January 11, 2012 Mr.

Doug James Planning Department City of Ottawa Ottawa City Hall 110 Laurier Avenue West Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 1J1 Dear Mr. James We are writing with regards to the site plan application for 114 Richmond Road. After reading through the proposals made by Ashcroft for the site at 114 Richmond Rd we are disappointed to see that the developer is making such significant changes that are in direct conflict with what City Council had originally agreed to when they made their decision about zoning for this site in 2010. Given the significant impacts on our neighbourhood that we face as a result of this development, we consider that it is very important that the City do everything possible to ensure that the decisions made previously by council are respected and we feel that doing so would also result in the best outcome for the neighbouring community. Key Issues We have reviewed the proposed site plans and wish to raise our key concerns. 1) Southerly (Shannon Street) Exit - When the re-zoning application for this site was made it was stated very clearly that the only buildings having access to the southern driveway into the site would be those in the area zoned R5B[1763] S256-h and that this area would be limited to 65 parking spaces regardless of what use they were put towards. The councillors who voted on the motion posed multiple questions seeking assurance that the limit of 65 parking spots would be adhered to. From the meeting minutes of the Planning and Environment Committee on November 17, 2010: "The Chair confirmed with staff that if the developers changed the units from seniors units to condos, there would be 65 spaces regardless. They would either have to limit the number of condos to the number of parking spots related to the zoning by-law or they would have to come back to Council to re-zone the property to amend the parking requirement for those specific condo units. Mr. James confirmed that there could be more condos but they would not get additional parking. The Chair asked if parking spaces are related to the units provided. Mr. Miguelez confirmed that regardless of the number of units, the parking was limited to 65 spaces." From what we have since been told based on the meeting between Doug James and Dennis Jacobs, the actual zoning rules for the R5B[1763] S256-h area do not preclude Ashcroft from increasing the available parking if they were to change the intended purpose of these buildings. This is in direct contradiction of what was promised to the city council members who voted to allow this zoning. We certainly don't see any benefit in arguing over what has already been decided by city council but we would like to know how the will of city council in this case was not carried through on a point that

was expressly questioned during the committee meeting. We would like to ensure that such important zoning rules are written into the zoning bylaws rather than forgotten when it comes time to write the rules. 2) Leighton Terrace We were advised through the site plan process that the use of Leighton Terrace has also changed significantly. Whereas originally, Leighton Terrace was only going to be used for emergency vehicles, Ashcroft is now proposing to use Leighton Terrace for commercial and visitors parking going to the site. While it is proposed to put no right hand turn lanes leaving the site and no left turn lanes for traffic coming north on Leighton Terrace, these types of controls are extremely difficult to enforce. Traffic is proposed to go from Leighton Terrace north to Richmond Road and cars wishing to enter the site will have to turn off of Richmond Road and go south on Leighton Terrace. The intersection at Island Park and Richmond Road is already at failure or close to failure for much of the day. The extra volume of traffic turning south off of Richmond Road only one short block west of Island Park increases the potential for additional backups on this street. As well, cars trying to turn left onto Richmond Road at rush hour from Leighton Terrace will experience significant difficulty given that lack of a light at Richmond Road and may be more likely to go south on Leighton Terrace (regardless of a no right hand turn sign) to Island Park, south on Island Park to Byron and west on Island Park to Kirkwood so that they can make their left hand turn onto Richmond Road at the Kirkwood/Richmond Road light. Again, no explanation has been given as to why these cars cannot use the signalized intersection at Richmond Road and Patricia as originally proposed by Ashcroft. Shannon Street Widening - The Site plan submitted by Ashcroft shows that Shannon Street would be widened to 8.5 metres (approximately 28 ft wide) with a sidewalk running alongside. Subsequent to the issuance of the site plan, however, Doug James has advised that the site plan only shows Ashcrofts initial concept. Doug James has advised that it is anticipated that the actual asphalt width of Shannon Street will be approximately 6.7 metres (approximately 22 feet) wide, with the plan to relocate the overhead wires to the north and move the road as close to the row of trees in the park as possible, without needing to remove them, then having the asphalt go north only as far as need be. Given the proximity of the walking trail, there would be no sidewalk along Shannon, which would help to minimize the amount of widening required Zoning Rationale The changes being sought after by Ashcroft are in clear opposition to the reasons for originally approving the current zoning when it was argued in front of the Planning and Environment Committee in November 2010. The proposed changes would result in 281 parking spots being given access at the north end (split between Richmond Road and Leighton Terrace) and 260 parking spots being given access at the south end. This is despite the fact that the councillors on the planning committee were assured repeatedly that the zoning they were voting on would result in only a small minority of the overall site's parking being given access through the south end of the property. Reading through the minutes of this meeting it is clear that the councillors wanted assurance that the cap of 65 parking spaces for the retirement homes could not be subverted. It is also clear that there was an assumption that this would be the only portion of the development which would have any vehicular access to the southern portion of the site. At all times when traffic to the south was discussed, it was with the understanding that only the cars serviced by these 65 parking spaces would have access at the south. To now increase this to 260 spaces would be to enact a huge change to the criteria that city council originally used for approving the current zoning. While there was some discussion by Ashcroft as to whether the underground parking for the condo to the south of the Convent building would be physically separated from the senior`s parking or would only be separated by a card controlled barrier (that would go up and down), both Council and the community was repeatedly assured by Ashcroft that only the 65 parking spots in the senior`s building would have access to the southern access point. If a controlled barrier was put in place, only the seniors would be able to

raise the barrier, allowing them to leave the site through Richmond Road as well as Shannon Street. The residents of the southern condo building would not be able to raise the barrier allowing them access to Shannon Street. We understand that Ashcroft has requested this change as they have recently determined that it would be very costly to tunnel under the Convent to link the southerly condo building to Richmond Road now that they have a better understanding of the structural condition of the Convent building. We raised this as an issue with the City in September 2011 when we reviewed the site plan for Phase One of the project. HICG specifically noted that the site plans for Phase One did not show this linkage. We were told at the time, that there would be a linkage under the Convent and there was no need to take this into account during Phase One site plan review and that the Phase Two site plan would only allow for the 65 senior`s spots to access the southerly exit. We were advised by your office and Councillor Hobbs that Ashcroft has advised them that they cannot afford to refurbish the Convent building if they have to pay to link the southerly condo under the Convent to Richmond Road. Economic issues are not part of the planning process and should have no bearing on the City`s decision. Neither the cost of a development nor its overall profitability are planning arguments. Even if they were allowed arguments, Ashcroft has provided no independent economic or engineering evaluation of the associated issues dealing with the Convent nor have they opened their books to show how profitable or unprofitable the development may be to their company. If economic arguments were allowed they should have to be independently verified. Ashcroft has owned the property since Fall 2009 and should have had sufficient time prior to submitting its original proposal to Planning Committee to determine the status of the Convent and the impact of their development on the structural integrity of the Convent. As well, to date, Ashcroft has talked about the potential use of the Convent building but they have yet to provide any definitive plans as to how they plan to use the building or commit any funds to the restoration of the building. Should you allow Ashcroft to link the southern Condo to Shannon Street, there are still no assurances that they will ever restore the Convent building. They are only prohibited from tearing it down. As an alternative, Ashcroft could link the garage for the southerly condo building to Richmond Road through the exit at Patricia. The cars for this building could use the same road as the truck access. Trucks would continue to load and unload at the southwest corner of the Convent while a ramp leading to the southern condo building could be built just after the loading area. In this way, cars to the southern condo would use Richmond Road and Patricia as originally agreed upon. We would like the city to uphold its original decision and require Ashcroft to adhere to the spirit of the original zoning decision made by Council, ensuring that the vast majority of cars from the development are exiting onto Richmond Rd. no planning rationale has been given for the change allowing commercial and visitors parking to use Leighton Terrace and there is no analysis as to how this incremental traffic will impact such intersections as Leighton Terrace/Richmond Road, Leighton Terrace/Island Park and Island Park/Richmond, we see no rationale for the City to agree to this proposed change. As the parking for visitors and commercial parking will be under the southern condo building, this traffic can also access Richmond Road at Patricia if a ramp is built at the end of the truck route as discussed above. As originally indicated by Ashcroft, residents parking can be separated from the commercial and visitors parking through the use of coded passes and traffic barriers. Community Effects All of the vehicles exiting at the south will be going directly onto local residential roads including such small streets as Shannon Street, Mulvihill Avenue, and Lyman Street. In addition, the changes that have been proposed would see many cars originally slated to exit the development onto Richmond Rd to instead use Leighton Terrace.

Every one of the cars exiting at the south would also be crossing the path of the many children who walk to Hilson Avenue Public School each day. The intersection of Shannon and Hilson has already been identified as problematic by both the city's planning department and the Delcan Corporation traffic report which stated: "the Shannon Street intersection with Hilson Avenue is immediately adjacent, and parallel to, where the Byron recreation path crosses Hilson Avenue. This close proximity is acceptable for the few vehicles currently generated by the existing Shannon Street residences, but would certainly not be acceptable if there were 100 vph to 150 vph turning onto and off of Shannon Street." While measures are being planned to move the location of the pathway so that it meets Hilson Avenue directly at Byron, this does not change the fact that this large number of pedestrians and cyclists will still be crossing the path of far more vehicles than was indicated by Ashcroft and agreed to by City Council It also doesn't alter the fact that the amount of traffic expected at the Shannon/Hilson/Byron intersection will result in problems when traffic heading south on Hilson backs up beyond where Shannon Street meets Hilson. The increase in traffic will also result in far more drivers choosing to avoid lineups on Byron or Richmond by instead using Hilson Ave and the currently quiet side streets that radiate away from it. The same problem will certainly occur on Leighton Terrace where most cars will certainly heed signs directing them to turn left towards Richmond Rd but many will choose to ignore it rather than take an extra 3 minutes to make their way north on Island Park. While Delcan may have advised as to the level of additional traffic, they have provided no analysis as to the impact on the neighbourhood, the existing road network, traffic safety or already failing major intersections. Conclusions Ashcroft has proposed two major changes through the site plan process that will impact significantly on the community. These are the reconfiguration of their parking garages so that there will now be significantly more traffic on Shannon Street and Leighton Terrace than originally proposed by Ashcroft and approved by City Council. Given that these changes impact on the neighbourhood, not just Ashcroft`s site, Ashcroft should not be given approval for these changes through the back door. It was Planning Committee and Council that originally approved the development and its impacts on the neighbourhood. If citizens are to have faith in the City planning process, a developer should not be able to make these kinds of changes which significantly impact the neighbourhood through the siteplan process, particularly when they go against what the developer presented to the Planning Committee and what was part of the basis for approval by Council. Particularly in this case, the Planning Committee approved the applicants original rezoning proposal based on the traffic impacts on the neighbourhood. This lack of transparency is further impacted by the minimum level of details required on a siteplan for underground parking. If the reconfiguration of the parking garages did not impact on how the traffic flow impacted on the neighbourhood then these would not be issues. As such, the Hampton Iona Community Group recommends that there be no changes allowed in how traffic flows in and out of the site from what was originally approved by Council in 2010. Ashcroft has given no planning rationale for these changes and economic arguments are not part of the planning approval process. If economic arguments were valid they should be independently confirmed. While we remain opposed to the requested changes in access to Shannon Street and Leighton Terrace, should Ashcroft`s proposed changes to what was previously agreed upon by Council be approved, we request that the City work directly with the affected community to develop impact mitigants. With respect to the widening of Shannon Street, we are pleased that the City has indicated that they are only prepared to widen the street to a minimum width similar to other streets in the neighbourhood and that the widening will be done in a manner that will minimize the impact on the residents of Shannon. We

would encourage the City to work closely with the residents of Shannon Street and the community in planning for the widening of this street.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Lorne Cutler, President Hampton Iona Community Group .cc Katherine Hobbs Peter Hume Mayor Jim Watson Dennis Jacobs, Momentum