HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil - 2012-08-27 SSPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 27, 2012 CITY OF KITCHENER
A special meeting of City Council was held at 4:05 p. m. this date, chaired by Mayor C. Zehr with all
members present.
Notice of this meeting had been previously given to all members of Council by the City Clerk pursuant
to Chapter 25 (Council Procedure) of the Municipal Code.
It was noted that this was a strategic session being held to receive a presentation
from the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) on the Municipal Class Environment Assessment
process (MEA-Class EA).
Mr. J. Willmer, Chief Administrative Officer, advised that the intent this date is to bring awareness and
understanding to the MEA process in general terms rather than by specific development; and is
particularly pertinent in that Council will receive for consideration a large, more complex EA in the Fall
of 2012, being the Strasburg Road development.
Mr. Michael Harrison and Ms. Barbara Slattery, MOE, presented background information on the
environmental assessment process in general, as well as, particulars of the MEA-Class EA process
and corresponding roles /responsibilities of municipal Councils.
In response to Councillor Z. Janecki, Mr. Harrison advised that a preferred alternative is based on the
outcomes of an EA process, taking into account considerations of public and agency consultations
and evaluation of all alternatives based on set criteria. He pointed out that it must be demonstrated
through the documented process as to how the preferred alternative was determined to be the best
approach.
Councillor Y. Fernandes questioned if the MNR had been involved in developing the integration
provisions and was advised that they did have opportunity to provide input.
Mayor C. Zehr questioned if there is an established timeline for the MOE to render a decision wherein
a Part II Order request is received within 30 days following the City's submission of the Notice of
Completion. Mr. Harrison advised that timing for review of a Part II Order commences on the 31St day
and the MOE has 45 days to complete the review and submit their decision package to the Minister.
Once the decision package is received, the Minister has 21 days in which to issue a decision.
Notwithstanding, Mr. Harrison pointed out that a recent legal opinion calls into question the timeline in
that, regulations appear to be silent in respect to a timeline for an MEA-Class EA; and therefore, if a
decision is not made by the Minister within the 66 days it does not invalidate his ability to still render a
decision. He added that if no decision is made in that timeframe and the City decides to proceed with
the development they would do so at their own risk and would be responsible to return the
development lands back to its original condition in the event a decision is subsequently rendered that
would require bumping the project to an Individual EA or having conditions applied to the MEA-Class
EA. Mr. Harrison advised that the MOE is investigating changes to the legislation that will look at how
to address the issue of a set timeline for the decision making process.
Councillor Z. Janecki questioned the process in that having gone through the evaluation process and
at time of presenting a preferred alternative Council does not support it but favours another
alternative. Ms. Slattery stated that such other alternative should be brought to staff's attention and
investigated during the stage of evaluation rather than at the end of the process. Mr. Harrison added
that if for whatever reason Council is not in agreement with the preferred alternative, they could
request more information and / or facts which would then require staff to reconsider the evaluation
process in its entirety so as to maintain integrity of the EA process; and all must be done before filing
a Notice of Completion. Mr. Harrison noted that the Environmental Act allows for some
environmental impacts with the intent to regulate how much so as to ensure impacts are minimized.
He suggested that in evaluating, it becomes a matter of balance and not all may agree on the
preferred alternative. He added that if the issue is one of economics aphased-in approach could be
included in an EA that would serve to mitigate economic constraints; or, economic impact could
become one of the factors to be rated within the set criteria.
Councillor J. Gazzola questioned at what point in the process is evaluation criteria determined and by
whom. Mr. Harrison referred to Phase II of the MEA-Class EA process, advising that this is the stage
at which the issue and potential alternatives have been identified and the criteria is determined, being
early on in the process. He noted that the criteria is developed either in-house and / or by a retained
consultant and the set criteria is used throughout the various stages of the process to maintain
SPECIAL COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 27, 2012 - 189 - CITY OF KITCHENER
consistency in the EA process. Ms. Slattery added that the criteria prepared by staff and / or
consultant would be presented to Council for consideration to ensure the process is capturing all
possibilities of concern.
Mayor Zehr questioned that during Phase II, where facts may be leading to a particular alternative but
then new information presents itself, how the new information could find its way into the process. Mr.
Harrison advised that the process does provide flexibility to go back and assess new information but
this should be done as early on in the evaluation process as possible.
Councillor Y. Fernandes raised concerns that in some instances not all members of Council have
received certain information until the final stage, noting that the EA process can cross over terms of
Council. She further raised concerns that if Council does not approve the preferred alternative there
is no other option, suggesting that the process is flawed in not making provision for another
alternative included in the evaluation process to be supported in place of the recommended preferred
alternative. She questioned why the governing body could not say they want one of the other
alternatives. Mr. Harrison commented that it may be the case that another alternative has been
bought into because there is no direct impact to the parties desiring the other alternative and having
gone through the EA process, he questioned why the process would be agreed to if at the end they
would simply opt for a different alternative. Councillor Fernandes agreed to follow-up with MOE staff
on a subsequent question of grandfathering EAs older than 10 years.
Councillor Gazzola requested clarification that once the evaluation criteria is established that
Council's role is primarily completed. Mr. Harrison agreed that this is essentially the case unless new
information is presented by staff that may not have been known initially that would give cause to re-
evaluate all alternatives. Councillor Gazzola suggested that only if there is good reason to change
the criteria it might be considered but it is not appropriate at the end of the process for Council to
simply say they do not like the criteria and Mr. Harrison concurred.
Councillor Janecki questioned the timeframe that an EA would lapse, citing an example of a
development approved 15 years ago but has not yet been built, and which requires construction of a
major road. Ms. Slattery advised that a time lapse of 5 years was originally established but this was
changed to 10 years in recognition of municipal budgetary processes and potential need to phase in
development over a longer timeframe. In the event development does not begin within the 10 year
timeframe, then an addendum to the original EA would be required to confirm that the preferred
alternative is still the appropriate direction, or Council may consider matters such as new
technological advancements that may call for a new EA to be completed. She pointed out that
integration provisions were not in place 15 years ago, adding that only municipal roads have to be
done by an EA process whereas roads within a subdivision are the responsibility of the developer and
are subsequently assumed by the City. Mr. Harrison added that the 10-year window to commence
construction can be interpreted as soon as the project goes to tender as it shows intent to proceed
and therefore, no addendum would be required.
Mayor C. Zehr advised of an additional item for in-camera discussion being a labour relations matter.
Moved by Councillor S. Davey
Seconded by Councillor B. loannidis
"That an in-camera meeting of City Council be held this date to consider a land acquisition /
disposition matter, alitigation /potential litigation matter and a labour relations matter."
Carried.
On motion, the meeting adjourned at 5:31 p. m.
MAYOR CLERK