Market-Based Approach to…

Market-Based Approach to Housing Supply and Options

The City of Kitchener (COK) supports an increased emphasis on providing a range of housing options identified within the Provincial Policy Review Statement (PPS). The COK further supports policies that promote intensification through prioritizing infrastructure and reinforce alignment of affordable housing targets with housing and homelessness plans.

The appropriate scale of development, transition of built form, high quality urban form and public spaces are critical to successful integration of new development in existing areas and should also be captured in the vision of this document. Residents of many municipalities, including Kitchener, continue to have challenges related to intensification in existing built-up areas.

The COK recognizes the challenge of shifting from target-based land use planning to market-based planning. Market priorities may not align with complete communities and growth management objectives. Target-based land use planning is more proactive in influencing new forms of development, providing a greater range of housing options and locational distribution of housing types. There is much concern that the market-based needs approach would be more reactive in nature to market demands that frequently change and are heavily reliant on past trends and forms of development. These past trends may not be indicative of future trends. This approach may not be effective in achieving many objectives identified within the vision and may not support the implementation of policies laid out in the PPS. The market-based approach may impede intensification targets and complete community initiatives.

Fast-Tracking Priority Applications

The shortening of legislated time frames for reviewing applications presents specific challenges which are a noted concern for the City of Kitchener (COK). The implementation of Bill 108 has reduced time frames. A further reduction will potentially compromise meaningful community engagement and analysis required to make informed decisions and follow best practices. The majority of applications received are likely to support housing and job-related growth and development and therefore be considered ‘priority applications’. A standard criteria or definition should be developed to clearly outline what will be categorized as a ‘priority application’. Clarification is required to understand what the approach will be in the case that an application is recognized as a ‘priority’, but also has other challenges such as servicing constraints or environmental issues. There are concerns that this fast-tracking approach will cause unrealistic promising and uncertainty leading to actual delays in development.

25 Year Planning Horizon

The City of Kitchener (COK) is currently in the process of undertaking major overhauls to the local planning framework to respond to other significant changes in provincial policy. The introduction of a 25 year planning horizon presents uncertainty related to the current Growth Plan.

The COK’s current Official Plan has a planning horizon to 2031. For a lengthened planning horizon municipalities will require dedicated resources to revisit some of the planning and related initiatives that were recently undertaken and will require additional and broader visioning related to the future.

It is assumed that municipalities subject to ‘A Place to Grow: Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe’ will still adhere to the planning horizon of 2041. Further information is required regarding the expected process, timing and content of such provincial guidelines.

Environment and Sustainability

The City of Kitchener (COK) supports an increased emphasis on preparing for impacts of climate change within the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).

In the vision and throughout the document [1.1.1i), 1.1.3.2d), 1.6.1, 1.6.6.1.b) 2, 1.6.6.7c), 1.7.1.k), 1.8.1, 2.2.1. c), 3.1.3, 6.0, Definitions], much importance is placed on preparing for the impacts of ‘a changing climate’. Further clarification is required to understand the sole focus on regional and local impacts of climate change, while provincial responsibilities where not identified. The role of the Province in combating climate change is important and is recommended to be highlighted within the vision of this document.

New policy pertaining to ‘managing’ wetlands is problematic as it may imply a lesser degree of conservation. This is especially true if the guidelines are of a ‘no net loss’ approach rather than ‘no development’ or ‘no site alteration’. This new policy [2.1.1] that allows municipalities to manage wetlands is not subject to policy [2.1.4] and [2.1.5], in accordance with guidelines developed by the Province. Further information on the expected process, timing and content of such provincial guidelines is required.

Within the ‘Definitions’ section of the PPS, prior reference to the Ontario Heritage Act has been removed. The COK is concerned that this limits mechanisms available to achieve conservation.

It is noted that language has changed from ‘climate change’ to ‘changing climate’. Further clarification is needed to understand the difference in this terminology. It is noted that language has changed from ‘considering’ and ‘adapting’ to ‘preparing for’ climate change. The COK is in support of this change as it is understood to mean that climate change is occurring.

The COK does not support the reduction in policies promoting the use of renewable energy systems and alternative energy systems, specifically policy [1.8.1]. The revision of policy [1.7.1j)] removes ‘renewable energy systems, alternative energy systems and district energy’ and replaces with ‘increase energy supply’. This revision presents a counter intuitive notion; as energy conservation cannot be promoted through increased energy supply. The COK recommends that the policy remain unchanged. While it may be captured in other policies in the document, it should not be deleted here and this principle should be maintained.

The COK is in support of proposed policy [3.2.3] to re-use excess soil on-site and locally where feasible. This is an effective way of ensuring valuable resources do not go to waste, saving costs and diverting more soil from going to landfills. More clarity is required to understand if this provides provincial ministry support for re-use of soils that may have had contamination.

Infrastructure

The City of Kitchener (COK) is in support of the increased emphasis on growth management found within the Provincial Policy Review Statement (PPS). The COK supports the integration of infrastructure planning with the optimization of transit systems laid out in the PPS. The removal of policy language that identifies cost effectiveness as a consideration in infrastructure planning is problematic, as cost effectiveness is a key criteria. It is important that infrastructure and public service facilities be provided in a fiscally responsible manner. This principle should be maintained. While it may be captured in other policies in the document, it should not be deleted within this section.

The COK recognizes transportation and land use as important considerations which should be emphasized and integrated at all stages of the planning process. The removal of policy [1.6.7.5], which stipulated that transportation and land use considerations shall be integrated at all stages of the planning process, is considered problematic. The coordination of land use planning with transportation system planning has become more evident and prevalent in contemporary growth management practice and city building efforts and should continue to be emphasized. The COK is in support of revisions in policy [1.2.1 a)] to promote growth and development that is integrated with infrastructure planning. Although many municipalities, such as Kitchener, strive to integrate infrastructure planning and investment with land use planning through growth management and other actions, it is quite important to have the PPS emphasis this point.

The COK wholeheartedly supports the update of policy [1.1.1 e)] regarding transit supportive development through intensification and redevelopment. Any further strengthening of the importance of growth management and integration with infrastructure planning, transit-supportive development and optimization of transit investments within this policy and in other policies [1.1.3.2.f), 1.1.3.3, 1.2.1.a), 1.4.3.e), 1.6.1, 1.8.1.e)] are supported and appreciated. If practiced fully within the implementation and development process stage, our communities could be transformed to be much more sustainable and healthy.

The revision to policy [1.6.6.1.b) 3] is supported to ensure that sewage and water services are provided in a manner than is financially viable over their life cycle. Considering the ‘full life cycle costs’ of infrastructure is quite important for good growth management and land use planning.

Planning for integrated stormwater management is important as it relates to climate change and risk mitigation and thus the policy [1.6.6.7] is important and supportable. The COK is taking significant steps in this regard.

The COK is in support of the inclusion of the new policy [1.6.8.5]. Co-location of linear infrastructure can be a way to make more efficient use of land. Further, the COK is in support of the inclusion of district energy as an energy supply found in policy [1.6.1.1].

The COK is concerned about the revision to policy [1.1.1 f)]. In replacing the terms ‘identifying, preventing and removing’ with ‘addressing’ the actions necessary to improve accessibility have been minimized.

The COK recognizes that the emphasis on healthy and active communities is important to carry forward. There is opportunity to further stress the significance of the public realm within the PPS. It is a critical aspect of growth and intensification but is often a significant ongoing challenge and struggle at the local level. The COK recommends the addition of policies to elevate the importance of healthy and active communities as there is currently only one policy that relates to this topic.

Employment and Employment Areas

The City of Kitchener (COK) recommends further clarification with respect to employment lands, specifically industrial and business park lands. There is a lack of clarity related to planning beyond 25 year horizon in employment areas found in policy [1.4.1. a)] leading to potential pressure for more employment land conversions. Currently, the COK has the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 12 years. Further, to extend the planning horizon to 25 years and allow for boundary expansions outside comprehensive reviews, there may be much more pressure to use land for residential purposes rather than other uses valuable to municipalities such as employment.

The COK further identifies problems in the relaxing of standards and allowing for circumstances to ‘mitigate’ rather than ‘avoid’ sensitive land uses.

In regards to policy [1.1.2] it is recognized that permitting the ability to plan for long term protection of employment areas beyond the horizon of the plan is consistent with ‘A Place to Grow: Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe’. However there is uncertainly as to how areas can be planned for employment beyond the planning horizon without the lands being designated as such. More clarity is needed.

New policy [1.1.3.9] has been added to allow adjustment to settlement area boundaries outside of comprehensive review. This is more consistent with ‘A Place to Grow: Growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe’. Consideration of settlement area boundaries should be done comprehensively, which is best through a municipal comprehensive review. Without a comprehensive review there is a risk of piece-meal planning. Regarding policy [1.3.2.5] COK is concerned that by allowing employment land conversions outside of a comprehensive review there will be increased pressure for conversions in advance of municipalities completing a full analysis of employment areas.

Policy [1.3.2.3] stipulates that employment areas planned for industrial and manufacturing uses should include an appropriate transition to adjacent non-employment areas. This seems contradictory to land use compatibility policies within section [1.2.6]. It is the industrial and manufacturing uses critical to the local economy located within employment areas that should be protected for current and future employment uses from non-employment uses that would destabilize their planned function. This policy appears to potentially repeat or be inconsistent with the previous policy [1.3.2.2].

The policies within section [1.3.2.5] indicate that employment areas may be identified as regionally-significant by a regional economic development corporation, but there is a lack of information related to the criteria for identifying regionally-significant employment areas (or a definition thereof). Further clarification is required to understand the process of identifying regionally-significant employment areas and most importantly the involvement of local municipalities. Given that not all regional economic development corporations have land use planning functions, there are concerns in granting identification responsibilities to those agencies.

Coordination

The policy [1.2.2] and Policy [2.6.5] have been revised to stipulate that planning authorities shall engage with indigenous communities, rather than coordinate with them or consider their interests. There is uncertainly as to the implications and expectations of these policy changes and what responsibilities and obligations remain with the province or municipalities. Further clarification is required on this topic and whether additional resources will be provided to municipalities to assist with implementation.

Further information on the expected process, timing and content of provincial guidelines related to policy [1.2.4 a)] is required. There is uncertainly as to what the implications of such provincial guidelines may be as they could have significant impact on the future form and pattern of development.

The Policy [1.4.1. b)] has been expanded to indicate upper-tier and single-tier municipalities ‘may’ maintain land with servicing capacity sufficient to provide a five-year supply of residential units. The significance and implications of this change are uncertain given the existing policy requires maintaining at least a three-year supply but does not limit from maintaining more. Clarification is required to understand the reduced role for lower tier government in this policy.

Implementation and Interpretation

The City of Kitchener (COK) supports the notion presented in the Provincial Policy Review Statement (PPS), found both in the Preamble and Policy 4.6, that municipal official plans are the most important vehicle for implementation of the PPS. Further, municipalities are key in achieving comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning.

The restructuring of policies, perceived conflicting policies, and inconsistency in language or terminology presents challenges to fulsome implementation of the provisions provided. Clarity is required related to provincial guidelines referred to in the PPS, as well as the expected timeline for delivering these guidelines. The added expectations of municipalities based on the policies require resources which should be recognized.

It is directed that all relevant policies in the Provincial Policy Statement be applied to each situation. There is concern that this could be challenging and problematic in instances where policies within the document appear to conflict (as previously noted) or the language and wording is inconsistent and could be interpreted differently. An example of this is the terminology of ‘Shall’ and ‘should’ [1.1.3.6, 1.1.3.7, 1.2.2, 1.6.7.2]. There are many proposed revisions to change wording from ‘shall’ to ‘should’. Based on ‘Part III: Consider Specific Policy Language’ this is understood to mean that these changes provide for more discretion when applying a policy with enabling or supportive language (‘should’) in contrast to a policy with a directive, limitation or prohibition (‘shall’). This could diminish the effectiveness of implementing certain policies.

Clarification is required when referencing the ‘official plan’ and ‘local official plan’ in policies [1.3.2.2, 1.3.2.5, 1.6.6.4] as it is unclear whether this is an upper-tier municipality official plan review or lower-tier municipality.

The policy [4.9] is proposed to be revised such that municipalities will no longer be encouraged to establish performance indicators to monitoring the implementation of policies in official plans. It is assumed this is because monitoring and reporting is to be done in accordance with reporting requirements, data standards and guidelines that may be issued by the Minister that would establish these performance indicators. Further information on the expected process, timing and content to be issued by the Minister is required.

Municipal staff often utilize and refer to current implementation policies in the Provincial Policy Statement contained in Part V: 4.0 and go above and beyond the minimum standards, where appropriate. Many of these policies are now proposed to be incorporated as text in Part II and III without a policy number to refer to [4.2, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13]. This will lessen staff’s ability to refer to these policies in a clear and meaningful manner.