review (ROPR) commenced in April 2014 and is being undertaken in three phases. Phase one was completed in October 2016 with the completion of a Directions Report which identified the key policy areas for review through the ROPR and established a high level work plan to complete the detailed research and policy development to be undertaken in phases two and three of the ROPR.

One of the key policy areas identified by the Region is the Integrated Growth Management Strategy (IGMS) which is a growth strategy for the Region to the planning horizon year of 2041 that will incorporate the population and employment forecasts for the Region in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The result of the IGMS work will be an updated growth strategy for the Region and its local municipalities which is based on the integration of land use, infrastructure and financial considerations, that conforms to both Provincial and Regional policy directives.

Phase two work on the IGMS began in the spring of 2018 with a kick-off meeting with the local municipalities. Since then, staff have been actively engaged with the Region on the IGMS work through participation on technical committees, attending meetings and workshops as well as providing background data to support the development of the growth scenarios, which were shared with Regional Council on June 19, 2019.

City of Burlington Growth Analysis Study
Recognizing the growth work being undertaken by the Region through the IGMS as a region-wide provincial conformity exercise, City staff saw the opportunity to engage a consultant to undertake growth analysis work at the local level to inform the process at the Region and provide support to City staff and Council in reviewing and providing feedback to the Region on the IGMS work.

Study Process and Work Plan
In the fall of 2018, the City retained Dillon Consulting with support from Watson and Associates to undertake an analysis of the City’s population and employment growth trends to better understand what an appropriate level of population and employment growth might look like for the City between now and 2041. The study findings are intended to inform and support the process being undertaken at the Region by providing a finer grain analysis of growth opportunities in the City and is not intended to supersede the Region’s process. City staff also recognize that components of the growth analysis study could be used or leveraged for other city projects and initiatives.

The project work plan prepared by Dillon and Watson for the growth analysis study included:

• A review of growth related background data;
• A review of the policy context to gain a better understanding of the long-term growth potential for the City;
• Confirmation of the estimated long-term supply of land within the City for residential and non-residential growth;
• An economic, socio-economic and demographic trends analysis which will also include commentary on local factors and economic drivers which are anticipated to influence future residential and non-residential development trends in the City;
• The development of three city-wide population, housing and employment growth forecasts, including the identification of a preferred growth forecast;
• Identifying potential opportunities and challenges associated with the city’s ability to achieve the preferred growth forecast.

A project kick-off meeting was held in the fall of 2018 which included staff from various internal city departments, acting a project steering committee. Various background data related to land use and development was also provided to the consulting team to assist with their review and analysis. In March 2019, a workshop was held with internal city staff which provided the opportunity for the consulting team to share the findings of their analysis and for staff to provide feedback on a draft of the growth analysis study.

Study Purpose & Components
As indicated, the purpose of the Growth Analysis Study is to identify an appropriate level of population and employment growth that the City can anticipate between now and 2041. The study takes into consideration both supply and demand factors while addressing the following key questions:

• How much land supply is there to accommodate future long-term population and employment growth in the City?
• What are some of the recent broader macro-economic and regional growth trends which will influence growth in Burlington?
• What do the City’s recent economic, demographic and real estate trends tell us about future growth potential?
• What is the potential range of population and employment growth that the City can expect between now and 2041 based on available supply and market trends?
• Given the range of potential growth and multiple opportunities for development, what are the phasing considerations for residential and employment growth?

The analysis in this study relies on a number of different sources including components of the City’s adopted Official Plan, Halton Region Official Plan, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe as well as provincial guidelines (e.g. MTO Transit Supporting Guidelines). Data related to the City’s active development applications and building permits was also relied upon to complete the analysis.

Adopted New Official Plan
The Dillon – Watson study recognizes the direction received by Council to undertake a scoped review of the building heights and densities contained within the adopted new Official Plan. The methodology used in the analysis builds upon the urban structure and intensification opportunities identified through the City’s growth framework in the adopted new Official Plan. However, building height permissions in the adopted new Official Plan were not used in the analysis. As such, any changes that result from the scoped re-examination of the adopted new Official Plan are anticipated to be within the supply scenarios tested.

Mobility Hub Work
The study also recognizes the work that has been undertaken to date on the Mobility Hubs. For the downtown, the Urban Growth Center boundary and density target established in the Growth Plan were used in the supply analysis, while the population and employment ratios were based on the detailed mobility hub work. Similarly, for the GO Station mobility hubs, two density targets were used in the supply analysis; one reflective of the density target identified in the adopted new Official Plan, while the other reflective of the density target established in the Growth Plan. The population and employment ratios used in the analysis were based on the mobility hub draft precinct plans.

Supply Analysis
A review of the City’s active development applications was completed to inform the analysis of the supply of land available for both residential and non-residential growth. These development applications represent a snap shot in time and reflect development applications ranging from those under review by City staff to those currently under construction.

The supply analysis completed as part of this study helped to understand how much additional growth the City could expect based on current policies and plans. A top-down approach was used to estimate supply by applying a density target (people and jobs/ha) along with population and employment ratios to different areas of the City to identify the full build out potential. However, for some areas of the City which are not anticipated to accommodate much of the new growth, a factor was applied to identify full build out potential.

Full build out is assumed to be post 2041 and represents a conceivable end state where land has been fully optimized.

All this takes place while development work in the downtown core is under a one year freeze that has about five months left before a recommendation comes back from the planners. The Interim Control Bylaw (ICBL) was deemed to be necessary when the city found it was overwhelmed with development applications.

Planning Director Heather MacDonald was given the green light to single source the consultants she would use to put together the report. MacDonald has been a planner for at least two decades and she knows all the players in that game. She is firm on the report being in the hands of council within the one year time frame she was given; in our last conversation with MacDonald she made it very clear that meeting the delivery date was paramount – and she doesn’t appear to be one who scrimps on quality.

While the ICBL report is being researched and written the “Adopted Official Plan” is getting a very heavy duty re-write and re-think.

And while that re-write and re-think is taking place there is a group working on plans that attract as much public reaction, response, comment – anything anyone wants to say.

Mayor Meed Ward has made it the thickest of the pillars that hold up her election platform.

She wants to hear – she wants to listen.

The five new City Councillors are in for the hardest assignment they have ever been given. Some are faltering under the work load; some live on this kind of deep policy stuff.

There is a public that depends on the thinking they do and the wisdom they bring to the table.

After a decent summer break – they skipped a July Council meeting – they are now back in the trenches. In seven weeks they will celebrate being elected.

Two of the five (Nisan, Kearns) fought off contenders, one other (Stolte) was a certain winner once it was a clear one on one race with a long term incumbent, the other (Sharman) was an incumbent who won because two women let the vote be split. Another (Bentivegna) won by the slimmest of margins against a candidate who really didn’t run all that much of a campaign. The last newbie (Galbraith) came out on top of a very crowded field.

We will know in the not too distant future if the right choices were made.

There is no doubt that at the Mayoralty level the right choice was made given what was on offer. Only time will tell if the Mayor lives up to the promise.

By Pepper Parr

August 25th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON
Exclusive to the Burlington Gazette.  Part 1 of a 3 part series.

 

It was a decent crowd – even for a meeting that was poorly promoted.

The outcome wasn’t all that clear – what was evident was that the audience didn’t like what they heard and that PERL, Protect the Environment and Rural Lands, the people who fought and won the last battle for Mt Nemo, was not going to lead the charge this time around.

The operators of the quarry, Nelson Aggregates,  had let it be known that they were preparing to make a revised application to mine for aggregate in the southern portion of the site and for the land to the west which is currently Burlington Springs Golf Club.

The Gazette met with the people speaking for the quarry operation and learned much more about the scope and scale of the new plans.

The quarry is owned by Lafarge, Canada’s largest provider of diversified construction materials and a member of the global group, LafargeHolcim. The company has 6,000 employees and 400 sites across Canada.

The operators were taken aback by the 2012 decision to not allow the application to mine on land immediately to the south of the existing quarry. The decision rested on the existence of the Jefferson Salamander that is a threatened species that habitats the area.

It was not an expected decision and resulted in a serious cut back in the number of people employed on the site.

Walt Rickli who had a sculpture studio on the land had to find a new home for his heavy equipment – the quarry people needed every square foot of land they could get a back hoe into.

The Nelson quarry people studied the Joint Administrative Review Tribunal (JART) report and worked at how they could resolve the Jefferson Salamander problem and be able to mine the land.

They did their homework and will take their application to the Regional government, City of Burlington and the Niagara Escarpment Commission after which they have to seek a development permit. They will also be seeking a change in the zoning. Three different permits will be required plus a new license from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Mayor Marianne Meed Ward and the Director of Planning has said that before the city even looks at any application they want the decommission work done.

That statement, to some degree, came out of a little bit of ignorance. The license the quarry was given in the 70’s was to mine as much quarry as they wished, or could, on the clearly de-marked site.

The license the quarry has is unlimited, it does not have to be renewed but does require that the land be left as a “lake”.

The critical note attached to the license states:

Nelson has already been very proactive in re-rehabilitating the land. When they are finished with one area they begin the rehabilitation. That work is clearly evident when you tour the property which the Gazette did last week.

Before any permit is issued Nelson is fully committed to a dialog with the community. They want to be sure that the residents in the rural area, and those south of Dundas, are fully aware of what the quarry is asking for and offering.

One has to fully understand the quarry’s position. They are in the business of mining and processing some of the best aggregate deposits in the province. They believe they have been good neighbours, which is not a view shared by some.

Residents in the past have complained about the damage done by dynamite blasting. The quarry is required to limit blasting to one day a week at a specific hour. They can only blast on Thursday’s between 12:00 and 1:00 pm. As they prepare to file their applications they will do the now obligatory pre-consultations to ensure that they are complying with all the regulations and learn what they have to provide in the way of studies to ensure that the public interest is being met.

Among the studies that will have to be completed are:

Planning / ARA Site Plans –MHBC
Hydrogeological Assessment – Azimuth
Surface Water/Water Balance Assessment – C.C. Tatham
Karst Assessment – D. Worthington
Fully Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Model – EarthFX
Natural Environment Assessment – Savanta
Agricultural Impact Assessment – MHBC
Built Heritage Assessment – MHBC
Cultural Heritage Landscape Assessment – MHBC
Archeology – Golder
Traffic Study – Paradigm
Noise Assessment – HGC
Air Quality Assessment – BCX Environmental
Blasting Assessment – Explotech

Mining for aggregate is a highly regulated business. The Nelson quarry pumps water out of the site that is some 80 feet below ground level. If those pumps break down they have to immediately advise the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests and effect repairs as quickly as possible. In order to mine effectively it is vital to keep water out of the site. There are a number of catchment ponds around what is really a huge bowl that has been blasted out of the property from which aggregate has been taken.

Nelson Quarry is proposing that once they have completed the quarrying they will rehabilitate the land and turn title over to the city who will run it as a public park.

The Nelson people are going one further – they are going to create a 15 hectares lake that will have a large sandy beach. The shallow end of the lake (a little like Wasaga Beach where you can walk out for yards before the water comes up to your chest, will become a little deeper and then get quite deep..

In the application they have completed studies that show where the Jefferson Salamander lives and have undertaken to not only not mine that area but to turn it over to the city the day the agreements and zoning bylaws have been set.

The original 2004 application was on property south of #2 Side Road.

The application that will be submitted in the near future will consist of a 60% reduction in proposed extraction area from the previous application.

The revised extraction area will be designed to address the reason the Joint Board refused the previous application (Joint Board Decision 08-030 issued on October 11, 2012).

In the studies and research they have done the Nelson Quarry people point out that their land holdings meet all the requirements of both the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Region of Halton.

The recently adopted City of Burlington Official Plan (April 2018) identifies the proposed extraction areas as an “Identified Mineral Resource Area.” The adopted city plan Nelson points to was submitted to the Region and returned to the city because it didn’t comply with the Region’s plan. Burlington is in the process of revising that adopted plan.

The sites are also mapped as a High Potential Mineral Resource Area in the Region of Halton Official Plan.

The existing Burlington Quarry represents Burlington’s only source of construction aggregate within the City.

There are three designations that apply to the land in the NEC plans: natural, protected and rural area. The Nelson properties have the designation that allows for consideration of new Mineral Resource Extraction Areas in the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

In the NEC plan the proposed extraction area is designated Escarpment Rural Area in the Niagara Escarpment Plan.
The appropriateness of this designation and objective was confirmed in the recently approved NEP (2017).

The Nelson Quarry people have done their homework and are returning with an application they feel meets all the shortcomings of the 2004 application that was decided in 2012.

They have significantly reduced the space they will mine on the south side of #2 Side Road and have added the 606 acres that make up the Burlington Springs Golf Course that will give the company enough aggregate to mine for the next 30 years after which it too will be turned over to the public.

Burlington is looking at the potential for a park that will be in the 900 + acres realm – bigger than anything most municipalities across the country have.

Nelson Aggregates will be holding an Open House on the quarry site in October and expects to have their applications in to the three levels of government sometime in November.

Just what will the park consist of?  Tomorrow we will detail what we learned in our exclusive interview the people at Nelson Aggregates.

By Pepper Parr

August 15th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

 

It was a surprisingly good crowd for a meeting that was about Construction Management for a building that is far from popular.

There were at least 75 city residents in the room along with perhaps ten from the ADI Development Group and three – maybe four from the city.

They were on hand to learn what the Construction Management program for the build of the 26 storey Nautique at the corner of Martha and Lakeshore Road was going to look like.

It wasn’t a pretty picture.

The site is at a part of Lakeshore Road where the lanes narrow. Staging equipment and managing the trucks that will arrive almost by the hour is a herculean management task.

The public didn’t like much of what they heard but city transportation staff explained that they were up against a site that was always going to be difficult to work with.

The development had been approved via an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) – the developer had first appealed the city’s failure to process the application within the required amount of time.

The meeting was hosted by the ward Councillor, Lisa Kearns who had planned on having the people who were going to do the construction and the city staff who were going to oversee the work speak to the issues.

Kearns had said earlier that she didn’t want the event to be a Q&A where the same questions were asked over and over.
Try as she might – Kearns got a full-fledged Q&A – there were not only a lot of questions – some answers – but some very good suggestions from the audience. She commented that it looked like they were about to “wander into the worst case scenario”. It wasn’t that bad.

Street access and parking, noise and dust control and – ‘will the ambulance be able to get to my door?’ were amongst the questions.
Kearns wanted to assure people that the ambulance would get there – Martha’s Landing, a retirement home is across the street from the development.

Greg Sage, chief of the Paramedic services was on hand to assure everyone that the ambulances would get through although he didn’t say that his people would be working with the traffic managers that ADI was going to have on site.

Parking for the construction workers didn’t get resolved as nicely. The city recently opened 60 spaces in the addition to the parking lot behind Joe Dogs on Brant Street – ADI has arranged to rent 40 0f them. “We just got those parking spaces” was a comment from the audience.

It was suggested that the workers be given parking spots some distance away where they would not take parking away from people shopping in the downtown core and then use a shuttle bus to get the trades people to the site. An approach like this was used by the hospital when it was being built. The ADI people didn’t seem to be impressed by that idea.

Traffic flow – it is going to be miserable. There will be no left turn off Martha onto Lakeshore. Lakeshore will narrow a bit right in front of the site.
One of the pluses was the three flagmen that ADI will have on the site.
Staging of trucks delivering material to the site will be on OLD Lakeshore Road; the flagmen will get them off Old Lakeshore and onto Lakeshore.

Construction will take place from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm and on some occasions, especially when concrete is being poured they will work into the night – requiring special permission to do so.

Both the Councillor, the Mayor and the people from the transportation department said, on several occasions, that meetings to talk about construction management were something new for the city. ‘Never been done before’  said the Mayor and the Councillor.

Not true – when Monarch was building in the Headon Forest community they held meetings with the residents on a monthly basis.

Kearns did her best to convince the audience that she “was their champion” and that she ensured there were “course corrections” when they were needed.

She explained that she was at the table with the Transportation people pushing for the interests of the area residents. “You will know what is happening and I will be here to lead you through this.”

The audience was told that the construction was going to take 30 months and that the Bridgewater development was another year away from completion. The two site are a couple of football fields apart.

No one asked why the building was going to have seven storeys of underground parking rather than the six that has been approved. One has to feel sorry for anyone who has to wind up seven levels to get to the street. It is a very small site.

The meeting also learned that next week, in the same location – at the Art Gallery, the Carriage Gate people will be on hand to explain how they are going to manage the development of their site – opposite city hall – where demolition of the existing buildings is planned for some time in September.

Cranes on the Burlington skyline.

The issue on the problems that will crop up and how they will be managed will depend to a very large degree on how the ADI people respond and behave.  They are a tough crowd, they know what they want to do and they don’t let very much get in the way.

The buildings they put up are well designed – they have brought some very progressive looking buildings to the city and word is that the quality is there.

Hopefully the corporate attitude has been toned down.

By Pepper Parr

August 9th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

The good people of North Burlington, those from ward 3 in particular, met last night at the Conservation Halton offices to hear what their ward Councillor, Rory Nisan, could tell them about the plans Nelson Quarry has for the quarry that is close to mined out.

In a separate new story, the Gazette reports on what took place at a meeting that was basically Standing Room only event

While the Nelson Quarry people have yet to make an application – and thus there isn’t much the city can react to – the company has been active. They have a web site in place with a lot of pretty drawings and a considerable amount of detail on what they plan to do.

They have engaged two lobbying firms that are amongst the best in the business, to help in creating the story they want to be in the public’s mind as this project works its way forward.

Project Advocacy Inc. is Canada’s only public affairs firm that specializes in supporting project developers facing community opposition and government challenges.

Here is what they do: They take an innovative approach based on citizen advocacy.

“We use grassroots strategies combined with government and stakeholder relations to earn and maintain the social licence required for a project’s success. “

“We help developers find, organize and give voice to otherwise silent supporters of your project in host communities.

“Our sophisticated campaign strategies help identify local citizens supportive of your proposal and help organize them into an effective political force. They sign petitions. They show up at public hearings, and they act as local advocates for your project.

“This approach, paired with government and stakeholder relations, has proven key to getting large developments approved in Canada’s increasingly challenging licensing and regulatory environment.

“Whether it is an energy and infrastructure project, a mine, or a commercial real estate proposal, Project Advocacy Inc. will build an effective advocacy program that will counter NIMBY opposition and drive support for your project among local citizens, elected leaders, government officials and the media.”

Project Advocacy had their man in the room last night.

Motivated and sophisticated best describes the Project Advocacy group. They are supported by colleagues who are just as good at a slightly different level. Barry Campbell, founder of Campbell Strategies sets out the role that lobbyists play.

Pay attention to what this man has to say – he is very good at what he does. He was once elected to Parliament and has practiced law with two of the major firms on Bay Street.

“At Campbell Strategies, we have two types of clients”, explains Campbell: “those who have issues they need resolved. And, those who have opportunities they need realized. Despite this difference, there remains a constant between them. The need for wise counsel from people who understand their unique situations. Completely.

“As a bonus, our clients find themselves working with a team of government relations and communications professionals who are not only highly experienced, but without the hyperbole and self-importance that – in our industry – so often comes with it.

“We’re connected, of course. But it’s deeper than that.

“We treat our network of government, media, and regulatory leaders as relationships, not just connections. Our reputation is based on the right ask, at the right time, of the right people, with the right message.

“You’ll get no bullshit from us, and we’ll deliver none to our network
Campbell explains: “Lobbying at its best is vital to the flow of information and ideas. It bridges a significant gap between the public sector and the private sector and can lead to more informed public policy decisions and better corporate decision making.

“Lobbying is often attacked by the left as a way for powerful voices to “have their way with government”. Lately, the attack is coming from the right where libertarian voices have suggested that if government would only get out of the way (read deregulate everything), companies wouldn’t need to lobby anyone for favours. Both attacks are predictable and wrongheaded.

“There are many examples where information provided to officials seeking to regulate this or that has resulted in more effective regulation. Without lobbying, officials and elected officials would only know what they knew when they got to the office and I would suggest that is very often not enough of a baseline for serious decisions. That’s why officials consult and take meetings.

“When I was an MP, some wondered why I would ever meet with lobbyists. The answer was self-evident. If I never met anyone, I wouldn’t know anything other than what I already knew, which often wasn’t enough to help me understand complex issues. The strict lobby registration rules in Canada which require registration of most interactions with important public officials and provide a public record of same, are a pretty good check on what some worry about. The strict constraints and low permitted financial contribution rules are another check on the influence many worry about.

“And lobbying can be a public good or accomplish much public good.

“Lobbying can result in better and appropriately targeted tax or regulatory policy that achieves important public policy goals while removing the risk of collateral damage. A public policy goal to eliminate a practice believed to be adversely impacting consumers, such as pay day lending, might initially paint too broad a brush ensnare legitimate players who want to play by a coherent set of rules that don’t blow up their business model. Lobbying by credit unions resulted in changes to the Bank Act so that credit unions could expand nationally and provide more competition at the retail level. Lobbying by financial institutions and emerging ‘fintechs’ will shape a better financial services sector offering the choice that consumers want.

“As officials think about public policy and ready recommendations to “take to the Minister”, they are informed by the consultations with and entreaties by corporate and other stakeholders. That is a good thing.

“I have been a “lobbyist” for two decades and have never had a meeting with a Minister where he or she made a decision, then and there, to do something just because I asked. And I would never have that meeting (and it usually isn’t even ever required) without working first with the relevant departmental officials to do the tough slogging respectful of the job officials have to do to provide their bosses with the best and most informed advice.

“I know, and the best lobbyists know, that effective lobbying isn’t about setting up a meeting with someone important. That the easy part. Effective lobbying requires the right ask, at the right time to the right audience. It is research based and considers how the ask can dovetail with the government’s priorities by solving a problem or making my client’s problem a problem government comes to understand they need to solve because by doing so they will accomplish a goal they have.

“The problem can’t ever be putting relevant and contextual information in front of officials and decision makers. What they do with that information is their responsibility. To constrain the flow of information, between the public sector and the private sector and to close the door on that vital exchange will isolate public policy decision makers and inevitably lead to poorer decisions.”

This is what the people of North Burlington are up against. These are smart people who have been engaged by clients with a problem. Nelson Quarry needs the aggregate – it is there right underneath the surface and they believe they can convince the public that giving them access to that aggregate in exchange for parkland will work.

During the Thursday evening meeting there were a number of people who stood to speak – were they speaking for themselves or representing the interests of the lobbyist?

The first attempt by Nelson Quarry to get access to more aggregate failed. It started in 2004 and ended with a decision in 2012 that denied their application.

PEARL, a community organization formed to fight the application has basically disbanded. They fought the good fight and won. They are tired, they raised and spent a lot of money. The City of Burlington spent more than $2 million in legal fees.

But in the end the public will prevailed.

It will be a tougher fight this time around.

Background links:

Nelson quarry opens the park project web site.

The PERL web site

BY Pepper Parr

August 5th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

Community Development Halton has been in the news frequently this last month.

Joey Edwards, the Executive Director for the past two decades, announced that she will retire in the fall. The Board has been actively developing the direction the organization will take in the years ahead.

A Gazette reader set out what he thought CDH needed to focus on as they revive an organization that has lost its focus.

Go onto Community Development Halton’s website and the one obvious thing that is lacking is a current statement of their Mission, Vision and Values. Virtually every organization today has this prominently displayed on their home page. CDH lists a lot of activities, but there is no easily accessible statement attesting to what they stand for, how they do it and their unique value proposition. I eventually found something called “Independent Community Based Planning in the Voluntary Sector”, but it was buried well into their website.

The second item that needs to be addressed is their name. Sorry, but “Community Development Halton” is amorphous and ill-defined. Develop what, and for whom? Looking at their website most of what they purportedly provide is social planning. Interesting research, but frankly not hugely impactful for a lot of residents, and most don’t connect with how this betters or improves their personal situation.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is their mandate. CDH’s website is laden with words like “facilitate”, “coordinate”, “partner”, etc. That does not describe an action oriented mandate or agenda. If you want broad-based community support, funding and engagement you need to be leading, directing and implementing. The not-for-profit community is strewn with all sorts of think tanks and research based agencies. Interesting from strictly an academic point of view, but not hugely impactful.

CDH operates with a 1990’s mindset, but that isn’t going to carry them very far into the future. The purpose statement on their website from the Social Planning Network of Ontario was written in 1994. The organization needs to re-position itself for changing times or else it will quickly fade into obscurity.

Recently CDH produced a profile of each of the six wards in the city – they sent the information to the ward Councillors but neglected to send the material to media – there is some solid data in those profiles.

The Gazette will be doing series on each ward and including that data. To give you a sense as to just how rich that data set is – look at what they have produced for ward 1.

By Pepper Parr

April 4th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

 

ECoB – the Engaged Citizens of Burlington have been watching how the city has decided to engage and consult on the re-assessment and review of the Official Plan.

To complete the work being done ECoB believes the city will have to allow more time and money to get the job done right.

In a letter sent to their membership ECoB set out their concerns and asked for feedback from the membership.

It is essential to note that ECoB was treated with shabby disdain by two of the 2014-2018 council members; one of the two lost her seat, the other, Paul Sharman who held the ward 5 seat because the vote was badly split, has yet to find the decency to admit that he was wrong and support the organization going forward.

ECoB has grown from the outstanding success they had with the Mayoralty debates followed by the “conversation” on the Performing Arts Centre at which people got a close look at how their Mayor did when she went up against Oakville Mayor Rob Burton.

The organization is now focusing on how and to what degree citizens will have input on the Official Plan that is being re-assesed and revised.

What is clear now is that ECoB has earned a seat at the table; a situation the city has recognized.  It is now up to the ECoB members pay attention, keep informed and grow the membership of the organization.

ECoB’s Update on Burlington’s Official Plan Review

“ECoB’s executive and ward committees have been busy in recent months. We will be sending you the first of what will become a monthly newsletter in the next few days.

“But first we wanted to update you on one of the most important things happening at City Hall right now. The Review of Burlington’s Official Plan, which is being reassessed by the City Planning Department following the Region of Halton’s request for certain changes, is now underway. The entire process of review has a very short timeline, and needs to be approved by Council by March 2020.

“Citizen engagement is the term commonly used for public consultations which offer citizens the opportunity to participate in meaningful ways in the decisions, actions and processes which shape their community.

“Pre-Engagement is the consultation undertaken by the Planning Department to seek input from various groups on the best form for Citizen Engagement on the Official Plan Review.

ECoB’s Role in ‘Pre-Engagement’

“The Planning Department has been undertaking a ‘pre-engagement’ exercise in recent weeks in preparation for a new round of Citizen Engagement on the Official Plan. This engagement will relate solely to downtown Burlington.

“The intention of the pre-engagement was to consult with various groups to make sure that the citizen engagement that is carried out for the OP Review is done right.

“Those consulted at this stage included Citizen Advisory Committees, the City ‘Charter Action Team’ (an advisory group tasked with overseeing implementation of the City’s Engagement Charter), ECoB and Hamilton-Halton Home Builders Assoc.

 

• The Planning Department has provided us with a summary of pre-engagement. Download it here.
• The Planning Department’s Draft Engagement Plan. Download it here.
• Download ECoB’s Response to the Pre-Engagement summary and draft plan.

“ECoB welcomed the opportunity to meet with the Planning Department and provide its ideas regarding a good engagement process. It also welcomes the desire by the City to carry out more rigorous engagement processes than have been seen in the past.

ECoB’s Concerns About Weaknesses In Engagement Plan.

“Nevertheless, there remain concerns about the Draft Engagement Plan and the results of the Pre-Engagement exercise. These are set out in detail in the links above.

“These weaknesses are caused by two constraints – time and money.

“While ECoB acknowledges the urgent need to complete the review and for Burlington to have a new Official Plan, we also believe that it is essential that the most rigorous engagement process possible is undertaken. For the City to provide the Planning Department with a budget too limited to carry out adequate engagement is a fundamental mistake, and risks repeating the mistakes which have made the OP Review necessary. Likewise, if an additional month of engagement would guarantee substantially more rigorous results, that month would be a worthwhile delay. As it stands now the primary citizen engagement that will take place will be in a period of approximately 6 weeks: late August and October..

“Above all, the engagement must reach out beyond traditional public meetings and website questionnaires, which are limited by the self-selecting nature of participation. Many groups – commuters, young families, teenagers, new immigrants – will never participate in traditional engagement exercises. The most important part of the process is to form a representative snapshot of public opinion which ensures the results reflect potential differences in age, gender, ethnic background and more. This requires attempts to reach citizens at home and in ways which don’t require them to ‘opt in’ to participation.

“We therefore urge the City Manager and Council to do all they can to provide more resources, and if possible more time, to the Planning Department to complete as rigorous and representative an engagement exercise as possible.

“From both a symbolic and practical perspective, it is essential the city demonstrates the extent of its commitment to rigorous engagement as part of the Official Plan Review.”

By Pepper Parr

July 29th, 2019

BURLINGTON, ON

Despite a year of significant upheaval in the Planning department – staff are now working on several critical reports with tight time frames – and developing ways to include the public in the process on an ongoing basis and not when it is all wrapped up.

Planning staff are well into the Work Plan for the scoped re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan.

It is a mammoth task that has to be done right if Mayor Marianne Meed Ward is to meet the mandate the public gave her in October.

The Planning and Development Committee set out what the Department of City Building is expected to get done during the summer.

Along with the re-examination of the Adopted Official Plan the City Building Department has to figure out just what they want to allow in the way of development in the city core – now that there is a freeze on all development in the core.

Direct the Director of City Building to proceed with the work identified

Direct the Director of City Building to propose refinements to the Neighbourhood Centre’s Policy to simplify and clarify the intent of the policies, generally described in section 4.2.3; and

Direct the Director of City Building to modify the terms of reference upon confirmation of impacts related to Bill 108 and other Provincial changes to the land use planning and development system, if required.

All this began when city council adopted a new Official Plan. That plan was sent to the Region which is the approval authority for the Official Plan.

On December 4, 2018, the day after the new city council was sworn in, the Region of Halton provided a notice to the City advising that the adopted Official Plan does not conform with the Regional Official Plan in a number of respects. The effect of the notice extends the Region’s review process indefinitely, until such time as the Region determines that the non-conformity is rectified. The supporting information identified that:

The City of Burlington can make additional modifications before the plan is approved by the Region where there is appropriate planning justification and public consultation. Any modifications would need to be assessed for conformity against the Regional Official Plan and Provincial Plans and policy statements.

That statement gave the new Mayor a free hand to look at everything in the plan that had been adopted by the previous council despite considerable opposition to the plan from a large portion of the public.

In February, 2019 Council provided a staff direction to re-examine the policies of the adopted Official Plan:

Direct the Director of City Building to immediately commence a process to re- examine the policies of the Official Plan adopted April 26, 2018 in their entirety related to matters of height and intensity and conformity with provincial density targets.

A Council workshop was held on March 18, 2019 to obtain further Council feedback on this direction, which has resulted in the scope of work.

To prepare for the Council Workshop, a series of meetings with Councillors were undertaken. The result of these meetings was a list of issues relevant to each Councillor, which informed the preparation for the Council Workshop.

A number of key themes emerged from the workshop discussion. It was clear that Council agrees that the work identified should be completed by the end of Q1 2020.  That is eight months away.

Through discussion at the workshop it was agreed that the adopted Official Plan brings in new policies and forward looking approaches to land use planning and growth. In general, Council supports the majority of the policies within the adopted Official Plan.

Two key areas emerged as requiring further consideration: the Downtown Precinct Plan and the Neighbourhood Centre policies.

It was acknowledged at the workshop that the Official Plan is not intended to provide detailed land use policies for specific sites. As a result there is a role for more detailed land use planning processes. These processes can include both detailed, city-led area specific planning exercises such as area-specific plans, or site-specific development applications for Official Plan and/or Zoning Bylaw Amendments.

Coming up with an Official Plan that could be defended has never been a slam dunk for Burlington. Almost everything they do gets challenged – costing the city a bundle in legal fees and months of work time dealing with the appeals.

To this end, staff and consultants will need to work together to prepare modifications to policies, based on technical information and public and stakeholder input, which demonstrate the functionality and feasibility of a recommended scenario in conformity with the Regional Official Plan and Provincial Plans and policy statements.

It was no surprise to anyone that throughout all the questions and discussions at the workshop was the role community would play – this council was elected to ensure that the community was at the table.

The results had to be reflective of the community’s vision for the future of Burlington;

– Be that residents believe that the Official Plan represents their values for the future of the City;
– Be supported by an effective public engagement process; and
– Be supported by the public.

Staff agree that the work to re-examine the Official Plan must be supported by a public engagement process and a decision-making process that all stakeholders can understand and agree to in principle. As identified generally by Council, this need for public satisfaction of the plan must be married with the desire to develop a plan that is defensible from a land use planning perspective.

In order to achieve success the project team must transparently:

– educate and communicate the givens – the plan must conform to provincial policy.
– identify the questions that are in scope and out of scope;
– collect, analyze and respond to the feedback;
– use the best tools possible to communicate alternatives, short and long-term impacts and their associated benefits and drawbacks;
– describe and continually communicate about decision making processes; and,
– identify process challenges along the way.

It was this need to ensure that the public was informed while the changes were being made and not have a finished plan introduced to an unsuspecting and unaware public that brought out the need for the creation of a communications plan that had input from the public – people sitting at the table with the planners.  A major new step for Burlington.

Hovering in the background is the impact of Bill 108 which some have described as a Developers Dream Bill.  WeloveBurlington provided an excellent over-view of the Bill and its probable impact. Add to this the Provincial Review which is looking at what form the Regional governments will take going forward.

The Strategic Plan, which has up until now been a list of high level values that everyone subscribes to with there being not very much in the way of detail.

Burlington took a different approach – they took the Strategic Plan “vision” and made it the front end of a series of objectives known as V2F – Vision to Focus. There is a detailed list of where in the Strategic Plan this council thinks the focus should be place.

V2F has been labelled “living document”; one that will undergo changes daily if necessary.

While all this is going on council has to deal with a number of related high priority initiatives that are identified in the Official Plan and the Strategic Plan such as the Mobility Hub Area Specific Plans and the Housing Strategy.

Tucked in there is the budget this council wants to have in your hands before Christmas.

These Housing and Mobility Hub initiatives have been postponed given Council’s focus on the re-examination of the Official Plan and the Interim Control Bylaw Land Use Study as well as the work addressing areas of non-conformity of the adopted Official Plan with the Regional Official Plan and given the uncertainty related to the Region’s Official Plan Review.

The March Council Workshop identified two key areas of the Adopted Official Plan that must be included in the scoped re-examination of the adopted Official Plan to guide the next year of work:

a modified precinct plan for the Downtown Urban Centre;
and a review of the Neighbourhood Centre’s policy.

In order to get a solid grip on just what the scope of work was Planning department staff had to be fully conversant with what came out of the March Council workshop; the Motions related to the Downtown Urban Centre that were not passed during the adoption process; the non-Official Plan related Council directions identifying issues to be considered through the Downtown Area Specific Plan; the Commercial Strategy Study recommendations related to the Downtown, with specific attention to small scale retail in the downtown; and the details of Interim Control Bylaw Land Use Study.

This is no small matter.

The Downtown Precinct Plan in the adopted Official Plan was based upon a vision at full build out. Council wanted staff to look at a shorter planning horizon which resulted in a modified precinct plan for the Downtown Urban Centre that would have a planning horizon of 2031, in conformity with provincial policy.

The population and employment forecasts contained in the applicable upper- or single-tier official plan, that is approved and in effect as of July 1, 2017, will apply to all planning matters in that municipality, including lower-tier planning matters where applicable.

The background technical work prepared to date for the Downtown area-specific plan, to be finalized through this study, will confirm development constraints and provide clarity on infrastructure capacity and required improvements.

The shift of the scope of this work to the 2031 planning horizon means that there are not likely to be significant infrastructure issues identified through this planning exercise.

The next planning horizon is 2041.

The planners would just like to get what they have in front of them done within the very tight timelines.

The outcome of this work will not constitute an area-specific plan, instead the outcome will be modified policies which will go beyond the high level Official Plan policies that are included in the current adopted Official Plan (April 2018). The modified policies will be developed to ensure that the City can conform with the Growth Plan policy to accommodate 200 people and jobs per hectare combined within the Urban Growth Centre boundary by considering the findings of technical work and public, agency, and stakeholder feedback.

What is going to get a very close review are all precincts within the Downtown Urban Centre where significant concerns regarding height and density were raised by the current Council;

– All precincts impacted by motions not passed when considered by the previous Council in the development and finalization of the adopted Official Plan;

– Specific policies identified to be modified based on the technical work;
– Small scale retail in the Downtown;

– Built form transition to adjacent residential areas;

– Heritage conservation and cultural heritage resources;

– Flexible streets

The Proposed Terms of Reference do not address:

– Shifting the Urban Growth Centre from the downtown to Burlington GO. The Urban Growth Centre location is established in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Region of Halton Official Plan. Any policies proposed for the Official Plan must conform with both;

– Major Transit Station Area and Mobility Hub role and function in the downtown as they will be considered in the Interim Control By-Law Land Use study and recommendations will inform this study;

– Transportation or infrastructure assessments to support people and jobs beyond 2031.

– Undertaking a Neighbourhood Character Area study for the St. Luke’s and Emerald precincts. Matters of zoning in the St. Luke’s and Emerald precincts will be considered at the time of the Zoning By-law Review;

– The Old Lakeshore Road Precinct. This area requires a more detailed area specific planning process as identified by adopted Official Plan policy. For more details see Appendix B;

– The Waterfront Hotel Site. This site is subject to a process outlined by a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the City and landowner. For more details see Appendix B;

– Revisions to the Downtown Public Service Precinct. It is expected that the development criteria and other policies of the adopted Official Plan provide sufficient guidance for development in the precinct; and,

– Developing parking rates for the Downtown. Parking rates for intensification areas such as the Downtown are to be addressed through the preparation of site-specific zoning.

Interest was expressed in having the Neighbourhood Centre policies in the adopted Official Plan reviewed.

The role of policy in supporting the redevelopment of Neighbourhood Centres is to establish a detailed policy framework to guide the consideration of site specific development applications. Consistent with the Strategic Plan, the policy framework encourages redevelopment of plazas.

Staff has considered the discussion at the Council Workshop and acknowledge that there is an opportunity to simplify and provide further clarity related to the intent of the Neighbourhood Commercial policies and their relationship to the Strategic Plan. This will be led by staff and would be implemented as part of the proposed modifications to the adopted Official Plan. This work will include:

– Identifying opportunities to clarify and describe the intent of the policy;

– Simplifying language; and

– Clarifying the relationship of the land use policies with the growth framework.

The scope of work proposed has a one-year time frame which was identified as a critical success factor. As discussed at the Council Workshop held on March 18th, another consequence of proposing work that would extend the time frame beyond March 2020 is primarily to shift out the initiation of work for a number of planning studies or initiatives by 12 – 18 months.

When all this was being worked out Bill 108 was not yet the law of the land. Now it is. The Province has also released a new Growth Plan and Provincially Significant Employment Zones Mapping.

Funding of $600,000 from the Policy initiatives reserve fund was approved as part of the 2019 budget for Official Plan related initiatives.

While all this work is taking place a group has been meeting with citizen groups to determine how all this complex information can be put before the public on an ongoing basis. The Gazette wrote about that work in an article last week.

Related news story:

Engagement with the public on a much different and highly desirable scale is taking place during the summer.

You have lost control

Weloveburlington on Bill 108