8/2/2019 Open Letter to Mayor Watson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-letter-to-mayor-watson 1/2

Mayor Watson,

John Moser has gone too far by interfering in the Environmental Assessment process being conducted in Beaver Pond. Hisactions highlight the need to limit the role of unqualified staff relative to the regulated activities of the Professional Engineer’s Actwhich requires that only licensed engineers conduct work that affects public safety.

You are no doubt completely aware, and perhaps rightfully embarrassed, by the seemingly endless litany of planning errors,dubious representations, and outright distortion of Ontario’s environmental protection laws that have been associated with theplanning department’s handling of KNL’s proposed subdivision in the South March Highlands. 

Things briefly appeared to take a turn for the better when, in October 2010 after significant public pressure, the City publishedNotice of Commencement of a Schedule C EA to examine the impact of KNL’s proposed water diversion on the City’s existing SWMinfrastructure in Beaver Pond, Shirley’s Brook, and Kizell wetland. 

Subsequently, in May 2011, the Phase 1 study of existing conditions by AECOM exposed a spectacular violation of regulatoryconditions by KNL  – KNL didn’t narrowly miss its obligations, according to AECOM’s engineers KNL made existing conditions 4x

worse than allowed by its CoA.

But are you aware that rather than showing leadership by resolving that situation with the full engagement of the public he issupposed to serve, it appears that Moser’s planning department prefers to sweep embarrassing issues under the rug?

It is bad enough that throughout the summer and fall of 2011 Moser’s planning department apparently stonewalled public access tothe May report. It was only in December that the public learned of the Phase 1 Findings and that (based on the minutes publishedin the AECOM report) a private review had been held for KNL by Moser personally in August 2011 – a meeting in which the City’s

lead engineer for the Schedule C EA was notably absent.

According to those minutes, KNL’s engineering consultants asked Moser that the EA be changed to a Schedule A process so that itcould be conducted under the subdivision approval process. Changing from a Schedule C to a Schedule A process means that therequirements of the EA are effectively replaced by the subdivision planning approvals process (due to integration provisions with thePlanning Act that apply only to Schedule A EAs) and that no further public engagement is required. Note that this is the same subdivision approvals process administered by the planning department that allowed this mess to develop in the first place. 

A subsequent engineering analysis conducted by City engineers in August 2011 (obtained under access to information) confirmedthat 8 homes in Kanata would be at risk of flooding if KNL were allowed to proceed with any further development in the SouthMarch Highlands. The email exchange between city engineers at that time also identified that further engineering analysis wasrequired to assess the fact that the minimum safety margin would be compromised.

According to the Ministry of Environment’s Regional Manager, the MoE District Engineer and the City’s lead engineer on the EA subsequently concurred in Sept 2011 that a Schedule C process was indeed appropriate and necessary from an engineeringperspective. Presumably this agreement was reached on the basis of the complexity and public safety issues involved in thissituation, the cumulative impact on existing City-owned facilities, and that a water diversion is identified in the Municipal Engineers

Association regulations as requiring a Schedule C Class EA.

Furthermore, without a Schedule C the City has no defined process by which it can engage the riparian landowners downstreamthat would be affected by KNL’s water diversion – creating a potential legal liability for both the City and KNL in the event offuture damages.

However, according to the MoE, Moser went over the head of the District Engineer (and also apparently the City’s lead engineer) bycontinuing to press the MoE’s EA Board for permission to change the EA to a Schedule A. It also appears that the City’s legalcounsel and other staff such as Don Herweyer were pressed into that mission and that public funds were expended on gettingexternal opinions to bolster Moser’s case to downgrade the EA to a Schedule A.

Was this appropriate expenditure in a time of fiscal restraint? Doesn’t Tim Marc have more important work to do than helpMoser overrule senior engineers on what engineering process to follow? Shouldn’t both of them have been devoting fullattention on the OMB OPA-76 hearings that were going on during that time?

Meanwhile, based on the email record of city engineers working on the flood-risk issue (also obtained via access to information), it

appears that all engineering analysis into flood risk mysteriously halted in Sept and did not resume again until Jan 2012. Did Moserorder city engineers to stop work by putting a hold on their investigation into flood-risk?

On Dec 5 2011 the MoE relented to Moser’s pressure and reluctantly agreed to give the City the lat itude to cancel the Schedule Cand proceed with under a Schedule A. In doing so, the MoE essentially downloaded its responsibilities by reasoning that EAs inOntario are “proponent-driven”; apparently meaning that a municipal proponent can write its own rules. According to the RegionalManager, the MoE’s only concern was that a Schedule A process would have insufficient public engagement. 

On Feb 13, Moser’s planning department formally advised the MoE that the Schedule C process was discontinued and that the Citywould proceed with a Schedule A that would be integrated under the Planning Act with the subdivision approvals process. In otherwords, a process controlled by the very developer who created the mess in the f irst place.

8/2/2019 Open Letter to Mayor Watson

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/open-letter-to-mayor-watson 2/2

It appears that the planning department made its decision without any consultation or agreement from the Algonquin First Nationswho still own title to public lands and waterways. By limiting public engagement, the City has also limited their participation too and,if done without their consent, would be a violation of the EAA.

Evidently the City has promised the MoE that some public engagement will occur and there is a meeting scheduled for March 26 inKanata to discuss the Phase 1 findings of the EA. We trust that you will personally be there to explain whether you find thissituation acceptable. Prior to doing so you may wish to reflect on the fact that there is no defined process for public consultation,no assurance, nor any requirement for the City to continue to do so should the EA continue to bring into the sunlight more

embarrassing facts. Is this the model of public transparency that you want to have in Ottawa?

Allowing the subdivision approvals process to steamroll ahead regardless of the environmental and safety issues that might surfacewould be a disservice to the citizens of Ottawa who deserve better quality in planning approvals. We continue to find gaps, errors,and what appears to be outright lies as information continues to slowly become public. The latest being conflicting engineeringassumptions about the size of a critical culvert under Goulbourn Forced Road, missing approvals, and as well as apparentmisrepresentation of the facts in the City’s application for KNL’s CoA.

Many of these issues flow from the apparent lack of any fact-checking, cross-referencing of documents, and due diligence byplanning staff in their hurry to push approvals through the process. We are confident that you would agree that allowingdevelopment to cruise along based on erroneous engineering assumptions is hardly in the public interest and certainly not in theCity’s long-term interests since ultimately the City’s taxpayers will be on the hook for fixing whatever problems get swept under thecarpet.

We recently notified the Planning Committee of what appears to be illegal lot creation relating to floodplain compensation in theSouth March Highlands. It’s bad enough that Moser’s planning department appears to have little regard for the proscribed processin the Planning Act  – the same Act that you used to administer when you were Minister of Municipal Affairs. But corruption of the

environmental assessment process is completely unacceptable and marks a descent to new low that no Mayor ever allowed in thepast.

Everyone in Ottawa should be disturbed when lawyers and city managers apparently meddle in engineering decisions already made by qualified professional engineers – especially if it is just to avoid embarrassment. Is this how the City expects toreduce its future legal liabilities and costs?

We suggest that you consider whether some spring cleaning is sorely needed at City Hall. Isn’t it time you put an end to suchatrocious behaviour by ensuring that this EA is completed as originally commenced under a well-defined Schedule C process, led byqualified engineers, and conducted as a model of open and transparent decision-making under the sunlight of public engagement?

You do not see most other cities in Ontario engaged in court and OMB battles against their own engineers. We request that CityCouncil reviews the organization of and responsibilities within the Infrastructure Services & Community Sustainability Portfolio withrespect to its effectiveness in assuring that all engineering -related planning approval work is conducted in a manner that isfirewalled from any interference by less-qualified staff in the planning department. This review should include its effectiveness inensuring that all engineering work is in fact under the control of a Professional Engineer in accordance with the ProfessionalEngineers Act; identification and prevention of piecemealed planning approvals; management of environmental assessmentsincluding selection of the appropriate defined process; as well as all reviews of engineering documents submitted by developers.

Had this been done years ago, perhaps the flooding of 10,000 homes in 2007 and ongoing embarrassment that can be traced backto piecemeal planning decisions in the SMH, Kanata West, and Carp River would have been avoided.

With Fortitude,

Paul RenaudSouth March Highlands – Carp River Conservation Inc.