Comments on

DRAFT #1 OF THE NEW OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF NORTH BAY

Submitted by

GREENSPACE NORTH BAY

October 31, 2008

1. Introduction

GreenSpace North Bay is an alliance of organizations and individuals resident in the City of North Bay. The organization is dedicated to supporting public participation in local planning, particularly as it relates to the green spaces and natural values and attributes of the City.

In July 2008, GreenSpace North Bay prepared a submission to the planning process to share preliminary thinking about planning issues in the City of North Bay with the Planning Department and members of the Planning Advisory Committee and City Council prior to the completion and release of the first draft of the 2008 Official Plan. Unfortunately, timing was such that the first draft of the New Official Plan was completed as the GreenSpace North Bay submission was being received by the Planning Department. A full copy is attached as an appendix to this submission; key points could be summarized as follows:

GreenSpace North Bay supports the guiding principles developed by the Sustainable Community Advisory Committee, as presented in their final report (May 2006).

GreenSpace North Bay vision for the City of North Bay is that of a “liveable, walkable, breathable” city which embraces both the concept and the practice of being a “green” community. We wish to see an official plan that will:

o preserve that which makes this city a wonderful, natural place to live, o retain and expand the green and natural spaces throughout the community,

and o integrate green planning into the development of housing, industry, and

infrastructure.

GreenSpace North Bay’s July 2008 submission contained a number of comments and recommendations which were summarized in that document as follows:

Clear direction should be included in the revised official plan to prevent further degradation of the North Bay Escarpment as a viewscape and a natural area, and to remediate damage done by recent development activities.

Issues surrounding the future of the municipally owned land surrounding Otter Lake should be resolved in the new Official Plan, preserving Otter Lake as a recreational and natural heritage area for future generations of North Bay residents

The revised official plan should include a definition and land use designation which protects locally significant wetlands, including the Johnson Road wetland, the Laurentian Marsh, and Jessup’s Creek.

North Bay’s new Official Plan should contain mechanism to protect important values that are threatened by development, should situations arise where the official plan is found to be incomplete or inadequate to the task.

School yards should not be classified as “green space” or as park lands; naturalization of school yards and city parks should be pursued

1

The official plan should require 12% set aside for natural areas and park and play land in new developments, a strategy should be developed to increase the amount of green space and play space in older neighbourhoods where there is not currently enough

The bike/walking/skiing  network of trails should be expanded The revised official plan should encourage the construction of affordable housing

interspersed with other housing, either in a mixed income development or neighbourhoods

North Bay's built heritage should be named and cherished for the sense of place and identity it provide; developers should be asked to demonstrate compatibility with already-existing buildings and the architectural integrity of both residential neighbourhoods and the city core should be maintained

Neighbourhoods should be supported and enhanced through a variety of measures, including a tree bylaw and a boulevard tree-planting program, a ban on front yard parking pads, traffic calming in residential neighbourhoods, City support for neighbourhood associations

Urban design approaches should include more control over parking arrangements at shopping malls, support for downtown housing, and greening of city boulevards

Greening our transportation system by including bicycle lanes on all major arteries in the City, matching the City buses to meet passenger load and supporting ride-share and auto-share programs are important components or complements to the official plan

Managing – and limiting – growth must be integrated into all planning efforts; this demands an integrated approach to planning which must be reflected in the official plan

Community engagement in the revision of North Bay’s official plan will be best supported and developed through an interactive process which includes workshops, open houses, roundtables, information displays and recognizes neighbourhoods in its approach.

2

2. Comments on Draft # 1 of the New Official Plan

PART 1: BASIS OF THE OFFICIAL PLAN

Part 1 of the draft provides an outline of the basis for the new official plan for the City of North Bay, including brief sections describing the goal(s), authority, vision, and guiding principles.

GreenSpace North Bay offers the following comments on the discussion of the “purpose” of the Plan: The preamble begins with a discussion of the goals of the Official plan, and it may be

helpful to more clearly identify that, perhaps by titling a subsection “Purpose” The first and third sentences of the section offer two different statements of the

“primary goal” of the Plan, one being to “maintain and enhance the quality of life for the Citizens of North Bay” and the second being “to maintain and enhance the economic and community development and the quality of life for the citizens of North Bay”; while they are not fully irreconcilable, they are different, and give different messages, particularly of priority and importance;

A more appropriate blending of these two differently stated primary goals would be as follows:““To maintain and enhance the quality of life for the citizens of North Bay through appropriate social, economic and community development”

With respect to the statement of “vision”, we were pleased to see that the “vision” as developed by the Sustainable Community Advisory Committee was adopted and incorporated into the draft Official Plan.

“North Bay is a city where individuals and families can enjoy a safe,healthy and secure quality of life, employment and education for all levels ofqualification will be provided; and development than enhances and protects thenatural environment and cultural heritage will be encouraged”

The discussion of “guiding principles” in this section is, however, less reflective of the Sustainable Community Advisory Committee’s final report, and could be strengthened and improved by adopting the SCAC’s guiding principles, which were as follows: Manage development while protecting and enhancing the community’s need for a

diverse, clean and healthy natural environment. Promote retail and expand a strong and diverse economic base for North Bay. Be a caring community with equal opportunities/access to housing, employment,

education, recreation, health and social care. Include the citizens of North Bay throughout collaborative public consultations. Review achievement of objectives in the Official Plan and validate the strategic

direction on a regular basis.

3

PART 2: MANAGING SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

One of the first and key weaknesses of Part 2 is its address and discussion of “sustainability”.

The Sustainable Community Advisory Committee put forward a helpful definition which is generally consistent with the international discussion of sustainability:

The term “sustainability” in this context means that the actions of today’s generations will not negatively impact the actions of future generations.

"Sustainable development" became one of the flagship phrases of the 1990's. Common to economists and development analysts since the '50's, the term gained new currency with the release of the Brundtland Commission Report "Our Common Future", released in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development. That report marked out a possible meeting ground for environmental and economic concerns, and defined "sustainable development" thus:

"Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable - to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs. The concept of sustainable development does imply limits - not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities... Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt life-styles within the planets ecological means..."

The definitions offered in Part 2.1 of the first draft of North Bay’s new official plan are at best a weaker restating of these above noted definitions, and in the case of the definition of “economic sustainability” a mis-stating of the principles and reality of sustainable development approaches.

The first definition, offered in the first paragraph, states that “the term ‘sustainability’ means that the community continually builds on its attributes and improves conditions that leads to a better quality of life for future generations”. While not absolutely in conflict with the above noted definitions, it is open to interpretation and misinterpretation, and GreenSpace North Bay proposes that the definition offered by the SCAC is clearer and should be adopted instead of the definition provided in the first draft.

The definition of economic sustainability as being “fundamentally based on maintaining a desirable and continuous rate of growth” is more problematic, and should be removed or replaced.

4

At the risk of seeming flippant, we would remind readers of the popular lapel button of a decade or two ago which read “continuous growth the ideology of a cancer cell”. While not deep in its analysis, this simple statement does speak to the profoundly negative implications of a philosophy of continuous growth.

While we question the need to include a definition of economic sustainability in this section, if one is to be included it should be robust and should be consistent with the Plan’s overall purpose, vision and goals.

As defined by Environment Canada, economic sustainability, simply put, requires that economic benefits exceed or at least balance costs.1 In the contest of municipal planning, the City of Vancouver has adopted an appropriate and helpful definition of economic sustainability which GreenSpace North Bay would encourage the City to adopt:

At its core, economic sustainability is about meeting the diverse needs of a community by providing what it needs. It is about livelihood and service. It is about how we choose to use our resources while taking into consideration how those choices will affect future generations.2

Overall, Part 2 suffers from "slippage" in that even strongly stated and  positive principles are weakened by other statements in the draft, often immediately following, with the effect of giving a message along the lines of "no development around the lake unless there is development around the lake". This weakness goes beyond the kind of nuancing or even compromises that might occur in the process of attempting to move principles into practical realities.

In general terms, Part 2 is weak in several key areas that are addressed, such as pedestrian walkways, and it is almost silent on other key components of a "sustainable" community plan, such as bike lanes and transit, and there are numerous instances of missed opportunities. For example, there is mention of an ability to reduce on-site parking requirements for seniors, but not for other residential developments, such as downtown core, student housing, supported housing, etc (with the exception of 2.3.2.20 on the Central Business District Residential Uses). Overall, this section needs incentives to increase housing and reduce car use in combination with alternative transportation strategies. The emphasis on parking throughout the section is striking.

Other comments include: The requirements for dedication of land park or open space in relation to new

development are weak The document would benefit from better linkages or cross references, eg between

2.2.5 (Mobile / Modular Home Parks) and 2.6.28 (Rural Mobile Home Parks); it is not clear why 2.6.28 prohibits new mobile home park development, but Section 2.2.5 appears to permit it; this needs closer examination and reconsideration given that mobile home development is more likely to occur in the rural (2.6) zone than the

1 http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/SOER/1996report/Doc/1-5-2-6-5-1.cfm2 http://www.cnv.org/server.aspx?c=3&i=502

5

urban (2.2) zone; given that mobile / modular homes may contribute to the affordable housing stock, it should be clearer why the plan would prohibit it, if in fact it should (GreenSpace North Bay recognizes the many negative consequences of uncontrolled development and the rural areas, but would rather see development controls – such as requirement for collective services, address of transportation needs, etc. – rather than a full dismissal of an option that might provide additional affordable housing, including affordable home ownership)

The section appears to be very permissive with respect to lot development on both the escarpment and the Trout Lake shoreline - two areas where lot development should be prohibited or very restricted

Sections 2.3.2.20 e and f on Central Business District Residential Uses (page 25) is quite good, and includes some of the best ideas in the draft on neighbourhood and residential planning

There is disproportionate attention paid to parking versus cycling, pedestrian and transit in the Central Business District sections (pages 27 and 28) are good examples of misplaced emphasis

The sections on commercial uses should prohibit further development and expanded commercial uses on Delaney Bay

The definition of adult entertainment parlours (page 40-41) sounds like it includes brothels, which may not be the intention but is the effect; this section (2.3.9.5) seems to assume that if it is in a rural area there are no other neighbourhood values or uses that might be adversely affected by an "adult entertainment parlour"; overall, there seems to be some bias against the rural areas, and suggestion that a lower standard can be maintained there

Housing

The draft plan in general, and Part 2 in particular, needs to be strengthened in its address of the need for affordable housing in this community.

There is an obnoxious industry in North Bay, to quote page 44 of the Draft Official Plan. It is inadequate, unaffordable housing, housing that costs too much and provides too little for the people who live there. The quality of an existing area is adversely affected when too many disadvantaged people are crammed into it. People’s health and safety is harmed when they have to live in expensive densely populated, run down housing with little or no green space.

The main function of Part 2 of the Draft Official Plan is stated to be the guiding of future growth in North Bay in a manner that reflects a vision for the community we all share. As such, the proposed urban area policies are supposed to follow principles of housing affordability by meeting the special needs of low income individuals. Of course, there should be a minimization of the conflicts between different types of housing, but the devil is in the details. Does this mean no group homes for psychiatric survivors should be outside of one neighborhood, as is developed in 2.2.2, or that low income sole support parents should not be mixed in with North Bay’s student population? The latter occurs in the row housing development on McKeown with undesirable results – student’s and

6

single parent’s schedules don’t match. The landlord there, Orsi in one of his corporate permutations, is trying to avoid discord by attempting to house the two groups separately; shouldn’t the city be too? But good urban planning does not involve the creation of new ghettos for either group to live in, as is the case with mental health survivors.

Cost factors do make the rehabilitation and redevelopment of existing housing stock more attractive than starting from scratch. And programs like R.R.A.P. and federal provincial housing funds provide some funding to help make this happen; North Bay City Council is to be commended for subscribing to the latter. But it is time for North Bay to step up to the plate and provide some provincial assistance, at least indirectly, itself.

One of the delights in North Bay for fans of affordable housing is seeing just how many unused or underutilized commercial properties in this city have been converted to residential uses in the last few years. Such places on Cassells, Ferguson, Fisher now all house people, and they are right downtown. These are all in the Residential Intensification Area set out in the Plan (page 8) and they can be affordable, well maintained, not too crowded nor segregated places for single people on provincial disability allowances (12,000 a year, approx) and those working at less desirable jobs (outbound call centres) to live.

When there is a chance that a new business will come to town the City has afforded, and been able to afford, much waiving of fees, and development costs, as well as tax holdups. The latest example involved housing for travelling people along McKeown, where a developer is to build a hotel. The Draft Plan formalizes this notion by the inclusion of a section entitled “Employment Land” and by determining that this land should be affordable.

People will not be able to afford working at some low paid jobs if they cannot find affordable accommodation. Housing is not affordable if tenants have to pay over 60 % of their income to live there. If the city is willing to provide all sorts of incentives to encourage the construction of another motel for travelers, surely it ought to provide similar incentives to get more affordable housing built for people who live in North Bay. Yet the Official Plan contains no provision for the waiving of lot levies, development charges, building permit fees, and so on, costs that drive up the prices of constructing new affordable housing.

The City has provided assistance to business owners through the D.I.A., primarily in the form of rebates, grants and no interest loans (page 20) as the downtown will continue to be the main focus for multi-residential development. Surely some sort of equivalent assistance could be made available for the renovation or construction associated with such development. The authors of the Draft Official Plan recognize(d) that the establishment of market support for uses through residential development is very important to the long term sustainable health of the Central Business District. This District is bracketed by 2 examples of successful conversion and construction-respectively, the housing above the first floor in the building almost at the corner of

7

Algonquin and Main, and the apartment building next to Budget Rent a Car on Main, which has been there for some time.

Development of affordable housing should not happen only when it can be done with other governments’ money. In the June 2008 Housing forum, sponsored at Nipissing University by the Nipissing District Social Services Administration Board, prominent presenters from Peterborough and Ottawa emphasized two things in particular. One was “Get over it!” That is, get over any attitude on the part of municipalities that housing is the problem of another level of government to make adequate social and affordable housing happen.

The second emphasis was that “Housing is infrastructure.” Just as any community takes care of its most basic services such as roads, sewers, water, so must it make proper – and ongoing – provision for adequate housing.

Each of these municipalities has demonstrated, by significant investment of local taxpayers’ dollars as well as participation in the provincial and federal programs such as the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program and the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, that the net benefit to the community is positive. Green space values are honored. Neighborhoods are prevented from eroding. New accommodation is a way of encouraging recruitment and retention of employees by local businesses. Providing appropriate emergency housing and shelter services also saves significant one time costs incurred when commercial facilities have to be used for overflow.

North Bay’s Official Plan would be well advised to consider these stories carefully. This city’s present vacancy rate hovers at around 1%. Major demands for affordable housing are already obvious. The private sector has shown little appetite to be a partner in offering lower cost alternatives. The Third Avenue “affordable” homes being built are, at last report, going to be over $200,000. Monthly housing allowances for people on social assistance are hundreds of dollars short of what is needed in the local rental market. Anticipated rising construction costs will only make matters more acute. In addition, more than 60 homes – most of them modest homes which form a valuable part of the housing stock – will be lost in the development of the projected expressway right-of-way. That situation will need wise planning, astute management and every resource available.

All of this is offered against the backdrop of the current federal government having made no provision to continue its housing programs beyond March 31st, 2009, thus cutting out $2 billion worth of existing programs.

We in North Bay can and ought to do more through our Official Plan. As revealed by the D.S.S.A.B. study in housing here, our senior’s population is burgeoning. Housing for Mature Adults needs to be affordable, as not everyone can afford to live in The Empire Living Centre. As anyone who has done door to door canvassing during an election knows, many older people in North Bay are forced to live in considerably more modest circumstances. Like in a downstairs apartment when the oxygen tank the individual involved has to have with them always makes walking difficult, let alone climbing stairs.

8

Or people with mental health and addictions issues get out of hospital only to end up crammed together with crack heads in some seedy boarding house on McIntyre Street East. This does not make economic sense, because hospitals and jails, some of the earlier mentioned emergency housing is where such people often end up next, are very expensive forms of housing.

The Official Plan can do more to encourage the construction of affordable housing and get people out of run down former and current motels on Lakeshore, where some are paying as much as $600 a month for a two room unit, if the bathroom is included. Trailer parks come with their own particular problems, although the authors of the Draft Official Plan are to be commended for insisting that mobile home parks are to be provided with full municipal services (22.5) none have been set up of late in North Bay or area. Still, it is best to avoid the current situation in one local mobile home park, where the owner takes advantage of the fact that his tenant’s homes are far from mobile in charging what he can get away with for water.

The drafters of the Official Plan get a lot right. Yes, we should encourage, whenever possible, an increase in the amount of residential units within and around the Central Business District through new development as a result the rehabilitation of existing buildings. (page 20) As noted earlier, it is heartening to see this happening. Far better that people be closer to Food Basics on Cassells than basically be out in the middle of nowhere, as is the case with the current agglomeration of co-ops and subsidized housing on Booth road. To give credit where it is due, city planners do well to recommend affordable and increased densities in existing neighborhoods. Reducing and avoiding urban sprawl and creating a sense of community are all green objectives (2.2 (a)) as encouraging increased pedestrian traffic home based businesses, and parks associated with schools.

9

PART 3: PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

While the opening paragraphs of Part 3 are generally supportable, the list of characteristics associated with environmental quality should be expanded to include such things as wildlife habitat, corridors and connectivity, features such as wetlands, riparian areas, viewscapes and vistas, and open space, outdoors recreational areas, and community spaces.

GreenSpace North Bay supports it being a policy of the Council to ensure that land use planning contributes to environmental well-being, and full agrees that Council should undertake measures to improve the quality of the environment and to consider the quality of the environment in the review of any proposed development.

In our review of Part 3 of the first draft of the new official plan we noted the following: We welcome and encourage the trails strategy. We welcome the idea of protecting the escarpment and the citizen involvement in

scouting out the area along the edge of the escarpment. Landscaping for new commercial and industrial developments ( pg. 73) would be

great. But even though an OP is only a guide could we have some ideas about what that might look like? For instance, both Toronto and Vancouver are North American leaders in green roof technology. It would be terrific to see that encouraged in the plan.

Related to the discussion of green roofs and industrial landscaping, it should be noted that the expressway will require enormous skill in landscaping to prevent degradation of the surrounding neighbourhoods.

Beyond the usual noise mitigation, living walls should be actively explored as an option

There is a disjunction between maintaining the water quality of Trout Lake, and an apparent willingness to allow further development on its shores. (draft OP pg. 79)

The plan should spell out in some detail how the water quality in Lake Nipissing (an important fishery and recreational area) is to be protected.

Provincially significant wetlands are noted, but equally valuable local wetlands are not; as per our submission of July 2008, locally significant wetlands should be protected

Development on sites adjacent to industrial uses ( pg. 87) should be protected from nuisance, and the OP names noise problems and noise abatement techniques to achieve acceptable levels,. but light pollution expressed as a nuisance does not appear elsewhere in the plan; options that should be explored include shielded street lights, and energy-saving in street light design

There appear to be inconsistencies or gaps in the plan from one section to another, for example, Pg 73 of the OP suggests encouraging alternatives to the private automobile, and the need to design neighbourhoods that promote a mix of uses, but we could not locate a discussion of the use of traffic calming devices to make neighbourhoods more friendly, or lowering of speed limits to make biking (or crossing the street on foot) safer anywhere in the draft Plan

10

As outlined in our July 2008 Preliminary submission, many North Bay citizens wish to see a resolution of the issues with respect to the municipally owned land surrounding Otter Lake, and had hoped to see some address of these concerns in the first draft of the new Official Plan. Given past public outcries over the municipal government’s earlier efforts to sell the land to public interests, it was a surprise and a disappointment to see this important public concern addressed. As the Planning Department is aware, the current status of the Otter Lake land does not preclude future development. The motion passed by Council mid-2007 still leaves open the possibility of the sale of the 150 hectares of municipally owned land around the lake. The motion states that the city will only entertain offers to purchase the land from community-based groups that intend to use the property to benefit the public. As one city councilor put it, the property could still be sold to a group such as the YMCA or Tim Horton’s for use as a summer camp. This option would in effect still allow the land to pass into private ownership. Clearly this is not the direction or the vision put forward by the “Friends of Otter Lake” or GreenSpace North Bay for the preservation of this wilderness area for future generations.

Now is the time for the city to settle the issue over the sale of the Otter Lake lands in the 2008 Official Plan. As outlined in our July submission, there are several different mechanisms available to Council to ensure that the land remains in the public domain, undeveloped and open to the public for recreational use.

GreenSpace North Bay’s preferred option is that the Otter Lake lands be designated as Natural Heritage as per the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (Provincial Policy Statement 2005 2.1, pg 15). A good case could be made for this designation under provisions; 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4 d&e, 2.2.2 of the PPS.

Another option, although less preferred, would be a Site Specific Policy for Otter Lake that would in detail determine the policies for site preservation and public access for the lands through public consultation. (Planning Charrette) Again the city of Windsor offers several examples of Special Policy Areas. (1. Special Policy Areas. Pg 1.1) which could serve as a template for Otter Lake lands.

A third option would be for the City to establish a land trust for the Otter Lake area, and put a covenant on title that would permanently designate these lands as natural areas to be available for public access and recreational use.

Decisions with respect to Otter Lake will be a clear indicator of the kind of city we envision. Green Space North Bay envisions a community which includes the protection of the city’s lakes and water quality and the retention of North Bay’s green spaces and public lands, including and particularly those lands around Otter Lake. We have presented three viable options for the future protection of this important area, and do so with full expectations that one of these options – or an alternative mechanism with similar outcomes – will be incorporated into the next draft of the new Official Plan.

11

PART 4: DEVELOPING QUALITY OF PLACE AND LIFESTYLE

To begin we want to support the work and effort that has gone into the first draft. We understand, along with you, the importance of a new official plan as a document that will guide and inspire this and future municipal governments and the citizens they represent to make sure the city of North Bay is a city: where individuals and families can enjoy a safe, healthy and secure quality of life, where employment and education for all levels of qualification will be provided and where development that enhances and protects the natural environment and cultural

heritage will be encouraged. (Vision 1.4.1 Pg. 2 of 123 Draft #1 OP)

The importance of the Vision and accompanying Guiding Principles set out in the draft (1.4.2.pg 2) will determine the future for our city and its citizens. There is a great deal at stake. We believe the Vision and Guiding Principles must inform all aspects of the Official Plan in a way that is coherent, transparent and accessible. In Part 4, while the pre-amble refers to the policies and principles in general developed in Pts. 2&3 in general, there is no cross-referencing that would inform directly the content of this section. We believe the document in its present form would benefit from editing and re-formatting. Guiding principles in each section clearly tied to the over-all Vision statement would provide an internal coherence presently lacking. We commend to you the Official Plan of the city of Windsor as one example (there may be others) that has the internal clarity and coherence we are looking for in North Bay’s OP. We need a document that is accessible to everyone, not just city staff and elected officials. We suggest the following re-write that notes our concern: 4.1 Principles: the city will ensure quality of place and lifestyle.1. By recognizing the downtown as the major business, arts, cultural, entertainment and

tourist center , the city will endeavour to create a climate that is conducive to the growth and development of these activities.

2. By providing flexible zoning for live/work space, the city will allow for the integration of residential accommodation with workplace, gallery and retail space for artists that will encourage the incorporation of such spaces in public and private developments to enhance and support the cultural diversity of the community.

3. By encouraging and supporting arts and cultural activities at the neighbourhood level, the city will foster neighbourhood cohesion and enhance quality of life.

4. By promoting more intensive residential development around all commercial areas, the city will encourage pedestrian movement and a healthy lifestyle.

5. Etc.

The re-write clearly links the principle (underlined) to a vision of quality of life.

We noted with some dismay that whole sections of Part 4 have been lifted from the old Official Plan and inserted in the draft. (4.3 Urban and Built Form) Surely an Official

12

Plan that guides and directs in the 21st century deserves a fresh approach and a new articulation than one offered in a document that is thirty years old.

We believe the new OP needs to be current in its approach and appropriate in its language. One glaring example of what we are noting found in Part 4: Developing Quality of Place and Lifestyle. Under the heading Heritage Resources (4.2) we find in the second paragraph a description of the historical record that is outdated and more importantly inaccurate. To use the language of prehistoric and historic overlooks thousands of years of the cultural heritage of First Nations peoples in the area. Hopefully unintended but clearly this section needs be re-written in consultation with First Nations people. This language appears again on Pg. 92 #7 and should be removed. (“…remnants of pre-historic habitation…)

The use of gender specific language also found in this sections (Pg. 90. “man made features…”) is outdated and needs to be amended. We suggest a close reading of the document to eliminate the use of gender specific language. In this specific case we suggest, “human made features…”

We note a grammatical error on Pg. 91 #5…”that celebrate the communities heritage” should read “…the community’s heritage.”

13

PART 5: IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING: MAKING THINGS HAPPEN 

While titled “implementation and monitoring”, we found little discussion of implementation in this section, and no discussion of adaptive management, ie responses and adjustments to the Plan or its implementation in light of monitoring results.

In general, this section could be greatly strengthened by better cross referencing with other sections within the overall draft, and by a more integrated discussion of key themes.

We offer the following observation on particular statements within this section: as noted in Section 5.1, the Planning Act provides municipalities with the tools to

create new parks, such as has been proposed for Otter Lake package by many residents and organizations

the presentation of “holding provisions” assumes that development is the “ultimate desired use” of any lands which might be the subject of a holding provision; as discussed in our July 2008 submission, holding provisions can also be used for other purposes, including preventing or delaying development while alternate land uses and values are given due consideration

the discussion in 5.1.3(3)(a) suggests that the function of agricultural zones is to act as a holding pattern for development, and, again, that development is the ultimate desired land use; we do not share this view, and urge reconsideration of this with the emphasis being to retain agricultural lands for agricultural use in general and for food production in particular

the discussion of site control plans and the use of this mechanism should be extended to residential development; past experience has shown that site control plans could have been instrumental in retaining neighbourhood quality which have been lost in recent development rushes, such as in the older west end of the downtown area

the relationship to the Community Improvement Plans discussed in Section 5.1.12 and the “Housing Intensification” mapped in Schedule 11 is unclear; further, we found no discussion of the “Housing Intensification” mapped in Schedule 11 discussed anywhere in the draft official plan, despite the proviso on Schedule 11 that states “This schedule forms part of the Official Plan of the City of North Bay. All schedules must be read in conjunction with the text of the Official Plan.”

While we support the longer term intent to have secondary plans developed for all neighbourhoods at some point in the future, and can appreciate how – at least in terms of prioritizing the use of limited planning resources – an argument could be made in support of creating secondary plans for “new” neighbourhoods first, the actual intent is unclear in the current draft, ie what constitutes a “major development or redevelopment”? For example, would this apply to Planning Districts which are part of the “Housing Intensification” mapped in Schedule 11? Do the Planning Districts mapped in Schedule 4 delineate the “neighbourhoods”?

We note that the Infrastructure Background Study – Transportation document is not part of the Infrastructure study that is available on-line; as stated in Section 1.3, of the Infrastructure study “separate individual reports for each of the four service areas

14

were prepared and are presented either herein or in the case of the Transportation component, under a separate cover” (emphasis added)

It is not clear what the “Roads Plan” referenced in the first paragraph on Page 111 is, where it is available, how it relates to this section of the draft plan, how it reflects the findings of the Infrastructure study, or how it supports the extensive road expansions envisioned in Schedule 5

We found no discussion of transportation needs or infrastructure in the draft official plan to support the extensive road expansions mapped in Schedule 5, despite the proviso on Schedule 5 that states “This schedule forms part of the Official Plan of the City of North Bay. All schedules must be read in conjunction with the text of the Official Plan.”

The transportation section also suffered from the significant absence of any discussion of several other means of meeting transportation demand, most notably through cycling and car pooling; the discussion of pedestrian needs was limited to cross-walks, and neglected the infrastructure needs of pedestrians more generally, ie sidewalks and walking paths (we acknowledge that there is some address of this in the trails section; another notable example of where there needs to be better cross-referencing and linkages)

We support the general intent of the section on transit initiatives and propose the following additions:

o Increasing fleet flexibility in order to better match size of vehicle to the number of passengers, based on time of day and volume of use

o Procurement policies based on fuel efficiency and product stewardship on the part of the manufacturer

o Pursuing partnerships with employers and institutions which would increase transit ridership while reducing the need for parking, with a net benefit of reducing road congestion and fossil fuel use

As a closing comment on this section, we were disappointed by the section of citizens participation. In essence, it commits the City of North Bay to meeting its statutory requirements in terms of holding public meetings with respect to proposed amendments to the Official Plan or zoning bylaws. In our July 2008 submission we made a number of suggestions for additional public engagement, and would encourage the City to incorporate these and other means of citizen involvement in the planning process into the future.

15

3. Conclusions and Next Steps

The first draft of the new official plan for the City of North Bay represents a significant effort on the part of City Planning staff and others, and we would like to reiterate our appreciation for all of the efforts to date in formulating the draft and in sharing with GreenSpace North Bay and others throughout its period of formulation.

However, significant work remains to be done. We look forward to working with the Planning Department over the coming month to strengthen and improve the document between Draft #1 and Draft #2, and to help develop a strategy for public consultation that will most effectively engage the community in the review and further refinement of the Plan.

Key concerns as we move into this next stage of the Plan’s development remain: Protection of the North Bay Escarpment Appropriate designation of the municipally owned land surrounding Otter Lake A protective land use designation for locally significant wetlands Sufficient set aside for natural areas and park and play land throughout the City Establishment and expansion of safe pedestrian and cycling routes the provision of affordable housing interspersed with other housing appropriate attention paid to North Bay's built heritage with protective mechanisms Neighbourhoods supports such as tree bylaw, boulevard tree-planting, traffic calming Greening our transportation system as an alternative to expanded road infrastructure Integrating the management – and limiting of – growth into all planning efforts Community engagement in the revision of North Bay’s official plan

As a community-based alliance of individuals and organizations with an interest in municipal land use planning, GreenSpace North Bay remains committed to working with the City of North Bay, the Planning Department and others to support an informed and timely discussion of these important planning matters. We remain committed to the planning process, and look forward to a continued dialogue with our fellow residents, elected officials, and municipal staff in the City of North Bay.

16

Appendix A - July 2008 Submission of GreenSpace North Bay

1

2

Preliminary Submission on theReview and Revision of North Bay’s Official Plan

GreenSpace North Bay

July 2008

A. Introduction

GreenSpace North Bay is an alliance of organizations and individuals resident in the City of North Bay. The organization is dedicated to supporting public participation in local planning, particularly as it relates to the green spaces and natural values and attributes of the City.

GreenSpace North Bays immediate priority is to support public engagement in the review and revision of the City of North Bays official plan, and to promote - through the official planning process and other means - a green vision for the City of North Bay which includes the protection of the Citys lakes and water quality and the retention of the North Bays green spaces and public lands.

Programs and policies of GreenSpace North Bay are developed by working groups and a coordinating committee comprised of neighborhood and organizational representatives, and are ratified at regular membership meetings.

This submission has been prepared in order to share preliminary thinking about planning issues in the City of North Bay with the Planning Department and members of the Planning Advisory Committee and City Council prior to the completion and release of the first draft of the 2008 Official Plan. It is neither comprehensive nor detailed, but provides an indication of some of the priority areas participants in GreenSpace North Bay will be focussing on over the next several months as we engage in the official planning process.

B. Vision and Guiding Principles

GreenSpace North Bay supports the guiding principles developed by the Sustainable Community Advisory Committee, as presented in their final report (May 2006).

Guiding Principles of the Sustainable Community Advisory Committee Manage development while protecting and enhancing the community’s need for a

diverse, clean and healthy natural environment. Promote retail and expand a strong and diverse economic base for North Bay. Be a caring community with equal opportunities/access to housing, employment,

education, recreation, health and social care. Include the citizens of North Bay throughout collaborative public consultations. Review achievement of objectives in the Official Plan and validate the strategic

direction on a regular basis.

In addition – and consistent with the SCAC principles - GreenSpace North Bay participants are articulating a vision for the City of North Bay which is the lens through which we view the City of North Bay’s official plan. That vision is of a “liveable,

walkable, breathable” city which embraces both the concept and the practice of being a “green” community.

We wish to see an official plan that will: preserve that which makes this city a wonderful, natural place to live, retain and expand the green and natural spaces throughout the community, and integrate green planning into the development of housing, industry, and

infrastructure.

For example, green spaces and recreational areas should be part of all neighbourhoods with play space within walking distance; neighbourhoods should be a mix of retail, employment, and mixed income housing; and neighbourhoods should support a healthy lifestyle, ie one that is not car dependent and which provides school, services such as groceries, and and other basic needs within the neighbourhood.

Planning should be innovative, and reflect the growing concern about sustainability (such as climate change and carbon outputs), and the increasing interest in car-free lifestyles. The outcome of the official planning process should include recognition of North Bay as a unique community – there is no other city like it in terms of geography and natural assets – and should build upon the City’s natural assets. It should include some expression of limits to growth: as a community we should be talking about how big we want to be, what is precious to us, and how do we keep what we value in the face of change and/or growth.

GreenSpace North Bay participants have also identified a number of key areas of concern which should be addressed in the review and revision of North Bay’s official plan, including the following: retaining public access and ownership of Peninsula Park and Otter Lake safeguarding neighbourhoods and natural areas that could be impacted by the

proposed new expressway protecting the Trout Lake watershed, including from aggregate development,

potential loss of wetlands, shoreline development, and excesses in motorized recreation

wetland protection, including the Johnston Road wetland, the Laurentian Marsh, and the Lavase River and Chippewa Creek and Parks Creek wetland complexes

monitoring and management to protect water quality in the dozens of lakes within the city limits

retention of Amelia and Rock Street Parks, Granitevelle playground, and Circle Lake playground

development of a long term plan for Sweetmans Gardens protecting the Lavase portage mapping and expanding local trails, including development of an arboretum trail from

the waterfront to Chippewa, and implementation of sound management practices, such as controls on motorized access

improvements to the Lake Nipissing shoreline, including North Bay waterfront, such as eliminating environmental impacts from the Tenth street outfall and brownfields at

2

the waterfront (eg. the Uniroc site), and the practice of releasing from sanitary sewers directly into the lake to accommodate spring freshet

downtown redevelopment, including making it more community oriented with more green space

addressing issues from the sale of “surplus lands” by the City and the related loss of neighbourhood values and community concern of the privatization of public spaces

planning for the North Bay escarpment and retention of viewscape and natural values retaining beautiful old neighbourhoods and diverse neighbourhoods and their trees

C. Comments and Recommendations

1. Natural Features and Environment

The general approach reflected in the Official Plan and the City’s approach to planning and development should be that where there is a natural wonder - be it a bush or a pond or even a flower garden for all that someone has planted on city property – it should be celebrated not condemned. Planning should encourage the appreciation of these natural wonders through respectful use and by building low impact pathways or by helping to maintain what is already there. To our great benefit in North Bay, much of what is already here is nothing short of wonderful.

North Bay Escarpment

An ancient fault in the Canadian Shield forms a stunningly beautiful backdrop for the City of North Bay. The 70 metre escarpment provides the City with a sense of place, with the urban area cradled between Lake Nipissing, Trout Lake, and the forested ridge that rings the north end of the City. The escarpment hosts a system of trails, provides a majestic view of the City, and supports wildlife habitat and connects the City to the forested lands to the north.

Controversial and contested development in the late 1990’s has resulted in significant losses of the escarpment’s forest cover, which has marred the viewscape and created concerns about slope stability, water management, and flooding potential for homes below at the base of the escarpment.

Policies created in 1997 need public review; while compromises have been made for the area between the Ski Hill and Airport Road, opportunities remain between Airport and the College Education Complex and east of the Ski Hill to do better in terms of managing future development and protecting the escarpment face. Discussions between the City Planning Department and concerned local citizens have been underway, and GreenSpace North Bay participants support efforts to put clear

3

direction in the revised official plan to a) prevent further degradation of the escarpment as a viewscape and a natural area, and b) to remediate damage done by recent development activities.

Otter Lake

Many North Bay citizens will want resolved the issues surrounding the future of the municipally owned land surrounding Otter Lake in the new Official Plan. The public outcry over the municipal government’s decision to sell the land, thus denying public access to the area, sent a clear message to the municipal government: Otter Lake must be preserved for future generations.

The current status of the Otter Lake land does not preclude future development. The motion adopted by city councilors in the summer of 2007 still leaves the door open for the sale of the 150 hectares of municipally owned land around the lake. The motion states that the city will only entertain offers to purchase the land from community-based groups that intend to use the property to benefit the public. As one city councilor put it, the property could still be sold to a group such as the YMCA or Tim Horton’s for use as a summer camp. This option would in effect still allow the land to pass into private ownership. Clearly this is not the direction or the vision put forward by the “Friends of Otter Lake” or GreenSpace North Bay for the preservation of this wilderness area for future generations.

Now is the time for the city to settle the issue over the sale of the Otter Lake lands in the 2008 Official Plan. There are several possibilities to ensure the land remains in the public domain, undeveloped and open to the public for recreational use. The preferred option is that the Otter Lake lands be designated as Natural Heritage as per the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (Provincial Policy Statement 2005 2.1, pg 15). A good case could be made for this designation under provisions; 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4 d&e, 2.2.2 of the PPS.

A good example of this Natural Heritage designation can be found in the OP of the city of Windsor, Ontario. Under the heading Natural Heritage Objectives we find: “to protect and improve Windsor’s most environmentally significant and sensitive natural areas.” (Pg 6-41 OP Windsor ON.) Specific lands so designated are identified in the Windsor OP. Similarly if Otter Lake lands were designated Natural Heritage, development and site alteration would not be permitted, thus achieving the primary objectives of the Friends of Otter Lake and Green Space North Bay of preservation and recreational use. The city must remove the possibility of the sale of the Otter Lake lands once and for all.

4

Another, although less preferred, would be a Site Specific Policy for Otter Lake that would in detail determine the policies for site preservation and public access for the lands through public consultation. (Planning Charrette) Again the city of Windsor offers several examples of Special Policy Areas. (1. Special Policy Areas. Pg 1.1) which could serve as a template for Otter Lake lands.

A third option would be for the City to establish a land trust for the Otter Lake area, and put a covenant on title that would permanently designate these lands as natural areas to be available for public access and recreational use.

These three possibilities for North Bay’s official Plan for Otter Lake (tailored to our needs) would indicate that the city has heard the concerns of its citizens and responded with a policy that will be both visionary and timely. The future of Otter Lake will determine the kind of city we envision. Green Space North Bay envisions a community which includes the protection of the city’s lakes and water quality and the retention of North Bay’s green spaces and public lands. Some things are not for sale!!!

Wetlands

Local wetlands provide important environmental services, regardless of their designation. Even small wetlands provide important habitat and filtering of local surface waters.

Forests are often described as the “lungs” of the earth, and society has learned to value the important role forest ecosystems play in providing wildlife habitat, clean air and water. Increasingly, wetlands are being recognized for their important role as unique and varied habitats and as being integral to broader environmental health, particularly the health of aquatic ecosystems. Wetlands are where land and water meet, where terrestrial ecosystems meet aquatic ecosystems. Wetlands have often been described as the “kidneys” of the natural world because of the role they play in water and chemical cycles. Wetlands filter out sediment and pollution from the surrounding environment so that the water they discharge is cleaner than that which entered the wetland. Wetlands include ponds, marshes, swamps, and peatlands.

In the City of North Bay there are four wetlands or wetland complexes which have been recognized as being “provincially significant”: Gauthier Creek, Parks Creek, Lavase River/Dreany Creek, and Upper Chippewa Creek.

The Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, developed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in 1993, aims to evaluate the value or importance of a wetland based on a scoring system where four principal components (biological, social, hydrological, and special features) each worth 250 points make a total of 1000 possible points. Based on scoring a wetland can fall into one of two classes, Provincially Significant or Locally Significant. It takes 650 total points or full points (250) in any one component for a wetland to be classed as Provincially Significant.

5

The importance of protecting provincially significant wetlands is recognized in the Provincial Policy Statements which guide the official planning process, and by the Sustainable Community Advisory Committee that provided the City of North Bay with policy guidance and planning principles leading up to the development of the 2008 revised Official Plan.

While these are both very positive, they fall short of what is needed, for two related reasons. The first reason is that the criteria for being designated as a “provincially significant wetland” includes a complex set of criteria that excludes many locally significant wetlands, and the application of an evaluation system that has been heavily influenced by land conditions in southern Ontario (despite the development in the early 1990s of a manual for northern Ontario). The second is that, as a result, several locally significant wetlands have not been recognized.

One example of a locally significant wetland is the Johnston Road Wetland. Located at the foot of the escarpment in constructed triangle formed by Johnston Road, Ski Club Road and Trout Lake Road, the wetland is bisected by the CN railway, and has been somewhat truncated by the raised roadbeds that form its three boundaries. The western portions of the wetland are swamp, and the eastern portions are marsh. The 5.9 hectare wetland supports a wide variety of plant, aquatic and animal life. Perhaps its most important function is that it filters run off from North Bay’s escarpment prior to it discharging into to Delaney Bay, from which the City of North Bay draws its drinking water.

The Johnston Road wetland forms part of a small catchment basin (81 hectares) with two potential outlets. In the east, an outlet empties into Johnston Creek which forms part of the Lake Nipissing watershed. In the west, an outlet flows through a short watercourse, known locally as Armstrong Creek, into Trout Lake. Amount of flow out each wetland varies, but in general the major flow is to the west end, discharging into Trout Lake, which is a sensitive coldwater fishery. The wetland is important for flood attenuation because it forms the only significant detention area for the watershed. It is also important for downstream water quality because it retains water long enough for filtering of nutrients and contaminants. The proximity to neighbourhoods is also important. Small wetlands are especially valuable because they foster an appreciation of wetland ecosystem values.

The revised official plan should include a definition and land use designation which protects Locally significant wetlands, including the Johnson Road wetland, the Laurentian Marsh, and Jessup’s Creek.

Holding Designations

6

North Bay’s new Official Plan should contain mechanism to protect important values that are threatened by development, should situations arise where the official plan is found to be incomplete or inadequate to the task.

One such mechanism could be “holding designations” which would allow appropriate by-laws to be developed and implemented by council.  For example, a holding designation could be utilized to aid in the preservation of the City’s drinking water and its sources. Trout Lake is currently the water source utilized for the City of North Bay’s drinking water. To ensure the continued quality/quantity of this resource, the Official Plan needs to restrict any further development near the drinking water source (Trout Lake) and the associated feeder systems. While feeders systems should be identified on the Official Plan, holding designations could be applied to the supply areas in order to limit further development or land use changes which might be detrimental to the feeder sources and Trout Lake.

Holding designations could also be developed in response to other areas where policy or assessments might not be fully mature within the time frame for the official plan’s review and revision. For example, further work is needed in the following areas: woodlands, particularly in the urban area of the City. To preserve these areas from

development and maintain them for the wildlife and future generations Holding designations would retain options while zoning/bylaws for these lands are developed; eventual bylaws could require that forest cover – including individual trees in the urban core – be retained, and that wildlife habitat on these lands be protected

areas located near to all of the 28 lakes within the city of North Bay. Further development of lands within 100m should be stopped, including McLean Lake, whose south side is potentially going to be developed

2. Parks, Open Space and Trails

GreenSpace North Bay participants appreciate the emphasis that City Planning And Parks and Recreation staff are placing on the expansion of parks, open space and trails, and we look forward to the outcomes of the June 14th design charrette.

Some key points include: school yards serve an important function in our community as open space and play

areas, but should not be classified as “green space” or as park lands, given that a) they are often asphalt or gravel, and b) they are frequently gated and not available to all members of the community

in instances of new developments, the official plan should require 12% set aside for natural areas and park and play land; this number is consistent with international

7

standards, and provides potential for connectivity between natural areas and for play space and wildlife habitat

in instances of older developments where there is inadequate green space or natural areas, a strategy should be developed through neighbourhood consultations to meet recreational and social needs through the provision of green space; options could be developed following an inventory of potential contributing properties

naturalization of school yards and city parks should be pursued; as a first step, all parks, open spaces and green spaces should be classified according to how close they are to a “natural” condition, and their uses inventoried

the bike/walking/skiing  network of trails throughout and around the city should be expanded; the system should include signage and a few rest benches (perhaps even covered picnic table shelters).

A future plan for trail development should be developed, including for an arboretum trail from the waterfront to Chippewa Creek

The mapping of local trails should continue, along with the development and implementation of sound management practices, such as controls on motorized access; at present, many of the hiking and walking trails within the City’s system are being damaged by wheeled use, and in particular by motorized users. For example, in the Laurentian Conservation Area, the Richardson Ridge Trail has been extensively damaged by motorized access (mainly all-terrain vehicles and dirt bikes) and what was once a walking surface of hard backed earth is now eroded and rocky, making walking difficult, particularly for young children. Motorized vehicles are prohibited, but there are no controls and no consequences for those who violate that prohibition. 

3. Housing

The revised official plan should encourage the construction of affordable housing. This housing should be interspersed with other housing, either in a mixed income development or in a mixed income neighbourhood. It should not be marooned out in the middle of nowhere, or concentrated in one place. Manitou and the current agglomeration of co-ops out along Booth road are an example of the worst of both worlds. These issues can be addressed by creative zoning (mixed multi-residential and single family zoning, for example) and the waiving of lot levies, development charges and so on for those building affordable housing.

In the June 2008 Housing Forum, sponsored at Nipissing University by The Nipissing District Social Services Administration Board, prominent presentors from Peterborough and Ottawa emphasized two things in particular. One was "Get over it!" That is, get over any attitude on the part of municipalities that housing is the problem of another level of government. It takes an active partnership of all levels of government to make adequate social and affordable housing happen.    The second emphasis was that "Housing is infrastructure." Just as any community takes care of its most basic services such as roads, sewers, water, so must it make proper   - and ongoing -   provision for adequate housing.

8

  Each of these municipalities has demonstrated, by significant investment of local taxpayers' dollars as well as participation in the provincial and federal programs such as the Canada-Ontario Affordable Housing Program and the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, that the net benefit to the community is positive. Greenspace values are honoured. Neighbourhoods are prevented from eroding. New accommodation is a way of encouraging recruitment and retention of employees by local businesses. Providing appropriate emergency housing and shelter services also saves significant one time costs incurred when commercial facilities have to be used for overflow.   North Bay's Official Plan would be well advised to consider these stories carefully. This city's present vacancy rate hovers at around 1%. Major demands for affordable housing are already obvious. The private sector has shown little appetite to be a partner in offering lower cost alternatives. The Third Avenue "affordable" homes being built are, at last report, going to be over $200,000. Monthly housing allowances for people on social assistance are hundreds of dollars short of what is needed in the local rental market. Anticipated rising economic costs will only make matters more acute. In addition, more than 60 homes – most of them modest homes which form a valuable part of the housing stock - will be lost in the development of the projected expressway right-of-way. That situation will need wise planning, astute management and every resource available.

All of this is offered against the backdrop of the current federal government having made no provision to continue its housing programs beyond March 31st, 2009, thus cutting out $2 billion worth of existing programs.  

4. Community Heritage

North Bay's heritage should be named and cherished for the sense of place and identity it provides. North Bay was a railway town, the nexus of three lines, and the old stations and the railway gardens like Sweetman’s are important pieces of our history.  Before that was the canoe. North Bay was on the route of the voyageurs. Major portages, of which there are three, should be marked and preserved.

Even the downtown area is full of memory -- Demarco's, Greco's, the solid old churches, the Capitol Centre and the Sibbet building, the Empire Living Centre, Main Street itself -- all continue to be part of this city's vibrant community life. Elsewhere in the city, the “victory” homes that were built for returning WW II veterans are an attractive and unique part of the city's affordable housing stock, as well as being historic artifacts in their own right.

Developers, therefore, should be asked to demonstrate compatibility with already-existing buildings. The architectural integrity of both residential neighbourhoods and the city core is critical. Some examples of where it went wrong: the downtown donut shop, which doesn’t enhance the architecture of the nearby Pro Cathedral. Some of the new infill houses in the West End, which are at odds in material, design, and scale with

9

already-existing homes in the neighbourhood.

Many green spaces, too, are as deeply part of our history as buildings. They should be saved from the fate of the oak grove that gave its name to Oak Street, but ended up as a parking lot. 

4. Neighbourhoods

There should be usable greenspace close to where large numbers of low income tenants live, and it should be easily accessible by bicycle and foot paths. Some of the landlords in town that rent townhouse accommodation have stringent rules governing what tenants are allowed to put in their front and back yards. Landlords like Turret Realties, or the Orsi Group in one of their many different guises, do not let people leave out basketball hoops or children's swimming pools, to give but two examples. Be these lease provisions as they may, and perhaps they ought to be hotly contested, the people who lease ought to have places to go where what they do is not so closely restricted. This means small, local playgrounds with swimming pools, basketball hoops and perhaps places to garden and fish. It does not mean huge sport fields that people have to drive to.

Neighbourhoods – including old ones in the downtown area – need green space and trees. Sustainable neighbourhoods require accessibility, on foot, to stores, parks, cafes. Shade helps make walking comfortable. Therefore, North Bay needs:

A tree bylaw and a boulevard tree-planting program. In the face of global warming and an energy crisis, we need to protect and expand our urban forest. Citizens could be encouraged to help, with free or subsidized trees (as long as they are planted next to the roadways.)

A ban on front yard parking pads. (Driveways, yes. Parking lots in front of your house, no). Asphalt covering the entire front yard of a home means more run-off into city storm sewers, decreased street parking (which compounds the problem) and no boulevard trees.

Traffic calming. Residential neighbourhoods should be just that -- for the residents, not the cars passing through.

City support for neighbourhood associations would be helpful. They would be the first venue for discussion of tree removal, parking pads, speed limits, tree panting on boulevards, etc.

Esthetics count. When people are proud of their neighbourhood, they are more inclined to plant front yard gardens, get rid of graffiti quickly, preserve trees and avoid parking pads. Triangles--the green spaces at some street junctions -- could be planted with trees. (Also, North Bay Blooms is a great idea.)

10

5. Urban Design

Beyond the neighbourhood, numerous measures can be put in place to contribute to a greener city:

More control over parking arrangements at shopping malls. Developers should be constrained from covering large areas with asphalt without a tree in sight. Having some, at least, of the parking area water permeable would help avoid run-off into city sewers. Also developers should be forced to provide trees. Cars parked in shade require less energy to cool down when the driver returns. (Not just parking arrangements are important, of course. Developers should be mandated to install environmentally smart buildings, green roofs, etc.)

Support for downtown housing. The city core is full of already-constructed housing within walking distance of city hall, library, downtown stores. Incentives to improve old and run-down housing, and provide additional green space, could add to the city’s affordable housing supply.

Covering city boulevards with asphalt to save on turf care just increases the run-off problem, and means trees can’t be planted there. See “boulevard tree-planting program” above.

Water meters – or at least, some proven measures to conserve water – are needed. We also need to find a way to deal with the contamination of Lake Nipissing whenever there are heavy rains. (If North Bay is attracting retirees, and businesses that entice employees with our recreational assets, we need to do everything possible to enhance them.)

6. Transportation

Greening our transportation system is a key part of becoming a sustainable city. Measured address elsewhere in this submission – making services available at the neighbourhood scale, and expanding the trails system to make the City more friendly to cyclists and pedestrians, for example – will be key to greening the transportation system. Other important elements include: Including bicycle lanes on all major arteries in the City Matching the City buses to meet passenger load Supporting ride-share and auto-share programs

7. Growth Management

Managing growth for sustainability must, inevitably, have limiting growth as a fundamental commitment. GreenSpace North Bay supports the recommendations of the

11

SCAC - intensification and infill in the urban core, while retaining natural areas, and encouraging a range of densities and creating mixed-use buildings and communities – and the operationalizing of those recommendations through the Official Plan.

The authors of the groundbreaking book, The Limits to Growth, published 30 years ago, put it well:As soon as society recognizes that it cannot maximize everything for everyone, it must begin to make choices. Should there be more people or more wealth, more wilderness or more automobiles, more food for the poor or more services for the rich? Establishing the societal answers to questions like these and translating those answers into policy is the essence of the political process.”

In 1998, Okotoks, Alberta became one of the first communities in Canada to recognize its environmental limits to growth. In the case of Okotoks, the limited carrying capacity of the local watershed meant that the town faced two possible courses of action: a continuation of growth without limits, where the local infrastructure would exceed local carrying capacity and create the need for a larger, regional infrastructure system; or to see the town function within the limits of the watersheds carrying capacity. The community chose the latter, focusing on quality of life and the environment, rather than on quantity of growth and standard practices.

Okotok’s municipal council recognized that “sustainable development” was the viable strategy for its community, and adopted a number of key objectives:

Live within the carrying capacity of the watershed (25,000 to 30,000 residents). Cap growth and urban boundaries at the carrying capacity.

Create appropriately sized infrastructure that supports Okotoks’ carrying capacity Modify urban design to implement mixed-land-use neighbourhoods, increase

employment opportunities within neighbourhoods, create home-based businesses, expand the network of off-street pedestrian pathways and open space systems and induce more robust and ecological landscaping.

Incorporate eco-efficiency measures such as recycling, water conservation, architectural regulations and urban forest policies for urban renewal and expansion.

Implement a Sheep River watershed management plan, regional plan and transportation plan.

Related programs and projects included water/waste conservation education programs, public engagement in the renewal of the town’s Master Plan with extensive public and stakeholder consultation, a Sustainable Neighbourhood Design, Community Gardens, Urban Forest Renewal, and Green Buildings.

As recently noted by the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, making sustainability the goal of planning efforts requires the consideration of both where it is feasible for development and expansion to occur, and how much additional growth a given community's local environment is able to realistically support. Growth – and its acceptability – must be evaluated in terms of its demand on local infrastructure and on

12

natural heritage values, such as wetlands, wooded areas, and green spaces throughout the City. Managing – or limiting – growth demands an integrated approach to planning. For example, a public transportation strategy must be integrated with the official plan, and intensification and infill strategies must be developed in concert with strategies to retain natural heritage values and maximize access to and use of the public transportation system.

7. Public Engagement

Consistent with the Sustainable Community Advisory Committee’s guiding principle of including the citizens of North Bay through collaborative public consultations, GreenSpace North Bay would like to encourage the City of North Bay to engage the public in the official plan review process – and related and future planning exercises - using a variety of means to include and involve members of the community.

The formation of the Sustainable Community Advisory Committee and its role in developing principles and recommendations to guide the official plan review process is an excellent example of a “best practice” that the City of North Bay has already employed. Similarly, the recent “design charrette”for parks, recreation and green space was an excellent initiative.

Consistent with the practices being employed by other municipalities across Ontario, the following options should be incorporated into the official plan review process: information booths at the local malls and community events special sessions of the Planning Advisory committee posting of clear timelines for public engagement activities throughout the review public open houses official plan stakeholders committee meetings with agencies and interest groups publishing of an official plan review discussion paper, or a series of discussion papers seeking public input again on a series of position papers public forum’s structured as a “City Café”; session begins with a presentation,

followed by small group discussions neighbourhood workshops information meetings to explain proposed changes public meetings to hear comments on proposals combinations of workshops and open houses and public meetings

For the City of North Bay it will be particularly important to hold neighbourhood meetings throughout the City, with at least one in each of the planning districts. The neighbourhood meetings could be a combination of open house / information session and public meetings to receive comments or feedback. The structure could be town hall format or small groups, or a combination of both. Neighbourhood sessions are a special priority in the City of North Bay because a) there is no ward system and so political representation is not neighbourhood based, b) there is a sense in some neighbourhoods of

13

lingering disparities that have been in place since amalgamation in the late 1960s, and c) neighbourhood meetings will help build upon or create the sense of neighbourhood and community (as per SCAC recommendation 3.8)

We would also encourage the City to return to the approach outlined in January 2008 of developing the revised official plan using three drafts (the first draft sets out scope, the second draft reflects Citys directions in terms of responding to public input, third draft is final, and is the basis of final formal submissions). And while we appreciate both the statutory requirement and the political importance of having presentations to City Council from the public, we want to emhasize the importance of community engagement. Community engagement will be best supported and developed through an interactive process which includes workshops, open houses, roundtables, information displays and recognizes neighbourhoods in its approach.

D. Conclusion

GreenSpace North Bay is excited about the future of our community.

We welcome the review and revision of our City’s Official Plan as an opportunity to engage with members of Council and the residents of North Bay in a dynamic conversation about what lies ahead for us as a community, and to participate in the process of shaping the North Bay of tomorrow.

As indicated in the opening section of this brief, these comments are preliminary in nature, and are intended to provide some general indication of the direction we wish to see pursued during the official plan review process.

Finally, we would like to express our appreciation to City of North Bay staff, members of Council and the Planning Advisory Committee, and other interested persons for taking time to read the brief. We recognize that we are all involved in an iterative process, and we look forward to sharing further in future conversations about the initial recommendations included in this submission, in response to the first draft of the official plan, and throughout the process.

14

Appendix A –Sustainable Community Advisory Committee – Final Report – Principles and Recommendations

Guiding Principles Manage development while protecting and enhancing the communitys need for a diverse, clean and

healthy natural environment. Promote retail and expand a strong and diverse economic base for North Bay. Be a caring community with equal opportunities/access to housing, employment, education, recreation,

health and social care. Include the citizens of North Bay throughout collaborative public consultations. Review achievement of objectives in the Official Plan and validate the strategic direction on a regular

basis.

Recommendations 1.0 Sustainable Community Principles for Natural Features and Environment1.1 Manage stormwater on site while reducing the impacts on adjacent lands or water. (see Principles 5.9, 11.5)*1.2 Protect natural areas and riparian zones next to lakes and creeks. (see Principle 5.16)1.3 Recognize the potential of brownfield areas and rehabilitate for development where appropriate.1.4 Protect water quality and quantity of Trout Lake as a source of drinking water. (see Principle 11.7)1.5 Provide recreational pathways through natural features (e.g. wetlands, wooded areas), where appropriate. (see Principles 2.4, 2.6, 3.9, 7.4)1.6 Ensure development is sensitive to and accounts for the natural setting and incorporates natural features into the design of the development. (see Principle 5.14)1.7 Preserve the natural amenity of areas as much as possible.1.8 Protect the Escarpment by defining the area to be protected, protecting vistas and skylines, providing a continuous trail and ensuring that development takes place in appropriate locations. (see Principle 3.9)1.9 Protect/enhance and provide public access to the natural aesthetic views and vistas of and from significant natural features such as Trout Lake, Lake Nipissing, other lakes and the Escarpment. (see Principles 1.4, 1.8)1.10 Ensure that development on the Trout Lake watershed conforms to the long term watershed plan whose purpose it is to protect/enhance the long term water quality of the reservoir, to protect and enhance the biological integrity of the ecosystem, and to protect and enhance the aesthetic quality of the Trout Lake reservoir. (see Principles 1.4, 11.7)1.11 Protect and enhance the biological integrity and aesthetic quality of the Lake Nipissing watershed.

2.0 Sustainable Community Principles for Parks, Open Space and Trails2.1 Develop a vision and a comprehensive plan that protects and links existing and future parks, open space, trails and facilities on both developed and undeveloped land. (see Principle 10.7)2.2 Provide multi-use facilities and maximize opportunities to accommodate a wide range of sport, recreation activities and users. 2.3 Develop a comprehensive trails system that is appropriate for a variety of uses. (see Principle 1.5)2.4 Develop a snowmobile trails system as recreational and tourism opportunities. (see Principles 1.5, 7.4, 8.3)2.5 Encourage the Department of National Defense to allow access to their trails and maintain a Good Neighbour Policy in terms of trail use. (see Principle 1.5)2.6 Develop where appropriate bike paths/lanes in road right-of-ways. (see Principle 10.3)

3.0 Sustainable Community Principles for Housing3.1 Provide opportunities for a mix of affordable housing types to fulfill the needs for all ages and incomes. (see Principle 6.4)3.2 Provide policies that would encourage the use of secondary suites except in Rural Areas or unserviced lakefront areas, where it may be deemed appropriate.3.3 Define affordable housing in the Official Plan as a household who pays no more than 30% of its gross annual income.

15

3.4 Encourage public and private sectors to provide (build or convert) affordable housing units, both rental and freehold, in order to meet ongoing demand.3.5 Create a policy to discourage conversion of rental units to condominiums based on vacancy rates in order to maintain a stock of rental units.3.6 Identify areas for infill development in all existing neighbourhoods. (see Principles 11.1, 11.2)3.7 Favour infill and intensification developments in the Core and other appropriate areas before developing on greenfields. (see Principle 11.2)3.8 Develop new and/or existing neighbourhoods with increased densities, diverse affordabilities, services, amenities andemployment opportunities in order to avoid sprawl and create a sense of neighbourhood and community. (see Principles 11.2, 12.2)3.9 Prohibit further residential development along the Escarpment with the objective of preserving public access to the Escarpment and its vistas. (see Principles 1.8, 1.9)3.10 Promote and encourage opportunities for the creation of additional residential units in the downtown which could include affordable housing units, second floor residential units and other appropriate development (i.e., DCIP Downtown Community Improvement Plan incentive program). (see Principle 5.5)3.11 Create opportunities in the central core for more affordable housing for seniors.3.12 Define affordable and adequate housing within the context of the North Bay market.3.13 Encourage the Downtown to be a focus for economic, employment and housing opportunities. (see Principles 7.14, 10.18)3.14 Develop new places and enhance existing places where residents from all walks of life can gather and feel a greater sense of ownership and pride in our communities and in the City of North Bay (e.g. Community Waterfront Park, Circle Lake Playground, Laurentian Ski Hill).3.15 Encourage stewardship in the maintenance of public and private properties. (see Principle 6.10)3.16 Create a balance between infill/intensification and adequacy of existing community facilities (e.g.. without negative impacts on parks and open space)3.17 Promote accessibility, safety and security within the various housing environments.

4.0 Sustainable Community Principles for Community Heritage4.1 Protect and enhance heritage buildings, heritage architecture and historic areas.4.2 Encourage new development to respect heritage buildings and cultural and natural sites with heritage significance.4.3 Investigate and map historical/archaeological/heritage sites and uses.

5.0 Sustainable Community Principles for Neighbourhoods5.1 Construct sidewalks on high pedestrian traffic routes. (see Principles 6.5, 10.4, 10.5)5.2 Utilize methods to slow traffic in residential areas (e.g. speed bumps, speed limits). (see Principle 10.5)5.3 Encourage appropriate landscaping on both public and private properties (e.g. Communities in Bloom).5.4 Provide opportunities for all types of shopping facilities while protecting the Downtown.5.5 Promote more intensive residential development around all commercial areas (i.e. walking distance). (see Principle 3.10)5.6 Require healthy percentage of all commercial development to be landscaped and treed, especially at parking lots.5.7 Require commercial areas to recycle and the City to provide blue boxes to help the appearance of these areas. (see Principle 11.6)5.8 Improve and enforce by-laws relating to litter. (see Principle 11.6)5.9 Improve stormwater management in parking lots. (see Principles 1.1, 11.5)5.10 Improve parking lot design by providing more green spaces at the design stage.5.11 Provide greenspace and services within close proximity for employees in large office developments.5.12 Promote winter-indoor recreational facilities.5.13 Ensure that transportation services are more bicycle friendly. (see Principle 10.15)5.14 Require that in planning and development, trees are kept or provided where appropriate. (see Principle 1.7)5.15 Incorporate beautification in employee common areas, where possible.5.16 Respect provincial policy on Provincially Significant Wetlands. (see Principle 1.2)5.17 Provide employment opportunities in the Downtown. (see Principles 7.1, 7.12, 7.14, 7.19)

16

6.0 Sustainable Community Principles for Urban Design6.1 Create pedestrian friendly streetscapes with landscaping and a variety of facades. (see Principle 10.17)6.2 Create opportunities for mixed-use buildings (i.e. residential/office/retail), while providing well-designed business parks. (see Principle 12.14)6.3 Create appropriate front yard setbacks depending on the type of street (i.e., larger setbacks for Arterials and smaller setbacks for Local roads).6.4 Design affordable housing units to blend into a neighbourhood. (see Principles 3.1, 3.10)6.5 Provide sidewalks on at least one side of the street. (see Principles 5.1, 10.5)6.6 Incorporate appropriate signage design so that visual clutter is eliminated.6.7 Provide canopies to protect pedestrians from weather elements.6.8 Reduce the visual impact of driveways and garages.6.9 Reduce visual impact of parking lots.6.10 Recognize residents appreciation for open spaces and need for privacy, while seeking opportunities to use land efficiently. (see Principle 3.15)6.11 Incorporate the design guidelines from Appendix A of the 2001 Environmental Study Report for the City of North Bay Rail Lands Property Development Study for the Downtown and the Waterfront Redevelopment Areas. (see Principles 7.18, 8.4)

7.0 Sustainable Community Principles for Employment/Economic Development7.1 North Bays economic base should be strong and diversified, with a mix of public and private, recognizing our intrinsic strengths and with an export orientation (i.e., bring $ into City).7.2 The Official Plan should try to develop North Bay as an educational and research centre with possible expansion into alternate locations within the City.7.3 North Bay should be an educational center of excellence for post secondary and skilled trades/apprenticeships (e.g. Freshwater science).7.4 North Bay should encourage tourism by developing and utilizing our natural environment, cultural attractions and experience-based recreation. (see Principles 2.5, 8.3, 8.4)7.5 North Bay should become a more highly marketed, clean and sustainable-oriented, hospitable tourist community that promotes its uniqueness.7.6 Based on our quality of life North Bay should attract retirees, from early retirement to assisted living.7.7 North Bay should continue to be a retirement community that plans for the needs of its citizens and markets its potential to outlying areas.7.8 North Bay should be an aviation centre for Ontario, focusing on international cargo and ancillary aviation related services. (see Principle 9.10)7.9 North Bay should be the centre for the Department of National Defenses new above-ground NORAD operations.7.10 The airport centre and runways should be promoted to ensure capacity use and further expansion. (see Principle 9.10)7.11 Develop an Economic Development Strategy for the City of North Bay within a specific timeframe.7.12 The Official Plan should promote vitality/viability/diversification of the Downtown as a focus for employment and as a place to shop. (see Principles 5.17, 8.4)7.13 Promote vitality/viability/diversification of the Waterfront Area as a focus for tourism and recreation. (see Principles 8.2, 8.4)7.14 The Downtown should be the major focus for future high density office commercial development. (see Principle 3.13)7.15 Encourage the integration of the University/College educational programs with hands-on training with local businesses.7.16 Partner with the University/College to support and integrate their developments with the City and to attract/expandopportunities for new education and students to the City. (see Principle 7.2)7.17 Permit and encourage home-based businesses that are appropriate for the neighbourhood.7.18 Continue to develop the existing Farmers Market with appropriate signage and landscaping, while exploring opportunities for a permanent location. (see Principle 6.11)7.19 Create job opportunities. (see Principle 5.17)7.20 Encourage Provincial and Federal government offices and non-profit organizations s to relocate in

17

North Bay.7.21 Balance the supply and demand of the employment areas. Demand is defined as the projected need for industrial (andrelated businesses) /employment areas.7.22 Locate employment uses in appropriate areas.7.23 Provide opportunities for inexpensive land for businesses to be attracted to the City.

8.0 Sustainable Community Principles for Tourism8.1 Provide for a range of tourist accommodations such as bed and breakfasts, RV camping facilities, in addition to the existing motels and hotels.8.2 Recognize the importance of the Downtown and the development of the Community Waterfront Park as the focal area for citizens and tourists. (see Principles 7.12, 7.13, 7.18)8.3 Provide opportunities for citizens and tourists to experience North Bay throughout the year for both indoor/outdoor activities. (i.e., sports & leisure, arts & culture). (see Principles 2.2, 2.4, 7.4)8.4 Develop additional seasonal events to attract citizens and tourists and develop a marketing strategy for North Bay as a major event location. (see Principles 2.4, 7.4, 7.5, 7.13)

9.0 Sustainable Community Principles for Rural Areas9.1 Recognize the importance of Crown lands and explore limited forms of compatible development with the Ministry of Natural Resources, such as trails.9.2 Designate Aggregate Resource Areas and have policies in the Official Plan to address both buffering from adjacent uses and resource extraction activities.9.3 Identify areas for rural estate developments which would not impact on aggregate resources, forestry, agricultural use or recreational opportunities.9.4 Limit future development in the rural areas to be on private services and not on municipal services unless municipal water and sewer plants can handle the additional load and will be provided by the developer.9.5 Respect and integrate design characteristics (i.e. natural features) of the rural areas in new developments.9.6 Limit rural retail areas to specific locations.9.7 Strictly limit ribbon development along roadways.9.8 Strictly limit the number of new lots created by severances in the Rural Area.9.9 Ensure that new uses in the Rural Area utilize existing City road networks.9.10 Prohibit Rural Residential lot creation above the Airports 35 Noise Exposure Forecast contour to avoid aircraft noise. (see Principles 7.8, 7.10)9.11 Limit rural lakefront development on unserviced shorelines to existing lots, before new lots are permitted. Require awatershed master plan or a lake capacity study be completed to indicate the development is sustainable.9.12 Identify a variety of public and private recreational uses to locate in the Rural Area in accordance to environmental, social and economic sustainability.

10.0 Sustainable Community Principles for Transportation10.1 Provide alternatives to the private automobile by improving transit, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure.10.2 Recognize alternatives to private automobile and provide cost benefits to transportation infrastructure.10.3 Provide opportunities for cycling on local and private streets by right-of-way improvement and dedicated paths. (see Principle 2.6)10.4 Establish a community cycling network within an affordable funding plan.10.5 Develop a safe street network. (see Principles 5.2, 6.5)10.6 Educate the community to use pedestrian oriented systems and walking as a means of getting around.10.7 Design neighbourhoods that promote a mix of activities/uses to reduce reliance on automobiles. (see Principle 2.1)10.8 Create an efficient transit system that considers both users and alternative size of coaches.10.9 Improve local transit systems especially for those users with special needs.10.10 Consider other forms of local intersection improvements, such as traffic signal system upgrades to reduce congestion/backups.

18

10.11Link existing areas of the city with new transportation corridors that solve congestion concerns, such as second access to south end of the City.10.12 Require new development proposals to identify full range of alternative transport nodes (cycling, sidewalks).10.13 Consider urban safety in design of street networks for pedestrian and cyclists. (see Principle 5.13)10.14 Encourage central area intensification within walking distance of other facilities. (see Principle 3.15)10.15 Integrate streetscape improvements with future road works (i.e. bike lanes). (see Principles 10.1, 10.4)10.16 Explore opportunities for ride sharing and commuter lots initiatives.10.17 Use redundant transportation corridors for walking, cycling, and infrastructure (i.e. pipes).10.18 Encourage the City to develop more off-street parking facilities, particularly in the Downtown Core.

11.0 Sustainable Community Principles for Infrastructure11.1 Explore ways to encourage intensification in specific neighbourhoods, using set criteria. (see Principles 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 12.1, 12.2)11.2 Provide opportunities to use existing infrastructure capacity for infill, economic development and redevelopment before extending new services. (see Principles 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3)11.3 Implement a water conservation program with the objective of having water meters installed over time.11.4 Incorporate a water conservation program for industrial/commercial/institutional sectors.11.5 Require that all new development applications should provide stormwater solutions on-site. (see Principles 1.1, 5.9, 11.8) 11.6 Encourage recycling/composting and energy conservation to minimize the demand for new solid waste disposal sites. (see Principles 5.7, 5.8)11.7 Investigate opportunities for other sources of drinking water besides Trout Lake. (see Principles 1.4, 1.10)11.8 Develop and implement a Stormwater Management Master Plan.

12.0 Sustainable Community Principles for Growth Management12.1 Provide for infill/redevelopment before expanding urban boundaries. (see Principles 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 11.1, 11.2, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4)12.2 Provide opportunities for intensification and infill in the new Official Plan. (see Principles 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 11.1, 11.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4)12.3 Encourage a range of densities (especially residential intensification). (see Principles 1.3, 3.8, 11.2, 11.3, 12.1, 12.2)12.4 Create mixed-use buildings and communities. (see Principle 6.2)12.5 Phase development to take advantage of existing infrastructure capacity recognizing the financial costs of services.

19

20