Re: Proposed Amendments to…

Re: Proposed Amendments to the Growth Plan (ERO 013-4504)

Dear Ms. Clarke Julien,

The Protect Our Moraine Coalition represents six non-profit organizations in the Guelph area that have been engaged in the City of Guelph’s Clair-Maltby Secondary Planning process.

The City of Guelph is one of the largest municipalities in Canada that depends on groundwater for its drinking water supply. As a local coalition, we are concerned that the proposed amendment to the Growth Plan will create significant planning uncertainty and place Guelph’s portion of the Paris-Galt Moraine water recharge functions at risk by moving away from a consistent, public interest-based approach to growth management.

1. Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan Creates Unnecessary Uncertainty for Municipalities, Stakeholders and Builders

In the last decade, the Ontario Growth Secretariat has increasingly provided leadership and rigour to land use planning guidance. The secretariat has developed and evolved a land-use planning framework that is understood by municipalities, the home building industry and stakeholders.

For instance, through the 2015 review of the Growth Plan, provincial planners in consultation with stakeholders developed a new Land Needs Assessment (LNA) that provides municipalities and the homebuilding industry with a more predictable approach to housing and land needs.

(Footnote 1: On a side note, the Coalition is concerned about the status of the land needs methodology approach. While the proposed changes O. Reg. 311/06 (ERO 013-4505) suggest the removal of lands’ need assessments, Growth Plan Amendment 1 continues to reference Lands Needs Assessments (e.g. policy 5.2.2.1 c.)

One of the key strengths of the Growth Plan is the requirement to use a Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) process to guide regional planning using a rigorous, evidence-based approach to land-use needs. The Growth Plan, including Amendment 1, requires that the City of Guelph bring its Official Plan in conformity by July 1, 2022.

With the proposed amendment, the Province is creating significant uncertainty for municipalities, delaying investments by the private sector and ultimately making the MCR timelines untenable. A recent local media article highlighted the impact of the uncertainty of the Growth Plan Amendment 1 on planning approvals in the City of Guelph: https://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/9182547-future-guelph-developm…

The Protect Our Moraine Coalition strongly urges the Secretariat to uphold its rigorous Growth Planning framework that has created stability for investment decisions and moved municipalities toward planning complete communities.

2. Proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan fails to recognize that the City of Guelph is already an intensification leader in the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

The Protect Our Moraine Coalition is surprised and perturbed by the proposal to reduce the minimum intensification targets for residential developments in the Growth Plan Areas.

We are perplexed by the changes proposed for 2.2.2 “Delineated Built-Up Areas” where Guelph is included in a list of municipalities that shall achieve “a minimum of 50 per cent of all residential development” because Guelph has been exceeding the 40 percent intensification targets (a target scheduled to be increased to 60 percent). In fact, the City of Guelph’s own growth monitoring is demonstrating that the 60 percent intensification target is not only within reach but has in fact been exceeded. According to the 2017 Growth Monitoring Report: “In 2017, the City achieved 62% of its residential development in the built-up area, exceeding the minimum 40% intensification target under the Growth Plan” (p.5).

For the City of Guelph, this intensification success isn’t limited to a single year. According to the staff report: “The Built-up Area has achieved the minimum 40% intensification target since 2012, and on average, 48% of all new residential development has occurred with the built-up area between the years 2008 and 2016.”

While our understanding is that Growth Plan Amendment 1 provides the City of Guelph with the option to request an alternative rate higher than 50 persons, the coalition believes that the political realities of growth NIMBYism will impede aspirational targets to build complete, compact communities. Further, we would suggest that an alternative rate should only be considered by the Province if the existing minimum intensification rates (e.g. 60 percent of intensification to occur within the existing built-up area) are not currently being achieved.

Complete, compact communities mean that land uses should be coordinated alongside existing and proposed transit investments. Creating transit-supportive communities requires at a minimum 80 residents and jobs combined for Frequent Transit Services as defined by the Province’s own guidelines (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/transit/supportive-guideline/community…).

By moving away from a prescriptive approach that forces aspirational growth targets on municipalities, the Secretariat will be undermining the development of transit-supportive (and therefore complete and compact) communities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Further, residential and commercial areas in low density and periphery areas of cities cost more for municipal governments to service than those in complete, compact communities - as municipalities are required to pay more for building initial road and water infrastructure, and for continued services such as fire and police protection, waste pickup and bus service.

(Footnote 2: Sustainable Prosperity (University of Ottawa), “Creating Complete, Compact and Energy-Efficient Communities in BC: How Fiscal Tools Can be an Opportunity for Local Governments”, 2016.)

3. Changes to the Settlement Area Boundary Policies Will Promote Speculation While Undermining a Consistent Public Interest-based approach to Growth Management

The coalition is also concerned about proposed changes to Section 2.2.8.6 “For a settlement area boundary expansion undertaken in accordance with policy 2.2.8.5, the amount of land to be added to the settlement area will be no larger than 40 hectares”. This proposal lacks a significant amount of detail and clarity. For instance, it is unclear who can make a request for boundary expansion? And what is the number of boundary expansions that can be requested outside an MCR process?

For municipalities such as the City of Guelph where the settlement boundaries abut municipal boundaries, this proposal is very likely to have the deleterious cumulative effect of encouraging real estate speculation outside the entire municipal boundary. This may create the unintended effect of unduly politicizing future urban boundary expansion or annexation processes. By allowing municipalities to adjust settlement area boundaries outside an MCR process also diminishes and/or undermines the value of the MCR process.

4. Burden Reduction Proposals that Do Not Support Intensification are Costly and Imprudent
Whereas in the past the homebuilding industry did not support intensification – the same cannot be said of industry leaders nowadays. In the words of the Ontario Home Builders’ Association: “Better linking transit and transportation investments with efficient land use planning can help maximize the value of these investments and minimize environmental impacts” . As with the OHBA, we would suggest that this government should focus on assisting municipalities to update out-of-date Official Plans (OPs) and Zoning By-laws.

(Footnote 3: Ontario Home Builders Association, “A Made-in-Ontario Climate Change Plan” submitted to Honourable Rod Phillips, Minister of the Environment, Conservation & Parks. November 2018.)

In the words of the Ontario Home Builders Association (OHBA):
“Out-of-date local zoning creates uncertainty for communities and businesses, while stretching out approval timelines and constraining new housing supply…. Ensuring a land-use planning framework that properly aligns municipal planning implementation documents to provincial policy will be critical in the province’s efforts to increase housing supply, support intensification and mitigate against climate change” .

While the Coalition does not agree with all of OHBA’s recommendations (e.g. a new cash in lieu parkland dedication policy), we concur with OHBA’s approach for “a more aggressive provincial approach to implement tools that support intensification and the implementation of the Growth Plan at the municipal level”.

In closing, we urge the Secretariat to continue prescribing aspirational growth targets coupled with evidence-based decision-making that lead to complete communities. We encourage you to maintain your evidence-based MCR approach that keeps municipalities accountable for urban boundary expansions. Tools such as the Lands Needs Assessment provide rigour and objectivity to processes that can quickly become politicized due to the speculative nature of peri-urban real estate transactions. We also encourage the secretariat to only entertain alternative rates if the existing minimum intensification rates (e.g. 60 percent of intensification in built-up area) are not currently being achieved.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide our comments and suggestions.

Sincerely Yours,
Marnie Benson, Co-Chair of Protect Our Moraine
https://www.protectourmoraine.ca/