Witness Statement of Russell B. Mathew Hemson Consulting Ltd

Home , Golden Horseshoe

WITNESS STATEMENT OF RUSSELL B. MATHEW HEMSON CONSULTING LTD.

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal In the Matter of:

City of Ottawa Official Plan Amendment 180 Urban Expansion

File Numbers PL140495, PL170983

June 12, 2019

HEMSON

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d'appel de l'aménagement local

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXPERT’S DUTY

Case Number Municipality PL140495 City of Ottawa PL170983

1. My name is Russell Mathew. I live in the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario.

2. I have been engaged by the City of Ottawa to provide evidence in relation to the above-noted LPAT proceeding.

3. I acknowledge that it is my duty to provide evidence in relation to this proceeding as follows:

a. to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;

b. to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within my area of expertise; and

c. to provide such additional assistance as the LPAT may reasonably require, to determine a matter in issue.

4. I acknowledge that the duty referred to above prevails over any obligation which I may owe to any party by whom or on whose behalf I am engaged.

Date…June 12, 2019………… ………………………………………………………. Signature

I INTRODUCTION

1. The following witness statement is submitted by Russell B. Mathew, a Partner with Hemson Consulting Ltd. on behalf of the City of Ottawa. Hemson Consulting Ltd. operates at 30 St. Patrick Street, Suite 1000, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3A3, Telephone: 416-593-5090.

A. QUALIFICATIONS

2. I have 30 years of professional experience as a planner, land economist and demographer. Growth management and long-range planning is a major area of my expertise. I have been involved in forecasting, growth management and long-range planning assignments for numerous municipalities throughout Ontario including most of the municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe as well as Ottawa and many surrounding municipalities. I have also prepared forecasts for the Government of Ontario, both Province wide and specifically for inclusion in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. I also assisted the Ministry of Municipal Affairs with the preparation of the 1994 Projection Methodology Guidelines and the 2018 Land Needs Assessment Methodology, which are the only two such documents that the Ministry has prepared.

3. Of particular relevance to this case, I have assisted the City of Ottawa with numerous assignments on growth management, growth forecasting and land needs, including some for the former municipalities prior to the 2001 amalgamation. In 2007 I peer reviewed the City’s forecasts that were used as the basis for OPA 76 in 2009. In 2015, I was engaged as part of a team to prepare an Employment Land Review for the City, some of the results of which are related to the current matter before the Tribunal. I have also had a small involvement on forecast matters in a number of municipal finance assignments prepared by Hemson for the City of Ottawa, including the most recent Development Charge Background Study, a prior transit development charge study and several studies related to the cost of growth.

4. I have provided expert opinion evidence to the former Ontario Municipal Board on many occasions over the past 20 years on matters related to land economics, forecasting, demographics and planning policy. I have also provided expert evidence to the Ontario Highway Transport Board and to a panel conducting a “hearing of necessity” under the Expropriations Act.

HEMSON

5. I am a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP), the Ontario Association of Land Economists (PLE), the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), LAI Land Economics Society (LAI) and a Registered Professional Planner (RPP). A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached to this witness statement as Attachment A.

B. RETAINER

6. The Employment Land Review was initially prepared to 2031 horizon date. I was then retained to extend the study to 2036 as part of the preparation of OPA 180. Following the appeal of OPA 180, I was retained in 2017 to assist the City with related matters including employment, residential and land needs.

C. MATERIALS RELIED UPON

7. I will rely upon the following documentary material at the hearing:

 This witness statement;

 The witness statements of I. Cross and B. Finlay;

 Documents contained in the Document Book, especially:

o June 1, 2017 Memorandum from IBI;

o April 19, 2018 Hemson memorandum to the City in response to the IBI memorandum;

 Witness statements, evidence and materials provided by or on behalf of other witnesses and parties to the hearing;

 Applicable land use planning documents, including:

The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014;

The City of Ottawa Official Plan, as amended;

 Background and supporting documentation to the above land use planning documents.

 Reports and other documents relied upon by the appellants in support of appeals to the City of Ottawa Official Plan, as appropriate.

HEMSON

D. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

8. I will be providing evidence related to Issues 1 to 6 of the Issues List, provided in Attachment B.

E. CONCLUSIONS

9. Issue 1: Should the City’s urban area boundary be expanded to accommodate additional growth to the year 2036 and, if so, by what amount of land?

No, there are sufficient lands within the urban area boundary to accommodate planned growth in population and employment to 2036.

10. Issue 2: In not providing for an urban area boundary expansion through OPA 180, has the City failed to ensure that sufficient land will be made available in the City of Ottawa to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses and housing to meet projected needs to the proposed planning horizon, as required by the Provincial Policy Statement?

No, the planned growth in the City of Ottawa under OPA 180 provides for substantial development potential of all housing unit types to 2036 — in low, medium and high density forms — in both greenfield and intensification settings. This housing development would represent an appropriate range and mix of housing in accordance with the PPS.

11. Issue 3: Did the City apply appropriate assumptions and statistical information and analyses in arriving at its conclusion through OPA 180 that “there is no need to consider any changes to the Urban or Village land supply to accommodate the population, household or employment projected to 2036”?

Yes, the City did use appropriate assumptions and statistical information in reaching its conclusions for OPA 180, recognizing the correction in the updated 2018-based analysis. In accordance with normal practice, the City relied on a range of published statistical information (primarily Statistics Canada), mainly for demand analysis purposes, as well as the City’s own data on land supply and development potential, primarily for the supply analysis. Also in accordance with normal practice in Ontario, the City relied on a reasonable set of assumptions that combine a range of economic and demographic variables with assumptions rooted in planning policy.

HEMSON

12. Issue 4: Were the methods used by the City to project the 2036 supply and demand for residential units appropriate?

Yes, the methods used by the City are appropriate and in accordance with normal practices in forecasting and land budgeting in Ontario.

13. Issue 5: Are the proposed intensification targets to the year 2036 appropriate?

Yes, the intensification targets are appropriate. Residential development in the City in recent years has exceeded the established targets. Planning-policy-based targets are typically higher than current observed development. From today’s perspective the intensification targets may be somewhat conservative, so lower intensification targets would not be appropriate.

14. Issue 6: What is the City-Wide unit mix for the growth increment from 2014 to 2036 and at 2036 that will result from meeting the residential intensification targets referred to above?

I have reviewed the unit mix in the evidence of Mr. I. Cross, both as originally published in November 2016 and as updated to a 2018 base year. Based on the data and assumptions shown and the allocation of unit types to policy areas, the planned city-wide housing mix would allow the City to meet residential intensification targets in the Ottawa Official Plan and as extended to 2036.

HEMSON

IV EVIDENCE

15. My outline of evidence addresses each of the six issues but organised in what I view as a logical sequence for presentation to the Tribunal, that is: the evidence begins with Issue 4 concerning methods, is followed by 3, 5 and 6 concerning assumptions and ends with Issues 1 and 2 which are overall conclusions.

ISSUE 4

Were the methods used by the City to project the 2036 supply and demand for residential units appropriate?

Demand

16. The housing demand forecast prepared by the City of Ottawa and described in the November 2016 OPA 180 background documents was based on standard methods:

 Starting with an age structure forecast;

 Appling age-specific household formation rates to provide a household forecast;

 Applying age-specific housing occupancy patterns by housing type, adjusted for changes based on market and policy observations, to provide a forecast of total housing by type; and

 Less the existing housing stock, yields the housing growth over the forecast period.

It is important to note that the household and housing forecasts are prepared on the basis of the entire population and housing stock, not just the growth increment. This approach is important as it takes account of the aging population, changing household characteristics by age, and shifting housing preferences of different age groups.

17. The housing forecast by type is then divided, share-wise, into the three primary policy areas for the analysis: urban intensification, urban greenfield and rural.

HEMSON

18. The method described above is standard practice for municipal forecasting and land budgeting purposes. The allocation of the forecast into rural, intensification and greenfield policy areas is more recent and not applied in all jurisdictions. It is, however, now applied throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) because the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) has similar policy areas to those used by the City of Ottawa. In the GGH, this approach is mandated by the Province’s Land Needs Assessment Methodology (LNA).

19. The updated forecasts to a 2018 base, provided in witness statement of I. Cross, did not change the method or 2036 total demand results, but rather just updated analysis from a 2014 to 2018 base, using new housing added during the four year period.

20. The same method including the policy areas was used by the appellants, as described in the June 1, 2017 memorandum with alternative forecasts. Differences in view between the City and IBI on the housing forecast are not matters of method but, rather, matters of the assumptions applied. These assumptions are addressed in Issues 3, 5 and 6.

Supply

21. The housing supply information prepared by the City of Ottawa and described in the November 2016 OPA 180 was based on standard methods, as are the updates and new information provided on residential land supply in preparation for the current hearing. Land supply information is referenced in the witness statement of I. Cross and is provided in the document book prepared for this hearing.

The housing supply information for the urban greenfield lands is the most critical to the land budget process as it is a determinant of whether or not there is the need for additional designations of greenfield urban residential land. Rural supply and urban intensification supply, on the other hand, are to demonstrate adequacy of the supply potential. Neither are used to determine a direct need for additional planning permissions for residential lands.

22. For the urban greenfield land supply, the following was undertaken, on a housing unit by type basis:

 The City’s urban greenfield supply is based on its annual Vacant Urban Residential Land Survey (VURLS).

HEMSON

 VURLS includes information from registered plans, draft approved plans and applications (noted as pending in VURLS) where exact numbers of units can be determined.

 For vacant lands that are not yet under application, assumed development based on the Community Design Plan (secondary/tertiary plan) is used.

 Where there is no plan in place, reasonable unit yields are assumed based on policies in place or on yields for comparable sites with plans.

 Where VURLS reports on parcels that are considered within the intensification area, these are removed from the greenfield supply.

 Parcels in greenfield areas that were converted from employment lands through the OPA 180 process are added as greenfield residential lands with the appropriate status.

23. The Rural Residential Land Survey 2017-18 Update follows a similar process to account for registered, draft approved, pending (under application) and areas with no plan in place. The supply analysis does not account for development that may occur in the future as a result of individual severances or units that may be built on historic “lots of record” outside of the planned rural development areas. These latter units are not predictable in a supply sense, but are small in number. Over the past 10 years, the City has averaged about 50 units a year of this latter type. The identified current supply is just over 12,000 units.

24. The intensification supply potential was catalogued in response to the appellant’s information request and provided the following:

 Known projects are applications on sites with known planned units either in specific building applications or sites in planned areas where specific building applications are not yet submitted (such as parcels on the Lincoln Fields Shopping Centre site, not yet under application). These have known unit types in accordance with applications or plans and are over 90% apartments. The total unit potential in this category is about 42,000 units.

 Identified intensification potential in Community Design Plans, Master Plans or Transit Oriented Development Areas. This potential is not necessarily parcel specific and does not have an associated housing unit type. Any specific parcels counted in the step above were removed from the general potential for these areas. The total unit potential in this category is about 49,000 units.

HEMSON

 The Where Will We Live report on transit-related residential opportunities identified potential for nearly 15,000 units in locations not already counted in the steps above.

 Finally, sites that were identified in VURLS, but are within the built up area considered as intensification, including employment land conversion sites, amount to another 6,700 unit potential.

An intensification potential of over 111,000 units has been identified.

25. Not included in the identified intensification supply are the scattered small scale intensification opportunities that occur throughout the city. In most communities, these kinds of opportunities are the source of most of the intensification in single and semi-detached units and much of the potential for rows. This supply potential would include: severances of larger lots; non-residential sites that are underutilized/obsolete today or will become so in the future; large historic rural lots that have come into the urban area and may accommodate small low and medium density severances and subdivisions; school or place of worship sites that become available for neighbourhood infill development; and other current and future surplus public lands. While some of these types of intensification opportunities might be able to be identified in advance, many cannot.

26. The above three components of the residential supply represent a thorough analysis of residential supply potential in the City of Ottawa, prepared in accordance with appropriate methods.

27. In the June 1, 2017 memorandum, IBI raised two methodological issues associated with the supply. The first concerned the updating of the supply and demand to common base year of 2014. IBI identified a “double counting” of units under construction, which has now been corrected in updating the information to 2018, per the witness statement of I. Cross.

28. The second methodological issue raised by IBI was the inclusion of the residential lands resulting from the employment land conversions as residential supply, since no specific residential permissions are granted with the conversion. As described in Hemson’s April 19, 2018 response memo, I am of the view that these lands must be included in the urban supply for either employment or community use otherwise we would be failing to recognize available urban lands, contrary to land budgeting practice. The fact that the status of approvals was uncertain at that time is little different than the assumptions that need to be made for greenfield lands with no plan in the VURLS.

HEMSON

Demand-Supply Comparison

29. The final part of the method is the comparison of demand and supply to determine if there is a surplus or shortfall of unit potential in the urban greenfield areas and to determine if any additional urban residential lands need to be designated. This is done according to unit type, mainly to determine if there is a need for additional lands for ground-related housing. In a large urban community, there is nearly always a large surplus of apartment potential which cannot be readily substituted for ground-related housing need.

30. While surplus/shortfall calculations need not be carried out for the rural and intensification areas, best practices suggest that the municipality should satisfy itself that the rural and intensification supply are at least sufficient to meet the housing unit growth allocated to these areas through the life of the plan.

31. In my opinion, the methods used by the City are appropriate and in accordance with normal practices in forecasting and land budgeting in Ontario.

ISSUE 3:

Did the City apply appropriate assumptions and statistical information and analyses in arriving at its conclusion through OPA 180 that “there is no need to consider any changes to the Urban or Village land supply to accommodate the population, household or employment projected to 2036”?

32. As part of the appeal process, specific concerns have been raised by the appellants with respect to the important assumptions used for the housing unit demand by type, the share of unit growth allocated to the rural area and the share of demand allocated to intensification. Issue 5, following, specifically addresses the question of intensification. The forecast of demand by type and rural share are addressed here under Issue 3. Other concerns with minor assumptions that have been raised by the appellants to date have been addressed elsewhere in this witness statement or in the April 19, 2018 response memo to the June 1, 2017 IBI memo.

33. The focus of my evidence outlined in this witness statement is on the methods, assumptions and statistical information used by the City of Ottawa that appear to be in dispute by the appellants. I have, however, reviewed the wide range of assumptions and results as well as the supporting statistical information for those matters which do not appear to be in dispute. I find the methods, assumptions and results that are consequential to the conclusion of there being no need for additional urban or rural village lands to be appropriate.

HEMSON

Housing Growth by Unit Type (Housing Propensity)

34. The most consequential assumption to the matter now before the Tribunal is the housing mix of future housing demand.

35. The first part the housing forecast is a household forecast, that is, household formation independent of housing type. The forecast is undertaken by applying age-specific household formation rates to a forecast of the population by age. This yields a forecast of the total number of households and the average household size at the forecast date.

36. In most cases, age-specific household formation rates are held constant for the forecast at the most recent available Census date, or as estimated for the following Census date. In Ottawa, both the City and IBI’s alternative forecast used constant 2011 household formation rates. The use of constant rates is standard practice in land budgeting and is the recommended approach in the 1994 Projection Methodology Guideline as well as in the 2018 LNA (for the GGH).

37. The housing types for future housing demand by unit type is based on occupancy patterns (or housing propensities). These are rarely held constant in land budgeting as housing markets do shift over time. The best example of this kind of change is in rowhousing. Up to the early 1990s rowhousing was a small part of the new housing market. In 1991 it represented 15.6% of the Census occupied units in Ottawa-Carleton, based on some historic units and a brief period of popularity in 1970s. From 1991-96, however, rows surged to being 34.9% of new units and have remained at about one-third of the market ever since. The result of this shift is that applying the occupancy patterns across the entire household base by age would have always under-estimated growth in every Census period for the past 25 years. Applying the 2011 row occupancy patterns, without adjustment, to 2016 households would have suggested 15% of Census unit growth in rows from 2011 to 2016, while the actual growth stayed at the market-observed share of 33%.

38. A constant occupancy pattern is not an appropriate assumption in the large urban markets in Ontario, as it will not provide a reasonable expectation of housing growth by unit type. The question in considering these forecasts is not whether adjustments to occupancy patterns should be made, but rather the degree of adjustment and the direction.

39. Based on an analysis of a number of factors, as outlined in the November 2016 report, the City assumed future occupancy patterns declining for single and semi- detached units, increasing for rowhouse units and a very small increase for apartment units. These assumptions are consistent with the observed new housing

HEMSON

market in Ottawa and consistent with trends in other large urban markets in Ontario.

40. Based on CMHC data, housing completions in Ottawa over the five years from June 2014 to May 2019 has been 37% singles and semis, 30% rows and 33% apartments. This is quite similar to the City’s forecast demand housing unit mix.

41. IBI’s alternative forecast presented in the June 1, 2017 memo also assumes a decline in single and semi-detached units (but to a lesser degree than the City) and an increase in occupancy rates for rowhouses (to a slightly greater degree than the City). The IBI forecast also introduces a very significant decline in the apartment unit occupancy pattern from the “constant rate” expectation.

42. The City’s rationale for the shifts in the future housing occupancy assumptions are laid out in the November 2016 report. The IBI memorandum provides some counter arguments to these views. A key conclusion from the exchange of views is that assumptions for setting future occupancy patterns are complex. And, these assumptions should be based on a consistent view of how markets and preferences may shift.

43. The IBI alternative forecast does not present a clear view of why the pattern shifts might occur. Rather, the forecast is based on the marginal occupancy pattern observed from 2001 to 2011. Using the marginal pattern for new units over the 10 years to forecast the overall growth in households is a spurious statistical approach. The idea of household formation rates and occupancy patterns is that they are applied to the entire base of population and housing and incorporate changes arising from changing age structure as well as preferences by age. On the contrary, the IBI approach will mainly perpetuate the 2001-2011 market characteristics of new housing through the forecast.

44. In my opinion the overall shifts in the housing occupancy pattern forecast by the City in its November 2016 report appear reasonable and produce a forecast that reasonably aligns with current and anticipated markets.

Rural Share of Growth

45. A second major assumption in the land budget is the share of growth attributed to the rural area of Ottawa. Usage of the term rural in Ottawa is different from most other municipalities. Rural includes all parts of the city that are beyond the planned urban communities outside the greenbelt. The Rural area includes a number of Rural Villages, some of which are quite large, and a number of which have partial or full servicing, which are, essentially, essentially small urban

HEMSON

settlement areas. In addition, Ottawa has a very large truly rural area. The general view in Ontario planning that rural areas should only accommodate a small part of growth also applies in Ottawa, though there remains some truly-rural potential in country residential subdivisions on private services with legacy permissions. Based on the Rural Residential Land Survey, over 80% of growth potential is in the Rural Village settlement areas with, at least, partial services.

46. The assumed share of growth in the forecast is 9% of city-wide housing unit growth. The 9% share is higher than the recent historic share of 7% of growth. As also noted in the witness statement of I. Cross, the higher share is reasonable given the market interest in development in these areas, recent applications and approvals and the recent and planned extension of services. I share Mr. Cross’s opinion that the 9% growth share is reasonable and appropriate for planning purposes, rather than relying on recent historic shares.

47. In my opinion, the overall shifts in the housing occupancy pattern forecast by the City in its November 2016 report appear reasonable and produce a forecast that reasonably aligns with current and anticipated housing markets.

Conclusion on Issue 3

48. In conclusion on this issue, in my opinion, the City did use appropriate assumptions and statistical information in reaching its conclusions for OPA 180. In accordance with normal practice, the City relied on a range of published statistical information (primarily Statistics Canada), mainly for demand analysis purposes, as well as the City’s own data on land supply and development potential, primarily for the supply analysis. Also, in accordance with normal practice in Ontario, the City relied on a reasonable set of assumptions that combine a range of economic and demographic factors with planning policy objectives.

ISSUE 5

Are the proposed intensification targets to the year 2036 appropriate?

49. As described in the witness statements of B. Finlay and I. Cross, the existing intensification targets in the Ottawa Official Plan are extended from 2031 to 2036 in OPA 180, based on the pattern of increasing the intensification rate by 2% for each five-year period. This began with a rate of 36% of urban area units for 2007- 11, then by adding 2% in each five year period gets to 44% by the 2027-31 period and the OPA 180 addition raises the target rate to 46% for 2032-36. As described

HEMSON

by Mr. Cross, the escalating rate averages to 43.2% of urban growth for the period to 2036 from the updated 2018 base.

50. The other large urban area in Ontario where there are specific intensification targets is in the GGH, which accommodates the vast majority of Province’s population and its housing growth and is subject to Provincially-mandated minimum intensification targets. These targets exceed the more modest targets already in the City of Ottawa in-force official plan.

51. Comparison to the Growth Plan targets requires a comparable measure. Growth Plan targets are based on shares of an entire municipality’s housing growth. Taking account of the rural share in Ottawa, the 43.2% of urban area units amounts to 39.3% of all units in the city. The Growth Plan, 2006 was based on a minimum 40% intensification by 2015 through to 2031. The new Growth Plan, 2019 is based on the 40% increasing to 50% by no later than 2022 and through to 2041 for the larger urban upper and single-tier municipalities.

52. A proper comparison of Ottawa to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) would not be the above, but rather a combined rate of the central city (Toronto) at 100% plus the intensification rate for the surrounding suburban and rural areas. Ottawa is, after all, a central city, with surrounding suburbs and a surrounding rural area all in one municipality. The GTA at 100% intensification for Toronto and 40% for the surrounding regions for 2016 to 2041 would have an overall intensification rate for the period of about 55%. Based on the new Growth Plan with the regions rising to 50% from 2021 to 2041, this would have an overall GTA rate of almost 62%. The intensification rates in Ottawa’s official plan are quite modest when comparing 39.3% intensification to a policy target of 62% in the GTA.

53. As noted by Mr. Cross in his witness statement, the City of Ottawa has, on average, exceeded the intensification targets since they were put in place beginning in 2007.

54. In my opinion, the intensification rates contained in the in-force Ottawa Official Plan to 2031 and as extended to 2036 through OPA 180 are achievable and appropriate.

ISSUE 6

What is the City-Wide unit mix for the growth increment from 2014 to 2036 and at 2036 that will result from meeting the residential intensification targets referred to above?

HEMSON

55. As noted by Mr. Cross, the city prepared the forecast of housing type based on housing occupancy pattern assumptions. The housing was then allocated to the housing policy areas recognizing their different characteristics, such as rural units being predominantly single detached, intensification units being predominantly apartments and the greenfield areas mostly ground-related and including the bulk of the rowhouse units. The result was a housing mix at the city level that when allocated allowed for a reasonable housing mix in each of the policy areas recognizing the identified supply.

56. The implication of the City’s analysis is that the intensification rates in the Ottawa Official Plan and extended to 2036 in OPA 180 could occur “naturally” in the marketplace given the anticipated unit demand patterns and the planning in place or forthcoming for development in both intensification and greenfield areas.

57. The wording of the issue appears to be based on areas with more aggressive intensification targets than Ottawa. In my work in the GTA and the rest of the GGH with the much higher intensification targets, the mix in forecast by unit type typically needs to be significantly adjusted from lower to higher density units to create a housing mix that could allow for the high levels of intensification in the targets. Such a further adjustment to the housing mix is not required in Ottawa.

58. In my opinion, the housing mix proposed in the City’s November 2016 forecast as updated to a 2018 base is sufficient to meet the intensification targets in the Ottawa Official Plan and as extended to 2036.

ISSUE 1:

Should the City’s urban area boundary be expanded to accommodate additional growth to the year 2036 and, if so, by what amount of land?

59. In my opinion, there is no need to expand the urban boundary to accommodate planned growth to 2036 as there are sufficient lands within the urban area. The analysis indicates a combined surplus of ground-related supply (singles, semis and rows) of over 10% of greenfield ground-related unit demand during the forecast period.

ISSUE 2:

In not providing for an urban area boundary expansion through OPA 180, has the City failed to ensure that sufficient land will be made available in the City of Ottawa

HEMSON

to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses and housing to meet projected needs to the proposed planning horizon, as required by the Provincial Policy Statement?

60. In my opinion, the planned growth in the City of Ottawa under OPA 180 provides for substantial development potential of all housing unit types to 2036 — in low, medium and high density forms — in both greenfield and intensification settings. This housing development would represent an appropriate range and mix of housing in accordance with the Provincial Policy Statement.

Russell B. Mathew, RPP, MRICS, MCIP, PLE, LAI Hemson Consulting Ltd. June 12, 2019

HEMSON

ATTACHMENT A

CURRICULUM VITAE

HEMSON

RUSSELL B. MATHEW

Position: Partner

Years of Experience: 34 years

Education: Master of Science in Planning, University of Toronto, 1985 Honours Bachelor of Science, Geography and Mathematics, University of Alberta, 1982

Affiliations: Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP) Ontario Professional Planners Institute (RPP) Ontario Association of Land Economists (PLE) Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (MRICS) LAI Land Economics Society

Professional Hemson Consulting Ltd., 1987–Present Experience: DPA Group Consulting, 1986-87 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs, 1986

Appointments: Treasurer and Board Member, Simcoe Chapter LAI Land Economics Society Corporate Security and Board Member Land Economics Foundation

Mr. Mathew is a partner at Hemson Consulting Ltd. He has 34 years of professional experience in long-range forecasts, demographic studies, growth management and transportation and economic impact analysis. Mr. Mathew is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP), a Professional Land Economist (PLE) and a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). Provided below is a summary of his professional experience.

SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Mr. Mathew has primary responsibility for Hemson’s extensive practice in economic and demographic forecasting. He has developed and refined a number of forecasting techniques which have become the industry standard, including elements of the Ontario Government’s 1994 guidelines for municipal forecasting. Forecasts have been

HEMSON 2

prepared for all of the Regions and Counties and local municipalities in Ontario, and many elsewhere in Canada, as well as for numerous private sector clients, such as Enbridge Inc., Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Serco Inc. and property developers.

Mr. Mathew has been involved in a number of urban planning projects, primarily in the preparation of growth management strategies and special planning policy studies. The municipal growth management studies have typically involved assessing the long- term growth anticipated in a community, determining the need to plan for additional urban lands and to recommend specific lands for long-term urban development. These activities involve synthesising the input of a variety of technical experts such as civil engineers and environmental and agricultural experts. In recent years, much of this type of work has been focussed on assisting municipalities in bringing their official plans into conformity with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

Summarized below are examples of Mr. Mathew’s relevant experience:

Mr. Mathew directed an Employment Land Review for the City of Ottawa. The study was undertaken in five phases including a current conditions report, supply and demand analysis, issues and opportunities identification, strategic directions and an implementation plan. The assignment examined planning for employment and employment lands in Ottawa and culminated with strategies and policy recommendations aimed at supporting the City’s objectives for land use, employment growth and its economic development goals.

Mr. Mathew has undertaken numerous assignments for the City of Ottawa, including a review of the growth forecasts now within the Official Plan, age structure forecasts and a Cost of Growth Study in 2012 which involved a comparative analysis of operating and capital costs and revenues associated with differing types and densities of urban and rural development in the City.

For the Province of Ontario and the upper-tier municipalities of the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Mr. Mathew completed the Growth Outlook for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, a forecast of long-term growth in population, housing and employment in the GGH. This report is an update of the forty-year forecasts originally prepared for the Office for the Greater Toronto Area. In 2012, he completed an update to the growth forecasts — Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Forecast to 2041 — which

HEMSON 3

incorporated available new data and observed changes in regional development patterns.

Mr. Mathew also worked with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to assist with the preparation of a standardized Provincial Land Needs Methodology for upper, lower- and single-tier municipalities to use when conducting land budgeting exercises in accordance with requirements of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017.

Mr. Mathew prepared a Growth and Settlement Analysis as input to the first United Counties of Leeds Grenville official plan. The analysis included the preparation of County-wide forecasts of population, housing and employment growth, the allocation of growth to ten member municipalities and recommendations for appropriately accommodating future growth and urban development as a basis for a new official plan.

Mr. Mathew has prepared growth outlook and land needs assessments for a number of Eastern Ontario municipalities, including the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, United Counties of Prescott and Russell. The studies provided key inputs to the County official plan updates, including updated growth outlooks, local distributions of projected growth and recommended planning policy and targets for accommodating long term growth.

For the Regional Municipality of Halton, Mr. Mathew is currently leading the Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review process and has been providing on-going consulting service on growth management related issues. From the Halton Urban Structure Review in the early 1990s to the Region’s more recent Sustainable Halton Plan, Mr. Mathew has been assisting the Region with population and employment forecasts, residential and non-residential land need estimates, and growth management strategies.

Mr. Mathew directed a Regional Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) for Niagara Region as part of the Regional Official Plan Review, Imagine Niagara. The MCR establishes a new vision for Niagara Region. Detailed analyses of economic and demographic growth trends, land supply, and intensification potential form the basis for recommendations for policies, growth allocations, targets and settlement area boundaries as input to updating the Regional Official Plan.

HEMSON 4

Mr. Mathew prepared population, housing and employment forecast to 2041 for the Region of Peel and its area municipalities. The Peel 2041: Planning For Growth and Managing Risk study was initiated as part of the Municipal Comprehensive Review process and examined the Region’s outlook through a number of scenarios, including the update to the Growth Plan, 2017.

Mr. Mathew led Hemson’s study of office and institutional uses in Downtown Toronto as part of the City of Toronto’s ongoing TOcore: Planning Downtown study. For this project, Mr. Mathew reviewed office and institutional employment uses and development trends across the study area and related shoulder areas, prepared floor space and land needs forecasts, and assisted in the formulation of policies designed to support employment activity within the Downtown.

For the City of Mississauga, has provided on-going forecast services since 1991, including regular 5-year updates of the population and employment forecasts based on the Census and economic sector forecasts. The most recent update was in 2012 as input to a range of City initiatives and planning documents, including the Development Charges By-Law Review, the Mississauga Official Plan, Character Area and Local Area Plan studies, transportation studies, as well as the City’s budget process. The update was prepared in the context of Growth Plan Amendment 2, the City’s new official plan, 2011 Census data and an extended forecast horizon to 2051. Examples of economic sector forecasts include a recent growth outlook for the office sector in the City and a detailed review of long term employment land needs partially in response to residential conversion and redevelopment pressures anticipated by the City. The report constituted a municipal comprehensive review, as part of the City’s Growth Plan conformity work.

For the City of Brampton, was recently involved in a series of studies to develop a retail commercial policy as well as a review of Brampton’s employment land policies. He recently directed Brampton’s Municipal Comprehensive Review. He also prepared a series of studies that brought the City’s official plan into conformity with the Growth Plan, including a detailed population and employment forecast by small geographies, a residential land supply analysis, an intensification study, a Greenfield density report, and an employment land strategy. These studies provide the background analysis and planning basis for the growth management policies in the City’s current official plan. In addition, Mr. Mathew has on numerous occasions since the early 1990s provided forecasts for the City of Brampton for planning and development charge purposes. The

HEMSON 5

most recent of these updates was prepared in 2015 and includes small area forecasts for more than 400 “Small Geographic Units” in the City.

For the Region of Peel, Mr. Mathew prepared population, housing and employment forecast to 2031 for the Region of Peel and its three area municipalities for the Region’s 2012 Development Charges By-Law Background Study. Mr. Mathew also completed a study of employment trends and forecasts to inform future updates to the Regional Development Charges By-law. The Employment Trends and Forecast Study looks at how employment has grown and changed across Peel Region and examines assumptions about floor space per worker (FSW) ratios across the GTAH. He has subsequently been retained by the Region to provide evidence to the Ontario Municipal Board regarding appeals to the Region of Peel DC By-Law, specifically regarding the employment forecasts used as the basis of the by-law and the floor-space- per-worker assumptions.

In June 2011, Mr. Mathew was retained to provide professional advice to York Region in relation to appeals of the 2010 York Region Official Plan and Regional Plan Amendments 1, 2, and 3. His advice focused on the growth management and land needs aspects related to the Region’s land budget analysis, growth forecasting and settlement area expansions. Due to settlements of many appeals, Mr. Mathew’s evidence at the OMB in 2013 was only required for the remaining appeal of ROPA 3 in the City of Markham.

For the City of Vaughan, has assisted in a number of forecasting and land need assignments for official plan reviews, development charges and other purposes. Most recently for Vaughan Tomorrow (the process which resulted in the City’s new official plan), Mr. Mathew prepared an estimate of residential and non-residential land requirement in the City to the planning horizon of 2031. This type of work for Vaughan dates back to the preparation of background forecasts for OPA 400 beginning in 1990. Mr. Mathew has also prepared the growth forecast components for all of Vaughan’s development charge background studies since the mid-1990s. Mr. Mathew also prepared an Employment Sectors Strategy. Recommendations were made on the sectors and sub-sectors that should be targeted and accompanying measures to be considered to maintain long-term competitiveness.

Preparation of these forecasts required a detailed understanding of demographics, housing markets, land supply, land economics and the economy of the GTA. The

HEMSON 6

reports discuss economic, social and demographic factors affecting growth patterns in the GGH. The 2005 forecasts were used by the Province as the basis for Schedule 3 in Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. The 2012 forecasts are the basis for the proposed Amendment 2 to the Growth Plan’s Schedule 3 forecasts and would extend the forecast period to 2041.

Mr. Mathew also provides on-going forecast support for the municipal finance practice at Hemson. Forecasts have been prepared as the demographic basis for many municipal finance related projects, such as municipal servicing plans, long-term financial planning, fiscal impact analysis, development charges studies, capital infrastructure planning, rate and fee setting studies.

HEMSON 18

ATTACHMENT B

ISSUES LIST

HEMSON

1. Should the City’s urban area boundary be expanded to accommodate additional growth to the year 2036 and, if so, by what amount of land?

2. In not providing for an urban area boundary expansion through OPA 180, has the City failed to ensure that sufficient land will be made available in the City of Ottawa to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses and housing to meet projected needs to the proposed planning horizon, as required by the Provincial Policy Statement?

3. Did the City apply appropriate assumptions and statistical information and analyses in arriving at its conclusion through OPA 180 that “there is no need to consider any changes to the Urban or Village land supply to accommodate the population, household or employment projected to 2036”?

4. Were the methods used by the City to project the 2036 supply and demand for residential units appropriate?

5. Are the proposed intensification targets to the year 2036 appropriate?

6. What is the City-Wide unit mix for the growth increment from 2014 to 2036 and at 2036 that will result from meeting the residential intensification targets referred to above?

HEMSON