<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Good Morning GREN folks,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It appears that Regional Staff have been busy addressing the concerns we raised over the past few weeks about the Regional Official Plan Update currently underway. <div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Interestingly, it seems that Regional Staff are rejecting the Council motion and request for the new Scenario #4 at 65% intensification and Scenario #5 at 70% intensification and instead have re-written the original three scenarios into three new alternatives at higher densities that they will be studying instead. I don’t know if Staff can ignore a Council request however I guess they aren’t really ignoring it, they are just reconfiguring everything which may not be a bad thing particularly if the “middle of the road” alternative now is no boundary expansion similar to Hamilton. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The highest intensification scenario is actually taking designated land out of the urban envelope and putting it back into the countryside which is certainly an extreme option (and from what I’ve heard a very ugly process since no developer wants their existing land approvals rolled back and no municipality wants to lose assessment that they were counting on….).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This new Staff Report is going to be coming to Council quickly - this Wednesday, Dec 15th and then for public consultation in January. I’m not too worried about this timeline unless there is a feeling that we need to have radically different scenarios being investigated. From my first review these three new proposed scenarios seem to be good and cover a broad range. In fact, most of the new wording seems to be targeted against the LNA demands of developers and their lawyers and supportive of the higher levels of ambition and sustainability that we have been asking for.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You can learn more about these new scenarios being proposed by Waterloo Regional Staff at: <span class="" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><a href="https://emails.engagementhq.com/ls/click?upn=9vcdD193qA8wVAWAMcxkDfE-2BZ7fcrTm0c5PaNLGu1mMZtiKkke1YKc74LaJ1wHjUmO-2FchtNwirIp8YOMkNihC30wSDh11UY15EHZ78-2BBb-2FlXiGN5UxPrq9BDVi-2BvRe82Lv-2FBzAPwLrYCQQnOK6anh4bYTYYA7FX589c49zuuoYgitKgNX-2FYxXB0EcL1Gp-2FaEssSbg4Y263amByDg9ABPpDKNpvbZ4U9g6pTGcmLe-2FT98pfMMHNyh-2BbqMCWghkZvFzMYG9IyikESAb4Hpies273ynnAwUuoVsKJBlaS-2Ba2S4-3DSJva_p5ZQ9mQ8XWiPBAEDaKxGg-2BE4mDdF1QeDBttQrh58TSkXFD1eQDex6FIAO2gcA8EJXADSc-2BcCAoqZ1IBir-2Fp-2F6MvvWYOWU1Lc6tw1ylPb2sWIER2w9ckLz-2FO6ubCNdO-2FHtWWtC7-2BSK7Gtz1wuWeyjJRWVI7OZBtjvvjaDoYSW46whbYLOTlhrccQlnU0SlQQ0omzjdlC7D17BF4EHZqxRUIRaBL3Jd-2B3cw4E1BCrb-2BCWO9vTz8si-2B6CJdUUU5G5RANhce0FEW7ze-2B2WCC2XNchQ-3D-3D" target="_blank" class="" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; color: purple;">www.engagewr.ca/regional-official-plan</a><span class="" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt;">.</span></div><div class=""><div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I have attached a copy of the Staff Report below. I’ve already reached out to a number of planning experts and so far their initial feedback is positive - the framework that appears to be proposed here could provide us with a strong foundation and good flexibility for the long-term plan that we need. Of course the devil is in the details and we still need to get more information on the specifics of the Land Needs Assessment along with how the Region will be applying/interpreting Doug Ford’s mandated LNA methodology. This will be where we have to be bold and creative to ensure the outcomes that we want and not what the Premier is attempting to dictate that seems so skewed to developer profits instead of sustainable, efficient communities.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I plan to delegate on Wednesday to express support for these new scenarios and the general direction in which things are heading. I don’t think that we need many delegations at this point though please let me know if you feel differently or can find concerns. Hopefully we can all have a good holiday and approach these pending January consultations with lots of energy and engagement along with a strong, clear message of the future we want to see for our community.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Please share any thoughts or ideas.</div><div class="">Kevin.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">P.S. This coming week there are going to be both Provincial and Federal Housing Summits which will likely generate a lot of media coverage. We need to anticipate how we might ensure the dialog is about sustainable, efficient housing/communities - not unaffordable greenfield urban sprawl and new highways through the Greenbelt.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>