Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 15-13 Cif,/ A Report to Planning & Development Committee I- I KERING Report Number: PLN 15-13 Date: September 3, 2013 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Conservation Policies The Draft "Living City Policies", Toronto and Region Conservation Authority "Watershed Management Futures for Ontario", Conservation Ontario Whitepaper File: D-8000-046 Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 15-13 of the Director, City Development regarding the draft "Living City Policies" of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the "Watershed Management Futures for Ontario", a Whitepaper by Conservation Ontario, be received; 2. That City Staff comments on the draft "Living City Policies" of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, as set out in Appendix Ito Report PLN 15-13, be endorsed, and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to reflect the comments in the final "Living City Policies"; 3. That Pickering Council advise Conservation Ontario and the Ministers of Natural Resources, Environment, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Infrastructure, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, that the City of Pickering does not support: (a) transfer of ownership of flood control infrastructure to municipalities from Conservation Authorities; and (b) delegation of the authority for policy interpretation for natural heritage protections under the Planning Act to Conservation Authorities from municipalities; 4. That Pickering Council request that area municipalities be invited to participate in the discussions about a new funding formula for Conservation Authorities that may have direct impacts on municipal interests; and 5. Further, that copies of Report Number PLN 15-13 be forwarded to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Region of Durham, other Durham Region local municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Conservation Ontario and the Ministers of Natural Resources, Environment, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Infrastructure, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs_ Caq o¢� Planning & Development Committee Agenda Tuesday, September 3, 2013 PI ' IN Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 3. Director, City Development, Report PLN 18-13 63-75 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1/13 J. Micklewright Part of Lot 43, Plan 350, Part 1, Plan 40R-18460 C535 Rougemount Drive) Recommendation That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1/13, submitted by J. Micklewright, to amend the zoning of the subject property to an "R4" — Fourth Density Residential Zone in order to facilitate the creation of two lots with minimum lot frontages of 15.0 metres on lands being Part of Lot 43, Plan 350, Part 1, Plan 40R- 18460 be approved, and that the draft zoning by-law, as set out in Appendix Ito Report PLN 18-13 be forwarded to City Council for enactment. 4. Director, City Development, Report PLN 19-13 76-99 Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Wind Mobile 270 Highway 7 Installation #56 Recommendation That Wind Mobile be advised that City Council does not object to the proposed 60.0 metre high telecommunication tower installation located at 270 Highway 7, based on the design and other details submitted with this request. (II) Other Business (III) Adjournment Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 2 Executive Summary: Two significant but separate Conservation Authority (CA) policy documents were released for consultation late in 2012 and early in 2013. They are: the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) draft "Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the TRCA" (LCP) and Conservation Ontario's Whitepaper respecting "Watershed Management Futures for Ontario" (Whitepaper). The LCP includes a history of the TRCA, evolution of its policies and proposed compilation of new policies to address the future of planning and development in the watersheds in TRCA's jurisdiction. The Whitepaper evaluates the current status of governance, functions, funding and relationships to Provincial Ministries and to municipalities of all of Ontario's Conservation Authorities. Staff recently commended TRCA on its thorough set of proposals and identified several areas of concern in a City staff comment letter sent in August 2013 (see Appendix I). Key comments and concerns with the LCP include: • comments provided by the TRCA, under the LCP, should reflect whether the comments are being made under its regulatory and permitting role, its delegated Provincial responsibilities, its advisory role in commenting on Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act matters, or its advocacy role on sustainability • implementation of the policy stating, that all areas identified by TRCA as "potential natural cover" be protected for restoration and enhancement, is problematic unless the lands are acquired by TRCA, or designated and zoned for natural heritage under the municipal planning documents • policies to implement a "compensation protocol" for environmental mitigation are considered premature, as the compensation protocol is not yet available, and the authority under which the compensation would be required is unclear; and • the stormwater management policies should be revised to acknowledge the critical need for municipalities to have maintenance access roads to stormwater management infrastructure Staff recommends that City Council endorse the comments and that TRCA be requested to reflect the comments in the "Final" Living City Policies. Staff supports the Conservation Ontario's Whitepaper objective of updated CA roles to deliver further Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of the Environment programs along with committed funding. Staff does not support the suggestions to download flood protection infrastructure to municipalities, or to delegate from municipalities to conservation authorities how best to protect natural heritage features and systems. Staff also requests that area municipalities be invited to participate in discussions about aspects of a new funding formula for conservation authorities that may impact municipal interests. Staff recommends City Council endorse the comments in this Report and forward a copy to the TRCA, Conservation Ontario, Ministers of the interested Ontario Ministries, Region of Durham and Durham area municipalities. Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 3 Financial Implications: None 1. The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Draft, January 2013 1.1 Background 1.1.1 The "Living City Policies" is a new, draft policy document of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority undergoing consultation In January 2013, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) released the draft "Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the TRCA" (LCP). The purpose of the LCP is to guide the TRCA staff and Board in implementing its regulatory and planning responsibilities over the next ten years. The LCP: updates existing plan and permit review practices; reflects new regulatory authority, recent Provincial Plans, and modern scientific practices for the protection of the natural environment; and compiles previously separate policy documents into one. The LCP contains policies for sustainable communities, environmental planning, and for the regulation of development in proximity to wetlands, shorelines and watercourses. The LCP sets out a suite of policies for its various roles, including: • Regulatory Authority, providing direction on and issuing permits under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act respecting development, interference with wetlands, and alterations to watercourses. • Delegated Provincial Interest under the Provincial Policy Statement, providing direction on how planning proposals should be designed to minimize impacts on flood and erosion hazard lands. • Public Commenting Body under the Planning Act, to provide advice to municipalities on watershed management, natural hazards, and natural heritage as input to municipal decisions on planning policy and applications. • Public Commenting Body under the Environmental Assessment Act, to provide advice to proponents on watershed management, natural hazards, and natural heritage as input to individual and class environmental assessments. • Watershed Based Resource Management Agency, developing programs to reflect local watershed needs. • Advocacy role, to promote development and practices that minimize impacts on climate change, address other environmental challenges, and promote sustainable communities. • Service Provider, to provide planning and environmental advisory services with respect to water management, natural hazards and natural heritage, on behalf of a municipality, through a memorandum of understanding; and • Landowner, owning and operating facilities and practicing land stewardship. Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 4 The full 164 page LCP can be made available to Councillors upon request by the City Development Department or can be viewed on the TRCA website at http://trca.on.ca/dotAsset/159098.pdf. A summary of the draft LCP is provided in Attachment #1 to Report PLN 15-13. 1.2 Discussion 1.2.1 City staff provided comments to TRCA requesting revisions to the LCP to clarify mandatory policies from guidelines, re-examine policies related to "potential natural cover", "compensation protocol", and stormwater infrastructure City staff attended a TRCA information seminar about the LCP in the spring, at which comments were invited on six "high-level" aspects of the document. More formal comments were also invited. City staff submitted its "high-level" comments to TRCA in the "City staff comment letter" provided as Appendix I to Report PLN 15-13. The main "high-level" comments provided by City staff to TRCA are discussed below: • Staff commended TRCA on the production of the LCP as it is a comprehensive compilation of background and proposed policy to guide TRCA staff and the Board in carrying out the Authority's responsibilities. It is obvious that a concerted effort was made to identify which policies apply to its different roles and to provide the related legislative authorities. • Despite the effort, and recognizing the many roles it provides, staff continues to see considerable overlap in the policy topics discussed in each chapter such that comments that are of an advisory nature could appear to be regulatory. Greater clarity is requested. Further, in providing comments to area municipalities, the comments should clearly indicate the capacity in which they are being provided and thus, whether they are advisory, regulatory or advocacy. • Staff had a number of comments on the approach to defining the natural heritage system. The inclusion of "potential natural heritage" in the definition of the natural heritage system refers to lands identified by TRCA as having potential for restoration and enhancements to improve biodiversity in the watersheds. However, implementation of this policy is problematic as there is no mechanism to require restoration of those lands unless the TRCA has ownership. Further, the City's official plan does not include most of the "potential restoration" lands identified by TRCA for Pickering in a designation that would restrict the use to natural heritage. Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 5 • With the loss of natural heritage features during development, TRCA has been requesting monetary compensation to fund environmental planting or restoration in other locations, through conditions of development approval. The LCP proposes to formalize this as a policy that references a "compensation protocol". However, that protocol has not been yet released for consultation. Staff suggest this policy not be approved at this time. Further, City staff questions the authority under which a requirement for monetary compensation for loss of natural heritage features is being asserted. • Although the LCP contains numerous policies related to stormwater management and related facilities, the draft policies do not recognize the municipal need for access roads to maintain such facilities. Given the access roads may also result in a loss of natural heritage, their need should be recognized as an integral part of the stormwater facility. A policy revision to this effect is requested. 1.3 Recommendation Report PLN-15-13 is recommending that Council endorse the comments submitted by City staff and that TRCA be requested to reflect the comments in the final "Living City Policies". 2. Conservation Ontario Whitepaper: Watershed Management Futures for Ontario 2.1 Background 2.1.1 Conservation Ontario has called for discussions to map out role changes for Conservation Authorities to better meet existing and emerging challenges. In December 2012, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority forwarded the Conservation Ontario Whitepaper entitled "Watershed Management Futures for Ontario" to the City of Pickering. The Whitepaper requests a dialogue with the Province on behalf of all 36 Ontario Conservation Authorities respecting a number of challenges, and seeks a renewed Provincial-Municipal-Conservation Authority governance framework in Ontario. A full copy of the Whitepaper is available on Conservation Ontario's website at http://www.conservationontario.ca/watershed management/watershed manage ment futures.html . A summary of the Whitepaper is provided as Attachment#2 to Report PLN 15-13. The Whitepaper outlines the evolving roles of Conservation Authorities and relationships with Provincial Ministries and municipalities. The challenges identified include: Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 6 • a complex maze of legislation and inefficient administrative structures that have resulted in less-than-desired outcomes • a tendency to address problems with new legislation that introduces a problematic regulatory burden • unanswered calls for a comprehensive approach • additional responsibilities for CA's to address critical environmental pressures amid reduced Provincial supports; and • increased costs to municipalities and to the proponents of property changes to finance CA services The Whitepaper calls for an integrated approach to watershed management and a revised relationship with Provincial Ministries (mainly with the Ministries of Natural Resources and Environment (MNR and MOE), but also with the Ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Infrastructure and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs). The Whitepaper proposes discussions to review and revise: • the CA mandate • CA-Ministry relationships • the CA governance model • the funding formula; and • the accountability framework 2.2 Comment 2.2.1 The main concerns arising from the Whitepaper relate to the CA's mandate, CA-Ministry relationships, and funding formula City staff appreciates the expertise of CA staff in applying the flood hazard and stormwater regulations and providing advice on how best to protect natural heritage and hydrologic features in dealing with planning applications. In addition, City staff rely on the Conservation Authority input to environmental assessments for major infrastructure projects proposed by senior governments, master environmental servicing plans to justify new urban communities, and smaller scale local infrastructure initiatives. In examining the broad range of issues addressed in the Whitepaper, staff are aware of most of the issues raised. However, the City does not have a critical interest in most of the issues raised. Staff have concerns with some of the issues raised that could potentially be harmful to City of Pickering interests. Two specific areas of concern are: • the suggestion to transfer the authority under the Planning Act to interpret how natural heritage considerations should be addressed in official plans and individual planning applications from municipalities to Conservation Authorities; and • funding for Conservation Authorities, including the possible transferring of ownership and costs to maintain flood control infrastructure to municipalities Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 7 2.2.2 Ongoing responsibility and funding should be provided for Conservation Authorities to implement suitable Ministry Programs The Whitepaper notes the increasing reliance of MNR and MOE upon Conservation Authority resources to implement significant Provincial programs, but by one-off, annual agreements. Review of these relationships and ongoing funding support is recommended, to replace the current one-off arrangements. Staff consider that greater authority is merited for Conservation Authorities in implementing MNR and MOE programs that the Province is unequipped to carry out. Greater funding for such endeavours also appears warranted on an ongoing basis. 2.2.3 The Whitepaper's suggestion to transfer the responsibility for interpreting how best to protect natural heritage systems to Conservation Authorities from municipalities would constrain municipal decision-making The Whitepaper supports municipal authority under the Planning Act to make decisions on official plans, zoning bylaws and related planning applications. The Whitepaper also comments that policies for the protection of natural heritage systems are less robust than policies under flood protection regulations. To correct this situation, the Whitepaper recommends that Conservation Authorities obtain delegated responsibility from the Province for interpretation of how best to protect natural heritage systems and features under the Planning Act. Such a change would upgrade the current Conservation Authority practice providing "advice" to assist municipalities in making decisions to the provision of "mandatory direction", similar to powers currently practiced by CA's under the Conservation Authorities Act Regulation for flood protection and water resources. Staff are concerned with the possible delegation of policy interpretation for natural heritage protections to CA's from municipalities. Such a change would greatly reduce the ability of municipalities to balance protection of natural heritage matters with the appropriate consideration of other Provincial interests and City interests, such as economic development and the development of safe and healthy communities, along with many others. Under Planning Act authority, municipalities have a duty to balance the various provincial interests in determining how to decide on planning applications. Removing the ability to consider the full range of interests could prevent municipal councils from making properly balanced decisions on many land use planning matters. Staff recommend that Council advise Conservation Ontario and the relevant Provincial Ministers that it does not support the suggested change in delegation of policy interpretation for natural heritage protections under the Planning Act from municipalities to Conservation Authorities. Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 8 2.2.4 The Whitepaper's suggestion that a sustainable funding formula be adopted is supported, but transferring flood control structures from Conservation Authorities to area municipalities is not supported The Whitepaper raises a number of issues respecting challenges to the funding of CA operations including: • significant reductions in Provincial transfer payments to CA's, creating pressure to increase levies to municipalities (upper and single-tier) and to increase fees for the review of planning applications and environmental assessments • expected increases to CA responsibilities • proposed transfer of flood control infrastructure to municipalities The only flood control structure in Pickering (located east of Brock Road, north of Finch Avenue on the Pickering/Ajax border) is the Duffins Dike. A transfer of ownership and costs of such a facility would burden both the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax to a small extent. In addition, the separation of management of other aspects of the watershed from flood control infrastructure could be problematic in the future. Staff recommend that Council advise Conservation Ontario that it does not support the transfer of flood control infrastructure to municipalities. 2.2.5 Area municipalities should be part of the discussions on the future of Conservation Authorities While the remaining issues affecting funding do not propose a specific new funding formula, their resolution could have financial impacts on municipalities. The Whitepaper proposes meaningful discussion among all the stakeholders (the Province, municipalities, non-governmental organizations and Conservation Authorities) of the identified issues with the Province taking the leadership role in establishing the dialogue at the earliest possible date. City staff are concerned that if municipalities are not included in or kept apprised respecting the discussions with the Province about the key matters of concern, decisions could be made that may be prejudicial to City interests. Although it is unclear whether, how or when the Province will address the issues raised by the Whitepaper, the City should seek an opportunity to monitor and/or participate in the discussions of interest to the City of Pickering. Accordingly, the City of Pickering should request that area municipalities be invited to be "at the table" for discussions that may/could result in material changes to the relationships between municipalities and the Conservation Authorities. In addition, the Region of Durham, other Durham Region local municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario should be advised of the City's request. Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 9 Appendix Appendix I City Staff Comment Letter on TRCA draft "Living City Policies" Attachments 1. Summary Document of the draft "Living City Policies" of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2. Summary of Conservation Ontario Whitepaper: Watershed Management Futures for Ontario Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:..,:: 4a4A44 -- !,, , .,„1.0Le //,7 Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Ca herine Rose, MCIP RPP Principal Planner, Policy Chief Planner Lig:it-Lb— --'-`j-3 OV<6A-■:-Marilee Gadzovski Thomas Mely uk/MCIP, RPP Manager, Water Resources Director, City Development V1,614a02-0'r/ _ � Richard Holbnrn, P.Eng. � Director, Engineering & Public Works SG:jf Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City ouncil I / ,,i ' . 1,7, zo/3 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Appendix I to Report PLN 15-13 City Staff Comment Letter on TRCA draft "Living Policies" City n Pickering Civic Complex. { ' ' One The Esplanade i• 11:=\I' ' • Pickering, ON LTV 6K7 ' - ' y" Direct 905.4204660 ''" '- Q-g- "` , ICK RT G: foil Free 1.$66.683.2760 . • , pickering.ca City Development Department T. 905.420.4617. • - _ TTY. ;905.420.1-739 , •,. ' • • 'F: 905.420.7648 Email. citydevopickehing.ca . • •. - August 7,.2013 Mary-inn Burns,planner , ...,. - • Toronto and.Region Conservtion Authority - 5 Shoreham Drive, • Toronto, ON M3N 1.S4 . StOject: Comments-on the Draft".Living City Policies" of the - - ' : ;Toronto-and ‘Re.gion Conservation Authority •. ' - • • : - File:. ile D-8000-0.46 ' . , . •, - . --' We commend•.the Toronto and-Re'gion:Conservation Authority (TRCA)on the release of • ' ''.- the draft"Living .Ci Policies for Plannin and Development in the Watersheds of the 9 tY .. . g P ._ . : „ Torooto.and Region'Conservation Authority" (Living City Policies), on January,25, 2013. • The di- ft "Living City.Policies" provide a'thor'o ugh-'compilation of:background • information; analysis policy proposals to.guide TRCA Staff:and.Board,in:conducting. - its various stewardship, advocacy, adviisory'and regulatory responsibilities: ' - Presentation.of the reasoning and policies in a single "Living City.Policies"•document provides,comprehensiveness and.transparency that will augment,the effectiveness of TR•CA's work: ' ' The following comment respond to the six questions.pro■id'ed (shown in bold) and reflect input:from staff of both City Development'and Engineering & Public Works Departments: • . • I. sintereSts of.a conservation.authority, or of.TRCA'iri.partic:ular, that have not been addressed or are not clear in the document. Appears to be complete: , . .. - ' '' .. 2. Support for the principles in Seciion•5 as.an overarching set of directions for TRCA's advocacy,:planning and regulatory roles anct'responsibilities. . :Agree with all the principles. - , . ' • Comments on the Draft "Living City Policies" of the TIRCA ' : August 7., 2013.'. • , • • • - • _ Page 2 3.' Comprehensiveness and clarity of goals, objectives and policies in sectrons .. ;: 6•through 8 to:earry'Out•TRCA's roles and responsibilities in the planning and •• • • 'development process. : : ° . • , : • :- •~ ,a)`.Chapter 6. Paths to,Achieving The Living City.:.'Poslicies for Sustainable Communities '••;. . • • . Support:the policies;• • •b) Chapter 7 - ..Policies for,Environmental Planning. • . ' Chapter 7 begins by.statingtiiat pblicies for environmental planning will deal with • i#s .roles under'the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessmernt.Acfs and ;• ' then proceeds to include Matters.that falll'u:nder.its;Conservation Act responsibilities: TRCA's`dierent ros n the fulfilment of-its environmentel-planning.• •. : . • •ff responsibilities are set out in Chapter 7 and include: • • the:regulatory role.(diirective);under the ConservationAuthoritjes•Act • • the:plan:review:.role (advisory):under the Planning Act and.the Environmental . Assessment Act,.and. ' • • the.advocacy 'role'to-obtain healthy environmental outcomes on -matters not " •' • directly-regulated by and:use:"legislation,as expanded upon in.:Chapter. 6' - City staff has found that•some'past TRCA•comments on Planning•applications : • 'nave not clearly identified which parts of comments ar'e directive,advocacy Or • ' •advisory. It is recognized that the sites subject to some planning applications include both•features that fail under TRCA's regulatory role (wetlands;Valleys'of - watercourses etc.), and the advisory role(natural heritage and;:hydrologic . 'features•governed. by Planning Act and Provincial.Policy Statement•(PPS)••` . • provi'sions),:•in'addition:to.advocacy comments: It is often difficult for City to - differentiate Which comroents.'relate to the portions of sites that.fall under TRCA's : 'directive role.or its:advisory�r;ole: It is:requested that future comments be'more' • ' • carefully qualified as to their regulatory,(directive),advisory (plan revieviil •• • recbMmendation)or advocacy'authority; Prior to.addressing specific policies, it woulr !'provide greater clarity'to users of - the Living City Policies if: : • • each,Policy was fully, numbered in the highlighted policy sections (i.e.: ' : : Policy 7:31.1.(a)), r.ot just(a) - • links to:other policy sections and-other:documents were,'readily accessible;•• and • • a•compilation of the full.set of proposed policies was provided - • • Comments an the Draft 'Living'City Policies" of the TRCA • August 7, 2013 . • Page 3, • • :c) Policy.7.3.1 ,The Natural Natural System • • • • Although the General Policies for Pla�i Input and Review in section 7:5.2 clearly articulate TRCA's advisory:role in the.plan review..function, the policies proposed in.section 7.3:9.'lead.to confusion-about how TRCA Will.differermtiate its directive recommendatio'ns,from the advisory recommendations made under its-plan. . • • .review functions. ' The Planning Act requiresmunicipalities:to request comments from:Conservation • Authorities on planning applications containing natural heritage'features . - governed bythe•definitions and policies contained in the PPS., Municipalities - :Must tak •s'uch comments into,accourit in arriving at•decisions on planning -applications and also must balance protection of natural heritage with the ':consideration of.other provincial.interests', plans',laws:and regulations in arriving • ' at,decisions:on planning applications.. Except for the portions of sites that fall ' within TRCA's'regulatory role,,municipal Councils have authority to•rnake the • decisions On planning`applicat'ions. • With the'foregoing,iin:mind, there are a'number()Varies Of concern with respect to,.Policy7.3:1.• These include:' • '• •• Inciusion in the.broad definition of the Natural System of components:that fall underTRCA's regulatory role, some that:fall underthe advisory role (plan :review function/P'PS).and One not explicitly recognized by the flannin.g Act . (potential- natural:cover). This•makes.it confusing to determine how TRCA will • separate the directive from the advisory comments to municipalities: • ,• .rThe.meaning"of"Natural-Features,and.Areas" is unclear:..It appears-that,the,: • •intended"meaning is as set.out:on page 65. Since no differentiation is..' .'. . provided for."significant"features from features:that'are;not`significant, it appears that TRCA isairoposing to apply the More.restrictiVei policies for ..significant features ôontained in the'PPS policies to features'that are not • "significant".in its.comments toy Municipalities on both'regulatory and.advisory matters, an extension of current Provincial poiioy:.` - • Inclusion.of.Potential Natural Cover within the Natural System, in the absence _ •of legislative authority in the Planning Act, also appears to bean extension of • ProvinbiaN policy.'Accordingly, potential. natural cover,should.be remaved ' • from the:definition of Natural System.'See comments below respecting Policy 7.3:1.4 for further-reasoning: : . Implementation,of the prohibitions of development and site alterations and • infrastructure contained iii..Policies 7.3.1 (b) and.(c).:is not supported as they . • apply to;natural features and areas that do not'fall within the definitions of the- those not"significant"). For the following reasons, any application of these policies to potential natural cover is not supported The exceptions in Policies 7.3:4, (b) and (c) that state:'except in accordance with the policies in' .•• . Sections 7 and 8"are too general and undefined to be understandable. • Accordingly, City staff does not support Policies 7.3.1 (a) to (p) as currently, Written. Comments on the Draft."Living City Policies" of.the TRCA August 7, 2013•. Page 4 Although earlier sections of the draft Living City Policies acknowledge that .- :development-is defined differently in the PPS than in•the Regulation under the, ' Cooseryation Authorities Act, it is;unclear'which definition should be assumed for - . the different applications,of Policy 7,3;1 since some apply:to matters that fall • under TRCA's regulatory•functions and some would fall under the its advisory• - functions. - • Proposed•Policies 7.3:1 (e) and.(f) that require technical reports,to be prepared in accordance with TRCA standards and Provincial Standards-should also - indicate.that municipal policies respecting technical reports, must.also be,met.. . . . Written comments should provide better Clarification of which matters fall within ` • ' • TRCA's regulatory authority from thoso within its advisory authority"by separating comments respecting lands and features with water resource•and natural . .. hazards (regulatory) from comments that address Natural features and areas• • . • (advisory). . ' : - . d)..,Policy7.3.1.3 Natural Hazards . _ • ln'proposed Natural Hazards Policy 7.3.1.3(h) (i), the meaning of ah institutional ' . use "associated with" the listed uses is confusing.' We recommend it be revised .' • to refer to an.institutional use "including""the listed uses., Policy 7.3.1;3 (d)proposes that a buffer be applied to thelim.it:.of hazardous lands • and sites and•shall Include the applicable erosion;access.allowances. •: ,• Recognizing that the erosion access allowance is defined to ensure a safety zone for people and vehicles:to access an area during an emergency, the policy; ._' :-should clarify whether the erosion access allowance should.be added to the . ' • buffer or included within the required buffer.- - . e) Policy 7. 3..1.4 .. Potential Natural Cover and •BUffers• ' - • We support the concept of"potential natural cover" as.a sound objective.to protect the ecological.health of a watershed as a whole: Similarly,...the concept of - the target terrestrial natural heritage system;is supported as a concept. • For Municipalities; however, the.legal authority to require landowners and - planning applicants to participate is lacking unlessthe lands are designated as Natural Heritage System.in the local official plan; Municipalities Must balance,' • natural heritage objectives with other provincial interests, plans and laws while. also respecting rights of landowners and other stakeholders without creating ., conflicts. '. .Comments on••the-Draftt"Living.City Policies":ofthe•TRCX\ -. • :August 7, 2013 • Page.5 , • . . Policy 7,3:1.4 (a)"ls too simplistic and broad: it'calls'for"all areas of potential • • • natural cover, to'be.pr'otected for restoration and,enhancement, in accordance ` =with Natural-System•Policy 7:.3:1:.•:Policy.7,3.1.:in'cludes prohibition of : ._ • development and site'alteration and infrastructure`within-potential'natural•cover. ': . areas These intentions conflict with the general.PP&,policy,to balance,. • ' •application•of the full range•of.PPS policies, •• • The TRCA•has:not..released.its proposed:CompensationProtocol to date;••When - • • the TRCA initially released:its "Target Terrestrial Natural Heritage•System • ..• compensation.Was•:proposed to be implementedion:lands owned by:other that TRCA feltahould be,part..of the target terrestrial natural heritage system The. - - • -Planning,.Agt allows municipalities to regulate land.u.sesto ensure compatibility •• .. • .with uses on:other affected lands but does not authorize a 'transfer. of obligations '•- to lands remote from.the application,site: Land-.use.policies and•designations in official plans and-zoning provisions that we tild identify lands as "potential natural : • . . •. • cover.or:target terrestrial natural heritage:forpurposes of conservation, as set : out in the Natural:Systems.portion of:section 7:,3:-t is:beyond:the powers of-the : : • municipality and accordingly:should.tie reconsidered. . ' In'ou.r vieWythe.policy proposed to achieve hab itat/features:restoration''in.• :•• .- potentiial natural cover areas should be:permissive'and voluntary;•not mandatory . , as currently framed.,.. • • . ' ,:Also'•in�;our view, the following'principles,should.be•given consideration in,the • •••formulation/fmal•ization of the.Compensation'Protocol' • • s• to mitigate net negative impacts on,the environmental health of a watersh'ed:: . " - • :or.subwatershed. • ' ' •.• in•situuations:where oh-Site,mitigation'cannot be'neg.otiated as a condition of, ,approval of a•planning-application' • : : - ' . •• • TRCA-will recommend that municipalities negotiate;with planning applicants • . • the:restoration and/or.enhancement on lands within`th"e targe#'•area of the*: : ' : . • watershed.or•subwatershed • ': • mitigation be considered on lands owned by willing host public agencies, Or • • . ' • • , on privately•owned lands whose.owners voluntarily agree-to provide fbr • mitigation on a.site away:•from the development site,•and•other:private owners - .• • ' `whQ volu'ntarily•agree:to steward the restoration that results-fron this acrd: ent •'-.;,at the expense of the'planning applicant site owners ' . TRCA m.ay wish to advocate for:municipal.official plan.policies to support • • strategies to achieve'potential,'natural cover•principles in a manner`that falls ,within the policy provisions of the PPS and be more directive only for those' • aspects Of Policy 7,3.1 related to water. resources:and natural".hazards lands. • . ' Comments.on the D'raft"Living' City.Policies" of the -MCA 'August 7;'2013• • ' - • • • , Page'6 .• .. ( ,. Similarly, the proposal in Policy,7:3:1 (d) to require-connection for isolated natural features to other:natural features.cannot be supported unless the connection is.. . on.lands also subject to the'planning applicatibn=under.consideration Furthe'r... , - this proposed"policy�appears to conflict.with advice from the Region..of Durham, ,- • . . - that-the_City may consider removal of some isolated natural•heritage features : : . . from.the natural heritage-system'being finalized for.th•e'environmental.:.° • • _ . • . . amendment, Which-is part of the C•ity•of.Pickering Officia}.Plan Review(currently underviraY)-' • • : f) Policy:7A1.1..1 ; Policies for.,Stormwater Managenient:- Similar•to the concern noted earlier, the city does not.'support:TRCA's.apparent'- . •• • ' . • assumption in Policies'7.4:1;.1.1 (b) and,(d) of the sole authority to set'crite-ria fol.'. • ' - , technical reports on'rnatters.related to planning applications. : • • A.critical Component of the long-term effectiveness and sustainabiliity of municipal .. ., stormwatermanagement infrastructure is the:ease with which maintenance -•• • opeia ions can be corri'pleted;"Inadequate access can,vastly increase the cost 1 acid complexity of maintenance operations: Given•thiat•'the continued erosion. Control,,and water quality and•water,guantity-treatment functions of stormwater: • ' - : management facilities requires.maintenance,,access to such facilities must be . ", recognized in TRCA's policies. . .• .• ' , •SinceTRCA plays an.important,role in the review and approval:ofstormwater . • - management infrastructure, TRCA's po,licies.should'acknowl.edge the critical ' ' ' importance'of.future maintenance .requ'irements in the design of,storniwater .•. ' .'management infrastructure., . • ' • • . • Furthermore, where stormwater management infrastructure'is'located within the Natural Heritage System.there•is potential for conflict between TRCA's policies • , and municipal requirements for maintenance access roads.to stormwater • ' . • management infrastructure: 'It is the opinion,of the`City of'Pickering'that the • - T.RCA's Natural Heritage:System and Storrnwater.Management policies should • ' recognize that maintenance access.roads-be requited for stormwater - - • . management:facilities .. • • • .• • • - g). -Policy74.2,1 .Natural Features and Areas•Management:Policies - • ' ..Section.7-.4.2•appears to'be premature in that,`at least at the time of writing the '. • • :Living City-Policies, TRCA's Compensation Protocol had not been approved..' Itis . - '. •accordingly pre-mature to incorporate it into the policy document. ,. . . ... ' •. . . In addition,:similarly:to earlier;comments, although section.7 is supposed to . • • .. . .relate to..natural.heritage Matters that fall under'the Planning Act;, which assigns decision making.authority to municipalities, paragraph 1 suggest that TRCA• - . .makes the decisions in consultation with the municipality. This should be • corrected. The municipality, in consultation with TRCA, has authority to . _ - • - ' determine such matters: - ' ' • :.• Comments.on•the Draft;"Living City Policies''-;of::the TRCA :August.7,:20;13 �''� � • . • .; � ', : • h) :Policy Official Plans;Official•Plan'Amendments,Secondary,Plans •' References In proposedPolicies,7.5.2'.2'(c)-.and 7,5.2,4 (a) •o:potential natural cover should b •revised to reflect the earlier comments •• - 4. EBackground"information to policies in sections 6•thiough 8. No further comments :: .. ; . 5: Policy conflicts . . - • • • The Ontario MinistCy;of Natural Resources.Technical Guide-for,River and Stream , . : - Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit explicitly prohibits the use of stormwater ' management facilities to:reduce,flows froth..the Regulatory Storm. Given that,.any :mention of Regional Flood Control Facilities-should be removed from the document • • as it is in conflict with tthe•gbvern'ing policy-.from the Ministry of Natural Resources; • • 6: Issues.or clarification; for City role in he.planning arid:development process No new commnts:•. ) Thank..you for:the opportunity to provide staff-to-staff comments,on the Draft Living City Policies, and,we'look:forward to an opportunity to discuss these.comments with TRCA staff shortly: ..A report'to Pickeriing;City.pouncii is.•also being prepared for September. '. • • If further•clarifcation of any of these commentt it required;'please contact'Steve'Qakrnt. either by email at sgaunt @pickering.ca•or by phone at 905 420.4660, extension 2033: Yours;truly Steve Gaunt; MCIP, RPP•: ' Principal Planner, Policy ; ,, SG;Id J:1DoWmsMS1DeJe pmanIl�-00001D.15000.O4 Comment to TRCA on 1:101 Lonnp'City Polkas Letter.tloe • Copy: 'Director, City Development. • '. ..' • : .Director; Engineering-&.Public Works ' Manager, Water.Resources Water Resources Engineer - . • - Chief.Planner .• • t ATTACHMETik -----TO REVORT e Z,L-LVLT.J,.-3 • .„.., ... Toronto and Region , . ..,...;1 Conservation for The Living City, ., • . • ._ . ' - , .,'• .,;:::.'' ' ''.•.-5._.....,....r..*_,,- ,, --4 ., 1%-, .4.11-I-'7•-•-..•/.'T'A:111.4•-; ._ . • I •`.1 • • -' ' -,-- i(7/".•••:•11.-14- ^ 4, ' .,AC,., ; .. ' ii I , 41., ■ ,,7•. ,1 ,..la N4;1, 7 i,.. ,, , .. ..- . •.....- . .. '. -..•"t4 G,...C.: 110,4.....i,1._,2?2' ri.J- 44- .4. ' ,... 5 r p;, rAti- .o. 4,4 rliki I 1..".4141.- 1 ''- - • ' . -,.■-• 1, „0.1.i.,... .- --/.:_.....:.,...„-,..,. -:., A . .4:•.,,,:k.„„„j.,,,A.1 itk},,,,,,, ,4_7‘.-,;-....0-,,,,,,, .. •.._ & !I f./ 7111' Zsore2'.■:4111/tj'_N-' ( :4.' i,. ' ■ 16,-..,- ' -'. . `Iit i -7,-. ..I.,..- 7;74-'1-W.M.L". * 1.c■114 4r-r.4.-1- , _ e:- i.If,O, . _ _, .., '. ,- , , '...- - ,, --. ..;-..--.;`,. -1 .. ...:1.. „,;,,. .: .,_ -,_ . "..... .„--..„ ).i. ... . 7..- 2' •' .. -'. " -i11,..::::: ' k °.. ::_ 1-."-1;14‘;-: ; .--vi.:‘.2.1. 2'-....-:,,_,'L- ...._ •z‘..1f2:4;:iigAhrf,_.:.. -AN. ;nb.4eN7,11 ",_:!;:Z.-5, .1- 1 4:::,1,,a,,,N. ........ke iii.....-:.:„__ .:IN it....f....-.:_,..xy.z.4... ..0...7. • •7-1,0' t 1..' s. . 7.- ' -1*•'• . 1 1■-..- .`' • Nrili ,...7-. ■:1101; ' I*. ''..1',.. • ) s A-, _ ,r.' -- • -.. :-1- _ * -71.• .- _ . ,. -,— ---- - -11V- , .,-~"•iiz--.4,": _ r'-,..;,...-- - — ' •A-- -ti- "'IL "4-12P-.?'--414 - e , ..........._ ......_-__ , - to.... ..... 7-.:19.1,.. ;: - • - -. ..., „ . •,_-.1' ''''').-::11 '-' - • - ... 0 . . , . ' i....,:::', :\--1 r. _ri...._:::._, .--,_,-.,,,-_:::::,1:._,,--,.,:-7-...,, :, kik ..* ,,=v•--7A-- .- i.;i :: MI e .... [._ ,1 i l \`/ 1 L..] [ : E.,"•• Ci it .. . - ..-•--ii ' ?•---.— L. ..- - 2 -- - • _.____...., • I .---- . z,;i4t _, , , •-,. , t . , . _ .___, _ _ — __._ . -- for Planning and Development in the •----.., 0,- – . Watersheds of the Toronto and Region T__ ..........a I i i--,+-1 .............L:... ..,.... Conservation Authority - S. ..V•74., T4111 ,--I' . .'- ;.---• :i ...• . ••••-,:. I- ::-.4..0‘.••:1:1"1.--.,;---,141.1) eilme.Alp-7•01,7 t.„ ,.. . ; , —'ft„, ,,-_,-. •_ - .,. . _ . .”'• •C•:•" '`..•..cr;:'-' ,,,. , , -.411EV... .4-"`;31,2;;;;;Iprk.a/ • • SUMMARY DOCUMENT ---. .....' i • ' ' lqi.,!.T., L',-... ':P.'nf-''' . , .. '-",-....... 1.0101-.1%. • ' , . . ,.. . . . ,. .:17P401r •5"''. S'' ---. ' .',:' - .• . - ' : .-. '''.. !,... . ' -. •-- ' - ' 1 - . _ ....;e4.. . -,.e.,--,,..,...,,,.,. ...,....2,....,. „ - I — '''.). ...01 1 . 1 „il'; t"";.- -.- .-'—"I .".":{At'.•%-ilx.V.':'i . - ;.4 ',.._. ' ;i'-?'f ...'!.--7 ..-•.r...-- . ;.:.:. :.-Tq 7:::.*•7-`'':••' 1 4 •. 1., . .i .--.. , ..-',3-.'.-1-2',=•-..4-!._' '. ,;,...›.,. ,-- ' 1 ''' ail ' :: ii ' .:.-! t..:f0:.,.. -'1'g•T',.._ -: __ ' ' iCA - 11,1.., .,... , :,,,. . ,, ,•• ..,,,-. ....yj.. •t-9. ';. ' ■ ,i .. .: * k • ' . . -* - • '' • /• ' • '.. ± ...' 1" .g.. 7.," -91 '- , .1., - .1. /,, ..., -.1 -•d i- • ' • ■ __.,, `..`,, :lig. •' .11' !.‘ '':"•• ' 0 4-.' ..,..`''''' ! .:V.. --e!.•' ".1;- •,f• ••„ -,- .,• ''•_.,-7-;------^- --• --,. ott-- . . .7..7- ,: :-.•- t:- "... I .2 ,1'.-..4 ",..,,,, - '.';'-,:s:1,-,ii. '0•"".- ..:_e_-' ...t, .„..P.y.„,r4..." , ,',.'r , ,.., . ,'...--.1.A .34.71.: '- :,t; c-' '.,_. ,,T.F ;.• ;j'l 41,_ .,,,,. 4P, :..-4.. ..,),!--9 -.4.3,-"-•71!..:,•.."-, • "-''' -.-"•-4:',*,t: • ';';':,i::••...-%rr4 :' :7r, . ' ...,,r. -.--1- •. ' ! • . .•••-• _ .-•,11. -•.),,.• :DT,. ,, ,--.i...:5-,,-...„.... ,.., - . ......2-........ . ,-.--,---_.:---,--e.,:-=,.......;21..-.....4 -7-4-,-•...- :,..,'rrig.c•e 44, f,::04.,..,t. :f..,-‘,1,5,.• d, , .t..w.,f..•.5 I, ) ,, .4.41_P.-4.• 1 e',:;,ik;•4:......,v../4e......;_4„.....;,yeZ.,P,.,:...''''''1'..- - . kl'.74"7';%'" - • • ''....kt■t-,-.''' 7:3'-' -':Cal;•-•:...5re• ..•: rx. 't.' •'7,,ii --:;....,-/./i - ..,' .. ,.: r,- '..'',- N.. 'Lb ' ' • ;11--1 .' .:-,4 - :' 'F'71.-.:' '...$0.1..' 'f ...,...t! ' ''. f -...?'I A -,',--...,,-.;1•;,,‘,-71.--,;ii,•;,.. . t'''-:. :_,.,-4, : ,• -41=./. ;44:`,----." .,4.1 _A 17- .• .'-- -•- ;-- , .-3,f,,:i - : ... ...• -. • - .4, 1 . _. '-... p.41,:.'• :,-',7.1 ., .. A , - ••• Z.,-: , „‘ .3;' (. ..' ,...•-..-.1 -■A_,....-E';‘,..- -, 1 --,.6,4,1 _-•l'? ,fl•'a ,_ .1.,..lif: -:,_" ". '._. ' : ''''-. ' i'-'-:'}'''..,;,..,!-.:.:•1-.1.A!''-'-`.."1,•_;-% , '^rt ,..d' ;''.4-"r,-... .)ej.2s.1,-4-- 1 ATTACtitetENT# i _____TO LiEportre _i_ __ /_ .:Z.-j 0 CD What is this document? 1 M What is The Living City? 2 0) Why does TRCA need a new policy document? 3 What's new in The Living City Policies? 5 e The Living City Policies - Chapter by Chapter Contents 6 ( ) Process and Timelines 7 Evolution to The Living City 8 0 ..,,,.., --=1,,`• ,a.,"%..",. „.„.'t ' • 1'.5.4:sti.....4.4.4‘..,..Z..... .?.''. I 1 :',..r. '' '' . ,,.."•••■••.‘.,4" ' , ,,,.. .' -- it. ''".'""PEC -,,; -i.'.,,- , . ,. :•'''l'ilg1,-,`, ,4.k, - 4. , ,,•4.., ' ' ' .ke 4g I',g'4.[..• "1' -... "1" f .• I o■ —'' •• 'T.0-4r- Li: '' i t.-„.. „.. ir_ , . ■ I, - . . . , ' - '% -,itt—.. f .7r. - ..1- , f il....__......- ••:;-.0"-,--,. '-.''' , ' /- ” iv.,, 1.• ---"4" 1,,,,..., _ r_ , , , _. • ...a_ .... 4 ... 4 ,,-... ''," ,_4, . .. . . • .11114411141r1 1 'T ' 01-1.1 t. t ..ita I- . 'i •-' _. ... . _.r.,,r.,,.. ,, , w . i , ,3„.a. ;ir,...0....-4_._,...,.f r.,vi_ • 4,2,a^-6.1,1 : •,----. v 't°' A 1 .. .:--"`■.... .,...,,,.._------:- ..4).--_itkkiii14110‘:, : .4-r, ,-.-.., :,, , _ .„.____,--•._ _____..„6„, _„_-,'''S eF —= -!_i• ?ii;;11_4, i'-_v_I I - L , kt •-,- -,2d. .... - — . - - ..4 - . 4, saiiiii4= 4 0,44,4p. ..t..... iM .t.-. ..., . . .ell ___ ::.__--, _ ....maill -1,,.,,,.., I, .. . stt•-•- _,Iii.*-4 '._.. ,.-7,,, ' t.l...,.., ._ ., -... .,.., 19 -. ., ATTAC 4MENTI` 1 TO REPOs . P�vi5 ; 1 • 0 What is this document? The Living City Policies is the new DRAFT policy ten years.Comparable to a combined municipal document of the Toronto and Region Conservation official plan and zoning by-law,The Living City Authority(TRCA)that is now released for Policies represents a compilation of existing plan municipal, public and stakeholder consultation. and permit review policies and practices that have It is a conservation authority policy document to evolved over time.It also contains new policies guide the implementation of TRCA's legislated and related to TRCA programs,scientific research,and delegated roles and responsibilities in the planning external planning and development initiatives. and development approvals process over the next Its purpose is four-fold: _. 1 2 . 3 : 4 To guide TRCA To provide the To inform TRCA's To assist and enable review of planning basis for approving advocacy role for our partners'and applications and permit applications The Living City stakeholders' environmental under Section 28 in the planning contributions to assessments; of the Conservation and development building The Living City. Authorities Act; process; and •. . ... _,.- - --''':- em----1.--, - et " , <-, - . .'_.-vi i ‘. .-L.,.~.%--�, 2 ri._-;.y�•y a. x-_ 7,-- = ,v,.A.r. a'�' w y�Z'y[-`i ..!yr"�-:,� 1 i;l-�II� . : ry,i,.Y,. • ' ., "" • y J ; " 1 • ,... . " .,...4 .40. ijil "- :. r r r k `6 `- 2 0 ATT �IL�hlT#�.---TO 2 repo ' _ 3 0 What is The Living City? • Simply put,The Living City is TRCA's vision for TRCA works from the perspective _.•_.>, lial a healthy,attractive,sustainable urban region that natural processes contribute _ prospering into the next century.Its foundation to the physical form of cities is the traditional conservation authority mandate, and neighbourhoods;and that adapted for the distinct needs of an urbanizing the development of urban s •" , `� city-region.TRCA agrees with the assertion by the areas influences and affects the ` 4. United Nations that the future of the planet will be health and ecological integrity iii` determined in rapidly expanding city-regions,such of natural systems—that cities as our own Greater Toronto Area(GTA).We believe are part of,not separate from,nature.TRCA's quest that the future of our region depends on decisive for sustainable development,through building The action now to change unsustainable practices,both Living City,seeks to reconnect human and natural individual and corporate,and to find creative new environment objectives by working in partnership with ways of city building and of living in our rapidly the community.Accordingly,the mission of TRCA is: growing urban region.Accordingly,TRCA has put forth its vision for a new kind of community: To work with our partners to ensure The Living City,where human settlement that The Living City is built on a natural foundation of healthy rivers and can flourish forever as part of nature's shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, beauty and diversity. and sustainable communities. III ..... ‘, .,..., '..A. , . ... •. ni:X---*,,, . - •,. i si - Ai : ' 1 '' *1'441. 1:4%I•) '.P:.'' ' . " ,fit � � V I V .. ■ Y i + . / Y v,K .h ''''kl'``....to,A P.:i. ."Igia Y'4 E. 21 ATTffCHME1V1# / 1iV REPORT?: Av /5-/3 3 • Why does TRCA need a new policy document? Under the Conservation Authorities Act, a conservation authority implements a program to further its"objects"of conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources. TRCA's main program currently guiding the Authority in its planning and regulatory roles is the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) endorsed by the Authority in October 1994. The Living City Policies(The tCP)will supersede In a 2009 Mining and Lands the VSCMP while continuing and expanding on the Commissioner decision,the tribunal program's valuable foundation of principles and affirmed the importance of such policy intent.Since the VSCMP was first introduced, programs in order for CAs to many changes have occurred in the quality accomplish their objects. and extent of scientific understanding of TRCA watersheds,as well as changes to the planning, development and growth management realm of It is clear to the tribunal that the Authority the GTA.The development of The LCP was informed has the right, and in fact the responsibility to by these changes and will serve to:fulfill TRCA's develop programs to 'accomplish its objects.' legislative responsibilities;support our municipal Ontario Regulation 166/06 outlines the objects partners in building environmentally, socially accepted by the TRCA. The Valley and Stream and economically Corridor Management Program has been sustainable developed to guide the Authority in the communities;and - . ., 4 • implementation of its objects. In effect, the minimize the need �" .•., Policy's purpose is to further the aims and for costly remedial r, .� , _ •y' VAX measures through the - t \\ �- objectives of the Authority and provides a g , 'purposive approach' to both the Act and conservation of land t _ � ';;,�, � the regulation. and resources. �� „ `- (MI(Decision,Russell versus the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority(CA 003-05)May 27,2009) .,K,.,...- ;, "1:17; c•' �. Y • .,-.� . 464.1•1. Ark Adli9e x 4 f.. r ? ' �! •'. • r . '.!or 1:c! '` .21044it." 1. • a 22 • ATIAC 4 ABIT#.... —TO REPO Ti P4 N /S-/ Some of the changes that An update to TRCA's to manage human activities III highlight the need for policies is needed at this (such as land use change)and adapting and updating time to address not only natural resources on a"systems" TRCA policies include: the policy,administrative basis,in order to address critical and environmental issues such as the cumulative •The requirement to conform changes identified above, impacts of rapid growth and with new provincial legislation but also to address new transitioning to a sustainability and policies such as the Oak challenges facing the GTA model for all aspects of society. Ridges Moraine Conservation in the coming years. Key Plan,the Greenbelt Plan,the among these challenges Places to Grow Growth Plan, from TRCA's perspective and the 2005 Provincial Policy and mandate are: Statement,among others; •Growth and urban intensification •Clarification of the roles and in the context of environmental • responsibilities of conservation .- protection and managing the authorities through provincial risk from flooding and erosion initiatives such as Generic hazards;and Regulation conformity,the Conservation Authority •Adapting to and mitigating for Liaison Committee(CALL), the potential impacts of climate Integrated Watershed and the delegated authority change. Management is a holistic for representing the provincial approach that recognizes and III interest for natural hazards; operates based on the inter- The Living City Policies are connectedness of environment, • New or updated memorandums also needed to capitalize economy and society—in short, of understanding with on the opportunities a sustainability based model. IWM is an evolving,continuous our municipal partners for resulting from the and adaptive process through plan review,environmental many changes since the -- which decisions are made for the assessment review and technical adoption of the VSCMP, sustainable use,development, clearance services; such as: restoration and protection of ecosystem features,functions and linkages.Integrated •A growing body of scientific •The promotion of a"Culture watershed management allows research and evidence of Conservation,through the for addressing multiple issues documenting the declining Growth Plan for the Greater and objectives,and enables us quality of the environment Golden Horseshoe,to protect to plan within a very complex in TRCA's increasingly urban natural systems,increase energy and uncertain environment. watersheds;and and water efficiency,as well (Conservation Ontario) as to value and protect prime •Systems-based approaches and agricultural areas and cultural best management practices heritage resources;and to address the decline and ..4 promote healthy,sustainable •TRCA's adoption of a science- communities. based,integrated watershed management(IWM)approach . .. ,,k, a S 23 . 4•` ATTACi" E dT# / TO HEFOR O AZ N X5-13 5 • 0 What's new in The Living City Policies? 0 9 Y The foundation for The LCP is TRCA's mandate under the Conservation Authorities Act for the management of natural hazards and natural heritage in our watersheds and waterfront using a watershed-based ecosystem planning approach.The protection of valley and stream corridors through our regulatory role remains as the primary foundation of The LCP.The new policies being introduced reflect TRCA's current plan review practice and are based on many TRCA initiatives and programs consulted on previously. New policy areas in The LCP include -Wetland and Lake • Natural System •Natural System •Policies to address Ontario Shoreline protection policies management policies flood risk reduction policies in accordance based on the science for redevelopment and redevelopment with TRCA's Ontario from TRCA's Terrestrial of existing urban through comprehensive Regulation 166/06, Natural Heritage System lands that emphasize planning to integrate as approved by the Strategy(2007),and as restoration of degraded science,engineering and • Province in May 2006; refined in watershed natural areas and the ecological design in urban plans and municipal remediation of flooding intensification areas; official plans; and erosion hazards; •Stormwater •Environmental •Policies that emphasize •Sustainable management policies Assessment,Master an"ecosystem services" Communities policies based on TRCA's SWM Plan and Infrastructure perspective in which that advocate for other Criteria Document policies that incorporate human health and urban Living City program (2012)that include the consideration of design benefits can be interests in the planning managing water balance cumulative impacts and maximized by drawing and development for natural features and adaptive management; on both the natural and process. groundwater recharge built elements of"green through options such as infrastructure"; low impact development measures in a"treatment / train"approach : - -,"-- .-- •-•'":-:.; . .. .'.'_ -.• - . ,_. -, .-. Oh' / , .. . , ., 9 _ to-, � 1; ,' 1 iC # ) t ■ ' ' ' 24 ATTA MEMT# / TO Rl RT / 4) /5-/ 3 © The Living City Policies — Chapter by Chapter Contents • Introduction The Toronto Legislative TRCA History Purpose,Scope Region Foundation and Evolution and"How to Read" Description of Overview of TRCA's to The Living the document. TRCA's jurisdiction. mandate and roles City in planning and development. The Living City Paths to Policies for Regulation Vision, Mission, Achieving The Environmental Policies Strategic Living City Planning Policies to Guide Objectives and Advocacy Policies Policies to guide TRCA's regulatory Principles for Sustainable TRCA's role as a responsibilities Communities commenting agency under section 28 under the Planning of the Conservation Act,Environmental Authorities Act. Assessment Act and K as a technical review �• ., agency and service \ \1°I .. , >* municipal provider to partour ners. ,.., 1 III ç41Jfl. flfl6 rotj,.e....41.‘ • \Vs Ili,'r .4 .f t'. ...':.''_ c' .•I'.. 1974,1;,--,,_..;*'.' . .-.,., , . . ....4. ',.-...,.. 1.t '.,#-,..'...li".;- I% a.4-1 A"iv r. ."14`. 1 . ,:s., .:: ,. „a., ., , , . ... ,�,' - r.' i ar • r..�: ` - �4 .4 Fes; g - .._ �.. .tip C` . 3 { `'4 f. , • .4 (` *a.' ,,t '('`�• ... �, _ ' ` op,:/ �S -F a l ki,...,..- '4''.-- _- ,e.t.,.. 4' • , '. . ,. ;04 10 i. 11 '' '-'":'"' t 11 III e, ti . 44-1 . / •.•••-:•*.i , - 1 .."\• • . ,..,",%,"! .: it‘ ,P - . 4 . 1 ' _, , UM ' - k -t: r Vi i , . ' - i.\ _ :. +• . _J _, M+ - - .roe • ATTAC1MEET#._L.______TO 1 FirIF IA T A<k) /C- /3 7 • 0 Process and Timelines The process to bring The LCP to this draft stage Manual in 2007,which provides technical and where it is ready for external consultation has procedural details for many of the policies found in been ongoing for several years and has included: The LCP.The intent of the Procedural Manual is to the completion of many TRCA projects such as enhance TRCA's cooperative working relationship watershed plans,natural heritage strategies,and with municipal partners,the development the development of new technical guidelines or community,and permit applicants regarding the the update of existing ones.Each of these discrete implementation of TRCA's planning and regulatory projects has included their own elements of public functions,including opportunities to increase and/or stakeholder consultation.Additionally,TRCA procedural transparency and streamline the review created the Planning and Development Procedural process where appropriate. The process to consult on and finalize The LCP over the next year is proposed as follows: January 2013 Winter& Spring 2013 Summer& Fall 2013 Early 2014 Authority board Municipal,provincial and Revise The LCP as Final approval by ID Stakeholder notification of agency consultation; necessary based on Authority board and external consultation consultation consultations; 30 day implementation. on the DRAFT with BILD, ENGOs, posting of final draft document. general public and other document. interest groups. ' + J r; ms " , s - vori - t' • r 1 r' ``I. '4 l 9 .fir 41 '0.4, } i i --,. •'- . ,i 4,, 11"* 'ST •4Jyl1 It " Sr' N [ %{ , ' i, } .1 %a. Ikpi... rt Y t , I I y 1 1a rt / it xA'' c 1 tz4 .}i" `,t. 4 cr. ., w ..• !`^ moo. - {} ;;, ?, .•,ft, - 4.10 ' 1, , 't. . e : 4 It4i.. ‘i. 1, . w ° . . .-i",.. `. ,. /• I -1 t „,,. ”- 1 f INL ; i I , ! ' `' �ll it n� -•IT � { , y si_-- , n . ti Iii+ 0 AT TACKIENTL --- REPOW '2 Ai 0 Evolution to The Living City The Living City Policies is the next step in TRCA's continuous evolution in responding to changes in public policy, environmental conditions and citizen and stakeholder demands.The following historical overview demonstrates how TRCA has continually adapted itself over the years to changing times, new science and fiscal realities. MA 1970$ 1960s MTRCA was designated by ' the Province as the lead The prevailing ideology was an implementing agency engineering-based structural for the Etobicoke to 0„., Three years after approach to flood control. Ajax-Pickering shoreline - the devastation of Plans were formulated for the (except for the central The Conservation Hurricane Hazel that construction of numerous multi- downtown waterfront) Authorities Act is killed 81 people and left purpose dams,engineered river leading to the formulation passed in the Ontario thousands homeless due channel improvements,the of waterfront plans based legislature to enable to flooding,four small acquisition of flood plain lands and on an integrated shoreline municipalities to conservation authorities the creation of a flood warning management approach. establish a conservation are amalgamated to form system(which still exists today). The plans addressed the authority to manage the Metropolitan Toronto But as the costs of land acquisition need to limit high rates their natural resources and Region Conservation and major engineering works of erosion while enabling on a watershed basis. Authority(MTRCA). escalated throughout the 1960s safe public access and the and 1970s,it became clear that creation of regional scale these aspects of the approach parkland and waterfront were not financially viable. recreation opportunities. 27 4 1 ;, a la .......,_ # i t , 4 n--- . • A .•7S �',, ; O -.7-< '7 *I- A1T MEI T# / TO RCPOR O /42, ,v /5-13 Looking Forward to 2050 2000s Since the days of Hurricane Hazel,TRCA has a long 4110 19905 history of researching, The information technology revolution was a key theme regulating,advising and Public involvement in in conservation in the collaborating with our watershed management first decade of the new partners to manage the This decade marked a can be characterized as millennium. Real-time in health of our urbanizing the theme of this decade. stream monitoring,digital watersheds and waterfront. shift in provincial policy 9. 9� direction away from the The Don Watershed Task modeling of storm and The Living City Policies structural engineering Force was established with flooding simulations and of builds on this tradition, a mandate to develop an natural cover,biodiversity adapts locally for the approach to an ecological p Y approach in watershed ecosystem regeneration losses and restoration needs, new global concerns and I societal trends,and seeks to management.Biological for the entire Don all came together through ON inventories to identify River watershed,through Geographic Information achieve a broad,ambitious, ! i its landmark strategy and positive vision for ! Environmentally Significant gY Systems.Additionally, i "Forty Steps to a New Don." provincial direction through the Toronto Region in the Areas were undertaken by Y p p 9 = MTRCA;water quality and This community-based, the Greenbelt Plan,the coming decades.TRCA is ecologically-focused model Green Ener Act,the Clean working to create a new healthy aquatic life took on Energy was adopted for MTRCA's Water Act,the Greater kind of community,The new importance;and the P sensitivity and significance other watersheds,resulting Golden Horseshoe Growth Living City,where human in numerous river and Plan and others,is seeking settlement can flourish of the headwaters on the Oak Ridges Moraine,as shoreline clean-ups,tree to move society towards a forever as part of nature's wetland creation "Culture of Conservation" beauty and diversity. well as the vital role played Plantings, by natural lands in flood and the development of and apply a sustainability ', 1 and erosion control was trails and management lens to all aspects of growth i •.j recognized. plans for MTRCA's vast management. holdings of public lands. . PR „L i ill It ,::.;'..- 1. , ' .. _ PsTT/,L EET — TO 3 '/ •Toronto and Region Conservation for The Living City/ For further information or to comment,go to www.trca.on.ca/LCP I DUFFERIN/ j J I i 1 I SIMCOE I I 1 �� .��ti, s o ()To' ho �.r I ii, .41t) \I r i Aurora y 1:, ` -1 L.,.,tea u s •. ..,!F _ fi, r. �. '44 A.. F r �; r; f ,,,9 i .. ..+.` "NYh`t S'1}yr 1 ' i U.b -c ge -1 GAled�it -F i.f;y a• o ..,. '/ � ` + t • j.r "" MO, I ri •.• ,.. , " " '• r. .._, ..' ,.,ADir N., ,,i. , , • ;, -7•!.7-:„, �►'r.. oRiYLr , ..,..N. .+ .,r Ar A '� i � p/ �'1 Irampton:• �� ,, sj ' �' I` t \ ' '• `r f p f*.Men 'tree I � " Na rsh ` f. i , n i ":14,.',..t O Highland C i— ' l r;>' '.E(q,brcok• rye, i ``.- - _ \ i '`)'Vatershed +r. '�, 1 .._,it' :.:*:'.:.1, 't,—,:', : • . ''r ' 4 Mississauga 29 / ATTAERPMTek_-c-2 _ TO • A� Watershed Management Futures for Ontario Summary Conservation Ontario Whitepaper Conservation (September 2012) ONTARIO Natural Champions ' Working with Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities (CA's), Conservation Ontario has produced a Whitepaper entitled"Watershed Management Futures for Ontario". The purpose of this paper is to spur discussion between Conservation Authorities and the Province about how to more effectively manage Ontario's watersheds by leveraging local and provincial resources in order to create efficiencies in Ontario's watershed management services and programs. It is suggested that discussions focus on the roles and responsibilities for managing Ontario's watersheds, as well as how to redefine relationships between Conservation Authorities and provincial ministries.While the management of Ontario's watersheds involves a very wide range of participants, this whitepaper specifically addresses what Conservation Authorities can provide to the Province. To move forward,the whitepaper acknowledges that the dialogue must include municipalities and other stakeholders and asks that the province take a leadership role in establishing the dialogue at the earliest possible date. III . Drivers For Change—Fewer Resources to Address Growing Environmental Issues Ontario's economic realities are creating budget constraints at all levels of government and there is a need to streamline operations,,share resources and leverage expertise. New working relationships at provincial and local levels are needed in order to address increasingly complex watershed conditions created by climate change and growing populations. Maintaining the status quo and continuing on the current path will result in expensive and serious consequences. Ontario's water and land resources and natural systems provide important ecological, economic and societal benefits and should be protected. Forests,water resources,wetlands, soils, plants and animals are all necessary to produce goods and services such as clean sustainable water supplies, clean air, food, fuel, energy and healthy green spaces. Ct�� 5 i rn GOONS, 'S stainable , forests,, ` Se;-vices;: . '•y wetlands, ,, ' clean water, s Resilient. water,spill, food,fuel, •En+lironmenf. i, :i Heal,' plants; energy, i animals habitat ,� �apl e Threats to Ontario's water and land resources such as urbanization and climate change are significant and growing larger. Managing impacts on natural ecosystems is the key to ensuring sustainable resources for • drinking water, agricultural production, municipal needs, and industrial uses. Keeping water clean and sustainable also requires ensuring healthy land resources needed to protect water quality and quantity. • 30 • ATFeC MET#2--TO REPOITti;n- jb Al lJ i5 ,/33 There is an opportunity for changes in the way we practice watershed management in Ontario. The call for • greater government efficiency and effectiveness from the Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services(2012) is spurring a modernization and transformational change across the Ontario provincial government, creating an opportunity for the Province and Conservation Authorities to re-assess our traditional approaches to watershed management in Ontario. In addition, the provincial government, itself, is currently targeting issues around the Great Lakes and climate change impacts(Climate Ready: Ontario's Adaptation Plan and Strategy; Great Lakes Protection Strategy). With some strategic investments in Conservation Authority programs, the Conservation Authorities offer a unique opportunity for the Province to leverage CA resources in order to continue to meet provincial environmental agendas despite a more restrained fiscal base. • Challenges to Ontario's Current Watershed Management Framework The whitepaper identifies a number of specific challenges with the existing watershed management policy and governance framework in Ontario that compromise the Conservation Authorities' ability to effectively and efficiently manage the impacts on water and other natural resources.These include: ✓ legislative mandate of Conservation Authorities, ✓ declining provincial funding for provincial priorities, ✓ inconsistent provincial policy support and interpretation, and ✓ variability in Conservation Authority capacity to plan &implement watershed programs&services. • The current fiscal reality further exacerbates these challenges. Framework for Watershed Management in Ontario Conservation Authorities believe an integrated watershed management approach as the best way to manage • • issues around water and related resources. Integrated watershed management is the process of managing human activities and natural resources on a watershed basis,taking into account social, economic and environmental issues, as well as community•interests in order to manage water resources sustainably.This approach allows us to address multiple issues and objectives, and enables us to plan within a very complex and uncertain environment. Conservation Authorities call for the Province to confirm their support for using the • integrated watershed management approach to build resilient watersheds and protect the health of Ontario residents. Focus for Discussions The whitepaper recommends discussion around five key inter-related items: 1. Confirmation of the Conservation Authority mandate and the importance of the CA model that promotes an integrated watershed management approach to protect Ontario's watersheds 2. Enhancements to Conservation Authority-Ministry Relationships • Renewed Conservation Authority—Ministry of Natural Resources relationship focusing on restructuring of local delivery models hazard management responsibilities, Conservation ' Authority support for a role in the implementation of the provincial climate change strategy, governance and accountability. • Formalized Conservation Authority—Ministry of Environment relationships focusing on source protection and Great Lakes program implementation, formalization of important environmental monitoring and reporting roles, implementation of the provincial climate change strategy as it pertains to MOE. • 31 ATTACt M T# T6 r EP® `i • New formalized relationships with other Ministries such as MMAH, OMAFRA, and Ministry of Infrastructure around common activities such as planning and development, infrastructure and stewardship. 3. Revamped Conservation Authority Governance Model: Evaluate and assess the broader and localized governance structures of Conservation Authorities in order to be more inclusive of wider stakeholder holder involvement. 4. Development-of a Sustainable Funding Model: Discussions should take place on developing a cost sharing model that takes local ability to pay into account, and this should be permanent, rather than project-based.Also need to address Conservation Authority flood hazard infrastructure by including CA assets in the pool of municipally owned infrastructure or another appropriate asset management framework. 5. Improved Accountability Framework: Governance,finance, mandate, and accountability are all closely linked and need to be considered in an integrated fashion. It is recognized that such a sweeping review of watershed management in Ontario has implications for the Conservation Authority model itself,the refinement of which must certainly be on the table. Conservation Authorities are already pursuing internal discussions on ways to address current deficiencies to provide a more consistent level of service. Conservation Authorities Offer Significant Local Resources There is a lot of good work going on in Ontario that protects water, land and wildlife; reduces climate change impacts, and promotes awareness about the issues with Ontario residents.What Conservation Authorities bring to the table is their demonstrated ability to leverage local watershed management expertise, knowledge, and resources.The Conservation Authorities'work in watershed science, stewardship, monitoring, and reporting is critical to informing strategic local and provincial decision-making. Conservation Authorities deliver practical,cost effective programs and services totalling approximately$300 million per year. They often work in partnership with all levels of government, landowners and other agencies. The types of programs that most Conservation Authorities offer include: • Watershed Strategies& Management • Watershed Monitoring & Reporting • Flood&Erosion Protection • Rural Water Quality and Quantity • Reforestation&Sustainable Woodlot • Environmental Regulations and Land Use Management Planning • Stormwater Management • Agriculture&Rural Landowner Stewardship • Natural Heritage Protection Assistance • Information Management, GIS • Land Management • Outdoor Recreation • Soil Conservation • Sensitive Wetlands,flood plains, valley • Environmental Education&Outreach lands protection Conservation Authorities are the second largest landowner group next to the provincial government with landholdings totalling 146,000 sq km.These natural areas provide important ecological features and systems that contribute to the overall health of Ontario's watersheds. In 2011, Conservation Authorities: ✓ planted over 3 million trees with 2,000 landowners; ✓ implemented over 600 water quality improvement projects IL /W,4 1 T# , TO 01.7„v.a u .._.__. ✓ implemented$5.4 million in habitat restoration projects around wetlands, shoreline habitats, stream &fish habitat ✓ operate 422 sites in the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network; and 404 sites in the Provincial Surface Water Quality Monitoring Program ✓ monitored benthic invertebrates at 1,117 sites(tiny organisms that live in or on the bottom sediments of rivers, streams and lakes and serve as an indicator of the overall aquatic environment) ✓ offered 2,500 kms hiking trails and 8,400 campsites in their many Conservation Areas ✓ delivered environmental education programs to 485,000 Ontario students with 4,000 schools ✓ Over 6.8 million Ontarians visited a Conservation Area in 2011. Status Quo Is Not An Option Opportunities exist and it is a time to be bold,to think strategically and to consider the range of possibilities that could be implemented through new or renewed partnerships that leverage resources and expertise for a healthier economic, environmental, and societal future. For More Information Don Pearson,General Manager Conservation Ontario Tel: 905-895-0716 ext 231 dpearson @conservationontario.ca www.conservationontario.ca