June 19, 2018 Re: Guidance…

June 19, 2018

Re: Guidance to support implementation of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017: Application of the Intensification and Density Targets & The Municipal Comprehensive Review Process (EBR # 013-2359)

Dear Mr. Grove-White:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Province’s draft guidance to support implementation of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 (Growth Plan) with regard to the Application of the Intensification and Density Targets and the Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) process. Considering the changes to the Growth Plan policy framework made through the recent plan update, these will be important resources as municipalities work on plan conformity and implementation over the coming years.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is a resource management agency responsible for the long term health of nine watersheds and a portion of the Lake Ontario shoreline, and for administering a development regulation that affects planning matters. TRCA also owns and/or manages approximately 18,000 hectares of conservation land and assists 18 member municipalities all in the Growth Plan Area in fulfilling their responsibilities associated with natural heritage, water resources and natural hazard management under the Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act processes. Recently, TRCA provided comments on the Province’s proposed Natural Heritage System and Agricultural System mapping and implementation procedures and draft Methodology for Land Needs Assessment.

We recognize that municipalities are the main implementers of the Growth Plan and serve as the central audience for these guidance documents. However, the MCR process and later-stage implementation (e.g. development and infrastructure review) affect TRCA interests given our involvement in municipal growth planning as described above. TRCA plays a key role in managing natural hazards and the implications of growth on the natural and water management systems within TRCA’s nine watersheds. Increasing densities are intensifying pressures on natural heritage features and areas of natural hazards in urban and urbanizing areas. If such constraints are not sufficiently addressed early in the planning and development process to determine siting and construction feasibility, this can create additional complexity, costs, and the need for technically sophisticated solutions later in the review process. Achieving density targets should not come at the expense of forgoing other provincial interests that are also in the public’s interest.

The following comments are intended to help the documents provide greater clarity and support for implementing authorities and better align with the goals of the Growth Plan and other provincial policies. They are organized by the sections in each document. Key recommendations are bolded.

Guidance on the Application of the Intensification and Density Targets

2.4.2 – Targets Represent an Average to be Achieved
This section states that the density target is to be measured as an average over the entire area to which the target applies. This is repeated in the sections relating to designated greenfield area (DGA), urban growth centre (UGC), major transit station area (MTSA), and other strategic growth area (SGA) densities. Although TRCA is not involved in setting targets, we review and comment on secondary plans and development applications within these policy areas. While we recognize that lower-tier municipalities must meet their own targets, the guidance should also account for designated growth areas that straddle two lower-tier municipalities. TRCA has observed that planning for intensification corridors or areas that straddle the borders of two lower-tier municipalities is sometimes not coordinated, resulting in the uneven application of density on either side. The guidance should direct upper-tier municipalities to provide direction to lower-tier municipalities on how intensification areas or corridors that cross jurisdictional boundaries should be planned to achieve target densities. In their review of lower-tier municipalities’ official plan conformity work, upper-tier municipalities should ensure that lower-tier municipalities have coordinated the planning of such areas with neighbouring jurisdictions.

On a related note, it is not always clear how municipalities can “ensure that any approval of a development application will not hinder achievement of the target” at the broader scale and over specific time periods or horizons. We suggest that additional guidance be provided on how municipalities can systematically work toward this average density in the processing of development applications at the site-specific level.

2.4.6 – Implementation through Official Plan Policies, Guidelines and Incentive Programs
As a conservation authority with key roles in the management of natural hazards and flood risk, TRCA appreciates the inclusion of section 2.4.7 in the document to emphasize that implementation of the intensification and density targets does not require or permit development beyond what is permitted on lands within a Special Policy Area (SPA) or not permitted by the Provincial Policy Statement on other hazardous lands. To further support this direction, the final paragraph of section 2.4.6 (page 11) should include “directing development away from natural hazards” (Growth Plan policy 2.2.1.2 e) in the list of policies that must be considered in the implementation of targets.

3.1 – Lands to which the DGA Density Target Applies/Does Not Apply
Given inconsistent approaches to “netting out” in the past, we appreciate that this section aims to provide clarity on what can and cannot be excluded with regard to the calculation of the DGA density target. With regard to natural heritage features and areas, natural heritage systems (NHSs), and floodplains, section 3.1 specifies that only those lands where development is specifically prohibited can be excluded from the DGA density target calculation. It also provides examples of areas that cannot be excluded, including SPAs and areas within the NHS where stormwater management facilities are permitted. We believe that this guidance needs to be further strengthened and clarified.

Intent behind scope of exclusions: We are concerned about the provision that only those areas where development is specifically prohibited are eligible for exclusion, while areas where development is highly restricted or that are not intended for development – such as vegetation protection zones (VPZs) and parkland within floodplains – are to be included in density calculations. TRCA is concerned that requiring the inclusion of such environmentally sensitive areas in the density calculation could signal, to some, that they may be somehow open to development beyond the highly restricted uses specified in most official plans. This might, in turn, lead those areas to experience greater pressures during the development process. In our experience, VPZs and areas within the NHS are already under pressure to accommodate parkland, stormwater management facilities, and other urban uses, and the higher density targets prescribed by the updated Growth Plan will only intensify this pressure. In order to support future municipal and conservation authority review of development applications, section 3.1 needs to clarify the intent behind the narrow scope of exclusions and the choice of areas presented as required to be included in the density calculation. If these areas must be included in the density calculation, a caveat about the Province’s intent with regard to development in these areas would be beneficial here.

Interpretation of “prohibited development”: There are areas within natural heritage systems, features, and floodplains in which provincial, municipal, and conservation authority policies “prohibit development” but with exceptions. An exception might include the expansion or reconstruction of an existing building, certain infrastructure that would fall within the Growth Plan’s definition of development, or development where there is no alternative or studies demonstrate no negative impact. Section 3.1 should clarify whether areas prohibited from development with exceptions are still eligible to be excluded from the density calculation and, more generally, how narrowly the “prohibited development” provision should be interpreted.

Vegetation protection zones: Specific to the first point, TRCA is concerned that the stipulation that VPZs of features are to be included in the density target calculation may imply that VPZs are potentially developable, when the purpose of a VPZ is to provide a buffer between development and a feature to minimize impacts on the feature. (In some cases, such as Richmond Hill’s North Leslie Secondary Plan, VPZs are considered part of the NHS and are treated the same way as the feature in policy implementation.) To avoid confusion, the guidance should allow municipalities to exclude from the density calculation minimum VPZs (based on provincial or municipal policy if site-specific information is not available) where the official plan does not permit development. If this is not possible, the document should make explicit that allowing VPZs to be included in density calculations does not imply that VPZs are open to development.

Floodplains: With regard to floodplains, the document states that “Special Policy Areas and areas where urban uses such as certain types of outdoor storage, municipal parks, recreation facilities and parking are permitted are not to be excluded from the DGA density target calculations”. While we agree with the inclusion of SPAs in density calculations, “urban uses” needs to be defined. Notwithstanding that some of these listed uses are in fact generally not permitted within floodplains, we question why lands containing these particular uses are to be included in the density target calculations. And if such areas are to be included, does this mean by extension that the density calculation should also include areas within a floodplain (outside an SPA) where “urban uses” such as limited additions to and/or reconstruction of existing buildings may be permitted (e.g. by a conservation authority)? Clarification about the boundaries of – and rationale behind – the distinctions among areas within a floodplain that should or should not be included in the DGA density calculation would greatly aid implementation.

Up-to-date mapping: As mentioned in TRCA’s submission to the Province on the draft Land Needs Assessment Methodology, we suggest that section 3.1 include direction for municipalities to consult their applicable conservation authorities for the most up-to-date floodplain and natural feature and areas mapping so that the delineation of such areas is as accurate as possible.

4.3 – The Minimum Required Intensification Target
Much of TRCA’s jurisdiction falls within existing built-up areas in which the intensification target applies. As they are redeveloped and intensified in accordance with the Growth Plan, pressure on the remnant natural spaces and areas of natural hazards within these lands continues to increase. Therefore, we appreciate the acknowledgment that SPAs within UGCs are areas where development opportunities are limited and that municipalities should plan accordingly. However, SPAs are not the only areas that cannot be intensified. Municipalities also need to consider the presence of natural features and hazard areas, such as valleylands, and areas with high artesian pressure with respect to groundwater. Such areas are often designated for intensification by an upper-tier municipality through a regional official plan amendment process without the benefit of the finer consideration of development constraints that takes place at the time of the local official plan amendment review process. To strengthen the point that municipalities should account for areas with limited development opportunities, we suggest that the third paragraph of section 4.3 be revised to highlight other areas where development is (or should be) prohibited or limited.

6.3 – The Minimum Required UGC Density Targets
Ten of the 25 UGCs in the Growth Plan are located within TRCA’s jurisdiction. They, too, contain natural spaces and natural hazard areas under pressure from development. Again, we appreciate the recognition of SPAs as areas that municipalities need to take into consideration in planning for density in UGCs, but, as explained above, we suggest that section 6.3 be expanded to reflect the need to consider other areas where development is (or should be) prohibited or limited.

7.4 – Efforts to Support Achievement of the MTSA Density Targets
TRCA supports transit-oriented development in the creation of sustainable, complete communities. However, we would stress that advancing such development should not come at the expense of forgoing other provincial interests that are also in the public’s interest, such as public safety (from managing natural hazards) and resilient communities (from a protected NHS and comprehensive stormwater management). Based on our experience, many transit hubs are located within sites that are constrained by natural systems, floodplains, and areas with high groundwater; in these areas, upfront work to consider and balance the above interests is critical. We recommend that this section emphasize that, in supporting the achievement of density targets in MTSAs, municipalities need to fully account for natural hazards, natural heritage and stormwater management within these areas. To further support this idea, the second paragraph of section 7.4 should provide examples for “other areas of constraint”, including natural hazard areas and natural features.

7.5 – Alternative MTSA Density Targets
It would be helpful to provide some examples of circumstances under which an alternative MTSA density target may be considered. We propose that the presence of natural heritage features and areas and/or hazardous lands (e.g. floodplain) within an MTSA be included as factors that could constrain (re)development potential and hinder the achievement of the minimum MTSA density target.

8.3 – SGA Density Targets
We recommend that section 8.3 specify that the determination of density targets for other SGAs consider the existence of any natural heritage features and areas, hazardous lands, and/or SPAs that may exist within the SGA boundaries. Ideally, this will largely be avoided if the SGA is delineated to exclude such lands. Please refer to our comments on section 3.3.4 of the Guidance on the Municipal Comprehensive Review Process below.

Guidance on the Municipal Comprehensive Review Process

General
Throughout the document, “a MCR” should be replaced with “an MCR” for grammatical correctness and consistency with the Guidance on the Application of the Intensification and Density Targets.

3.2 – Undertake Integrated Planning for Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities
This section mentions only the urban structure as an input into integrated planning for infrastructure, even though the role of watershed planning in informing water, wastewater, and stormwater master plans is acknowledged earlier on, in section 2.5 (Background Studies). Section 3.2 should be amended to include watershed planning as a key input for infrastructure planning, as per Growth Plan section 3.2.

In addition, section 3.2 should recommend that the integrated planning process also include planning of public spaces, recreation, parks, trails, and open space, which should be intrinsically tied to planning for complete communities and infrastructure. Municipalities should be directed to seek opportunities to plan for synergies in infrastructure, public service facilities, and public spaces, recreation, parks, trails, and open space in order to minimize infrastructure footprints while providing effective public services (e.g., maximizing stormwater facilities – including underground and low impact development – in park spaces or tying infrastructure access routes to trails, where appropriate).

3.3.4 – Other Strategic Growth Areas
To avoid the need to have SGA density targets account for the presence of lands not appropriate for intensification (such as natural heritage features and areas and hazardous lands), and avoid potential pressures on such lands during the development process, section 3.3.4 should direct municipalities to make every effort, in the delineation of SGAs, to exclude lands that may be constrained from development due to natural heritage features or hazards. Please refer to our comment on section 8.3 of the Guidance on the Application of the Intensification and Density Targets above.

3.7 Natural Heritage System and Agricultural System Mapping
In TRCA’s experience, the NHS delineated by an upper-tier municipality is often refined at the lower-tier level due to the coarse scale of regional NHS mapping. We anticipate that, if insufficiently consulted during the MCR, lower-tier municipalities may wish to further refine the NHS and Agricultural System mapping during their official plan conformity process. However, this is not permitted under the current Growth Plan framework. To ensure that any fine-scale mapping submitted to the Province to support proposed refinements is accurate, up-to-date, and endorsed by lower-tier municipalities, we suggest that sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 emphasize that the upper-tier municipality is to work extensively with its lower-tier municipalities to refine and incorporate provincially-issued NHS and Agricultural System mapping.

4.2 – Duty to Consult with First Nations and Métis Communities
We are concerned that the high-level guidance in this section may leave municipalities with questions as to how and who to engage and, once interests are determined, how to address requests and comments from Indigenous communities. While we appreciate that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs may provide further guidance to municipalities if required, the guidance should also provide additional resources upfront, and the Ministry provide training if appropriate, to help municipalities appropriately engage and consult with First Nations and Métis Communities.

4.3 – Approval of Municipal Comprehensive Review under the Planning Act
In the list of documentation required to be submitted to the Province to support the proposed official plan or official plan amendment, watershed planning is referenced only under settlement area boundary expansion requirements. This seems to imply that watershed planning is required for an MCR only if an expansion is proposed. This would not align with Growth Plan section 3.2, which provides that integrated planning (including planning for infrastructure, water and wastewater systems, and stormwater management) is to be informed by watershed planning, or with policy 4.2.1.3, which further states that “Decisions on allocation of growth and planning for water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure will be informed by applicable watershed planning.” To avoid potential interpretations that watershed planning is required only for settlement area boundary expansions, please amend the list of documentation in section 4.3 by adding reference to watershed planning as part of the analysis to support the urban structure (first bullet point) and as supporting documentation for infrastructure/public service facilities plans (eight bullet point).

Appendix 2 – Examples of Policies that may be Relevant to Decisions on Matters in Process Prior to Completion of the MCR
We understand that the intention of this appendix is to provide examples of new Growth Plan policies that can be implemented prior to the completion of an MCR. However, many such policies, such as policy 4.2.1.2 regarding the identification of water resource systems and policies in section 3.2 on integrated planning, seem to be missing from the table. If the table is “for illustrative purposes only” rather than a comprehensive list, it seems to be limited in its usefulness and may even cause additional confusion. We suggest that the purpose of (and directions on how to best use) the table in Appendix 2 be clarified, that the list be made comprehensive to enhance its usefulness, or the list be removed entirely to prevent confusion.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide comments on these important guidance documents. Should you have any questions, require clarification, or wish to meet to discuss any of the comments, please contact TRCA.

Sincerely,

Senior Director, Planning and Development
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority