OMB Rockfort Hearing Wednesday February 3, 2010

Evidence of Simone Banz of the Planning Department for the Region of Peel

Led by Mr. Garrod (Region lawyer):

Looking at the Regional Plan

• The role of the Region is as a commenting agency in this case; there are no amendments or bylaws that need to be applied for from the Region. More it is a broad-brush involvement of meeting environmental values, protection of communities, Provincial policies and principles of the Regional Plan.
  
• In the Region’s Plan, high values are placed on the importance of the environmental issues, the core Greenland system, the growth plan--A balanced approach between ecosystem, sustainable development and social responsibilities of the Region and the Provincial policies. Both the Greenlands plan and the Mineral Aggregates Plan are not under review at this time so the 1998 Peel Plan stands as is, for the Rockfort case.
  
• Core Greenlands system plan includes the protection of Provincially Significant Wetlands, (PSW), ANSI's, Niagara Escarpment, Fisheries, etc--Core Greenland areas were removed from the HPMARA mapping of mineral aggregates. This does have application for the PSW's around the proposed site.
  
• There must be a balance between natural resources; non-renewable ones to be carefully managed in a sustainable way for future generations. It recognizes the importance of the protection of natural resources. Mineral Agg resources are important and should be protected for possible long term use and balanced with other resources. Wording reflects wording in the PPS.
  
• In Section 3411 and 3412, The Region also has obligations in providing potable water, protecting groundwater resources, etc.  
  
• In the policies regarding population growth; by 2034, population is projected to be 1.6 million people. The major road network in Peel is a work in progress. Not all the major roads are at a level to sustain major truck traffic. It is a goal.
  
• The Region is very concerned about this case and the conformity to the Regional Plan. She has attended the hearing for all the issues before the Board except for three days having to do with the Town issues. Expert opinions and three major sets of peer reviews have been produced over the last 12 years. The Region is very concerned about the water issues, the natural heritage issues, the financial security issues and that the information provided by JDCL was deemed insufficient for the Council to approve the application.
• Looking at the chronology; Ms Banz went through the 2003 staff report; the peer review reports and the continued outstanding issues with the hydro-geological systems and grout curtain system. They remained a theme from then right through to 2008-9. The risks and uncertainties remain outstanding, so it was not possible to assess the balance that is needed to be struck to conform to the Regional Plan. It is Ms Banz opinion as a planner, that she could not assure the Council that that balance could be assessed. If approval should be given then enforceability, financial securities and risk costs, road costs, water costs would need to be covered so that the taxpayers would not be left with the liability. In the 2003 report it was identified that staff, lawyers and experts should meet with JDCL to determine if more information would be forthcoming.
• In 2009 the Regional staff again recommended the Council turn down the proposal in this location, for the same outstanding issues on risks, impacts, uncertainties and costs. There are negative public policy implications for approving a license while deferring tests to a later date. The Regional Report of 2009 was run by the Region's senior staff and CAO and Counsel who were also in agreement and signed off on the report. The motion passed unanimously at Regional Council.

Issues:

• Conformity with the Official Plan: Her opinion is that it would not be in conformity with the ROP in terms of the outstanding risks, impacts, uncertainties and costs that have not been fully addressed, especially with reference to protection of the natural heritage.
  
• In the ARA: should the Board direct the Minister to allow a license, what would be the terms and conditions?
  --In her opinion, fundamental technical questions remain unanswered and financial securities have not been negotiated.  As long as these questions remain outstanding she does not believe the Board should direct a license be issued.
• The ARA states: 
  What is the effect of the proposed operation on the environment?
  --Banz maintains this has not been answered fully.
  
• In the rehab stage--the fundamental questions about the lake levels and impacts on groundwater remain unanswered.
  
• As a planning process it would not be in the public interest to issue a license before the fundamental questions are answered.
  --JDCL objects, but the Chair states that the Region has been clear about it's position, that fundamental questions need be answered before a license is granted and the Chair herself will be making the decision if that is in the public's interest based on all the evidence of the whole hearing.

In Ms Banz’s opinion, the approval of the application would not be in the broader public interest.

Questions by Mr. Webb:

• Looking at the Regional Plan, it directs Municipalities to hire hydro-geological and environmental expert peer reviewers where the water may be affected by development. Did Caledon do that?
  --Yes they did.
  
• In the Region's opinion did the JDCL consultants adequately satisfy those policy requirements?
  --No
  
• In the Town's opinion, did the JDCL consultants adequately satisfy?
  --No
  
• In CVC's opinion, did the JDCL adequately satisfy?
  --No.
• Did the Coalition participate in the meetings that you referred to? 
  --Yes they did.
  
• The Coalition had technical peer reviews done?
  --Yes they did; on hydrogeology, social impacts, AMP, Planning and Grout Curtain engineering.

Cross Examination by Mr. Tzekas (JDCL) of Ms Banz:

• Looking at the preparation of the ROP. It was enacted in April and passed in July 1996. It was modified?
  --Yes, In the Fall of '96
  
• A large number of changes were instituted by the Minister regarding aggregates? 
  --Yes on aggregates and the environment
  
• One of the modifications was the mapping exercise of the HPMARA?
  --Agreed
  
• What was the significance of the mapping? 
  --It was the first time a map was attached as a schedule to the ROP identifying the mineral aggregates.
  
• Do you know who Victor Doyle is?
  --Yes (he was a senior planner of MMAH)
  
• He handed out Victor Doyle's witness statements (which were never presented to the Board or cross examined).
  
• Doyle says that the most efficient way to protect aggregates is to attach a map to the ROP. Do you agree with that? 
  --Agreed
  * Looking at this official plan, is it fair that a planner would expect a quarry could happen in this area? 
  --It possibly could happen there, if all the balancing tests were met.
  
• It's clear that with the schedule attached, the Province expected the Region to fulfill the Provinces policies? 
  --Yes, and also that the Municipalities have an important say in this.
  
• The Municipality and the Region are to jointly share the responsibilities. How do you see that?
  --The Region has a more strategic and broader brush planning, while the local Municipality needs to be in conformity to the ROP in its details.
  * The environment was put in high priority in the Plan? 
  --Agreed that was deliberate because it was deemed important to the Region’s values and so many features had already been lost.
  
• The protection of the environment played a large part in choosing which lands would be on the HPMARA map?
  --Agreed, along with other things to be considered.
  
• Balance comes up in considering different priorities in the Plan as a theme? 
  --Agreed 
  
• Looking at the map--there was a balance constraining exercise already taking place? 
  --That's why we called it the HIGH POTENTIAL mineral aggregate, as it could perhaps be developed, depending on other issues.
  
• Looking at the words "as much as the resource as possible" in the first line--is that meant as the most important objective? 
  --No
  
• Did the CCRS have regard for the local, environmental and social issues?
  --Agreed, then layers of constraints were applied.
  
• The ROP directs the Municipalities to consider Provincial standards and policies? 
  --Agreed
  
• In the ROP, the roads between Municipalities would typically be high volume and truck traffic?
  --Agreed, but just because a road is designated as such, does not mean that it is upgraded to that standard at any given time. It is a goal.
  
• Looking at the CCRS: it was initiated in 1996 and went on for three years, and it was a significant process? 
  --Agreed it brought together a group that didn't talk very well together and it was a very important study in setting a higher bar.
  
• The CCRS looked at impacts on the environment and on the local communities?
  --Agreed
  
• The residents were able to express their concerns about community values and other issues? 
  --Agreed
  
• Did it look at land use compatibility, etc?
  --Agreed
  
• Was OPA 161 consistent with the ROP?
  --Agreed, and the matter was settled during the settlement talks so it had to be in conformity.
  
• Area 9A has yet to be designated (to be decided during the hearing decision) and the Region does not have an opinion as to which this area falls?
  --Agreed
  
• The Regional staff recommendation, the initial SG refers to whom?
  --Steven Garrod
  
• You collaborated on those?
  --Mr. Garrod reviewed the text.
  
• In 2003, the Region felt it did not have sufficient information to make it decision?
  --Agreed
  
• The Region didn't have their own experts on staff at that time?
  --This was a summary, and the experts came and gave a presentation to the Council on the issue.
  
• Is it fair to say, Mr. Hims and Dr Carter felt there were outstanding questions that need to be demonstrated although they were happy with the direction things were going in?
  --I disagree, I characterized it that they had said there had been improvements, but they were incomplete and more needed to be done.
  
• Regarding the traffic issues, there had been substantial agreements on the haul route? --There had been agreements, related to choice, and an EA would need to be done and a modified entrance needed to be designed.
  
• (Looking at report) You were beginning to inject your views to the Council on this?
  --The staff report indicates my views, but the remark on the page was to make sure staff, not Stantec, looked at all issues.
  
• There is no policy framework in the Plan to consider the financial securities issue?
  --Agreed
  
• Is that why Mr. Garrod was involved?
  --Mr. Garrod was involved in a number of different issues on this file.
  
• Was it staff's view that these security matters could be dealt with?
  --It was not unheard of that the Council would consider this--it was a question if the Dufferin quarry model would be appropriate for Peel. There were agreements with Brampton Brick prior to this but because this was the first quarry application in Peel, we decided to look elsewhere for a model.
  
• Council directed staff to have discussions with the applicant, but that never happened? --There was nothing brought forward by JDCL and the expectation was that JDCL would have drafted something.
  
• The applicant had indicated at a public meeting in 2003 that he was willing to enter into discussions about securities and a letter to the Town underlined that?  The letter did not go to the Region.
  
• But were you aware of it?
  -- Yes but there wasn't anything produced that we could discuss.
• Cross-examination of Simone Banz continued focusing on the issue of roads with the thrust being that if the OP provided for development of resources and the major road network included Olde Baseline Road and Mississauga Rd then it would it not make sense to upgrade the major roads after all there was an EA for the upgrade of Olde Baseline back in the 1990’s.
  -- Answer: --Upgrade would depend on the approval of the Rockfort application.
   
  
• An attempt was made to suggest that Regional Council had changed its position from 2003 to 2009 because of the addition of the words “not in the public interest” in their 2009 resolution.
  -- Banz did not agree.
• Banz stated that the reports to Council and the statements while written by her and Mr. Garrod relied on the info from Himms, Carter, and Sharp. The issue of enforcement and security while not included in the policies of the OP were issues they felt were important to point out to Regional Council.  The reports suggested that these issues could be dealt with by conditions imposed by the OMB.
• Ms. Banz said that she felt Council would respect the Board’s decision whatever was decided.
• The applicant produced several letters indicating they were willing to meet and discuss the issue of security and enforcement as far back as 1999.  Mr. Garrod objected to one letter in particular that was “without prejudice”.  The Chair while she was not going to strike the letter she did volunteer that who said what to whom and who asked for a meeting and didn’t get one was not terribly probative in her opinion.  She also went on to say that there were no discussions and no agreements before the Board on roads, security, AMP or rehabilitation and the EA process may not be necessary (editorial comment – Didn’t think you could avoid it unless the 1990 report would suffice?)
• On re-direct Mr. Garrod had Ms Banz confirm that the staff position from 2003 to 2009 had remained the same and that there was no reason why the Region would go ahead and approve the road upgrade if it hadn’t been decided if the Quarry would go ahead.