RP+5 A Bolder Choice

RP+5

A BOLDER CHOICE Community Session 01, Hosted by the PDC

Groups Supporting this Effort North End Business Association Ecology Action Centre Quinpool Road Business Association Halifax Cycling Coalition Downtown Halifax Business Commission Halifax Community Health Board Heart and Stroke Foundation Friends of the Halifax Common Bicycle Nova Scotia

Dalhousie Office of Sustainability Cities & Environment Unit Save Bedford Waterfront Society Sackville Rivers Association Oathill Lake Conservation Society Spring Garden Area Business Association I Heart Bikes Patricia Manuel Bernard Smith

GROWTH Issues - The intent in the current draft is unclear - Works for developers - Keeps with the 2006 plan - Lacking in vision - Does not define how to achieve targets - No rationale or real targets are given for density or incentive to achieve it - No distinction made between urban/rural - Too many loopholes (Clause G16 allows developments on adjacent lands to service boundary) - No protection against corruption - Not connected or holistic (each theme is separate/ disconnected) - No standards - e.g. greenspace integrated into developments - greenbelts to limit growth outside - Does not define inside growth - Nothing radical in this plan - Secondary plans have no time lines for deliverables or leverage for the community to hold city accountable - Green space is protected - Transportation options - Housing options - Objectives seem to reflect values, but not resulting in communities we want - Mechanisms are missing

2

- HRM deferring to province on housing - No municipal vision for housing - “HRM will support province on housing.” – HRM staff - Lack of collaboration - First objective tells the story, everything is about property rights - Largest property owners tend to set the agenda - Very last policy gives veto on zoning (G-16) - Property rights more important than ecologically-sound development - How is a plan for high-density development carried forward?

Do we have such a plan?

- Forrest clear-cut for subdivision - Lack of regulations?

- Lack of enforcement?

- A better form of development must be possible - Fiscal responsibility - Tragedy of the commons is happening - Attitude at City Hall: “Might is Right” - Don’t put developers first!

- Consult community, letting people know as soon as possible and hold up front participation before permits are issued - No surprise planning

“The intent in the current draft is unclear.�

-Engagement session attendee

3

“Respect human decency, common sense (ecological), value of community over individual property rights.�

-Engagement session attendee

4

GROWTH Suggestions - Respect human decency, common sense (ecological), value of community over individual property rights - Consider public interest - Identify a conceptual greenbelt - Building on some of the existing protected areas - Clarity on how new development process and the community voice input - How to decide on urban reserve lands - Incentives to use existing property - Also incentives for urban redevelopment - Tax incentives, development fees, development process - User pay tax system, true-costs of development - Remove exceptions and contradictions (Birch Cove for e.g.)

- Looking at more neighbourhood plan process–growth/ open space - Build on unique strengths of places - Growth scenarios A+B would force more radical vision of development - More clarity on community engagement - Form of design of community - Urban/ suburban/ rural - Define and Plan development from planners, not developers - People value green “natural”/ open space - Define terms clearly - Community defined value of environment driving development - Neighbourhood + villages–sense of active life on streets

- Extend planning efforts/shared values beyond tools currently available to planners - Conversation about community value needs to be broadened if we are going to get enough buy in - Work with developers – less confrontation - Growth targets - Plan doesn’t address short comings and doesn’t mention much larger potential savings with higher urban target - Progressive Growth Strategy - Targeted incentives to direct growth - Clear, simple, distinct growth areas - Integrated community design focus - Affordability as part of the vision - Green infrastructure (not from a regulatory body) - Food security focus - Relaxation of secondary suites - Remove restrictions for people with mobility challenges - Quicker process to make real changes - Private property rights

5

TRANSPORTATION Issues - Currently focused on the suburban commuter - It’s about roads and vehicles - Chaos Theory—everyone for themselves mentality - No definition of what a sustainable transit system is and should be—a major component which the plan is lacking - Cars have priority over people - Transit is more than a terminal - No public transit in rural areas - Big challenge/poorly funded - #8 is being cancelled! It’s not possible to get to the seaport market. The line was not supported or understood by community members.

- Connect growth centers through Transit Oriented Development (European model).

- Urban-rural connection, need public transit - Less cars on the peninsula!

Suggestions - Transit downtown terminal - Connect/provide access to healthy food - Bylaws should reflect community values - Add HOV lanes to dedicated bus lanes - Reduce vehicles in downtown core - Commuter/H20 taxis - Understand the mentality of the non-user.

- MetroX has it right: clean, fast, convenient - Think about using roundabouts instead of traffic lights for efficiency

6

- -

-

-

-

- -

-

-

- -

- - -

- - - - - -

-

-

-

-

Accurate signage Widen one street e.g. Robie, instead of many.

Buses cannot give change, develop more progressive payment options Rural/urban transit needs to have a relationship If you can do it all for school children, why not us?

Integrated light system Targeted development timetable for things we value (e.g. park n rides) Make use of existing parking structures Incentive people to change life styles by offering quality transit, (e.g. HOV lanes) What are we doing and how?

RP+5 to tell us what the Transit Plan will do specifically Bring the vision!

Show us deliverables Connected, human focused, innovative Use what we’ve got (i.e. train, rails) Measurable targets Timetable needed Targeted transit development plan Focus on active transit Public transit designed for life and safety of women, not simply commutors Development should follow transportation Look at developer contributors to support transit on corridors Develop integrated transportation plan, support alternatives Make clear commitments to transit in regional centre

“Develop integrated transportation plan, support alternatives.�

-Engagement session attendee

7

“Could we have an urban plan, suburban plan and rural plan?�

-Engagement session attendee

8

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Issues -

- -

Focus on RP+5 at expense of secondary community plans Lack of human scale in RP+5 Lack of community planning/ community empowerment a legacy of amalgamation

Suggestions - Easy to engage people about where they live - Could we have an urban plan, suburban plan, rural plan?

- Decision making lumps everything together - Explore alternative governance structure - Community engagement not a sustained process - Each discussion is new people, new issues - Planning Advisory Committee in each district to engage communities - Current culture of engagement doesn’t encourage youth participation - Have to push your way in - Holistic approach with real, meaningful opportunities for citizens to get involved - Better note-taking - True participatory democracy at community engagement sessions - Transparency - Better communication from planning department - Need a communications officer - Need to let the public know how to affect change - Ensure accountability and integrity of the process

-

-

-

- -

-

-

-

-

- -

- -

-

- -

-

- - -

Categorized raw data so valuable recommendations don’t get lost—one could be redirected to specific areas Build on what is already in place like ourHRM Alliance Perform debriefings at the community level Move forward collectively More recourse for people who are negatively affected by planning No right of appeal is unconstitutional Who is being engaged?

Engagement has to cross cultural and socioeconomic lines; it must represent a cross-section of society.

Community based human scale approach Shouldn’t get to shoot your mouth off More protocol Clear understanding of what’s expected HRM to follow their own guidelines Work with local communities to make transit terminal decisions RP+5 needs to provide clear foundation for secondary plans Need deliverables People should know the expectations of what will come out of the meeting Provide the public with factual, widely disseminated, easily acceptable information Don’t manipulate the process Follow the guidelines written out We want the ability to comment on things we dislike so we may positively affect change

9

ENVIRONMENT Issues

Suggestions

- No new water lots created in Bedford Basin or anywhere (HRM) - Stewardship as a framework- protect what’s there. Identify natural existing features.

- Process objectives/no vision - “Greenbelting” in name only - Does not implement green belting as tool to manage growth - Whole chapter lacks credibility - HRM could be world leader on coastal management and climate change adaptability - Controls in RP+5 now are weaker, why?

- Opportunity: (what the rest of the world wants) - Mix of urban and rural - Define boundaries along watershed limits - Green spaces/belts - Connectivity - High-quality water - Unspoiled coast line - Wetlands - Soil for reforestation - Support the environment vs. manage - HRM staff not engaged in this - Lack of resources? Background?

- No mention of the coast line in the plan (i.e. access, protection) - Need to find common ground with developers - Community involvement leads to better developments - i.e. Fleming Park, Williams Lake – community-based planning process - Supported by HRM staff (individual volunteer planning staff )

- -

-

-

-

-

-

- -

-

-

10

Define greenbelt Need a specific area, define the boundaries don’t put any exceptions in plan A minimum of 30 metres fresh water course buffer Define, contain development space Focus on creation neighbourhoods in rural areas Preserve 10 minute ride to nature from downtown Greenbelt: rural growth areas defined Greenbelt: No exceptions How do they figure out that mailing big box stores out in Bedford commons is helping the core “downtown” of Bedford Minimum 30m (fresh) watercourse buffer!

Time lines needed for all objectives

“HRM could be a world leader on coastal management and climate change adaptability �

-Engagement session attendee