Analysis of CIPs in Toronto

7/29/2019 Analysis of CIPs in Toronto

1/21

Are Community Improvement Plans inclusive to all areas of the

city? An analysis of CIPs in Toronto.


2/21

Table of Contents

Section Page

1.0 Introduction. 12.0 CIPs A Virtually Untested Phenomenon. 23.0 CIPs An Overview... 24.0 The Legislative Context...................................... 3

5.0 CIPs in Toronto................................................... 56.0 CIP at Scarborough Village Not Likely ........... 87.0 St. Joseph CIP Ottawas application of the CIP

in targeting a struggling neighbourhood.............. 108.0 Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion. 11

Appendix A: References............................................. 15Appendix B: Business Improvement Areas in Toronto 17

Appendix C: Distribution of Neighbourhood-centricCIPs in Toronto...................................... 18

Appendix D: Area of Scarborough VillageRevitalization Study.............................. 19

List of Figures

Table 1: Programs that can be included as part of a CIP 3

Table 2: Key legislative clauses in implementing a CIP 4Table 3: Summary of grants available in Toronto to help

in neighbourhood development.......................... 9


3/21

1.0 Introduction: Community Improvement Plans (CIPs) are the main funding incentive of the

Ontario government to allow municipalities to address issues of redevelopment. As one of the

sustainable tools found in the Planning Act, a CIP provides a means of guiding and financing

development activities that use, reuse, and restore lands, buildings, and infrastructure (Province

of Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH, 2008). Overseen by the

MMAH, CIPs were born out of community planning incentives in the 1970s and 1980s that

evolved to the redevelopment of Brownfield properties in the 1990s. The program was

consolidated with the publication of the Community Improvement Handbook (2006), Section 28

of the Planning Act and legislative changes to land-use planning in Ontario which came into

effect in January 2007 (2008). Although the redevelopment of Brownfield lands remains one of

the key purposes, municipalities have effectively looked beyond this and have used CIPs as a

mechanism for growth management challenges, intensification, energy efficiency, mixed-use and

transit/bicycle oriented development, accessibility, and the emerging needs of an aging baby-

boom generation. However CIPs are essentially inclusive to specific areas of the city that the

municipal government pre-determines.

As part of the requirement for Ryerson Universitys School of Urban and Regional

Planning PLG 720 studio course, my group analyzed opportunities for the implementation of a

CIP in Scarborough Village (main intersection: Eglinton Ave. E. and Markham Rd), one of

Torontos 13 priority neighbourhoods. Although strong recommendations were made to improve

thecommunity withfundingviascatteredgrantprograms itseemedunlikelythataCIP would


4/21

their CIPs more inclusive, especially for areas that lack strong funding triggers. It will begin by

introducing the concept of CIPs and exploring existing literature and their legislative context.

Second, CIPs within Toronto will be examined as well as municipal funding mechanisms. Third

will be a revisitation of the Scarborough Village studio project to understand the difficulties of

implementing a CIP. Finally, the report will analyze Ottawas St. Joseph CIP, which has

introduced unique grant programs, and finally, best practice recommendations will be offered for

the City of Toronto.

2.0 CIPs A Virtually Untested Phenomenon: As CIPs are a creation of the province and

administered by the MMAH and municipalities, existing literature falls under the categories of a)

Instructional guides such as the Community Improvement Handbook; and) the actual CIPs

themselves and all components, including background studies, which are typically found in the

Planning section of municipal websites. On February 28, 2011, the first 29 hits on Google for

Community Improvement Plan belong to websites for the province of Ontario or Ontario

municipalities. Although CIPs, or some rendition of, do exist in other provinces and countries,

the CIP name has been adopted as part of provincial legislature which explains the high usage

count on the internet. This study will only concern itself with Ontario cases in Toronto and

Ottawa.

There has been very little academic literature on CIPs. Causes for this are likely because

theyare limitedtoOntario theyaremost likelyviewedas inherentlygoodfor thecommunity


5/21

the four main objectives of a CIP as: 1) Focus public attention on local priorities and municipal

initiatives; 2) Target areas in transition or in need of repair, rehabilitation, and redevelopment; 3)

Facilitate and encourage community change in a co-ordinated manner; and 4) Stimulate private

sector investment through municipal incentive-based programs (MMAH, 2008). Table 1 displays

the types of programs that can be included in a CIP:

Table 1: Programs that can be included as part of a CIP

ProgramMunicipally-driven Incentive-based (grant, loan and

property tax assistance)Incentive-based (Private sector)

Infrastructure works Municipal property

acquisition, land assemblyand sale of lands

Municipal facilitiesconstruction andrehabilitation

Public space, parks andrecreation works

Signage, streetscape andlandscaping improvements

Brownfields environmentalassessment, remediation,and redevelopment

Commercial buildingfaade improvements

Downtown/core area andwaterfront revitalization

Preservation and adaptivereuse of heritage andindustrial buildings

Provision of affordablehousing

Property tax assistance forremediation purposes

Project feasibility studies Space conversion for

residential and commercialuses

Structural improvements to

Grants, loans and landunder section 28 of thePlanning Act

Tax assistance undersection 365.1 of the

Municipal Act, 2001 andsection 333 of the City ofToronto Act, 2006


6/21

Municipal Act, 2001 and sections 82 and 333 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 (with regards to

CIPs in Toronto). Furthermore, there are also other development related programs that can also

be included. Table 2 displays the key clauses in each that relate to the implementation of CIPs:

Table 2: Key legislative clauses in implementing a CIP

Legislative contexts Key clausesSection 28 of the Planning Act Designating by bylaw a specific property, area

or entire community as a communityimprovement project area where themunicipalitys official plan containscommunity improvement provisions (s. 28(2))

Acquiring, holding, clearing, grading orotherwise preparing land for communityimprovement (s. 28(3))

Constructing, repairing, rehabilitating orimproving buildings on municipal land(s. 28(6)(a))

Selling, leasing or otherwise disposing ofmunicipal land (s. (28(6)(b))

Providing grants or loans to owners, tenantsand their assignees within the communityimprovement area to pay the whole or any partof identified eligible costs (ss. 28(7) and (7.1))

Providing property tax assistance forenvironmental remediation purposes (s. 28(7.3)by reference to s. 365.1 of the Municipal Act,

2001 and s. 333 of the City of Toronto Act,2006)

Section 28 of the Planning Act, Section 106 of theMunicipalAct 2001andSection82oftheCityof

Under the rule of bonusing, municipalities are prohibitedfromdirectlyor indirectlyassistingbusinesses through


7/21

City of Toronto Act, 2006. It allows municipalities to provide municipal property tax assistance

to landowners trying to bring brownfields back into productive use. In addition, municipalities

offering property tax assistance can apply to the province for matching education property tax

assistance. The HPTR is established under section 365.2 of the Municipal Act, 2001, and section

334 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. Municipalities may pass a bylaw to establish a local HPTR

program to provide tax relief (10 to 40 per cent) to owners of eligible heritage properties, subject

to agreement to protect the heritage features of their property. The Province shares in the cost of

the program by funding the education portion of the property tax relief.

Further information on CIPs, including the preparation and implementation processes and

the plan structure, can be found at the MMAH website at:

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1297.aspx.

5.0 CI Ps in Toronto

The implementation of CIPs in Toronto can be categorized in two phases. In a personal

correspondence from Peter Moore (2011), a Project Manager in the Policy and Research section

of the Toronto City Planning Division, Moore states there were probably many CIPs adopted by

the former City of Toronto in the 1970s and 80s, however there is no circulating list of them. As

CIPs have a time limit of 5 years, it is sufficient to believe that none of them are currently active

and there is no historic information via the internet. It is beyond the scope of this report to further

researchthisarea however it ishighlyrecommendedfor futureprojects Thesecanbedescribed
http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1297.aspxhttp://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1297.aspxhttp://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page1297.aspx


8/21

Remediation and Development of Prescribed Employment Uses. These CIPs concentrate on the

promotion of one funding mechanism as opposed to various methods, which characterize the

second type, which will be called Neighbourhood-centric CIPs.

The Commercial Faade Improvement Program is a grant from the City offered to

eligible commercial property owners to improve their building faades through a variety of

upgrades including the replacement or repair of windows, doors, lighting, awnings, brickwork,

signage, or the addition of wheelchair accessible entrances. However they are only available to

Business Improvement Areas (BIAs) that have been in existence for a minimum of 5 years (City

of Toronto, 2010). Appendix B is a map of the citys current BIA areas. In analyzing this map,

one will note that the majority of BIAs are located in the core of Toronto. There are virtually

none located in the Scarborough or North York, two large areas of the city that contain the

majority of the citys priority neighbourhoods. Therefore, commercial businesses, of which there

are many independent and ethnically owned, in these areas are unable to take advantage of this

particular CIP. More on this will be discussed in the section on the Scarborough Village project.

The Toronto CIP for Brownfield Remediation encourages the intensification of

employment areas, but not retail, through the redevelopment of brownfield sites. It allows the

City to cancel all or a portion of municipal taxes for contaminated properties where the Plan is in

effect. Although the CIP is said to apply throughout the City (with the exception of the

Waterfront and South of Eastern area, which are the beneficiaries of neighbourhood-centric

plans) it clearly showsconcentrationin theEtobicoke NorthYork andScarborough Centre


9/21

such as the Downsview Area Secondary Plan Review and Lawrence Allen Revitalization project

in North York and the Finch-Warden and Markham-Ellesmere Revitalization studies in

Scarborough. As supportive and progressive as these documents may be, they are often more

concerned with the task-at-hand as opposed to funding mechanisms and fail to qualify for

monies available for consolidated CIPs.

That four of Torontos CIPs are solely on industrial land, with the exception of

Woodbine, shows that the City is more concerned with using CIPs as an economic trigger for

redevelopment and the installation of future employment areas. The Woodbine CIP (2008) is an

example of this with the whole plan centred around the Woodbine Live! initiative which is the

establishment of an entertainment and lifestyle district containing a mix of entertainment, hotel,

and retail uses. Likewise, the South of Eastern CIP encourages growth in offices, research and

development, film, media, and communication. All of these CIPs benefit from funding

mechanisms based on the Citys brownfield tax incentive programs and development grants for

eligible owners who develop buildings and facilities for employment used in targeted sections

such as biomedical, creative industries, manufacturing, software development, and tourism.

Most relevant to this report are the CIPs for King-Parliament (2002) and New Toronto

(2003) because they are concerned with the betterment of neighbourhoods, especially those that

include high amounts of residential land. Although this neighbourhood has seen a rise in high-

density residential, most notably through the construction of new condominiums, it includes a

particularlyvulnerablepopulationaswell Unfortunately theCIP is severely limited inproviding


10/21

eight specific programs (ranging from Streetscape Design and Street Furniture to Heritage Grant

to Bicycle Lanes) and thirteen key physical project areas. They further go onto define each City

division responsible for leading the program/projects. One aspect of CIPs that becomes clear is

that it is not simply one division implanting the CIP and it involves the coordination of a number

of municipal divisions ranging from Economic Development to Parks, Forestry, and Recreation,

to Transportation.

6.0 CIP at Scarborough Village Not Likely

As mentioned previously, our studio group was charged with the development of a CIP

for the Scarborough Village area (Eglinton St. E. & Markham Rd.) from the months of

September to December, 2010. The area is designated as one of the thirteen priority

neighbourhoods by the City of Toronto. Comparatively, the area would be considered as part of

City#3 in Hulchanskis (2010)The Three Cities Within Toronto report. The report defines a

City#3 area as generally low-income area of Toronto, in which neighbourhood incomes have

fallen substantially over the past few decades compared to the CMA average; these

neighbourhoods are found mostly in the northeastern and northwestern parts of Toronto (2010; p.

1). Appendix D shows the area defined by the study and suggested for a possible CIP. Among

the challenges faced, which are similar across all of the priority neighbourhoods, includes an area

core that is aging and shows visible signs of deterioration, high-density apartment blocks (most

notably in theCougarCrt area) thatpresentspecific rehabilitationchallenges andalackof


11/21

Table 3: Summary of grants available in Toronto to help in neighbourhood development

Grant Agency Eligibility Reason

Commercial FaadeImprovement Program

City of Toronto No Scarborough Village doesnot have a BIA

Mural Program City of Toronto No Scarborough Village doesnot have a BIA

Streetscape ImprovementProgram

City of Toronto No Scarborough Village doesnot have a BIA

Various Grants forCommunity Arts, Dance,Literacy, Music, Theatre

and Visual and Media Arts

Toronto Arts Council(TAC)

Maybe The TAC provides fundingto non-profit organizationsand individuals for

ongoing artistic activitiesCompetitiveness,Creativity, andCollaboration InvestmentProgram (CCCIP)

City of Toronto Maybe The CCCIP awards thisgrant to a non-profitorganization that helpsstimulate the localeconomy

Community SafetyInvestment Program

City of Toronto Yes Scarborough Village is apriority neighbourhoodthat is constantly looking

to improve safety in theareaCommunity ServicePartnership

City of Toronto Yes This could be used for theYWCA, ANC, or anyother organization thatworks to improve socialconditions

Identify NImpactInvestment Program

City of Toronto Maybe This fund is awarded toyouth led initiatives thatprovide valuablecontributions to theircommunity

Live Green CommunityInvestmentProgram

Livegreen Toronto No This grant is given to non-profitgroupspartnered


12/21

and that they would have to provide the initial costs for the BIA start-up. As well, BIAs are not

common outside of developed nations. So far, this has proven quite a difficult sell in priority

neighbourhoods. Without a BIA, the only options available are a smattering of arts grants, small

monies for community safety, and other grants that need a non-profit agency to take ownership

of the project. Furthermore, grant monies have to be applied for individually as opposed to

having the influence of a consolidated CIP. Although the Mayors Tower Renewal initiative has

been identified as an option for neighbourhood renewal, the program is still in the premature

stages and the realistic aspect is being debated. Municipal-backed funding has still not been

identified and the true benefits of the program will have to be proven to property owners who

may have to spend millions to bring their properties up to the programs standards. Another flaw

is that they are only really concerned with the building itself and the immediate surrounding

private space, which does not necessarily benefit the community as a whole.

7.0 St. J oseph CIP Ottawas application of the CIP in targeting a struggling

neighbourhood

The St. Joseph Boulevard CIP has been the only CIP implanted by the City of Ottawa.

Located in the neighbourhood of Orleans, the area is comprised of a mix of commercial,

residential, office, and institutional and vacant parcels of land with St. Josephs Blvd. being the

key arterial spine. Although in recent years development has been slow due to prime locations in

otherareasof Orleans theareaoffersastrongpopulationbaseandaccessiblepublic transit


13/21

Program offers a grant equivalent to 25% of the cost of an eligible project feasibility study. This

can be applied to studies, tests or designs required by the City and in support of an application

under thePlanning Actand/or for building permit approval (i.e. architectural, engineering, site

design, transportation). The total combined maximum grant amount is $2,500 with it increased to

up to 50%/$5,000 maximum if three or more new affordable housing units are constructed.

Second is the Planning Fee Grant Program which includes a grant equivalent to 25% of the City

fees for initial applications made under thePlanning Act (after applicable multi-application

reductions) including for example Official Plan amendments, Zoning By-law amendments, Site

Plan approval, Plans of Condominium and Committee of Adjustment applications. The total

combined maximum grant amount is $5,000 with an increase to 50%/$10,000 maximum if three

or more new affordable housing units are constructed. Finally the last is the Building Permit Fee

Grant Program which is a grant equivalent to 30% of the building permit fee - included as an

eligible cost within a Development Incentive Grant. The grant maximum percentage is

increased to 40% if three or more new affordable housing units are constructed.

8.0 Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion

CIPs are a unique tool in providing the framework to guide the redevelopment and

improvement of selected lands with the provision of financial assistance by the municipality.

They are a political document they are approved by council and act as a mandate for municipal

divisions Most importantlyhowever theyare flexible in thateach isdefinedbythe


14/21

1. Use Secondary/Revitalization Plans as a foundation for CIPs.The initial process of

completing a CIP and Secondary/Revitalization Plans are quite similar. Both types involve a

public benefit rationale, there has to be a process of public consultation, both are wrapped in

legislative authority and have a policy basis, and they involve mapping exercises. As more

Secondary/Revitalization Plans have been completed than CIPs, why not use the foundational

proceedings and information to expand them into CIPs. One of the only elements that would

have to be added is the funding information. Furthermore, this would increase the scope of CIPs

to include priority neighbourhoods that especially need reinvestment.

2. Toronto should use the St. J oseph CIP as an example and provide grants for CIP

development in the initial stages.Toronto currently offers development grants that are payable

over a 10-year period following rehabilitation and reassessment. But where are the monies in the

initial stages of the program? The grants do not have to be large. In the example of Ottawa, up to

$2,500 is provided just for initial feasibility tests. Likewise is a grant equivalent to 30% to cover

the building permit fee. It is these small incremental grants that at least encourage the process of

identifying the possibility of redevelopment. It is suggested the Toronto Planning and Finance

Divisions work together to explore the feasibility of these additional grants.

3. Affordable housing has to be embedded in CIP policy.Affordable housing incentives have

to be embedded in policy and incorporated into the CIPs. They must go beyond simply beingclauses in grants, such as in the Ottawa case, and start to be their own grants. There is no reason

whytherecannotbeacity-wideCIP forAffordableHousing thatoutlines taxassistance grants


15/21

affordable housing units. There has to be incentive for developers and one way to do this is also

to allow a number of market-value units.

5. The condition of having a BIA to receive grants has to be removed. It is understandable

why the City imposes the rule of having a BIA in order to receive CIP grants, especially for

faade and streetscape improvements. BIAs typically mean a stronger-knit consolidated area of

businesses which is easy to manage and work with on economic strategies. Many times, they are

one of the key stakeholders in the CIP process. For example, the St. Joseph CIP is marketed

primarily through the Heart of Orleans BIA. However in the Scarborough Village example, the

area could not obtain funding for three major municipal grants because no BIA was in place.

This goes for many other locations in North York and Scarborough. There should be other grants

provided that allow individual businesses to apply if they will match funds for faade or

streetscape improvement. AlthoughThe Three Cities Within Toronto report does not address the

fact of commercial infrastructure disparities, one can wager that in moving forward, there will be

a great difference in the streetscapes and faades of those areas that have BIAs and those that

dont, further expanding the disparities between City#1s and City#3s.

6. CIPs should not be concentrated in the core. Recommendation 5 leads into 6. Even if the

City maintains a BIA must be in existence for funding, they should recognize that this is not a

possibility for some areas and look at other mechanisms to get CIPs into areas that truly need tobenefit from community improvement.

7 Tower Renewal shouldbe incorporated intoCIPs Althoughitwasarguedearlieraboutthe


16/21

9. Monitoring system has to be built into CIP from the beginning. How does a municipality

know if a CIP is achieving its goals? How can one know what has worked and what hasnt to

improve future CIPs? In the majority of CIPs, a monitoring system is a rarity. The St. Joseph CIP

has a monitoring component built into the implementation stage with a number of variables to

determine if each grant program is successful. This is a start but the process should also include

qualitative methods such as focus groups to measure if people are seeing changes in their

neighbourhood after a CIP has been implemented. This is the only way CIPs can evolve and be

efficient.

10. Academic/Think-tanks need to start studying CIPs.There is a general mentality that any

CIP must be good for the community. What program would not be good that is providing

funding? However this may not necessarily be true. The second phase of CIPs have been

implemented long enough that there is enough data to start measuring the effects. Academics and

Think-tanks have been slow to this process however it is only through critique that change will

come. Furthermore, this initial analysis should be expanded on to determine how to best make

CIPs inclusive for the entire city.


17/21

Appendix A - References

City of Ottawa. (2009). St. J oseph Boulevard Community Improvement Plan. Retrieved from:http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/planning/community_plans/completed/cip/index_en.html

City of Toronto. (2010). Community Improvement Plan to extend the Commercial FaadeImprovement Program. Retrieved electronically from:http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-28931.pdf

City of Toronto. (2010). Map of Toronto BIAs. Retrieved electronically from:

http://www.toronto.ca/bia/toronto_bia.htm

City of Toronto. (2008).The Toronto Community Improvement Plan for BrownfieldRemediation and Development of Prescribed Employment Uses. Retrieved electronicallfrom:http://www.toronto.ca/business/pdf/city-wide-CIP-notice.pdf

City of Toronto. (2008).The Woodbine Community Improvement Plan for the Development of a

Transformation Project. Received via e-mail from P. Moore City of Toronto.

City of Toronto. (2008).The South of Eastern Community Improvement Plan. Retrievedelectronically from:http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/waterfront_cip_draftplan_eastern.pdf

City of Toronto. (2007). St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Community Improvement Plan. Retrievedelectronically from:http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-9479.pdf

City of Toronto. (2003). New Toronto Community Improvement Plan. Retrieved electronically
http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/planning/community_plans/completed/cip/index_en.htmlhttp://www.ottawa.ca/residents/planning/community_plans/completed/cip/index_en.htmlhttp://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-28931.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-28931.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/bia/toronto_bia.htmhttp://www.toronto.ca/bia/toronto_bia.htmhttp://www.toronto.ca/business/pdf/city-wide-CIP-notice.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/business/pdf/city-wide-CIP-notice.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/waterfront_cip_draftplan_eastern.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/waterfront_cip_draftplan_eastern.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-9479.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-9479.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/planfornewto_fulldoc.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-9479.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/waterfront_cip_draftplan_eastern.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/business/pdf/city-wide-CIP-notice.pdfhttp://www.toronto.ca/bia/toronto_bia.htmhttp://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-28931.pdfhttp://www.ottawa.ca/residents/planning/community_plans/completed/cip/index_en.html


18/21

Nawrot, D., Binneti, M., Brillinger, C., Kennedy, T., Khan, S., Kuzniar, M., Macleod, J.,

Nguyen, M., Simone, V., Suppa, N., & Tranter, J . (2010). Scarborough VillageRevitalization Study Opportunities for a Community Improvement Plan. Prepared aspart of the requirement for Ryerson School of Urban and Regional Planning, PLG 720.


19/21

17

Appendix B Business Improvement Areas in Toronto

Source: City of Toronto


20/21

18

Appendix C Distribution of Neighbourhood-centric CIPs in Toronto

1. K ing-Parliament

2. Waterfront

3. South of Eastern

4. Woodbine Live!

5. New Toronto

6. St. Lawrence

Source: City of Toronto


21/21

19

Appendix D Area of Scarborough Village Revitalization Study

Source: Nawrotet al.

Analysis of CIPs in Toronto

Documents