Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-07PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7, 2012 CITY OF KITCHENER The Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee met this date, commencing at 6:15 p.m. Present: Councillor B. Vrbanovic -Chair Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors K. Galloway, S. Davey, J. Gazzola, B. loannidis, Z. Janecki, Y. Fernandes, F. Etherington and D. Glenn-Graham. Staff: P. Houston, Deputy CAO, Infrastructure Services J. UVillmer, Deputy CAO, Community Services S. Ross, Assistant City Solicitor G. Murphy, Director, Engineering Services L. Johnston, Director, Corporate Communications & Marketing R. Regier, Executive Director, Economic Development C. Fletcher, Director, Facilities Management B. Korah, Manager, Development Engineering J. Billett, Committee Administrator 1. INS-12-034 -VICTORIA PARK PUBLIC WASHROOMS -UPDATE The Committee considered Infrastructure Services Department report INS-12-034, dated April 29, 2012 recommending options be tabled for public input regarding additional permanent washrooms in Victoria Park and a report to come back to Committee with recommendation(s) on September 10, 2012. Ms. P. Houston advised that staff is in the process of implementing temporary solutions for washrooms in the Park as agreed to by Council at its meeting of April 16th and this report responds to Council's direction that staff consider the option of having a permanent unisex washroom on the northeast side of the Victoria Park Lake Boathouse, together with other alternative options. Ms. C. Fletcher reviewed staff's consideration of the unisex washroom at the Boathouse, advising that the tenant had offered the existing women's washroom to be used as a City operated unisex family washroom until the City resolves the issue of a permanent washroom solution for the Park. She stated that to install a single unisex washroom in the suggested Boathouse location is difficult, noting that it would take up a significant amount of the footprint to achieve the square footage required and would reduce the number of fixtures available for the tenant thereby creating operational and capacity issues for his operation. The men's washroom facility was also looked at on the other side of the building and from a physical standpoint could accommodate a single unisex washroom but the location is not ideal for site lines, requiring greater monitoring by the tenant to ensure he is not exceeding capacity limits for his business. Other operational issues exist related to security and safety and is why unisex washrooms are normally placed with regular washrooms to ensure higher foot traffic activity. Ms. Fletcher advised that through further discussions with the tenant it has been determined that the women's facility is not feasible and should a decision be made to convert the men's washroom the cost to do so is approximately $45,000. She added that there is recognition the Boathouse needs to have dedicated washrooms for business purposes and that the City's needs for a permanent solution should be considered separate and apart. Councillor S. Davey requested clarification of the discussions with the tenant as it was his understanding it had been suggested that the proposed renovations to the male and female facilities would see the two flipped. Ms. Fletcher advised that this had been an option, however, it is staff's view that the tenant while well intentioned, did not have full sense of the required square footage which was more than expected and he had not considered requirements that address issues of accessibility. Councillor Davey raised concerns that the proposed public consultation seeks to ask the public if additional permanent washrooms are needed, suggesting that the City should be making that determination. He questioned if line ups occur at times when no special events are operating in the Park. Ms. Houston advised that limited input received to date during the period of time the Boathouse has been closed and over the past winter months, suggests there may be limited need for additional washrooms when no special events are being held in the Park. Councillor Davey questioned the feasibility of continuing year round use of the existing seasonal washrooms and deferring action on public consultation on a permanent solution pending completion of the tenant's renovations to the interior of the Boathouse. Ms. Fletcher pointed out that Council's resolution of April 16 did approve year round use of the seasonal washrooms temporarily and could have significant PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7.2012 - 34 - CITY OF KITCHENER 1. INS-12-034 -VICTORIA PARK PUBLIC WASHROOMS -UPDATE (CONT'D impact toward a resolution, with the intent to monitor operation over the next fall /winter season to determine if it is a viable option. Ms. Houston pointed out that if it is decided to take this route, Option 2 (unisex washroom at the Boathouse} would have to come off the table as the tenant will have already completed renovations to the interior Boathouse and begun his operation prior to conclusion of the monitoring period. Councillor F. Etherington questioned if the tenant has signed a lease. Mr. Regier advised that a formal lease has not yet been signed and will come back to Council for consideration prior to staff requesting authorization for execution of the lease. Councillor Etherington stated that he had no concerns with seeking public consultation on the issue of permanent washrooms. Mayor C. Zehr suggested that it would be beneficial to scope down the issues prior to seeking public consultation but pointed out that one of the main issues is to provide a facility that is accessible. He requested clarification on the issue that no washroom facilities will be available at the Boathouse once the interior renovations are completed. Ms. Fletcher confirmed that was correct, advising that the intent in the long term is for the Boathouse to take over the washrooms at that location as dedicated facilities to the business and once that occurs, there would be no accessible washrooms on that side of the Park. Mayor Zehr commented that there is a demonstrated need because of the necessity to address issues of accessibility, and pointed out that to gain access from the Boathouse side of the Park to existing facilities on the other side would require persons with mobility issues to walk a long distance, and potentially over one of two bridges. He suggested that a plan is needed in anticipation of completion of the Boathouse renovations to address the issue of accessibility and other concerns as the Park grows and matures. Mayor Zehr stated that determination should be made at this time as to the need for additional permanent washrooms and the public be consulted only as to potential locations for a permanent solution. Councillor D. Glenn-Graham agreed that determination of need should be established now, commenting that beyond fall /winter there is demonstrated need for special events which are growing. He suggested that the City needs to do proper planning for peak periods, as well as address issues of accessibility and it would be his preference to consider use of Joseph Street, a new building and any viable temporary options in lieu of use of the Boathouse facility, which in his opinion is not sufficient to meet the needs. In response to Councillor Z. Janecki, Mr. R. Regier advised that shared use of the Boathouse facility creates substantive operational problems for the business related to monitoring facilities to ensure capacity limits are not breached. In the short term the existing washroom facility is to be open to the public for the bulk of day time hours, and close at approximately 7:00 p.m. for exclusive use of the business, but this arrangement is to be in place only until such time as the City resolves the issue of a permanent solution. Councillor Davey questioned the feasibility of constructing an accessible washroom at the Boathouse and extending the shared use on a long term basis. Mr. Regier advised that flexibility could be built into the lease to allow for an accessible washroom should Council choose to do so; however, he reiterated that shared use creates operational issues for the tenant related to capacity limits, and as well, to issues of safety and security. He added that there are few, if any, other restaurants that would have shared use arrangements such as this. Mr. Regier spoke to frustration of the tenant in meeting the associated operational challenges and suggested that the City needs to consider a superior solution to allow this business to have dedicated control over the washrooms as is the case in any other restaurant operation. Councillor B. Vrbanovic referred to the public washrooms located at the City Hall site which are monitored by external cameras and locked during evening hours, with patrons requesting the key from Security to gain access. He questioned the feasibility of implementing similar arrangements at the Boathouse that would require patrons to buzz through to Security at City Hall to gain access during evening hours. Ms. Fletcher advised that the system currently used at City Hall does not negate all issues related to safety and security, even with Security in close proximity, and the distance from City Hall would create substantial issues for Security in attempting to monitor the Boathouse facility. Councillor S. Davey reiterated comments that he did not believe it appropriate to ask residents if additional permanent washrooms are needed, suggesting that the answer would in any event PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7.2012 - 35 - CITY OF KITCHENER 1. INS-12-034 -VICTORIA PARK PUBLIC WASHROOMS -UPDATE (CONT'D be yes and the City should not go looking for ways to spend more dollars. He stated that if use of the existing seasonal washrooms year round fails to meet the needs, he could then see a need for a permanent solution but expressed the view this would not be the case given he has had no complaints and staff have indicated none saying there is an inventory problem. He added that the only valid issue is that of accessibility which can be addressed as long as the tenant agrees to shared use of the Boathouse facilities. Councillor Davey stated that when notice is given by the tenant that exclusive use is required for the business then the matter should come back to Council to look at the feasibility of installing a single unisex washroom at that location. Mayor C. Zehr disagreed, suggesting that the proposed action does not deal with the issue at hand and expressing the view that determination should be made now as to the need for a permanent solution. He reiterated that once renovations are completed to the interior of the Boathouse, there will be no accessible washroom available on that side of the Park and something must be done for reasons of accessibility. A motion by Councillor S. Davey to continue to use existing seasonal washrooms in Victoria Park on a year round basis and that action on public consultation regarding options for a permanent washroom solution in the Park be deferred pending determination as to when the tenant of the Boathouse plans to begin interior renovations to the facility, was voted on by a recorded vote and Lost, with Councillor S. Davey voting in favour; and Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Gazzola, D. Glenn-Graham, B. Ioannidis, Z. Janecki, Y. Fernandes, B. Vrbanovic, K. Galloway and F. Etherington voting in opposition. Councillor P. Singh was absent this date and accordingly did not vote. A motion by Mayor C. Zehr was brought forward for consideration to provide that Council deem it necessary to have an accessible and regular washrooms} at the north end of Victoria Park; that the options contained in report INS-12-034 be the options tabled for public consultation as to location only of additional permanent washrooms in the Park; and that staff report back to Committee on September 10, 2012 on the findings of the public consultation with recommendation(s). Ms. P. Houston requested clarification as to whether or not all 4 options outlined are included in the motion, pointing out that while Option 1 (year round use of existing seasonal washrooms) has already been approved as a temporary solution, including this option in the public consultation would mean consideration as a permanent solution. Mayor Zehr advised that he was not in agreement with considering year round use of the existing seasonal washrooms as a permanent solution and therefore, only Options 2, 3 and 4 are to be included in his motion. Councillor B. Ioannidis requested that Option 3 (use 79 Joseph Street) be dealt with separately, expressing preference to remove this option because it is still a viable structure that could be considered for other uses. A motion by Councillor B. Ioannidis to amend Mayor Zehr's motion to remove Option 3 (use of 79 Joseph Street) was voted on by a recorded vote and Lost, with Councillors B. Ioannidis, D. Glenn-Graham and Y. Fernandes voting in favour; and Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Gazzola, Z. Janecki, B. Vrbanovic, K. Galloway, S. Davey and F. Etherington voting in opposition. Councillor P. Singh was absent this date and accordingly did not vote. The following motion was voted on by a recorded vote and Carried, with Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Gazzola, D. Glenn-Graham, B. Ioannidis, Z. Janecki, Y. Fernandes, B. Vrbanovic, K. Galloway and F. Etherington voting in favour; and Councillor S. Davey voting in opposition. Councillor P. Singh was absent this date and accordingly did not vote. On motion by Mayor C. Zehr- itwas resolved: "WHEREAS Council deems it necessary to have permanent accessible and regular washroom(s) on the north end of Victoria Park; PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7, 2012 - 36 - CITY OF KITCHENER 1. INS-12-034 -VICTORIA PARK PUBLIC WASHROOMS -UPDATE (CONT'D) NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Options 2, 3 and 4 as outlined in Infrastructure Services Department report INS-12-034, be the options tabled for public input as to location only of additional permanent washrooms in Victoria Park; and that staff report back to the September 10, 2012 Planning and Strategic Services Committee meeting on the findings of the public engagement process with recommendation(s)." 2. INS-12-002 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT (ESR) FOR STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION FROM NORTH OF STAUFFER DRIVE TO NEW DUNDEE ROAD The Committee considered Infrastructure Services Department report INS-12-002, dated May 2, 2012 recommending that the Strasburg Road Extension (north of Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road) Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR), prepared by SNC-Lavalin Inc., be received and referred to a special meeting of the Committee on November 27, 2012; and in the interim, the ESR document be released for public review and comment by September 26, 2012 with a report on the outcome of public consultation to also be considered on November 27, 2012. Councillor B. Vrbanovic advised that the draft ESR is only to be received this date with the focus of review at this time for the Committee to ask questions and make comments on the proposed technically preferred alignment to staff and the project consultant; as well as, to the timing proposed for Council to make its determination on a final technically preferred alignment. He noted that the complete draft ESR is posted on the City's website for public review and printed copies are also available for viewing in the Office of the Mayor and Council, the Office of the City Clerk and the Engineering Division; and as well, at the Pioneer Park Branch of the Kitchener Public Library. Mr. Binu Korah, provided an overview of the project history commenced in the early 1980s through to present day, encompassing numerous municipal and Regional planning, engineering and transportation studies and decisions of Council. Mr. Korah advised that the proposed extension represents a major road system comprising an extension from the north section of Strasburg Road, which is not part of the ESR, from Rush Meadow Street to north of Stauffer Drive; and continuing the extension through the south section subject to the ESR from north of Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road. The purpose of the road extension is to: provide servicing for approved development and future growth in the Doon South and other areas of southwest Kitchener; relieve future demand on Homer Watson Boulevard, Huron Road and Fischer-Hallman Road; achieve compatibility with City and Regional policies for future growth and development, as well as location of any related road intersections; and minimize impacts to natural heritage features and other important environmental resources. Mr. Korah advised that in 2009, SNC-Lavalin Inc. was retained to complete the study, which encompasses two phases. The first phase is the detailed design of the road extension from Rush Meadow Street to Robert Ferrie Drive, and the second phase is the portion of the road subject to the ESR from north of Stauffer Drive, southerly to New Dundee Road. Mr. Ian Upjohn, SNC-Lavalin Inc., presented an overview of the scope of the study investigations; public information centres (PIC); long list of alignment alternatives and evaluation criteria used to short list to 5 alternatives; the resulting technically preferred alignment referred to as E4-modified; and next steps, which include: public review of the ESR over the next 4 months; PIC to be held September 12, 2012 to present intersection options, including plans for 3 proposed roundabouts; responses to public 1 agency comments; report back to Committee and Council in November 2012; and finalization of the ESR by year-end 2012. Mr. Upjohn reiterated that the intent this date is only to receive the ESR and no decision is being asked of the Committee at this time, pending completion of the additional public consultation. Councillor Z. Janecki requested clarification of the starting point and was advised that the starting point is approximately 400m south of Rush Meadow Street. Councillor Janecki referred to public consultation to date, in particular as it relates to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR}, questioning if the agencies have only been circulated with the initial report. Mr. Upjohn advised that these agencies had expressed an interest in reviewing the initial report prepared in February 2012 for review by the Project PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7, 2012 - 37 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. INS-12-002 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT (ESR) FOR STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION FROM NORTH OF STAUFFER DRIVE TO NEW DUNDEE ROAD (CONT'DI Team. He stated that comments had come back from the MNR on the initial draft which is included in the ESR package and to his knowledge, no further request was made by the MNR; however, they will receive a copy of the draft ESR. Councillor Janecki questioned if Robert Ferrie Drive is approved as part of the road network only to Caryndale Drive and Mr. Korah advised that it has been through the Official Plan approval process. Councillor Janecki requested clarification as to the proposed locations for the roundabouts and was advised that they intersect Strasburg Road at Robert Ferrie Drive, Blair Creek Drive and New Dundee Road. Councillor Janecki questioned why the PIC is not being held earlier to tie in with the public review of the ESR, noting the latter is to take place over 4 months whereas, the PIC for roundabouts will only have a two week period for comment. Mr. G. Murphy advised that consideration was given to an earlier date; however, at this time there is no availability of staff prior to the end of the summer. He added that the intent is to obtain the bulk of comment on the ESR for inclusion in the pending report in November and pointed out that the roundabouts is a localized issue and timing still provides opportunity for comment to be received prior to the end of September. Mr. Murphy stated that notwithstanding the proposed deadline of September 26 for comment, staff will be as flexible as possible in allowing comment beyond that date, while keeping in mind the timeframe for the return report in November. He further pointed out that information on the proposed roundabouts is included in the draft ESR document. Councillor Y. Fernandes referred to the Ruttkowski property at 500 Stauffer Drive, questioning the process in regard to a landowner where a proposed road alignment crosses through a privately owned property. Mr. Korah advised that a Class EA process follows Ministry procedures and policies and in such instances, negotiation can be entered into with the landowner, or the lands could be obtained through other legal measures such as through obtaining a road right-of-way or through a Plan of Subdivision process. Councillor Fernandes requested clarification as to what is meant to have the report received by the Committee and Council. Mr. Murphy advised that the intent is simply to make the document available for public review, adding that from the beginning it was recognized that this is a complex, sensitive project that requires time for review and commentary. He added that as committed to in the proposed staff recommendation it is intended that staff will report back to Committee on the outcome of the public review. He also noted that typically at this stage the Committee would be asked to make a final decision and on approval, the draft ESR would be posted in accordance with MOE regulations fora 30 day period. Councillor Fernandes questioned that if staff's recommendation to receive the report is accepted is the Committee giving it's acceptance to the technically preferred alignment. Councillor B. Vrbanovic advised that the report under consideration this date simply is to present the technically preferred alignment and the final determination on an alignment will be made by Council. Councillor Fernandes requested that Mr. Upjohn provide an overview of the Environmental Committee's response to the draft ESR. Mr. Upjohn stated that opinions of the Advisory Committee were varied with many questions focusing on the summary screening and detailed assessment, which he believed were satisfactorily answered. He noted that two meetings were held with the Committee, the second of which he was not able to attend and the first primarily focused on concerns related to the rationale used for selection of the E4-modified alignment. Mr. Korah added that information on consultation with Advisory Committees is also included in the draft ESR package. Councillor K. Galloway requested clarification that the intent following public review is to chart all questions and answers dealtwith for inclusion in the report to come forward in November so that all interested parties have the same information. Mr. Murphy confirmed that it is the intent to capture all comments and responses, and provide a summary with the November report. Councillor Fernandes questioned if any development is proposed at this time from east of Caryndale Drive or west of the preferred alignment. Mr. Korah advised that no development is proposed in either case, noting that the latter is designated as the countryside line beyond which development is not permitted at this time. Councillor Fernandes questioned if the appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) related to the Region's Official Plan has been completed. Mr. S. Ross advised that there remains some outstanding matters to be resolved, the first of which is scheduled to be heard in the summer 2012 and dependent on the PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7.2012 - 38 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. INS-12-002 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT (ESR) FOR STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION FROM NORTH OF STAUFFER DRIVE TO NEW DUNDEE ROAD (CONT'DI outcome, unresolved matters could have impact to the countryside line. Councillor Fernandes questioned if the MNR had made any subsequent requests for information concerning this draft ESR. Mr. Upjohn responded that a meeting was held in January to discuss informational matters but no subsequent requests for information have been made since providing them with the February draft to his knowledge. Mayor C. Zehr requested explanation of the OMB ruling which provides that Strasburg Road be extended from its current terminus as a condition of future development. Mr. Upjohn advised that to his understanding development plans cannot be registered until such time as the road extension is completed. Mayor Zehr questioned that from a legal standpoint, once a ruling by the OMB is made, what could change in terms of constructing the road or not. Mr. Ross advised that extension of the road is a condition of the OMB decision and from a legal standpoint it is absolute that the road must be extended in order for development to proceed. Mayor Zehr requested clarification that the ruling speaks to construction of the extension but not to the routing of the alignment. Mr. Ross confirmed that was his understanding but noted that the road extension is included in the City's Official Plan, as is Robert Ferrie Drive. Mr. J. Willmer clarified that there are portions of Doon South that can proceed to develop prior to extension of Strasburg Road and others that cannot. He stated that once a draft approval of a Subdivision Plan is ruled on by the OMB the only method of modifying the outcome is to go back through the OMB, unless the OMB has granted power of authority to Council. Mr. David Gilhula spoke on behalf of Barb Lachine, advising that he is a tenant of 500 Stauffer Drive. He raised concerns with the proposed alignment being forced through privately owned lands, noting that other alternatives were presented that would by-pass the Stauffer Drive property and most of the environmentally sensitive areas. He noted that while no development is permitted west of the countryside line the lands to the west are owned by developers and at some point the line is likely to be moved to accommodate future development. He suggested that in this instance, the road extension should be built to the west of the Stauffer property so the owner's business will be left in tact. He added that proposed extension of Robert Ferrie Drive will render the property useless as a farm and asked that the decision on the technically preferred alignment be reconsidered. Councillor Vrbanovic reiterated that no decision is being made at this time pending the public review process; however, he noted that the Committee does want to hear from those who are directly affected so that their concerns are considered with all other information in November and encouraged Mr. Gilhula and others to participate in the public review process. Mr. Gilhula responded to questions, advising that the business at 500 Stauffer Drive is a thriving bed and breakfast with geographically wide ranging clientele and the impact of the road extension to the property is his primary concern. Mr. Ryan Despres presented concerns regarding the calculations used to derive cost estimates for Alternative W1, bridge construction and extension of Robert Ferrie Drive, questioning the accuracy of the estimates based on his calculations, which suggest substantial discrepancies. He suggested that the estimated construction costs of the W1 route needs to be re-examined and that cost of building a bridge over the wetlands may be greater than the cost of building around them. Mr. Despres responded to questions, advising that he had not yet fully reviewed the draft ESR document and had based his presentation on existing documentation provided on the City's website. He further provided explanation of his concerns regarding the cost impacts of constructing a bridge over the wetlands, noting that greater excavation requiring heavy equipment on site will be required for bridge supports given the length of span and the complexities of construction over environmentally sensitive wetland is likely to add to construction costs. Mr. Karl Cober presented concerns regarding the impact of the proposed road alignment to Provincially significant wetlands, cold water stream, wildlife corridor, endangered species habitat and private property at 500 Stauffer Drive. Mr. Cober further raised concerns that the PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7, 2012 - 39 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. INS-12-002 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT (ESR) FOR STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION FROM NORTH OF STAUFFER DRIVE TO NEW DUNDEE ROAD (CONT'DI draft ESR does not include the north section of the road extension. He commented that the north section has not been through an Environmental Assessment Study process and suggested that recent environmental studies have not been made public or provided to the MNR for review. Mr. Cober presented an alternative alignment not yet considered which would avoid impacts to natural areas and wildlife habitats. He asked that consideration be given to expanding the draft ESR to include both the north and south sections; options that avoid natural areas, wildlife habitat and cultural heritage sites be considered; the draft ESR not be returned to Committee until the expanded draft ESR is completed and the results made public and to the satisfaction of interested agencies; and discussions be pursued with developers to consider modifying plans and temporarily pausing development where required until completion of the expanded draft ESR. In response to Councillor Z. Janecki, Mr. Cober advised that his starting point is similar to what staff has indicated being on the edge of the woodlot. He noted that the woodlot is not addressed in the draft ESR which is an environmentally sensitive wetland and the MNR has not commented on this matter. In response to Councillor Fernandes, Mr. Cober advised that to his knowledge the MNR made request several weeks ago for more information but is still waiting to receive same on the north section; and he had not received any further information himself since meeting with Engineering staff in December 2011. He acknowledged the proposed extension of Robert Ferrie Drive but preferred his proposed alternative to be used rather than funnelling traffic onto Caryndale Drive. Councillor K. Galloway requested clarification of the status of the north section of the road extension. Mr. G. Murphy advised that all of the previous studies and decisions of Council are posted on the City's website dating back to the early 1980s and comprise a successive planning process setting out the alignment for the north section. Throughout, staff has proceeded in accordance with Council's decisions and have confirmed the north alignment in accordance with detailed environmental studies. The north section is to be part of the design process; however, the current draft ESR outlining the technically preferred alternative had to be presented firstly for review and consultation, after which the detailed design phase will follow. Mr. Upjohn added that in respect to the north section, the Project Team is working through the detailed design under the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) work permit process and Terms of Reference for environmental studies will be included in this process and the studies will be conducted accordingly. He further advised that the information will be included in the design package forwarded to the GRCA and in regard to the MNR, all information requested to date has been provided to them. Mr. G. Murphy added that information on the detailed design for the north section will be presented at a future PIC. Mr. Murphy also stated that information, as requested by Mr. Cober, was submitted to the MNR and the MNR provided written response back to the City and Mr. Cober that they were satisfied with the process followed over the past 20 years. Councillor B. Vrbanovic requested clarification that the process followed for the north section is not necessarily the same as the draft ESR presented this date. Mr. S. Ross confirmed that was correct. Mr. Ross also cautioned members of Council in giving weight to persons who may have a differing opinion of the process and/or what the MNR has or has not been provided. He stated that Council should instead rely on the correspondence received by the City from the agencies. He added that the public review process provides additional opportunity for comment and if the MNR desires more information it can be requested and provided to them. Mr. Kevin Fergin, Stantec Consulting Ltd., attended on behalf of Prime Land Developments in support of the technically preferred alignment and in particular, the north section from Rush Meadow Street to Robert Ferrie Drive. He stated that the 2009 OMB decision defines the north section and is supported by Council approval of the various studies previously referred to and which the MOE has confirmed meets the intent of the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process. He noted that his client has a draft Plan of Subdivision, approved by Council, for their lands north of the Strasburg Road Extension, and is working co-operatively to address grading and servicing adjacent to the technically preferred alignment. PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7.2012 -40 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. INS-12-002 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT (ESR) FOR STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION FROM NORTH OF STAUFFER DRIVE TO NEW DUNDEE ROAD (CONT'DI Ms. Alicia Pokluda presented a petition signed by 142 persons and which states: "vVe the undersigned are against the Strasburg Road extension from its present ending at Rush Meadow Street to New Dundee Road. The proposed extension will have a dramatic and undesirable impact on endangered species habitat, provincially significant wetlands, pristine forest, Regional wellheads and water recharge areas. The proposed extension would substantially increase traffic in this residential neighbourhood and impact air quality for the sake of future development." Ms. Pokluda added that the property at 500 Stauffer Drive goes beyond a bed and breakfast business, operating as a farm and suggested the property should be made a historical landmark. In response to Councillor Fernandes, Ms. Pokluda advised that most who signed the petition were unaware that the road extension was to continue through with 4 lanes and when those who originally said they did not care, once aware of the 4 lanes changed their mind and signed the petition. She added that the technically preferred alternative does not mean persons prefer what is proposed and more needs to be known of the impact of the road extension. Ms. Irina Trunov raised concerns with the impact to the woodlot and advised that she was not clear as to why the proposed alignment is considered the technically preferred alternative nor could she find information on the impact it poses. She questioned how the public through the consultation process can affect or change the decision, suggesting the decision has already been made and their opinions would not count. Ms. Trunov responded to questions, advising that she would like to have information that is clear and understandable and it was her view that the technically preferred alternative was not justifiable in light of all other concerns raised. Councillor K. Galloway gave assurance that all opinions expressed through the PICs have been taken into consideration and those expressed through the additional consultation will be taken into consideration going forward. She explained that this is the time in the process for staff to bring forward a preferred alternative but there is still opportunity over the coming months for public input and that input does matter to Council. Councillor Fernandes suggested that given the draft ESR is a highly technical document, communicating the content of the document to the public needs to be in an understandable format so it is clear what is proposed and what the impacts will be. Councillor Vrbanovic added that all input gathered is taken seriously but noted that staff have an obligation to give Council their best professional advice; and it is Council's responsibility to find a balance between staff's advice and community /agency input in consideration of a final decision. Mr. Vaughn Bender, RBJ Schlegel Holdings, attended on behalf of area landowners who had participated in the 2009 OMB hearing on the north alignment. He presented a new proposed alignment to the west for the south section, which the landowners are of the view is a better alternative, noting that their preferred alignment avoids natural areas, leaves the business at 500 Stauffer Drive in tact and in respect to scenic roads, Reidel Drive is to be closed as part of the network. He stated that he had received email confirmations from the various landowners in support of this new preferred alignment and advised that timing is of concern with projects already 2 years behind schedule and which are contingent on the road extension proceeding. He expressed appreciation for the opportunity to further dialogue over the coming months and agreed to provide Council with copies of the mapping outlining their preferred alternative. Mr. Bender responded to questions, advising that the area landowners have information about their own lands that they would like to share and want to provide input into the process to work toward a viable routing. Mr. Bender further advised that they had participated in the PICs held regarding the current ESR and have had opportunities to dialogue throughout the process. He stated that there primary difference of opinion rests with the weighting system used to evaluate the various alternatives, suggesting it is not 100% scientific; adding that the new draft ESR may give rise to further commentary. Mr. Bender also advised that while he was aware of the proposed round-a-bouts their focus is primarily directed toward alignment of the road extension. PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7, 2012 -41 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. INS-12-002 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT (ESR) FOR STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION FROM NORTH OF STAUFFER DRIVE TO NEW DUNDEE ROAD (CONT'DI Councillor Fernandes questioned why the landowners are proposing an alignment to the west which crosses the countryside line. Mr. Bender stated that while the countryside line has not been discounted by the landowners as a factor, it is their opinion their proposed alignment is the best alternative for protection of natural areas, scenic roads and other impacts as noted. Councillor Fernandes questioned if the landowners are hoping that their proposed alignment, if accepted, will open up the lands to the west of the countryside line for future development. Mr. Bender stated that in moving the proposed alignment it would not necessarily mean moving the countryside line and he could not foresee what might happen in respect to the future. He added that they are not parties to the appeal of the ROP as their interests lie in the draft approved Plan of Subdivision for South Huron Road. He stated that the intent is to develop a positive neighbourhood and for many reasons, the proposed alignment to the east of 500 Stauffer Drive is not acceptable. He suggested that their proposed alignment to the west would be acceptable and it would be beneficial to have other options considered. Councillor Fernandes requested further clarification as to the concerns raised regarding the weighting system, noting that the Environmental Committee had similar concerns. Mr. Bender stated that they had engaged experts to review all of the documentation on their behalf and their difference of opinion came down to the ranking /weighting that was used which they are of the view is not 100% scientific. Mr. Herbert Franck appealed for common sense in determining the alignment, raising concerns of the impact to the property at 500 Stauffer Drive and environmentally sensitive wetlands. He also raised concerns with respect to the process undertaken for the north section, suggesting that the alignment should meet with Highland Road West through to New Dundee Road. Mr. Franck further agreed that the documents presented for review to the public should be provided in plain language so all can have a clearer understanding. Mr. G. Murphy advised that in respect to the north section, staff will provide additional clarification to Council as to the planning process followed and reiterated that all related documentation is available on the City's website. In respect to criteria and the approach taken in evaluating alternatives, he noted that all relevant information is available in the draft ESR and he encouraged all interested parties to review the document in detail to understand the weighting system and how alternatives were considered. Mr. Murphy stated that going forward, the draft ESR will be made available in print at various locations and the public is encouraged to make comments over the summer months so they can be incorporated in the study report for the Committee's review in November. He added that questions and concerns can also be conveyed to City staff and the consultant who will undertake to provide a response. Councillor S. Davey referred to the cost to the public to purchase a copy of the draft ESR in DVD format at $150., questioning why so high a fee. Mr. Murphy advised that this is the standard rate applied for the majority of City documents and mirrors what is available free of charge on the City's website. Councillor Davey disagreed with the standard rate, suggesting the cost to produce the DVD is minimal and advised that he would be willing to provide a DVD copy to any interested party free of charge. Mayor C. Zehr requested clarification in respect to how other alternative alignments not currently addressed in the draft ESR could be entertained should Council wish to do so. Mr. Murphy advised that to date 9 alternatives have been evaluated and suggested alternative alignments presented this date will have to be discussed with those who submitted them and be evaluated against the technically preferred alternative to determine the differences, as well as the pros and cons. He stated that at conclusion of the process Council must make a decision on one technically preferred alternative that can be submitted to the MOE for the required 30 day public review. Mayor Zehr questioned if consideration of another alternative not in the draft ESR can be part of the discussions in November or if it would have to wait for conclusion of the 30 day period in order to start a new process. Mr. Murphy advised this would be dependent on the differences between the technically preferred alignment and any other alternative that may require additional studies or information to be gathered that requires evaluation. He suggested that this would come out of the dialogue over the next 4 months at PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7, 2012 - 42 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. INS-12-002 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT (ESR) FOR STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION FROM NORTH OF STAUFFER DRIVE TO NEW DUNDEE ROAD (CONT'DI which time staff would come back in November to advise whether or not additional work needs to be done and an updated draft ESR prepared. Councillor Fernandes requested clarification as to how other agencies could approve alignment of the north section without having gone through a Class EA process. Mr. Murphy reiterated that this information is included in the draft ESR and staff will provide additional clarification to Council. Mr. Upjohn added that the City's correspondence with the MOE addresses the question, noting that the MOE has indicated they understand and agree with the results of investigations under the Planning Act which also requires environmental studies to be completed. He added that the MNR was a participant in most of the Planning processes and gave comment. Councillor Fernandes noted that since that time the Endangered Species Act has come into effect and raised concerns that if no studies are conducted for the north section endangered species will be at risk of having their habitats destroyed. Mr. Upjohn stated that these investigations will take place under the GRCA work permit process, through which the MNR will be consulted and who will also be provided with the draft ESR. The Project Team will be working in co-operation with the MNR to address the issue of endangered species and pointed out that there is no evidence of Jefferson Salamander habitats in the road corridor for the north section. On motion by Councillor K. Galloway, the staff recommendation contained in report INS-12- 002 was brought for consideration, as modified to provide that the fee for a DVD format of the draft ESR be reduced from $150. to $25 and Engineering staff work with Communications staff to compose a summary of the draft ESR in plain language for ease of comprehension by the general public and make same available on the City's website and/or in other appropriate media formats. Councillor Fernandes reiterated her concerns with regard to the north section and suggested that the draft ESR should be deferred to allow a Class EA process to be completed for the north section. Mayor C. Zehr commented that he had serious concerns with the technically preferred alignment but pointed out that a decision is not being made this date. He stated that the Committee has received significant explanation in respect to the rationale, timelines and other processes completed for the north section and was of the opinion a deferral was not appropriate but rather the process for the draft ESR should proceed. He noted that deferral will bring the entire process to a halt and will not allow for the kind of discussion desired through the public review process. He suggested that the concerns raised can be discussed concurrently with the consultation process without having to defer the matter. Councillor J. Gazzola questioned the purpose of deferral and whether or not the questions regarding an EA for the north section under today's standards could not be addressed over the next four months. He also asked what the impact would be if a decision is not reached in November. Mr. Murphy advised that staff originally had targeted mid-March to bring forward the draft ESR; however, staff had further discussions with MNR and additional work was required in order to meet this timeline. Initially, he pointed out that staff intended to come back with a report in September 2012 following the public review over the summer but the date was further extended to provide enough time to gather all comments and incorporate same in a report back to the Committee. Mr. Murphy suggested that further delay is at discretion of Council and he was not aware of any real time constraints. He added that staff will provide information back to Council on the issue of an EA for the north section. In response to Councillor Gazzola, Councillor Fernandes advised that she was concerned with the timing of the detailed design for the north section in that, if it goes ahead there would be no room to go back and complete a proper EA. She stated that she is asking that the timing of deferral be the length of time to complete an EA forthe north section by today's standards. Mr. S. Ross reiterated that the City has had response from the MOE confirming that they are satisfied that an EA has been completed for the north section. Councillor B. Vrbanovic requested clarification that from the MOE's point of view it is the equivalent of an EA that has been completed and they are satisfied with the process to date. Mr. Ross advised that was PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7.2012 -43 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. INS-12-002 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT (ESR) FOR STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION FROM NORTH OF STAUFFER DRIVE TO NEW DUNDEE ROAD (CONT'DI correct and similarly, the MNR was circulated with all planning applications, noting that they will also have opportunity to participate in this process and if they have more concerns they can be provided with appropriate information. He added that the draft ESR is being tabled in ordertoflush out these issues through additional opportunity for public review. Councillor K. Galloway commented that she did not agree with the proposed deferral as there is still opportunity to provide input on the detailed design phase and the Project Team is continuing to work with the various agencies, leaving room for potential changes to the north section dependent on the information received from the GRCA and other agencies. In regard to the south section, Councillor Galloway agreed that there is still more work to do and she was not in support of the technically preferred alignment. She stated that the draft ESR needs to be reviewed in detail and a solution derived that will work for the majority; and expressed the view that it is important for the public to review the document and for staff to provide a summary to the public in plain language so it can be understood and sound decisions made. Councillor Galloway supported the community's comments regarding 500 Stauffer Drive and was of the opinion it is important that owners of private property directly affected be taken into consideration in all factors. Councillor F. Etherington advised he was not in favour of deferral, preferring the matter move forward to public consultation and noted that he also had concerns with the proposed alignment in respect to the potential devastation to environmental features. Councillor B. Vrbanovic referred to the petition submitted which suggests no road be built, and questioned the impact if a decision was to be made not to build the road. Mr. S. Ross advised that there would be consequences in not moving forward with the road extension based on the 2009 OMB decision; and at this time, he suggested that staff undertake to formulate an education program for members of Council around the EA process in general. In response to Councillor J. Gazzola, Councillor Vrbanovic explained that Councillor Fernandes is requesting that an EA process identical to that completed for the south section now apply to the north section. He pointed out that staff has advised that the MOE was provided with the full range of Planning documents and decisions from the start of the project to present day and have deemed the process to be the equivalent of an EA which has been acknowledged in writing to the City. Councillor Vrbanovic further noted that some questions remain concerning the issue of endangered species which the Project Team is on ongoing dialogue with the MNR and other relevant agencies. Councillor Z. Janecki advised that he understood the decision on the north section and comments of the MNR have been part of the process and given the purpose of presentation today is simply to table the draft ESR pending further consultation he could not support deferral. He advised that he also does not support the technically preferred alignment and was comfortable that through the public review process the Project Team will review concerns raised and provide responses. Councillor Janecki requested that Council receive a copy of the 2009 OMB decision concerning the north alignment. Councillor J. Gazzola advised he could not support deferral, expressing the view that the concerns of Councillor Fernandes could be dealt with in the months ahead and that the concerns raised this date can be worked through and answers obtained that will satisfy the majority. Councillor S. Davey agreed with these comments, noting that the Project Team has to come forward with a technically preferred alignment and it is Council's responsibility to listen to the community's concerns and make a decision. It was his opinion that indication has been given this date that Council stands for compromise in this instance. Councillor B. Vrbanovic did not support deferral, commenting that it would potentially create an undesirable precedent in respect to all Planning processes. He reiterated that the MOE has deemed the process for the north section as the equivalent to an EA process and these concerns can be further addressed over the coming months. He stated that he shares the concerns regarding the technically preferred alignment and agrees more work needs to be done. Councillor Vrbanovic stated that all comments and concerns are important to Council PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7.2012 -44 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. INS-12-002 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT (ESR) FOR STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION FROM NORTH OF STAUFFER DRIVE TO NEW DUNDEE ROAD (CONT'DI and encouraged the community to participate so that their concerns can be captured in the report to come forward in November. A motion by Councillor Fernandes to amend Councillor Galloway's motion to provide that acceptance of the draft ESR be deferred until a Class EA is completed for the north section of the Strasburg Road Extension based on current standards was voted on by a recorded vote and Lost, with Councillor Fernandes voting in favour; and, Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Gazzola, D. Glenn-Graham, B. loannidis, Z. Janecki, B. Vrbanovic, K. Galloway, S. Davey and F. Etherington voting in opposition. Councillor P. Singh was absent this date and accordingly did not vote. Councillor Fernandes spoke to the main motion, advising that it was her opinion that the only purpose for the road extension is to provide for future development and the reasons for the appeal of the ROP which establishes a countryside line is to open up those lands for more development. She stated that the proposed alignment will have impact to a heritage property and cultural landscape and will disseminate viable farm land, as well as a vital business. She stated that the issue of endangered species should not be overlooked as their existence gives indication as to how well our water supply is doing. Councillor Fernandes indicated that it was her understanding that the MNR is still waiting for information on the north section where there is Provincially significant wetlands, and other threatened species as well as a wide range of flora are indicated in the environmental study. She stated that the lack of information provided to the MNR is consistent with requests she and others have made and which has not been forthcoming and that she suspects there may have even been some intimidation by developers towards small homeowners. Councillor Fernandes referred to the Region's promotion of its LRT system as an alternative mode of transportation, suggesting that building another 4 lane road at substantial cost that has potential to destroy endangered species, wetlands and heritage properties is foolhardy. She added that once built, more dollars will have to be spent to maintain the roadway and the City is already behind in maintaining its existing infrastructure. Councillor Fernandes urged a stop to urban sprawl to protect the countryside line and for Council to give serious consideration to further extending Strasburg Road. Councillor K. Galloway disagreed with the comments made by Councillor Fernandes, and expressed the view that they should not have been made at this time as the report is simply being tabled and no decision is being made this date. The following motion was voted on by a recorded vote and Carried, with Mayor C. Zehr and Councillors J. Gazzola, D. Glenn-Graham, B. loannidis, B. Vrbanovic, K. Galloway, S. Davey and F. Etherington voting in favour; and Councillors Z. Janecki and Y. Fernandes voting in opposition. Councillor P. Singh was absent this date and accordingly did not vote. On motion by Councillor K. Galloway - itwas resolved: "That the Strasburg Road Extension (from north of Stauffer Drive to New Dundee Road} Draft Environmental Study Report (ESR) prepared by SNC-Lavalin Inc., dated May 4, 2012 be received and referred to a special meeting of Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee on Tuesday November 27, 2012; and, That the Strasburg Road Extension Draft ESR be released to the public for review and provide comments to the City's project manager by September 26, 2012; and, That staff be directed to report back to a special Planning and Strategic Initiatives Committee meeting on Tuesday, November 27, 2012, commencing at 7.00 p.m., on the findings of the additional public consultation; and, That the fee to obtain a copy of the Strasburg Road Extension Draft ESR in DVD format be reduced from $150. to $25.; and further, PLANNING & STRATEGIC INITIATIVES COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7, 2012 - 45 - CITY OF KITCHENER 2. INS-12-002 -DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT (ESR) FOR STRASBURG ROAD EXTENSION FROM NORTH OF STAUFFER DRIVE TO NEW DUNDEE ROAD (CONT'DI That Engineering staff work with Communications staff to compose a summary of the Strasburg Road Extension Draft ESR in plain language for ease of comprehension by the general public to be made available on the City's website, in print on request, and/or in other appropriate media formats." 3. ADJOURNMENT On motion, this meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Janet Billettt, AMCT Committee Administrator