The much anticipated Report from the Advisory Committee for the co-ordinated review of the Growth Plan and the 3 conservation plans (Greenbelt (GB) , Oak Ridges Moraine (ORMCP), Niagara Escarpment was released in early December.  If you are interested in why the world you observe on day trips from King is evolving the way it is, the Report is a must read; and for sure if you wonder whether your grandchildren will have natural open spaces close to home, if your grandchildren will have access to local food this is an important Report. The review encompasses the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

To make a couple comments not related to the recommendations per se.  1st, its clear that the Panel really listened throughout their extensive outreach; as I read the Report I “heard” points that I had raised in my submissions; I “heard” comments made by others, including those not in agreement with mine.  2nd, the panel was cautious about not exceeding their scope and did not make recommendations beyond it.  But, when they had something of value to add, they did make “complementary recommendations.”  To me this speaks to their respect for the effort made by stakeholders to engage in the process.

Given this I feel very good about the process and as reviewed below there is much about which I am enthusiastic.  Now, we need to see what the Province does.  The Ministries have stated that they hope to conclude the Review and have amended plans in place by summer 2016.

The recommendations at a very macro level are excellent. They are about:

• building complete communities by strengthening the 4 plans
• affirming fundamental importance of agriculture
• improving protection and management of natural & cultural heritagekeep region’s economy strong and globally competitive with focus on upgrading current infrastructure and increasing resilience to climate change
• adding a climate change lens to all 4 plans
• streamlining process and achieving co-ordination

Given issues and challenges in my domain these days (i.e. what’s happening in King) a number of recommendations and comments really jumped out at me.

Very strong endorsement for intensification by citing the benefits:  enables complete communities, lower energy demands, transit services, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure, protection of natural systems and productive farmland.   (As I read this I thought about York Region’s recent decision to reduce its target from 45 to 40%.  Per analysis in the Report, if YR had a target of 65% no expansion of its settlement area would be required.  YR is going backwards!)

Thoughtful assessment of the issues experienced in rural communities with low density. I read with interest a comment about the commuting challenge for more vulnerable populations, such as seniors, youth and low income families.  The Report indicates  that there is a “community transportation pilot grant program underway funding 22 municipalities  to test the effectiveness of various models of co-ordinating transportation services.”  It made me think of the pilot program being launched to replace our route 61.

Very strong support of maintaining current settlement boundaries. But, the Panel does recommend that during this review there should be a review of requests to change boundary lines and/or to simply remove lands from the GB and that the review of such needs to consider the recommendations included in the Report which are about strengthening the plans.  Personally I think this approach is a fair one.  Indeed there may be a very sound argument for removing lands from the GB but the assessment of that should be based on the improvements identified in the Report.

I am very curious to see how Recommendation 53 plays out over the next several months.  This recommendation urges jurisdictions which build infrastructure (utilities, gas, water, communication etc.) to identify and protect corridors for future use.   Ministry of Transport has put the EA for Hwy 413 (GTA West Corridor) on hold.  As I have commented on another post this is not surprising on one hand; but, with this recommendation on hand now, there will undoubtedly be extremely strong arguments about selecting a corridor and “holding it” for 20 years just in case it is needed.

There are a number of very specific recommendations addressing public transit.  I am very pleased to see one calling for integration of all transit services; the need for this really hits home in King City where it is evident that there will never be enough parking spaces at GO train station and hence the only solution is effective bus service from & to the housing clusters where the the commuters live.

I think there is a very strong response to issues raised by farmers throughout the process.  Clearly the Panel heard that the various Plans may be saving the farm but the farmer is not being saved. Two particularly jumped out at me.  Recommends supporting the PPS guidelines on permitted uses in farmland. Made recommendations to improve compatibility and to reduce conflicts between farms and adjacent non-agricultural uses.

The Panel  made complementary recommendations as to  how the challenge of excess soils could be better managed.  (They were “complementary” as the issue is outside the scope of their mandate.)

As I am a member of Municipal Leaders of the Greenbelt I am satisfied to see that the Panel does recommend growing the Greenbelt “using a systems approach, based on areas of ecological and hydrological significance.”  And it also recommends that there be a process for designating urban river valleys. (see Recommendations 71 and 72)

There are several recommendations for changes to Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plans to increase their value in terms of being responsive to climate change. As the Panel commented the 4 Plans under review do not identify climate change as a challenge to be addressed; but, many of the policies within the plans do reduce carbon emissions, mitigate climate change and/or increase our ability to change.  The Growth Plan’s intensification targets drive municipalities to create communities with densities which can support transit.  With transit there are fewer emissions.  Denser communities tend to use less energy.  The GB and ORMCP protect natural heritage features which are carbon sinks and are a sponge for heavy rainfall.  The Panel notes that when the energy efficiency requirements in the 2012 Building Code come into effect in 2017 houses constructed thereafter will consume only 50% of energy used in 2005.  But, what about all the built housing stock? Municipalities do have the the ability to offer incentives of offering low cost financing for energy retrofits; to date few are taking advantage of this. (As of yet King is not.  See here to learn more.)

Recommends several ways to strengthen the protection of cultural heritage resources.

Panel heard from both sides about aggregate as was anticipated.  I have little knowledge on the subject other than that it is a very hot issue in Niagara Escarpment.  I will simply note here that the Panel overtly did not recommend that aggregate extraction in the escarpment rural area should be stopped but that it should be subject to a series of conditions.

Numerous recommendations as to how the Province can/should provide a greater role than simply passing legislation.  Very importantly, Province has responsibility to do comprehensive monitoring.  (Failure to do so, although such is included in the current conservation plans has been continuously cited by Environmental Commissioner and numerous groups.)  There should be a co-ordinating entity to address specifically identified issues.  The need for an outreach program was identified.  (As I read about this I thought of the fantastic work STORM (Save The Oak Ridges Moraine coalition did until funding was dropped.)

As I was reading the Report some stats and comments jumped out at me as being particularly valuable in terms of context for the Report.

• Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH)  from current to 2041 forecasts
  • population growth:  9 million to 13.5 (+50%)
  • number of jobs 4.5 million to 6. 3 million (+40%)
• We are using less land
  • 1991 to 2001 population + 19% and urban area expanded +26%
  • 2001 to 2011 population +18% and urban area expanded +10%.  If the trend of decreasing expansion continues there is enough land already designated for development to address population forecasts throught to 2041. (It was designated for such to address needs through 2031 but because of trend to use less land it will last longer.)

Farmland within GGH:  within Greenbelt it is protected but outside not.  From 2006 to 2011 lost 4.4% of its agricultural land and most of it was lost to urban growth.  If anyone wonders whether the Greenbelt Plan is having an impact, here is one simple piece of evidence.

Forest cover in Greenbelt is being maintained but little evidence of it being restored and enhanced as was the goal of GB and ORMCP Plans.

One of the principles of the Growth Plan is to ensure that residents have access to a range of transportation option; growth is to result in transit supportive communities.  Ministry of Transport forecast in 2015 shows that with implementation of Growth Plan and The Big Move there is 70% increase in transit users but there is only a very modest increase in the percentage trips made by transit, to a share of only 17 %.

Growth Plan has a target of 50 residents & jobs combined per hectare; but that only supports basic bus service i.e. 1 bus every 25-30 minutes which is not enough to really really shift people to regular transit use.   To have a bus every 10 minutes need 37 units/80 residents per ha.

In summary:  I think the Panel gets 4 gold stars for their work.  As I have said already I think the process was excellent.  I am in agreement with many of the recommendations.  I am disappointed that they have not addressed more vigorously my comment, and others, about the value of re-applying something like the Niagara Escarpment Commission model to the Oak Ridges Moraine.  The Panel did not ignore the issue as they have made recommendations about work the Province should be doing  which would partially address some of the current challenges; but I don’t feel those changes go far enough.

Specific next steps are not identified yet (e.g. will there be another round of consultation with public?); as identified above the Province has a bold target of amended legislation by summer 2016.