You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'City Issues' category.
A friend asked me last week why members of Council have been “silent” on the Hanlon Creek Business Park issue. I suppose I never thought that I was being silent — because Council unanimously endorsed the project. Our collective position is very clear.
The recent events (most notably the on-site protest, injunction, Minister’s approval and the decision to resume work next year) have been widely reported in the media. No one from the media has ever contacted me, or any other member of council that I am aware of, other than the Mayor. The Mayor has the support of Council on moving forward with the HCBP, as evidenced by the vote to approve the site plan.
We are not moving forward blindly. This is a well-planned project that has been through years of extensive consultation and a thorough public process, resulting in environmental conditions that will protect and enhance the land. I attended the public meeting of LIMITS, including a second meeting where I was the only councillor in attendance, and have become well-read on Jefferson Salamander breeding habitat, among other things. I have also walked the site and am familiar with its natural heritage, beauty and features. I am deeply committed to protecting our environment, water sources, public health, trees, air quality, etc.
My support of the HCBP is not in conflict with these values. I truly believe this project is different. I believe this project balances the environment, economy and social/cultural fabric of our community. I do not believe the Jefferson Salamander is compromised by this project, nor the old growth forest or wetlands that protect our water supply. Land uses will be limited to those that do not pose a risk to the site. Significant wetlands and old growth forest areas are not being paved over. This is not a typical “industrial park” that you may think of in other parts of the city. Great care has been taken, and will be taken, to ensure the development meets the goals of the Community Energy Plan. A significant portion of the site has been farmed for the past century. The finished development will have more trees than the current site.
I am hopeful the project will move ahead successfully when work resumes in 2010. When it comes to protecting the natural heritage of our city as a whole, there are still areas that need protection and require public participation and diligence. The city has developed a Natural Heritage Strategy that will unfold over the next year. I encourage members of the community (including HCBP protestors) to participate in the democratic public process related to the NHS.
I’ve been asked by several constituents about my lone vote against residential sidewalk clearing last Monday evening…
I support the city clearing arterial road sidewalks, bus stops, central business district sidewalks and public facilities. However, I believe residential side streets should be eliminated from the 2010 budget (not this year). I also support an assistance program for residents who are not physically able to clear sidewalks.
My reasons for supporting the discontinuation of residential sidewalk clearing are as follows:
1. The quality of sidewalk clearing is not adequate to make the sidewalks walkable. The current ploughs leave a compacted layer of snow and ice, which is more dangerous to walk on than a sidewalk that has been cleared by residents with a snow shovel or snow blower. If our goal is to keep our city walkable, we need residents to play a role. Last year, most pedestrians (including mail carriers and school children) walked on the road, because the sidewalks were not walkable.
2. Sidewalk ploughs currently dispatched to clear residential streets are not able to meet the established turnaround time for clearing snow. These same ploughs can be reassigned to clear arterial roads and bus stops faster.
3. Phase 2 of the Sidewalk Winter Control report will examine new and improved ways to increase the quality of residential sidewalk clearing, ie. using snow blowers vs. mechanical ploughs. The report states that the use of snow blowers takes a lot more time and resources = the cost will go up dramatically!
4. 50% of residents surveyed (as part of the service review process) indicated they would be willing to clear their own sidewalks, which means we, as a community, can really make a difference.
5. We are one of three municipalities left in Ontario that still clear residential side streets. We need to ask ourselves, as we move forward as a growing municipality, if this is a service that is worth continuing, given rising fuel prices and increased development. Are we creating an expectation that we will deliver a service that is not sustainable?
In the end, I respect the democratic process and the collective voice of Council. The vote passed 11-1 to continue residential sidewalk clearing and therefore, I respect the decision of Council. We will now move forward with Phase 2 of the service review — to find efficiencies and improvements in delivery of the service.
LP
Mayor Farbridge delivered her annual State of the City address to the Guelph Chamber of Commerce this morning, where she received a standing ovation following her presentation.
The Mayor focused on key achievements within the Strategic Plan, as well as the principles of good governance that Council follows in order to achieve our goals.
The Mayor’s State of the City address presentation is available online at:
http://guelph.ca/cityhall.cfm?subCatID=1835&smocid=2411
LP
Findings of GHESI-Horizon business case analysis made available
GUELPH, ON, September 19, 2008 – The City of Guelph has received agreement from BDR to allow it to release a summary of its analysis of a business case concerning the proposed merger between Guelph Hydro Electric System Inc. (GHESI) and Horizon Utilities Corp (H.U.C.).
BDR is the consulting firm retained to conduct an expert, independent peer review of the GHESI-Horizon business case and accompanying analysis performed by Deloitte.
BDR’s conclusion after thorough analysis is that the business case is fair and reasonable from a financial point of view.
A summary of BDR’s findings are available at guelph.ca.
http://www.guelph.ca/uploads/administration/Guelph-Final-Presentation-single-electric.pdf
Last night, Council voted to eliminate the cosmetic use of pesticides within the City of Guelph. There are exceptions (read the by-law), but for the most part, the days of indiscriminate spraying of pesticides on lawns in Guelph is over. Exceptions for insect infestation (grubs and chinch bugs) will end January 1, 2009.
The new pesticide-free Guelph will require a cultural and behavioural shift. I think this community is up for it – we’re a resourceful and responsible group! So I will be joining the healthy lawn revolution too….
Although I would much rather tear up my lawn and create a lush Ontario native shade garden, the reality is that I still need a stretch of lawn. You see, I have three boys (and a daughter) and therefore, backyard soccer, badminton, volleyball and other lawn activities are still very much a part of our foreseeable future.
I’ve never sprayed pesticides on my lawn. But then again, I’ve never aspired to have the perfect lawn either. I’m okay with dandelions – they make great salad greens BTW – and the birds love the grubs.
This year, I have decided to try some of the techniques suggested by the City of Guelph “healthy lawn” education program to see if they make a difference. I completed the first step last week – dethatching and new “Eco-Lawn” seed with homemade compost. Thankfully, the rain soaked everything yesterday. So far so good….
LP
A posting at the 59 Carden blog accused City Council of being morally righteous in trying to establish a by-law to regulate body rub parlours.
Running a “common bawdy house” is illegal. Enforcing the law is not a morally righteous act. The problem with the law as it currently is enforced has been problematic for police forces in Ontario. They have not been able to convict the owners — who are the ones who should take responsibility — because the owners are not there and turn around and say they didn’t know that the “sale of sexual services” was going on. Yeah right….
A business licencing by-law however, can be used to shut down establishments that do not follow a set of regulations. The regulations are pretty simple – like wearing clothes and having a sink to wash hands. That shouldn’t be a problem for legitimate health care service providers.
It hasn’t been an easy road to come up with the perfect solution. Trained professional holistic health care service providers feel they are being lumped in with the sleazy businesses. A consultative working group is going to meet to get more input from this valuable stakeholder group before coming back with the proposed by-law.
Leanne
Increased public transit or residential sidewalk clearing? More frequent yard waste pick up or sidewalk ploughs? These are some of the trade-offs being examined by Council in the upcoming budget.
Guelph is one of the last communities in the province to clear residential sidewalks. Is it an effective use of tax dollars? I have heard a range of comments this winter:
- the ploughs destroy my lawn and garden
- the sidewalks are left with compacted snow and are more slippery than shoveled walks
- it’s a waste of money for residential streets, but we still need the ploughs for arterial roads and bus stop clearing
- we have to shovel our driveways anyway, the sidewalk isn’t a whole lot more
- motorized ploughs are bad for the environment
Most of the comments seem to indicate that the money spent on residential sidewalk clearing could be better allocated elsewhere. There is an argument to be made that it is a service valued by our seniors. Perhaps we can try an approach that is working in Hamilton -
see http://www.volunteerhamilton.on.ca/svc_snowangels.php.
In addition, many seniors have neighbours or hired help to assist with grass cutting and winter driveway clearing already in place.
It’s timely to ask the question – should City Hall eliminate residential street sidewalk clearing?
Preamble: Infill and intensification are widely-used buzz words these days. Places to Grow and the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan (GGHGP) will put pressure on municipalities like Guelph to grow smarter. Terms like “mixed-use” and “walkable communities” are being used by planners and the development industry to describe desirable forms of growth. But it remains unclear — in Guelph at least — what that means on the ground. What does it look like and what impact will it have in established neighbourhoods? Like everything in life, there is good and bad in everything. There is good development and bad development. Such is the case with infill and intensification projects.
In the case of the proposed development of 108 Forest (former site of St. Pauls School), it is really important that we get this right. It is one of the first infill development proposals to come to Council since the GGHGP came to light.
The site developers (Dr. Doug Friars and Thomasfield Homes) have come forward with a plan that includes six medical offices, nine loft apartments and 12 stacked townhouses on a 1 hectare site.
On the surface, it sounds great. It has the “mixed use” component, and provides a medium-density form of housing that adds diverse housing forms to the neighbourhood and helps to achieve intensification goals. What’s so wrong with that? Nothing really. Guelph needs more office space for medical doctors and more housing within walking distance to shopping, schools and ammenities.
So what’s the problem?
Each site is unique, and this proposal is specific to the 108 Forest property. So the question is whether or not this specific proposal fits on this specific property?
Good Points
To be honest, the proposal has some good points.
1. Both developers are local reputable chaps. Dr. Friars has been involved in developing medical offices in the past (Dawson Road). Thomasfield Homes (Tom Kriszan) is a quality builder with an excellent reputation.
2. They’ve assembled a good team – architect Lloyd Grinham, planning consultant Nancy Shoemaker and engineer Chris Sims are all tops in their field and have done many quality infill projects in Guelph in the past.
3. The site has two mature elms that have been spared in the plan.
4. Medium density housing adds a new mix to the neighbourhood – which is mostly single family detached and large apartment building complexes.
So What’s the Bad News?
1. The school additions are overdone – a parking garage and two floors on top. Technically, the top level is one-and-a-half story lofts, but the visual effect will be three stories from ground level. The apartment entrances and another second parking garage will be on the eastern property line where the neighbouring home owner will be negatively impacted. The windows of the proposed apartments will look into the backyard, which contains a pool.
2. The term “medium density” does not equal affordable housing. Each unit will be more than 2000 sq ft with a projected selling price in the $450K range. This is not the type of infill and intensification that the GGHGP encourages. Granted, there is a market for retirement housing within the community as the population ages and that’s fine – but let’s just not pretend this proposal contains affordable housing for seniors.
3. Second and third floor balconies on the townhouse units will overlook existing private backyards.
4. The site needs severe grading. Retaining walls will not be small landscape features – there will be extreme grade changes and 8 ft high walls in some places.
5. Office uses within a residential street is precedent setting. The city’s official plan prescribes mixed-use commercial and office uses on arterial and collector roads. Forest Street is neither. The fact that it’s only five houses away from an arterial road is not a valid argument. There is a complete mixed-use node less than a block away that is ripe for intensification. The Edinburgh-Municipal node should be intensified in order to accommodate additional needed office space.
6. The neighbourhood is already mixed-use. Within a 5-10 minute walk: beer store, convenience store, hair salon, gas station, vet clinic, doctors office, optometrists, restaurants, fitness centre, and much more.
7. Streetscape. There is none. The view from the street is a parking garage. The development turns its back on the community and does not integrate with existing streetscape or complement the park across the street. This is an urban design issue.
Is there a solution?
I think so. Let’s avoid going to the OMB. In my opinion, we can do better with some compromise from both sides….
* How about 21-24 smaller medium density units?
* How about the one-story school building retrofitted as apartments, with medium density townhouses all around?
* How about live-work studios or loft apartments in the school building?
* How about senior’s flats in the school building and smaller retirement townhouse blocks?
* How about removing the parking garage from the front of the building and making a streetscape entrance?
* Other ideas?
As with all issues, I am interested in hearing what others are thinking? Can we do better on this site? Share you ideas…
Leanne
The Mayor’s State of the City address, delivered last week to the Chamber of Commerce, contains lots of interesting statistics of Guelph’s position compared to similar sized municipalities in Ontario, as well as a picture of where we are heading in the future.
To view the Powerpoint presentation, with audio commentary, go to:
http://guelph.ca/cityhall.cfm?subCatID=1835&smocid=2411
Leanne
City hall junkies can now read what Mercury reporters are really thinking after sitting through Council and committee meetings!
Mercury “city beat” reporters Magda Konieczna and Laura Thompson share their thoughts at:
http://guelphmercury.blogs.com/59_carden_st/
