Wednesday, December 12, 2018

More Misinformation About the KED Coming From City Hall

The attached screencap was shared with me recently, along with some questions about whether Councillor Kirwan is being honest with people in his Valley East group about what's actually going on with the so-called "Kingsway Entertainment District".
Without question, there are several significant untruths in this post from December 10, 2018 that need to be corrected. I have underlined in red the specific areas that I'll address here.

First, with regards to the LPAT process being "on schedule" - nothing could be further from the truth. At the Case Management Conference in early November at which both Councillor Kirwan and I attended, the Tribunal members were clear - the whole process was being put on hold pending resolution of a matter referred to Divisional Court related to the LPAT's powers and authorities in a case known as "Rail Deck Park". Until those matters are resolved, the clock that ticks away for the LPAT to make a decision is paused. The process is not "on schedule" - stuff's still going on, but there can't be a resolution until Rail Deck is resolved, and that's completely out of anyone's hands here in Sudbury.
Here's a screenshot of a part of the LPAT's "Notice of Postponement" that pauses the process.

Second, I have seen no requirement that the hotel that is intended to be located on site will be the "largest in the City" - it is completely out of the realm of reality to insist that this will come to pass - especially since there is no group that has stepped forward to build a hotel at this time. The Councillor's statement here, which he passes off as fact, is made without evidence and is at best conjecture, and at worst something quite different.
Third, there absolutely is no "120 acre commercial subdivision". It does not exist. It is a figment of the Councillor's imagination. There is no question that the 'subdivision' (which still is not approved by the City) is a plan of subdivision for industrial uses. It is designated General Industrial in the City's official plan. It is zoned with a number of industrial zoning categories - some of which permit commercial uses, but not as primary uses. There is no application in front of the City to change the designation of the lands from General Industrial to anything else (except for the lands subject to the LPAT appeals for a casino, arena and parking lot).
Don't believe me?  The following is from the City's submission to the LPAT.  
Still think this is about an "Entertainment District"? Because that's not the case that the City is advancing in order to see the casino, arena and parking lot approved.
I speculate that the Councillor made this statement about the subdivision being for "commercial" uses because of the fourth matter here where he writes about commercial taxation. Again, there is no plan for any further commercial uses in the subdivision beyond a casino and the parking lot (which could be considered a commercial use as it will require people to pay to park there, as per the zoning by-law amendment filed by the applicant Zulich and approved by the City).
In June, 2018, the City approved the 5-year update to its official plan. If there was any actual vision for a "Kingsway Entertainment District" beyond an arena, casino and parking lot, there would have been changes to the General Industrial designation to facilitate new uses like a motorsports park, additional ice pad, etc. But there were no changes made. The plan continues to be to develop industrial uses in the industrial subdivision. Yes, it is true that at some point, that could change via a new amendment to the Plan - but that runs the risk of further appeal, and further time to resolve matters. The City is certainly not "prepared to grow" entertainment or commercial uses on the balance of the subject lands.
Why is Councillor Kirwan promoting this false narrative? It is so incredibly frustrating, but the fact of the matter is that a number of our City's elected officials have gone out of their way to be untruthful about this project, and to hide information from the public, and to try to shut the public out of the decision-making process. And when they are called out, they have invariably blamed others and claimed that there is an active misinformation campaign being waged by KED opponents.
I agree that there is an active misinformation campaign being waged - but it's coming from City Hall.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Monday, December 3, 2018

Conservatives' Climate Plan Takes Ontario Back to the Past


At this critical moment in history, when we’re being warned by the best and the brightest that we have just 12 years to get our act together if we’re going to hold global warming to 1.5 degrees C, Ontario’s new Conservative government released its climate change plan.  It’s a plan that can only be described as a sick joke that sets Ontario back decades.

The plan appears to be little more than what could have been cobbled together over a weekend by disinterested highschool students.  The “Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan” isn’t even exclusively about climate change – greenhouse gas reduction initiatives are buried in the middle of other proposals dealing with clean air and helpful hints that homeowners can use to guard against basement flooding (see: Preserving and Protecting our Environment for Future Generations: A Made-in-Ontario Environment Plan,” Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, November 2018).

The Conservatives insist that the policies and programs described in the Plan will lead Ontario to achieving an even less ambitious 2030 emissions reduction target than the one offered up by the Wynne Liberals.  But without identifying any way of measuring success, or even just indicating how much certain actions will contribute to reducing emissions, it’s impossible to determine how the Conservatives arrived at that conclusion.

The Plan’s marquee initiative is the $100 million-a-year Carbon Trust Fund.  It’s similar to the previous Liberal government’s Green Bank initiative.  The only big differences between the Liberal and Conservative plans involve who’ll be paying.  The former Liberal government was intending on using funds collected from industrial polluters via cap and trade, while the current government will fund the initiative largely from the public purse.  And funds that would have been available to homeowners for energy efficiency upgrades will now be restricted to the private sector.  It’s a real lose / lose for the people.

Of course, for the Wynne Liberals, the Green Bank was intended to be one of many tools used as part of a larger, comprehensive plan that included measurable outcomes and pricing carbon pollution (see: “Climate Change Action Plan, 2016,” the Government of Ontario (archived)).  For the Conservatives, the vaguely-outlined Carbon Trust is one of only two prominent tools that will be used to reduce emissions.  And the other tool – regulating industrial pollution via emissions performance standards – has been decried as the most economically inefficient way to reduce emissions. 

Of course, mandating hard caps on industrial pollution can lead to lower emissions.  But the Conservatives’ plan is riddled with “flexibility mechanisms” that translates into  exemptions for specific businesses or entire industrial sectors. Companies will also be offered the option to purchase dubious carbon offsets or to simply pay penalties.  What we’ll end up with isn’t a hard cap at all, but rather a floppy one that could actually lead to a higher level of greenhouse gas emissions.
 
Making polluters pay by putting a price on carbon pollution is the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions.  But that just wasn’t in the cards for a Conservative government that seems to have a penchant for wasting taxpayer money on nonsense – like spending $30 million to fight the federal government’s carbon pricing initiative.

Worse than all of this, the Plan actually includes measures that will raise emissions, by calling for lower prices on gasoline and natural gas.  It’s Economics 101: lower costs leads to more consumption.  But that’s the plan for both gasoline and natural gas.  And that’s no plan at all for lowering emissions.

Inexplicably, the plan also calls for upping the ethanol content of gasoline to 15%.  When all inputs are considered, ethanol is an emissions wash at best.  But the threat to food security posed by increasing ethanol production means that we should be phasing it out of the gasoline mix altogether (see: Corn Ethanol Will Not Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Scientific American, April 20 2009; and, “The Case Against More Ethanol: It’s Simply Bad for Environment,” C. Ford Runge, YaleEnvironment360, May 25, 2016).

Those helpful hints to prevent basement flooding might actually be the most useful part of the Conservatives’ plan.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Originally published as "Sudbury column: Tory climate plan takes Ontario back to the past," in print and online in the Sudbury Star, December 1, 2018.



Sunday, November 11, 2018

Shifting the Climate Change Conversation from the Possible to the Necessary

Credit where it’s due: Earlier this month, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the federal plan to price carbon pollution for provinces like Ontario that refused to adopt provincial pollution pricing schemes (see: “Government of Canada fighting climate change with price on pollution,” Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, October 23, 2018).  Under the Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change, the federal Liberals chose a form of carbon fee and dividend to price pollution – a mechanism that the Green Party of Canada has long championed (see: “Green Party’s Climate Change Plan,” Green Party of Canada, June 15, 2015).

The Liberal’s plan establishes an annually rising fee on carbon pollution, starting at $20 per tonne in 2019 and rising to $50 per tonne by 2022.  To reduce paying for pollution, businesses and industry will have an incentive to innovate.

The vast majority of fees collected will be rebated back to citizens.  With money in our pockets to offset rising costs, consumers can make individual choices that could lead to greater savings (see: “Trudeau promises rebates as Ottawa moves to levy carbon tax on provinces outside the climate plan,” CBC News, October 23, 2018). This form of market-based pollution pricing is the only form that is likely to see the price of carbon pollution rise high enough to affect consumer behaviour without causing rioting in the streets.  It’s because personal rebates will rise as the per tonne price increases.

The Ontario Liberals’ cap and trade pollution pricing plan, which apportioned collected revenues to select green initiatives, would never have been acceptable to consumers paying the $100 per tonne that some experts believe is needed if we are going to hold global warming to the 2 degrees Celsius (see: “Green Party news release: Liberal's cap and trade 'scheme' needs to go, Green candidate says,” Sudbury dot com, May 8, 2018). Ironically, Conservative Premier Doug Ford has inadvertently given Ontarians a climate win-fall by cancelling Wynne’s doomed program (see:“GOLDSTEIN: McKenna’s carbon price report is a farce,” The Toronto Sun, May 1, 2018).

But Ford and Conservatives across Canada are already manning the battle stations to fight a war of public opinion over pollution pricing (see:“Doug Ford attacks 'terrible tax' on carbon alongside Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe,” CBC News, October 29, 2018).  Their ammunition is the same as that used by the decades-old climate change denial industry: cherry-picking data and calling it evidence, making things up, and engaging in character assassination ().  It’s anti-science straight out of an Alice-in-Wonderland universe where up is down and down is up – but it may just work
.
The fact is, we don’t have time for Conservative’s counterfactual roadblocks here.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent report gave us just 12 years to turn things around and get our act together on reducing emissions (see: “IPCC 6 Climate Change Report: We Only Have 12 Years To Fix This,” Cleantechnica, October 9, 2018).  If we don’t, we’re almost certainly going to blow through the 2 degree threshold that the best available science cautions us to avoid. Beyond 2 degrees of global warming, we seriously risk of triggering feedback loops that lead to runaway climate change, like the melting of Arctic permafrost (see:“Why is climate change’s 2 degrees Celsius of warming limit so important?” The Conversation, August 22, 2017).

There will be blood on our hands if we fail to act.  We don’t enjoy the benefit of time to sit around and discuss doing the bare minimum that’s possible, which appears to what the Liberals remain intent on doing. An appropriate scheme to price carbon pollution only gets us so far. Pushing through a new pipeline that will double tar sands emissions; developing a brand new Liquified Natural Gas industry; refusing to aspire to higher emissions reductions targets – all while subsidizing the profitable, largely multi-national fossil fuel sector to the tune of $3.67 billion a year - these aren’t things that climate champions do.

But the obstructionist Conservatives who are resorting to falsifying information about pollution pricing are behaving despicably.  It’s just another form of climate change denial.  Conservatives like Ford and federal Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer need to be pushed aside from the public conversations that we need to be having right now. Until they come up with coherent climate plans of their own, they have nothing to contribute.

We have to start seriously talking about what Canada needs to do to fight climate change, and not about what’s merely politically possible.  And my goodness, we need to be doing a lot more. All while the clock is ticking.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Originally published as "Steve May: Act on climate change or blood will be on our hands," in print and online in the Sudbury Star, November 3, 2018.

Thursday, October 25, 2018

The Kingsway Cases at the LPAT: An (Unrepresented) Party's Observations, Part 7: So Much for the Downtown


In Part 6 of this blogseries, I laid out what I considered to be the three big land use issues that the LPAT will need to make a determination on for the matters presently before it related to a casino, arena and parking lot development proposal in the City of Greater Sudbury.  I also took a close look at the City's case as it relates to one of these matters - conformity with the official plan policies as they relate to development in the General Industrial Area - which is the designation of the lands on which the casino, arena and parking lot are intended to locate.

I suggested that out of the 3 big issues, the City had the surest footing on that issue, as the City had actually undertaken some level of analysis to address the three main points of contention, which were:

1) whether 'throughout the municipality' should be equated with 'within every land use designation' (the City seems to suggest that there is an equation, while the appellants think it's an absurdity)
2) whether there will be 'adequate' parking on site - the City seems to think there will be, but the need for an additional surface parking facility off-site to meet peak Friday demand as per the City's own Traffic Impact Study suggests otherwise to the appellants;
3) whether an appropriate analysis of integration and compatibility with surrounding uses was undertaken, specifically with regards to proposed industrial uses (the City seems to suggest that no such analysis is needed due to the lack of policy in the official plan which would lead them to undertake such an analysis, while the appellants seem to maintain that it looking at potential impacts on planned uses ought to have been undertaken).

In this blogpost, I'm going to take a look at Big Issue #1 - That the application for rezoning and decision of Council to permit an arena on the subject lands did not fully explore the policy environment as it existed at the time of Council’s decision.  Broadly speaking, #1 here is the appellant’s assertion that matters related to the downtown and economic development should have been explored by the City prior to a decision, whereas the City contends that there was no requirement for that kind of exploration.

This might be the most difficult of the three issues to wrap one's head around.  Although I will try to explain the complexities here as we encounter them, suffice it to say for now that one of the biggest mental hurdles to overcome with regards to the arena has to do with whether the application for rezoning should be considered the 'trigger' event for a complete policy analysis of the appropriateness of the location on the Kingsway (appellants say Yes, City says No), or whether the decision about location was actually already made (by Council on June 27, 2017) and therefore the application to amend the zoning by-law should not trigger a comprehensive analysis of policy related to location - because the location had already been determined (City says Of Course! Appellants say No Way!).

Nothing to do with the Downtown

The appellants maintain that prior to approving the zoning by-law for the arena, the City ought to have first looked to policy direction found elsewhere: in the City’s official plan; in the Provincial Policy Statement; and in the Downtown Sudbury Master Plan and the City’s Economic Development Plan, as per the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario.  Further, the appellants believe that the City should have looked at the urbanMetrics study related to the arena and the casino, as well.  A review of those policies and that study would have led the City to determine that an arena on the Kingsway was not in keeping with the PPS, the official plan, or the Northern Growth Plan.

The City maintains that it did not need to look at most of those policies because the decision regarding the location of the arena had already been made on June 27, 2017.  As the decision about location was already made by Council, the only OP matters under review related to the zoning by-law were found largely in Policy 2 of Section 4.4 of the Official Plan.  Because the location for the use was already determined, there was no need to look at how the zoning decision would impact the downtown, because zoning an arena on the Kingsway has nothing to do with the downtown.

from the City's Response to Petch Case Synopsis

It’s fair to say that there is a fundamental disagreement between the City and the appellants on this point.  

The City acknowledges that a new arena anywhere in the City would lead to the existing Sudbury Community Arena, located in the downtown, to be closed.  The City is presently planning on tearing that arena down so that a new public facility can be constructed in its place – one consisting of a convention centre, art gallery and public library known as “The Junction” – named after a nearby underground watercourse that the City buried back in the 1960s.

from the City of Greater Sudbury's Staff Report to Council re: Arena Rezoning
The City maintains, though, that the application for a zoning amendment to permit an arena on the Kingsway really has nothing to do with the downtown.  This was a really difficult one for me to wrap my head around, but I’ve tried to see this a little more clearly from the City’s perspective.  I still don’t agree, obviously.  I'm troubled, too, because the staff clearly provided some level of analysis regarding downtown impacts to Council with regards to the nature of this project - they determined that moving the arena out of the downtown would be good for the downtown (see green underline) - but also maintain that the application to rezone the Kingsway is not about the downtown.

Confused? Let me try to rationalize it for you.

Location Previously Determined

Say that Walmart decides it’s going to close down a store in a City’s downtown, and open up a new store in a field on the urban fringe.  That City’s official plan – like Greater Sudbury’s official plan - has a lot of things to say about strengthening the downtown, and wanting to see more commercial and employment development take place in the core.  In fact, the Plan identifies the presence of a Walmart as part of a strategy to attract new residential development to the downtown (sorry - to be clear, I'm creating a hypothetical situation here!)

But Walmart has already made its mind up.  It’s Board of Directors is going to close down the downtown store and open up another store on lands designated for commercial development on the urban fringe.  Walmart submits an application to rezone the fringe lands.  Does the City conduct an assessment of the impact of Walmart’s decision to close the downtown store? What would be the point of doing so – the decision was already made, and the application in front of the City has nothing to do with the downtown.

Whither the Downtown?

If you’re following along, you may be wondering whether I, as an appellant, am starting to feel a little uncomfortable at this point.  Clearly my Walmart analogy isn’t all that different from the circumstances of the matters at the LPAT.  It’s only the nature of the “Board of Directors” that’s substantively different.  In this case, it was Council that decided to close down the Sudbury Community Arena and build a new facility on the urban fringe – despite a strong policy direction in the official plan to preference the downtown.

And indeed a downtown location for a new arena was preferenced by the City’s consultants, PWC, when they presented their report to Council about proposed arena locations.  Despite the strong official plan policy direction, and despite PWC’s recommendation, Council nevertheless opted to go with the Kingsway.  And those lands were, according to the City, already designated for an arena, due to the whole ‘institutional uses throughout the municipality’ discussion we had in Part 6 of this blogseries.

With this in mind, how can the appellants maintain that the City should have assessed the zoning application in the context of policies that point to the downtown?

Well, there are a few reasons – and ultimately the LPAT is going to have to answer this question.  But let’s look at what comes in to play here.

The Policy Environment - Which Plans Matter?

First, the age of the City’s official plan is a problem for the City on this one.  The Plan was approved in 2006 – which means it can’t be considered “consistent” with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014.  So decision-makers need to look at both the Official Plan and the PPS.

Further, the same is true for the Growth Plan – to demonstrate conformity with the Growth Plan, decision-makers have to look at it, too.  But – you’ll have to trust me on this one, ok? – there’s not a lot of anything in the Growth Plan that really matters here, save for a single reference found in the preamble to Section 4.1, which reads: “…achieving a healthy, prosperous future for the North.  This begins at the local level with establishing a clear vision for each community’s future, and mapping out a path to achieve this vision.  Official Plans, community economic plans and the participation in community planning efforts are effective tools and approaches to ensure citizens’ and businesses’ view are reflected in their communities’ future economic and long-term sustainability.”

The appellants believe that the Growth Plan provides a way “in” for the City to consider other types of plans when making decisions that impact building strong communities and economic development.  Specifically, the appellants believe that the City’s Economic Development Plan and the Downtown Sudbury Master Plan ought to have been considered by the City due to this reference in the Growth Plan.

The City maintains that neither Plan needed to have been considered, because neither plan has been incorporated into the official plan.  Further, I would expect that the City would suggest that even if the Northern Growth Plan required the consideration of Downtown Master Plan and the Economic Development Plan as guidance documents on matters related to building strong communities and economic development, the application for rezoning to permit an arena had nothing to do with either building strong communities or economic development – because the decision to locate the arena on the Kingsway had already been made, and the only tests found in the official plan in a) through f) of Policy 2 of Section 4.4 did not require this kind of analysis.

So whether that section of the Preamble of the Growth Plan means that approval authorities have to consider their non-Planning Act plans is kind of a moot point from the City’s perspective, because the decision to go with the Kingsway was already made.

The Provincial Policy Statement

And the same, then, would be true of those strong policy directions found in the PPS that speak to building strong communities, and planning for public service facilities.  The appellants are really hanging their hats on the notion that of course the City can’t not look at those policies in the context of the rezoning application.  And here’s where the City’s case seems to get a little muddled, because rather than holding the line on “they don’t apply because the decision was already made”, the City’s response does try to address some of those PPS policy specifics.  Even the Staff Report prepared prior to Council’s decision assessed the application in terms of some of those policies, including Section 1.1.3 about settlement areas being the focus of growth (the subject lands are within a settlement area), and 1.1.1 g) – ensuring that public service facilities are or will be available to meet current projected needs.

On the other hand, a policy like 1.6.3 that requires consideration of using existing public service facilities before developing a new public service facility wouldn’t need to be included in an assessment of the zoning application, because Council had already decided to create a new public service facility, rather than adaptively re-use the existing facility (and you can see now why Petch has said that Council’s decision on the land use applications was ‘fettered’ by previous decisions of Council).

Checkbox Planning vs. Upholding the Public Interest

In taking a very narrow definition of its role in assessing land use planning applications, the City might ultimately be able to satisfy the LPAT that it has done the bare minimum necessary to meet the LPAT’s test of consistency with the PPS and conformity with the official plan and growth plan.  But what is clear is that this narrow definition considerably fails the public interest when it comes to the appropriate location for public service facilities – in this case, a new community arena.  

But changes to the way that the LPAT will evaluate matters now, rather than how they would have been evaluated at the OMB, could very well work to the City’s advantage here.  At the OMB, the City would have had to have demonstrated consistency with the PPS, conformity with the official plan and growth plan – and it would have had to demonstrate that the decision represented ‘good planning’.  At the LPAT, ‘good planning’ is no longer a test – and as a result, Council having met the technical minimums while ignoring other actual issues might just be enough for the City to eke out a victory here.

But I don’t think that's going to happen.  Because those ‘other issues’ as identified in the urbanMetrics Repor are incredibly substantive – and the City can at no time demonstrate that it ever considered them – whether the decision to locate the arena on the Kingsway was made on June 27, 2017 or not. 

The Responsibilities of Municipal Decision-Makers Re: "Planning Matters"

The appellants will also argue that the a municipal corporation is not a Walmart.  The wording found in Sections 2 and 3 of the Planning Act lays this out quite clearly.  Section 2 requires decision makers, when carrying out responsibilities under the Planning Act, to have regard to a list of provincial interest.  

Section 3(5) similarly requires decisions made by decision-makers  be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement – but note that Section 3(5) does not identify limitations on when decision-makers shall be consistent in the same way that Section 2 does (there is no ‘when carrying out duties under the Act” wording in Section 3(5)).  Therefore, in theory, all decisions of Council are required to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.  In practice, that’s clearly not always the case – but there is little opportunity for the public to do much about it, generally speaking.

3(5)(a) indicates: “A decision of the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, a minister of the Crown and a ministry, board, commission or agency of the government, including the Tribunal, in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter shall be consistent with the policy statements issued under subsection (1) that are in effect on the date of the decision.” 

In this case, however, if the City is going to maintain that they didn’t need to look at all of the policies in the PPS that might have otherwise guided the City on selecting the best location for the arena because the decision regarding the location of the arena on the Kingsway had already been made by Council.  But the City is still going to have to demonstrate how that June 27, 2017 decision was consistent with the PPS, in my opinion - even though it is not the decision that is under appeal at the LPAT (there was no opportunity for the public to be involved in that decision-making process at all, and certainly no opportunity to appeal it).  The fact that Council’s first decision was not on a land use application made under the Act does not absolve it from having to be consistent with the PPS.  The Planning Act says nothing about the timing of decisions – only that all decisions that affect a planning matter shall be consistent.

And that includes the decision Council made on June 27, 2017.  Council made this decision knowing that it would affect a planning matter.  Council was fully aware that the Kingsway site would need to be rezoned in order to accommodate an arena (see red underline from this excerpt from the PWC report to Council made on June 27, 2017)

Rezoning Needed - as per the PWC Report to Council - June 2017

As part of the PWC process, planning staff were asked for their input on the locations, and appear to have provided input at least in terms of the official plan (there is no reference to the Provincial Policy Statement in the PWC report – perhaps staff analyzed the PPS too – but if they did, there’s no record of having done so in the PWC report).  

from the PWC Report - June 2017
The report submitted to Council for consideration on June 27, 2017 clearly indicated that the lands on the Kingsway would need to be rezoned prior to an arena use being established.  That there was no public process under the Planning Act leading up to this decision of Council which clearly affected a planning matter, or the lack of an opportunity to appeal to the OMB/LPAT doesn’t change the legislated obligation of Council to make decisions consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.  

And yet, there was no analysis regarding the PPS in front of Council at the time it made a decision on the location of a public service facility.  Council was told only that a rezoning would be needed - from which official plan conformity could be logically extrapolated.  But the age of the City's official plan (2006) means that it itself cannot be considered consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2014).  Hence the need for the analysis.  

But that didn't happen.

City Trying to get Around the Need for Comprehensive Consideration of the PPS 

And that’s where this whole “decision already made” things breaks down.  Sorry – a municipal council is not Walmart.  Walmart can get around Section 3 of the Planning Act when it makes land use decisions (because Section 3 doesn't apply to Walmart) – but a municipal council can’t (because Section 3 does apply when Council is considering a planning matter).

And isn’t that a good thing?  As someone who supports consideration of strong city-building policies whenever decisions of Council are being made, I think it is.  And with regards to this particular matter, that’s exactly the stunt the City is trying to pull: getting around having to do a comprehensive policy assessment of the proposed use in terms of the Provincial Policy Statement and the official plan by having Council make a land use decision before applications were filed.  

And that’s just not right.  

But the City might still get away with it, due to some pretty fundamental flaws in our new provincial land use process, thanks to the elimination of the OMB.

The Decision that the LPAT has to Consider

There is a problem for the appellants here.  Although the City clearly won’t be able to demonstrate that it considered a full range of PPS policies when Council on June 27, 2017 made the decision to select the Kingsway over the downtown for a new arena, that’s not the decision that was appealed by the appellants.  The LPAT is limited in looking only at the decisions that were made by Council on April 10, 2018 (and arguably the further decisions made by Council on April 24, 2018).

You can see where this goes, though.  Clearly there was never an opportunity for the public to be involved in any decision related to the where a new arena should go.  That decision ought to have been guided by the PPS and the City's official plan - but it wasn't.  Not only was the public not involved in the decision-making process related to a municipal land use matter, the City also appears to have failed in undertaking a complete policy assessment related to the decision prior to it having been made on June 27, 2017.  Petch might try to argue that the City can’t get around its requirements to look at all of the PPS just because it decided to use a different non-Planning Act process to determine where an arena should go, but he’s going to be confronted by the fact that the scope of the LPAT’s jurisdiction might not allow him to make that argument.

As for me, I’ll continue to maintain that since the only time for (possible) public involvement into the location of the arena was at the time of the City’s review of the zoning by-law.   In my opinion, the City's position that it needn’t have assessed the location as it had already made the decision on the location is a complete absurdity, and the full policy weight of the PPS and the City’s own official plan ought to have been assessed by the City at that time – the only time – the City could have assessed it as per the Planning Act: in the lead-up to the April 10, 2018 decisions.

Arena in the Downtown

And finally, on this matter, I’ll say one last thing.  The City of Greater Sudbury’s official plan includes some very strong policies for the redevelopment of the downtown – and specifically identifies the presence of a downtown arena as an example of an amenity that will attract more residential development in the core.  The Plan is chock full of reasons why a strong downtown makes sense, and why Council should be doing what it can to strengthen the core.  And that’s just the City’s official plan.  The Provincial Policy Statement, too, has a lot to say about strong downtowns and how public service facilities ought to be planned for and developed, and where they should be located.  And then there is the Downtown Master Plan, which contains direction regarding an event centre facility.  And finally, the City's Economic Development Plan includes clear and strong direction regarding a downtown arena.  With all of this in mind, Council’s decision on June 27, 2017 stands in stark contrast to the strong policy direction articulated in the Provincial Policy Statement and the official plan, and the direction provided to the City via the Downtown Master Plan and the Economic Development Plan (both of which were developed with a significant level of public consultation, and the latter of which had a champion on Council in the form of Mayor Brian Bigger - who ultimately supported the Kingsway location for the arena).

Further, for the City to disregard the identified impacts that moving the arena out of the downtown will have on the downtown, as per the urbanMetrics Report, by suggesting that the decision on the zoning application has nothing to do with the downtown because the location was already determined by Council through another process – well, that really flies in the face of what municipal planning is all about, in my opinion.  Planning isn’t about making applications work from a technical standpoint.  It’s about having vision and accomplishing outcomes, and looking forward to nudging a community towards a more sustainable built form – in the fiscal and economic interests of the municipal corporation and its taxpayers.

What's Coming Up:

In my final post related to the Big Issues that the LPAT will be asked to rule on, I'll take a look at the cases arguing in favour of the need for a Comprehensive Review (appellants) and against the need for a Comprehensive Review (City).  I hope to publish that blogpost prior to the upcoming Case Management Conference scheduled for November 6, 2018 - but it seems that my free time is being eaten up by what is becoming a very serious game the City is playing with me related to these appeals.  

I'd rather not go into the details given the personal nature of this 'game', but suffice it to say that I feel that the City is continuing its ongoing campaign of intimidation and public humilation that it appears to have been engaged in with many citizens in our community who have spoken out against these development proposals.  I may write more about this - although I would rather not.  I am, however, learning a lesson that when you get involved with things at this level, even if you think that you are participating in a legislatively prescribed public process, if you're fighting City Hall they fight to hurt and win.

If in my next post about this you note the removal of the word (Unrepresented) in brackets, suffice to say that the matter of which I write about here has not been resolved.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

The Kingsway Cases at the LPAT: An (Unrepresented) Party's Observations, Part 6: The City Strikes Back!


This blogpost has been a very challenging one for me to write.  I began writing this post shortly after receiving a copy of the City's Response Case Synopsis to my September, 2018 submission to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).  I received those documents in early October - and now, almost a month later, I find that I'm still picking away at this post.

The trouble for me here is that I'm trying to summarize the opposition to the case that I'm putting forward at the Board - and to a lesser degree, the case that the City is mounting against the other appellants.  I've discussed these cases together in a number of blogposts, including: "The Kingsway Cases at the LPAT: An (Unrepresented) Party's Observations, Part 1: In the Beginning," and "The Kingsway Cases at the LPAT: An (Unrepresented) Party's Observations, Part 2: For the Record," and "The Kingsway Cases at the LPAT: An (Unrepresented) Party's Observations, Part 3: Valid Appeals and Municipal Contempt for a Public Process", "The Kingsway Cases at the LPAT: An (Unrepresented) Party's Observations, Part 4: The Strong Case Against a Casino, "The Kingsway Cases at the LPAT: An (Unrepresented) Party's Observations, Part 5: Wasn't That a Party?"  along with my supplementary, "18 Whacky Things About the Kingsway Entertainment District Land Use Appeals – Number 12 Will Blow Your Mind!"  

Wrapping my head around the City's submission has been problematic for me.  Frankly, the City's submission has led me to question my own understanding of how the planning system works, and, perhaps more importantly, how the new LPAT might interpret competing visions of Ontario's planning system.  I have been hearing that the tests for success at the LPAT are not the same for those that would have prevailed at the Ontario Municipal Board - and the notion that a decision of an approval authority is 'good planning' is something that the LPAT, unlike the OMB, will not be rendering a decision on.  Something more 'bare bones' appears to be able to carry the day.  

And that's difficult for me, as I've been raised to understand planning in the context of 'highest and best', rather than in a world of check boxes to determine that minimum requirements are met.  For those who have been following the specifics of the arena/casino matters in front of the LPAT right now here in Greater Sudbury, thinking of Council's decisions in this context may give you pause for concern.  It certainly has for me.  If doing as little as possible to meet the 'tests' of consistency with the PPS, and conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's own official plan is technically good enough - than those, like me, who are going to be asking the LPAT to take a closer look at the broader implications of the decision in terms of PPS and official plan policy - well, we might be in for a big surprise.

And if you're not from Sudbury, but you're reading this post and trying to find some nugget of wisdom to apply to your own matter which may be at the LPAT or potentially heading there, you too may need to start thinking more about these minimums.

The City's Response

The City of Greater Sudbury issued a press release on Thursday, October 5th, advising that the City’s ‘paperwork’ for the LPAT had now all been filed (see: “Update on Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Process,” the City of Greater Sudbury, October 5, 2018).  That’s a bit of an unusual step for the City to take, but I suppose that these matters have been in the public eye in a way that no other land use planning matter in the City has been, to my recollection.

From the City’s responses to the Case Synopses of the appellants, it is now fairly clear on what grounds the City will be defending its decision at the LPAT.  In this blogpost, I’m going to try to explore as best as I can, what those grounds might be.  But please keep in mind that I am a biased source, and I may not be doing the City’s position the justice that it deserves, given that I am on record in opposition to it.

The City’s case with regards to the arena was laid out in response to solicitor Gordon Petch (who is representing appellants Tom Fortin of Casino-Free Sudbury; Christopher Duncanson-Hales; and the Downtown Sudbury Business Improvement Area) and to my own submission.  Petch raised a number of matters that I did not, so the City’s responses to our two submissions were slightly different.

As I indicated in Part 4 of this blogseries, the City will be arguing that many of the matters raised by Petch are beyond the scope of the LPAT to decide.  Specifically, Petch’s concerns related to the OLG’s interpretation of its regulation as it pertains to the casino (and whether the City of Greater Sudbury ever went through the right process to determine if it were a ‘willing host’ for an expanded gaming facility), and the matter about Council having been ‘fettered’ by previous decisions at the time that it finally made decisions related to land use applications in April, 2018.

The 3 Big Issues With the Arena Rezoning

Of the Planning issues raised related to the arena, all of the appellants are largely in agreement over three fundamental concerns:

1 – That the application for rezoning and decision of Council to permit an arena on the subject lands did not fully explore the policy environment as it existed at the time of Council’s decision.  Broadly speaking, #1 here is the appellant’s assertion that matters related to the downtown and economic development should have been explored by the City prior to a decision, whereas the City contends that there was no requirement for that kind of exploration.

2 – That the rezoning of employment lands for use by a public facility in the form of an arena should not have occurred without a comprehensive review, as per the Provincial Policy Statement.  The City contends that a comprehensive review was not needed.

3 – That the City’s interpretation of Official Plan policies related to Institutional Uses is fundamentally flawed and should not be relied upon.  Of note, the City contends that it is the appellants understanding of those same policies which is fundamentally flawed.

There are a few other areas of contention, including a technical matter that I’ve raised regarding whether the City has the ability to amend a by-law that it is not in force or effect (I don’t believe it does; the City believes it can do this), but generally speaking, these are the three main points of contention from a planning point of view. 

#3 - "Throughout the Municipality", Parking and Integration & Compatibility

Let’s look a little more closely at #3 first – as it’s the most significant issue for the City’s case, in my opinion.  If the LPAT rules against the City on this one, the City is smoked.  But it's also potentially where the City has the strongest case (it is the only issue the City undertook to do any significant analysis to address), due to the 'flexibility' built into the City's official plan that in many respects leaves fundamental questions like 'appropriateness' to be dealt with at the zoning stage, rather than through policy.  It's a great approach for developers, in my opinion - but it's not the best when it comes to city-building and determining the best locations for new uses.  And boy, is this arena decision ever a classic example of that!

The City’s decision to approve the application for rezoning to permit an arena was supported by several Planning Reports.  Ultimately, the City determined that the application was in keeping with the City’s official plan primarily due to an interpretation of Section 4.4, Policy 2 of the official plan.  Section 4.4 of the official plan provides a framework for institutional uses, and identifies that sometimes institutional uses will be located on lands designated for institutional use, while at other times institutional uses will occur on lands designated for other types of uses.  Specifically, Section 4.4 indicates, “Institutional uses are permitted throughout the municipality in accordance with the needs of area residents and policies set forth below.  Those policies ‘set out below’ are in Policy 2.  More on Policy 2 in a moment.

First, a little bit about “throughout the municipality”.  In my opinion, the entirety of the City’s case for approval of the zoning by-law application hangs in the balance of these three words.  For the City to succeed at the LPAT, I believe the only way forward for the City is to have the LPAT agree on this question of fundamental importance: does “throughout the municipality” mean “in every official plan land use designation” as the City contends, or does it mean something different?  If the LPAT doesn’t agree with the City on this, it’s game over for the City.  If the LPAT does agree with the City, the City’s case might still fall apart over the other two planning issues, or even over an interpretation of Policy 2 of Section 4.4.

Let’s take a very close look at this.  Recall that the subject lands are designated General Industrial in the City’s official plan.  That designation restricts the sorts of land uses that might locate on the subject lands to industrial uses, or uses ancillary to industrial uses that could include some commercial uses.  A rezoning application in 2014 added a number of other use permissions to the mix, including a hotel and a private recreation facility.  An arena, which is a public service facility (an institutional use), is not contemplated as a use on the subject lands as per the General Industrial land use designation policies of the City’s official plan.

However, Section 4.4 of the official plan does contemplate institutional uses ‘throughout the municipality’.  The City interprets this to mean that institutional uses are permitted on lands designated General Industrial.  And it was for this reason that the City did not require an application for an Official Plan amendment.  Further, the City appears to be maintaining that it was only required to look at official plan policies found in Policy 2 of Section 4.4 to determine whether the rezoning application was appropriate.

I am over-simplifying here.  The City’s case also hinges on making determinations that the application for rezoning was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed with or did not conflict with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, and was in conformity with the official plan.  But in a significant way, the City really hung its hat on Section 4.4 of the plan to determine official plan conformity, and on Policy 2 to determine whether the arena was a good fit.

Without question, the arena is an institutional use.  I state this again because there clearly are significant questions as to what this arena really is.  Many believe that the arena is a tourism-based use, which would make it commercial.  Certainly many on Council at the time a decision was made appear to have been under the belief that the arena was a commercial use – despite statements in the City’s staff report to the contrary.

Drilling Down: "Throughout the Municipality"

As an institutional use, it would seem that the City is actually on pretty solid ground with its analysis that an arena would be permitted in the General Industrial land use designation – as institutional uses are permitted ‘throughout the municipality’.  But here’s where the City’s interpretation really breaks down, in my opinion.

First, the policy does not specifically state that institutional uses are permitted within any land use designation.  It instead refers to something else – ‘throughout the municipality’.  Had the City intended to permit institutional uses in every land use designation, it likely would have stated as much in policy.  But that didn’t happen.  And it probably didn’t happen because it would be absurd to allow as-of-right development permissions for institutional uses in all land use categories.

Think about it.  Institutional uses like schools, recreation centres and maybe even arenas might make a lot of sense in commercial and residential areas.  It’s possible that some types of institutional uses, like waste facilities and recycling centres might make sense in industrial areas or rural areas.  But what about in a Parks and Open Space designation?  Well, maybe.  Maybe some types of institutional uses, like a tennis bubble? But how about institutional uses in the Agricultural Reserve?  Well, uhm, maybe – something like an experimental farm perhaps?

Actually, if you stick to the City’s interpretation of ‘throughout the municipality’, subject to whatever it is that Policy 2 says, an arena or a recreation facility or a recycling centre – in other words any and all institutional uses – would also be permitted as-of-right everywhere.  In residential areas, in rural areas, in Parks and Open Space areas, and even in the Agricultural Reserve – an area the City has set aside because it is a prime agricultural area.

A note for readers on prime agricultural areas.  Those are areas that are provincially significant due to the predominance of Class 1, 2 and 3 soils.  They are to be the focus of agricultural development only, as per the Provincial Policy Statement – although some other types of agriculturally-related uses are permitted there.  But a recycling centre or an arena would appear not to be in keeping with preserving these areas for agricultural use.

And yet, under the City’s interpretation of ‘throughout the municipality’, that’s exactly the sort of absurd situation that ends up being created.  And it’s why equating ‘throughout the municipality’ with ‘in every land use designation’ really breaks down.  Would the application of Policy 2 prevent a new school in the Agricultural Reserve?

A Closer Look at Policy 2 of Official Plan Section 4.4

Let’s turn to Policy 2.  It indicates, “In considering the establishment of new institutional uses or the expansion of existing facilities on lands not specifically designated for institutional purposes, Council will ensure that:

a. sewer and water services are adequate to service the site;
b. adequate traffic circulation can be provided;
c. adequate parking for the public is provided on-site;
d. public transit services can be provided economically for the site;
e. the proposed institutional use can be integrated into the area and is compatible with surrounding uses; and,
f. adequate buffering and landscaping is provided.”

You’ll quickly see that this is not a comprehensive list of land use considerations that new and expanding institutional uses must consider when locating on lands not designated specifically for institutional uses.  In my example above – a new school being located in the Agricultural Reserve – depending on the specifics of the site, only e) is likely to cause some concern.  Can a school be integrated into an agricultural area, and be compatible with surrounding uses?

Where this takes us is actually problematic, because now we are down to relying on opinion for policy interpretation and possibly on engineering studies.  If they’re spraying manure on the lands next to the school every other week, that might be a problem. But maybe it’s not.  And maybe they’re not even spraying manure, or there aren’t any manure holding tanks nearby.  Maybe the land isn’t producing anything at all.  It would be hard to argue that a school wouldn’t be compatible with farmer’s fields left fallow for a decade.  Certainly you could integrate a school into that kind of setting.

Of course, the problem here is asking the question at all.  The Provincial Policy Statement, 2014, doesn’t permit this scenario. So if the PPS doesn’t allow, does it make sense that the official plan be interpreted in such a way that it would be allowed? Of course it doesn’t.  And that’s why ‘throughout the municipality’ should not be equated with ‘in every land use designation’.

OK, back to the arena.  Let’s look at Policy 2 in the context of the arena.  Let’s dispose of a), b), d) and f) outright, because the City says the arena is good to go as it relates to those items, and although the appellants might disagree with that analysis, the disagreement on those items really come down to opinions.  But there are  serious concerns raised by the appellants with regards to c) and e).  So let’s look at each in turn.

c) indicates that there must be adequate public parking provided on site.  Now, this is really interesting.  On the one hand, the site for the arena is able to provide enough parking spots to meet the requirements of the zoning by-law.  On the other hand, this isn’t enough parking, and that’s why the applicant has also applied to rezone lands on another lot for an ‘overflow’ parking lot.  So in this case, the City says that the arena use is in keeping with c) because required parking as per the by-law can be accommodated on site, and this is adequate (it has to be adequate because the by-law would have a different requirement if it weren’t). 

Adequate Parking On Site?

The appellants maintain that the intention of c) isn’t being met by the application, because the City’s own traffic study indicates that there isn’t enough parking on site to adequately accommodate arena users at peak times.  The argument here boils down to a discussion of what’s ‘adequate’ – are the zoning by-law’s requirements ‘adequate’ or is expected use based on the findings of a technical study ‘adequate’? 

Here's what the City's Traffic Impact Study, submitted by the landowner in support of his land use applications (yes, you read that correctly) have to say about 'parking' for the casino, arena and hotel use (note that a hotel is already permitted on site).


From the "Summary" Section of the Traffic Impact Study.
See how there is a discussion about requirements based on both the zoning by-law standards and on something called 'first principles'.  Note that it's the 'first principles' which take into consideration the needs of the use being met at peak times.  You can right away see the difference in the requirements.  The zoning by-law says that  1,192 spaces are needed for the arena (1 parking spot for every 6 persons - in anticipation of some serious carpooling initiatives I guess).  But what the arena actually needs to fulfill its function as an arena on a peak Friday night is 2,615 spaces.  And that's more than will be provided at the time of initial build out (2,142 - for all three uses).  Hence the need for additional overflow parking.

Here's a schematic of the Site Plan for the arena, as per the Traffic Impact Study. Note that the arena is almost completely surrounded by parking lots - although the Traffic Impact Study indicates that the parking lot located to the southeast of the facility could be replaced one day by a second ice sheet - something that the City has absolutely not yet approved.  But should it be approved, the Traffic Impact Study identifies that the parking lot would be shifted to the south and into the area presently set aside for greenspace.


Site Plan - Parking - from Traffic Impact Study
Clearly, though, the site is not large enough to accommodate all of the parking that's needed for an arena.  Which does make me wonder just how good those zoning by-law standards really are.  Sure, when the arena is empty, there's more than enough parking to meet anticipated needs.  But when the Wolves are playing, guess what? They've got to go somewhere else.

And that somewhere else is the 'overflow' parking lot, subject to another zoning by-law amendment.  I write 'overflow' with quotes around it because it's not really intended for 'overflow' parking - really, the additional parking is needed to meet basic needs at peak times.  'Overflow' in this case would be like suggesting that the outside westbound lane of a 4-lane road is 'overflow' for westbound vehicles traveling at peak times.  

And yet the City's Staff Report for the zoning by-law amendment for the parking lot describes it somewhat differently - referring to 'special events' rather than 'peak Friday demand' - the criteria used in the Traffic Impact Study to determine down to the a single parking space just how many parking spots are needed for the use.  Here's what the Staff Report says:


from Staff Report - Parking Lot ZBLA


Keep in mind, at a very fundamental level, the City does not believe these planning applications are part of a larger, comprehensive development proposal.  By accepting multiple applications for rezoning (and 1 for an official plan amendment), and by having multiple public hearings (3 in total - one for each use - casino, arena, parking lot), the City appears to believe that the applications, while related, have no bearing on one another.  In theory, this kind of piece-mealing might lead to the arena going forward and the casino not - or vice versa. Or both casino and arena moving ahead, but no parking lot to service their needs.  For the appellants, including myself, it's a strange way to do planning.  

I suspect that there are many members of the public that thought that the Kingsway Entertainment District was a real thing, given the number of times the media and political candidates referred to it during the election.  But here's what the City actually has to say about it: 


From the City's Response Case Synopsis to Petch
Yes, seriously.  The City's lawyer has told the LPAT that these applications are not about a comprehensive development proposal known as the Kingsway Entertainment District.  Despite the hype, we're really just talking about an arena, a casino and a parking lot.

But the fact is, the applications are integrated on a fundamental level - and that fundamental level is parking.  The only way the casino and arena can have enough parking available to meet peak needs is to ensure that parking spaces are available on another site.  And that's why all of the applications are bound up with another in a way that the City says their not.  More on this later.

For now, though, the implications appear to be clear to me.  Letter c) of Policy 2, Section 4.4 indicates:

c. adequate parking for the public is provided on-site;

And yet adequate parking for the public is not being provided on-site - it's being provided off-site, in the 'overflow' parking area.  

I guess we will be down to determining what 'adequate' actually means. The City will probably make the case that the number of parking spots is adequate because it is in keeping with the zoning by-law standard (1 spot for every 6 persons).  I've always understood 'adequate' to mean that there will be enough parking available to meet anticipated demand.  And since we know what the anticipated demand will be at peak Friday times, that's what we plan for.  Otherwise, parking facilities won't be adequate.  They will in fact be inadequate.  But if the zoning says "X" and the City provides "X" well, maybe that's 'adequate' - even if we know that we need "X + Y" to meet actual peak demand.

Anyway, it's a matter of opinion, and I'm sure the City and appellants both will be trying to convince the LPAT to adopt their interpretation of 'adequate'.  

Integration

Regarding Section 4.4, Policy 2 e), can the arena be integrated into the area, and is it compatible with surrounding uses?  For me, this is a really interesting item, because the City appears to be  interpreting their assessment of e) on a “snap-shot in time” basis.  In other words, the City has focused its analysis on the site today, and not what the expectation of the site will be in the future.  And I think I know why the City did this – because the public’s expectation that the ‘site’ will be developed for entertainment uses does not mesh with the City’s actual existing vision for the land as stated in the official plan: the site will be an industrial area. And it’s the arena’s compatibility with those future industrial uses which has not been adequately assessed by the City. 

Here's what e) says again: e. the proposed institutional use can be integrated into the area and is compatible with surrounding uses;

I believe the City would respond in two ways to my statement above: First, yes, they did assess the new use vis a vis planned industrial uses in order to demonstrate compatibility and integration.  But there is little analysis in the City’s Staff Report that supports that conclusion.  Second, the City might respond that e) doesn’t actually require an assessment with planned-for land uses, but rather only a more limited assessment would be appropriate.  Note the lack of reference to “planned for land uses” in e), to support the City’s analysis here.

Anyway, I’m not actually sure what the City believes with regards to e), beyond that it does not agree with the appellants that the City failed to adequately consider e) when it made its decision to approve the zoning for the arena.  But you can see that absurdity in undertaking an analysis of the arena use in the context of the site as it is today – which is an open field – rather than in the context of uses that are planned for that open field – namely uses that are permitted in the General Industrial land use designation.

Here's what the City has to say about the location of the arena with regards to land uses surrounding the industrial subdivision in which the arena is intended to go.  There is some discussion here about 'planned development', but it is quite modest.


from Arena Staff Report - City of Greater Sudbury
There is a specific discussion about 4.4 e) - but it provides no assessment of the arena in the context of planned for industrial uses - but again, to be clear, there is actually no requirement in e) to assess integration and compatibility on planned for uses - only with existing uses.
from Arena Staff Report - City of Greater Sudbury
So if the lands are undeveloped, why are the appellants kicking up a fuss about 4.4. e) if the City did the bare minimum in assessing integration and compatibility of an arena with existing surrounding uses, as per the official plan?  

Well, the official plan is only part of the policy environment that the City ought to have used to assess compatibility.  There is also the Provincial Policy Statement.  Several policies in the PPS speak to development patterns, and specifically 1.1.1 c), which indicates that healthy,livable and safe communities are sustained by avoiding development and land use patters which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns.  In this case, it's the public health and safety concerns which the appellants maintain were not adequately assessed, due to the anticipated and planned for presence of industrial facilities in the remainder of the industrial subdivision.

There is also PPS section 1.3.1 c) which indicates that planning authorities shall promote economic development and competitiveness by encouraging compact, mixed-use development that incorporates compatible employment uses to support livable and resilient communities.  In this case, it's unclear that the the 'employment uses' (the industrial uses) are compatible with the arena (or casino) because they have never been evaluated for compatibility.  The City says they don't have to do this because those industrial uses don't exist and 4.4 2 e) - but the PPS here suggests otherwise.

And finally, 1.3.2.3 of the PPS might be a stretch - but it indicates that planning authorities shall protect employment areas in proximity to major goods movement facilities and corridors (which are a defined term in the PPS) for employment uses that require those locations.  I'm not sure that any of the appellants have made the argument that the Kingsway in this location should be considered a 'major goods movement corridor' but there's a strong case that it is, given that the Kingsway is the primary means of highway access into the eastern part of the City's largest urban area.  Given that the Kingsway connects to the provincial highway system just down the road, I think there's a case.  And as this General Industrial area is the first 'employment area' in proximity to the provincial highway system, it ought to be protected for the sorts of uses that should be locating in those special areas.  And an arena and a casino are not the kinds of uses contemplated.

Again, the City does not appear to have considered this.  Maybe because the City doesn't consider the Kingsway to be a major goods movement corridor - or maybe it's because Policy 2 of Section 4.4 of the official plan didn't require them to - and doing the bare minimum was considered good enough.

Highway 17

As an aside here, there is a corresponding policy in the PPS regarding the need to protect major goods corridors.  Section 1.6.8.2 of the PPS indicates that major goods movement facilities and corridors shall be protected for the long term.  If the Kingsway is a major goods movement corridor, that's another problem for the City - as traffic impacts directly on the Kingsway from the casino and arena have been evaluated, and are anticipated to cause some serious headaches.  But more importantly, it will be difficult for the City to make the case that Provincial Highway 17, which has a junction with the Kingsway just down the road, is not a 'major goods movement corridor'.

Major goods movement facilities and corridors are defined in the PPS as being, "transportation facilities and corridors associated with the inter- and intra-provincial movement of goods.  Examples include: inter-modal facilities, ports, airports, rail facilities, truck terminals, fregigt corridors, freight facilities and haul routes and primary transportation corridors used for the movement of goods."  It's the italicized portion of the definition which would seem to apply to Highway 17.

The City's Traffic Impact Study did not consider impacts on the bottle-neck intersection of the Kingsway and Highway 17, less than 2 km down the road from the Levesque Street / Kingsway intersection where the bulk of traffic from the arena and casino are expected to exit the subdivision. 


Scope of Analysis - from Traffic Impact Study
One can't help but wonder whether the City looped the Ministry of Transportation into any discussion it might have had prior to selecting the Kingsway as the location for a new arena on June 27, 2017.  Clearly, the City did not assess this issue when the land use applications were being considered.  

Anyway, it very well may be a non-issue.  I'm not going to get excited about it, but I can't help but wonder whether the presence of Highway 17 just a few clicks away might become a future problem for the City's case at the LPAT.

The First Hurdle

The appellants contend that the City’s interpretation of c) and ) is flawed, while the City maintains that their consideration of c) and f) was appropriate.  The appellants, however, further contend that the list of considerations found in Policy 2 is not anywhere near comprehensive enough for consideration by the City in terms of this application - especially because of the PPS.  The City, however, maintains that it is.

So on this big issue, the City has to show the LPAT that the City’s interpretation of ‘throughout the municipality’ is preferred over that of the appellants. And even if the interpretation is preferred, that matters related to c) 'adequate parking', and f) integration and compatibility with surrounding (and planned for?) uses were adequately addressed.  

If the City fails to convince the LPAT to prefer its interpretations, the City’s case will crumble like the house of cards the appellants believe it to be.

But if the City proves that it did in fact do the bare minimum of analysis as per the official plan, the City will still have to overcome two other big issues, which I will explore in the next part of this blog series.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)