HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/2007
CJ&iJlgWn
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
December 3, 2007
9:30 A.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. ROLL CALL
2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
3. MINUTES
(a) Minutes of a Regular Meeting of November 19, 2007
301
4. (a) PRESENTATIONS
(i) Frank Wu, CAO, regarding Update on Customer Service Training
Program
(ii) Chief Gord Weir, Emergency and Fires Services Department, regarding
Certificate from Certified Municipal Managers course for Bill Reid
(iii) Chief Gord Weir, Emergency and Fires Services Department, regarding
Certificate for completion of the Office of the Fire Marshal's Fire
Prevention Officer Course for Jacquie Hill-Bower
(iv) Steven Rowe, Environmental Planner, Report PSD-141-07
(v) Tony van der Vooren, AMEC Americas Limited, PSD-141-07
(b) DELEGATIONS
(I) Pam Lancaster, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority,
Stewardship Program
(ii) Derrick McKay, Support & Update on Courtice Kids of Steel Triathlon
(iii) Dennis Ebbs, Report EGD-028-07 (March 5/07)
(iv) Jacqueline Muccio, Durham/York Energy From Waste, Report
PSD-141-07
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TlOMPERANCE STREET. BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379
G.P. & A. Agenda
-2-
December 3, 2007
(v) Barry Bracken, Durham/York Energy From Waste, Report PSD-141-07
(vi) Linda Gasser, Durham/York Energy From Waste, Report PSD-141-07
(vii) Shirley Crago, Durham/York Energy From Waste, Report PSD-141-07
(viii) Cathrine McKeever, Durham/York Energy From Waste, Report
PSD-141-07
(ix) James McKeever, Durham/York Energy From Waste, Report
PSD-141-07
(x) Wendy Bracken, Durham/York Energy From Waste, Report
PSD-141-07
5. PUBLIC MEETINGS
(a) Application to Amend the Clarington Official Plan 501
Applicant: Baysong Developments Inc., 2084165 Ontario Limited,
Kemp and Carruthers
Report: PSD-137 -07
(b) Application to Amend the Clarington Zoning By-Law 503
Applicant: W. Michael Armstrong
Report: PSD-138-07
(c) Application to Amend the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-Law for 505
Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivison
Applicant: Prestonvale Heights Limited
Report: PSD-139-07
6. PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
(a) PSD-137-07 Proposed Official Plan Amendment 601
Applicant: Baysong Developments Inc., 2084165 Ontario
Limited, Kemp, Carruthers
Part Lots 11,12,13 and 14, Concession 3, Former
Township of Darlington
(b) PSD-138-07 To Permit an Existing In-Ground Swimming Pool to be 621
Located Within an Environmental Protection Zone
Applicant: W. Michael Armstrong
(c) PSD-139-07 Proposed Official Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Plan of 628
Subdivision to Delete a Secondary School Site and to
Permit the Development of 90 Single Detached Dwellings
and 67 Block Townhouse Dwellings
Applicant: Prestonvale Heights Limited
GP. & A. Agenda - 3 - December 3,2007
(d) PSD-140-07 Application for Removal of Holding Symbol 643
Applicant: Bowmanville Arms Residents Limited
(e) PSD-141-07 Durham/York Residual Waste Environmental Assessment 649
Study - Site Selection Process
Municipal Comments on Step 7 - Evaluation of Short-List
of Sites and Identification of Preferred Site
(f) PSD-142-07 Monitoring of the Decisions of the Committee of
Adjustment for the Meeting of November 22, 2007
699043
(g) PSD-143-07 Proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment to Facilitate the
Severance of a Hamlet Residential Lot
Applicant: William and Jean Kimball
699047
7. ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
(a) EGD-059-07 Durham Highway 2 - Sidewalk Construction Green Road 701
to Clarington Boulevard Bowmanville
(b) EGD-061-07 Servicing Agreement, Regional Municipality of Durham 707
and the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
8. OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT
No Reports
9. EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
10.
11.
(a) ESD-O 16-07 Emergency Plan, Public Version 901
(b) ESD-017-07 Memorandum of Understanding - Ontario Power 903
Generation
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
No Reports
CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
(a CLD-039-07 Quarterly Parking Report 1101
(b) CLD-040-07 Meeting Schedule 1104
(c) CLD-041-07 Procedural By-Law 1109
(d) CLD-042-07 Accountability and Transparency 1142
G.P. & A. Agenda
-4-
December 3, 2007
12. CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
(a) COD-058-07 CL2007-41, Street Lighting Improvements at Various 1201
Locations and Mearns Avenue Reconstruction
13. FINANCE DEPARTMENT
(a) FND-024-07 Development Charges By-Law: Interim Review and
Amendment
1301
14. CHIEF ADMINISTRATlVE OFFICE
No Reports
15. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
16. OTHER BUSINESS
17. ADJOURNMENT
Clw:iyglOn
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19, 2007
Minutes of a meeting of the General Purpose and Administration Committee held on
Monday, November 19,2007 at 9:30 a.m., in the Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Present Were:
Also Present:
Mayor J. Abernethy
Councillor A. Foster
Councillor R. Hooper
Councillor M. Novak
Councillor G. Robinson
Councillor C. Trim
Councillor W. Woo
Chief Administrative Officer, F. Wu
Director of Community Services, J.Caruana
Mgr of Transportation & Design, Engineering Services, L. Benson
Director of Planning Services, D. Crome
Director of Operations, F. Horvath
Director of Corporate Services, M. Marano
Deputy Treasurer of Finance, L. Gordon
Fire Chief, Emergency Services, G. Weir
Deputy Clerk, A. Greentree
Clerk II, E. Atkinson
Mayor Abernethy chaired this portion of the meeting.
DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
There were no disclosures of pecuniary interest stated for this meeting.
MINUTES
Resolution #GPA-636-07
Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Trim
THAT the General Purpose and Administration Committee minutes of the regular
meeting held on November 5,2007, be approved.
CARRIED
301
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19,2007
PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations.
DELEGATIONS
Mr. Kevin Anyan addressed the Committee regarding the Bowmanville
Sesquicentennial event. Mr. Anyan and the Bowmanville Sesquicentennial Committee
are very excited regarding the events planned for the 150th Anniversary of Bowmanville.
He named the members who are on the Bowmanville Sesquicentennial Committee and
the roles they had regarding other events in the community. He informed the Committee
that members are seeking financial support for this event by contacting individuals and
merchants. Mr. Anyan informed the Committee the major events will run from June 26th
through to July 1st and he gave a brief description of what has already been planned for
this event. The Committee is seeking Council support through use of municipal
facilities, staff assistance and financial support. Mr. Anyan requested a $5,000.00
donation towards the festivities.
Rolf Fabricius addressed the Committee regarding Highway 407 extension, Report
PSD-135-07. Mr. Fabricius has lived in the area all his life and he has been a resident
of Hampton for the past 20 years. Mr. Fabricius informed the Committee he drives on
the highway 407 daily and believes it would be better for the Highway to end in Whitby,
not at Brock Road in Pickering. Mr. Fabricius recommended the extension be built in
two phases. He stated concerns with overpasses and offered recommendations for a
route and interchange options. He does not feel the Highway 407 extension to Highway
115 is warranted. Mr. Fabricius does not feel people will use the Highway because they
do not want to pay the toll. He further believes the extension will interfere with the
community and the roads, just to benefit weekend travelers, and will have a dramatic
impact on the farmers in the area.
Linda Gasser addressed the Committee regarding Highway 407 extension, Report
PSD-135-07. She advised the Committee that the residents are very frustrated with the
Highway 407 project. She would like to see Council do their due diligence with regards
to the project and not just adopt a decision because it is one that the Region favours.
Ms. Gasser feels the staff of the Municipality has identified concerns and should ask the
Ministry of Transportation to review the need for the east link. She has concerns that
the impact on the residents, land and roads has been understated and would like to see
a formal review done. Ms. Gasser applauded the staff for obtaining a consultant to help
with the 407 project. Ms. Gasser stated she does not feel the project will be completed
by the year 2013. She would like to see Council look at all the impacts it would have on
the area and would like to see the Environment Canada conduct a comprehensive EA
study which would be more integral and broad resulting in better information and
therefore better informed decisions. Ms, Gasser questioned who the 407 extension was
actually being built for and she had concerns as to whether or not people would actually
use the Highway 407 extension.
- 2-
302
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19,2007
Libby Racansky addressed the Committee regarding Highway 407extension, Report
PSD-135-07. Ms. Racansky expressed concerns that the Highway 407 would serve as
an international highway and would not be beneficial to the area. She has concems
that the Highway will negatively impact the watershed. She feels we will end up in the
same state the US is regarding our water supply. Ms. Racansky highlighted nine
specific recommendations she would like to be included in the staff recommendations,
including the following: the 407 extension shifted to the right slightly to protect the
watershed in the area; Council to request the Province to rehabilitate their properties
along Hancock and Nash Road; and have the Province undertake a soil study on Solina
Road to ensure suitability of the property for the intended use prior to the 407 link being
built. She further requested that Council remind the Province that no road salt or liquid
de-icing compound be used within the watershed area.
Councillor Novak chaired this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC MEETING
(a)
Subject:
Application to Amend the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning
By-Law and Draft Plan of Subdivision
Courtice Homestead Land Corporation
PSD-130-07
Applicant:
Reports:
Bob Russell, Planner, Planning Services Department, provided a verbal report
supported by a PowerPoint presentation pertaining to Report PSD-130-07
No one spoke in support of Report PSD-130-07.
Libby Racanksy spoke in opposition to the application contained in Report PSD-130-07.
Ms. Racanksy stated the proposed subdivision is part of the Special Study Area in
Clarington and Regional Plans and the development should not proceed until the Black-
Farewell watershed study is completed. She stated the suggested single units are not
consistent with the vision of the Growth Plan. She has many concerns regarding the
source water and feels all groundwater recharge/discharge and the urban boundary
should be protected.
Kerry Meydam spoke in opposition to the application contained in Report PSD-130-07.
She lives close to the subject lands and expressed concerns with the proposed
development. She believes a full watershed study must be done.
-3-
303
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19, 2007
Glen Genge, D.G Biddle & Assocaites was present on behalf of the applicant, to
address the questions and concerns raised at the Public Meeting. He informed the
Committee that any lands in the Special Study Area have been removed from the
proposed development. He stated an Environmental Impact Study has been initiated.
(b) Subject: Application to Amend the Clarington Zoning By-Law
Applicant: Aspen Springs West Limited
Report: PSD-131-07
Carlo Pellarin, Manager Development Review, Planning Services Department, provided
a verbal report supported by a PowerPoint presentation pertaining to Reports
PSD-131-07.
No one spoke in opposition to or support of Report PSD-131-07.
Kelvin Whalen, Aspen Springs West Limited, was present to address the questions and
concerns raised at the Public Meeting. Mr. Whalen informed the Committee the
applicant concurs with the recommendations contained in Report PSD-131-07.
Resolution #GPA-637-07
Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Robinson
THAT the Committee recess for 5 minutes.
CARRIED
The meeting resumed at 11 :20 a.m.
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-
LAW AND FOR DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT
OF 37 SINGLE DETACHED DWELLING UNITS
APPLICANT: COURTICE HOMESTEAD LAND CORPORATION
Resolution #GPA-638-07
Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Foster
THAT Report PSD-130-07 be received;
.4-
304
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19, 2007
THAT the applications to amend the Clarington Official Plan & Zoning By-law 84-63,
and to Draft Approve Plan of Subdivision S-C-2007 -0002, be referred back to staff for
further processing and the preparation of a subsequent report following the receipt of
the Environmental Impact Study Final Report and outstanding agency comments; and
THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-130-07 and any delegations be advised
of Council's decision.
CARRIED
REZONING TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF EIGHT SINGLE DETACHED
DWELLING UNITS ON 11.0 AND 12.0 METRE MINIMUM FRONTAGE LOTS
APPLICANT: ASPEN SPRINGS WEST LIMITED
Resolution #GPA-639-07
Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Mayor Abemethy
THAT Report PSD-131-07 be received;
THAT the rezoning application submitted by Aspen Springs West Limited to permit eight
single detached dwelling units be approved and that a by-law be passed by Council to
adopt the amendment as contained in Attachment 2 of Report PSD-131-07;
THAT a copy of Report PSD-131-07 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of
Durham Planning Department and a Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC);
and
THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-131-07 and any delegations be advised
of Council's decision.
CARRIED
APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF HOLDING FOR LAND DIVISION
APPLICATION LD 006/2007
APPLICANT: ARNOT WOTTEN
Resolution #GPA-640-07
Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Foster
THAT Report PSD-132-07 be received;
THAT the application submitted by Arnot Wotten to remove the "Holding (H)" symbol be
approved;
THAT the By-law attached to Report PSD-132-07 to remove the "Holding (H)" symbol,
be passed and a copy forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Durham; and
-5-
305
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19, 2007
THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-132-07, any delegations and the Regional
Municipality of Durham Planning Department be advised of Council's decision.
CARRIED
REPORT REGARDING APPEAL OF ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION
ZBA2006-0021
APPLICANT: JAMES TOSSWILL
Resolution #GPA-641-07
Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper
THAT Report PSD-133-07 be received;
THAT the Municipality not participate in the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the
appeal of Zoning By-Law 2006-152, passed in response to a privately initiated
application by James Tosswill; and
THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-133-07 and any delegation be advised
of Council's decision.
CARRIED
APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF PART LOT CONTROL
APPLICANT: MEARNS EAST DEVELOPMENTS INC.
DUNBURY MEADOWS - PHASE II
Resolution #GPA-642-07
Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Woo
THAT Report PSD-134-07 be received;
THAT the request for Removal of Part Lot Control by Mearns East Developments Inc.
with respect to Lot 12 and Blocks 32 and 33 inclusive on Plan 40M-2202, be approved
and that the Part Lot Control By-Law attached to Report PSD-134-07, be passed
pursuant to Section 50(7.1) of the Planning Act and a copy forwarded to the Regional
Municipality of Durham Planning Department; and
THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-134-07 and any delegations be advised
of Council's decision.
CARRIED
-6-
306
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19, 2007
HIGHWAY 407 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - MUNICIPALITY OF
CLARINGTON COMMENTS ON THE ALTERNATIVE METHODS (ROUTE
SELECTION) REPORT
Resolution #GPA-643-07
Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Trim
THAT Report PSD-135-07 be received;
THAT Report PSD-135-07 be approved as the Municipality of Clarington's comments on
the Highway 407 East Environmental Assessment Alternative Methods Report (Final
Draft), dated August 2007;
THAT the Ministry of Transportation be requested to establish a working group, to
include the area municipalities, the Region of Durham, and the Conservation
Authorities, to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the remnant parcels
created by the 407 mainline and Links;
THAT the Ministry of Transportation be further advised that it is the position of the
Municipality of Clarington that grade separations should be constructed on all local
roads that would otherwise be truncated by the 407 main line and East Link;
THAT the Clarington Highway 407 Community Advisory Committee, the Clarington
Agricultural Advisory Committee, and the Clarington Heritage Committee be thanked for
their input and assistance in preparing Report PSD-135-07;
THAT a copy of Report PSD-135-07 and Council's decision be forwarded to the Ministry
of Transportation and TSH; and
THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-135-07 and any delegations be advised
of Council's decision.
CARRIED
(SEE FOLLOWING MOTIONS)
Resolution #GPA-644-07
Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Hooper
THAT the rules of procedures be suspended to allow Linda Gasser to speak regarding
the letter issued by the Ministry of Transportation to affected property owners.
CARRIED
-7 -
307
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19, 2007
Ms. Gasser informed the Committee that a letter had been sent to the affected property
owners. She expressed concerns that the information provided to the Ministry of
Transportation regarding the properties and uses may be inacurate. She confirmed a
process is available to make sure that the residents who are deemed hardship cases
are dealt with first.
Resolution #GPA-645-07
Moved by Mayor Abernethy, seconded by Councillor Woo
THAT the rules of procedures be suspended to allow Emma Docherty,
Environmental/Transportation Planner, TSH, to speak regarding the letter issued by the
Ministry of Transportation to residents of the affected area.
CARRIED
Ms. Docherty informed the Committee that indeed a letter was sent to the residents of
the area and the Ministry of Transportation will be purchasing some of the properties
impacted by the 407 extension. She stated that at this time hardship does need to be
established.
The foregoing motion #GPA-643-07 was then put to a vote and CARRIED.
MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR
THE MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 8, 2007
Resolution #GPA-646-07
Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Woo
THAT Report PSD-136-07 be received;
THAT Council concurs with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on
November 8, 2007 for applications A2007-0055, A2007-0057, A2007-0059 and A2007-
0060 and that Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to
defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment; and
THAT Council does not concur with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made
on November 17, 2006 for application A2007-0058 and authorizes staff to appeal the
decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Ontario Municipal Board.
CARRIED
- 8 -
308
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19, 2007
Resolution #GPA-647-07
Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Mayor Abernethy
THAT the agenda be altered to consider Addendum to Report PSD-128-07 Regional
Cycling Plan Study under the Planning Section of the meeting.
CARRIED
REGIONAL CYCLING PLAN STUDY
Resolution #GPA-648-07
Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Robinson
THAT Addendum to PSD-128-07, PSD-128-07 and the "Regional Cycling Plan Study"
be received;
THAT the Regional Cycling Plan be endorsed in principle as a basis for planning only
on the understanding that Clarington is making no financial commitment to the
implementation of the Study at this time and subject to the following revisions:
a) That the multi-use trails identified for the Ontario Hydro corridors
parallel to Holt Road and Concession Road 7 be deleted (2.4.4 of
Report PSD-128-07);
b) That the multi-use 3m paved trail comprising part of the Oak Ridges
Moraine Trail is an inappropriate design, an appropriate non-paved
design standard for the Oak Ridges Moraine Trail should be
considered a Regional responsibility (modification of Section 2.5.2 of
Report PSD-128-07);
c) That due to deteriorating edges on many roads, any signed routes
should be thoroughly reviewed prior to signs being installed and that
the Region of Durham indemnify the Municipality of Clarington for any
insurance claims (Section 2.5.3 of Report PSD-128-07);
d) That a multi-disciplinary committee, comprising representatives of
municipal and Regional Departments be established for
implementation (Section 2.5.4 of Report PSD-128-07); and
e) That the Region's role focus on planning, designing and co-ordinating
connections between municipalities, establishing design standards,
cost-sharing in municipal initiatives for urban areas and taking the lead
in designing and implementing cycling initiatives in rural areas (Section
2.6.2 of Report PSD-128-08).
- 9.
309
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19, 2007
That the Region of Durham be advised that the Municipality's priority is the
establishment of off-road multi-use trails in urban areas and along the waterfront and
there are limited Municipal funds to implement Clarington's existing priorities;
That the Regional Development Charges By-law be amended to include a line item
implementing the Regional Cycling Plan;
That Staff be authorized to work with the Region and Durham Region Area
Municipalities to establish a reasonable and fiscally responsible Regional Cycling
Implementation Plan that integrates with the existing and anticipated future cycling and
road facilities; and
That all interested parties listed in Addendum Report PSD-128-07 and any delegation
be advised of Council's decision.
CARRIED
Councillor Foster chaired this portion of the meeting
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT ON BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY FOR OCTOBER, 2007
Resolution #GPA-649-07
Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Robinson
THAT Report EGD-057-07 be received for information.
CARRIED
PROPOSAL TO CLOSE AND CONVEY A PORTION OF AN UNO PEN ROAD
ALLOWANCE SITUATED BETWEEN LOT 16 & 17, CONCESSION 10, FORMER
TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
Resolution #GPA-650-07
Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Woo
THAT Report EGD-058-07 be received;
THAT Council authorize the publication of a notice of application that the Municipality
intends to pass a by-law to close that part of the unopen road allowance situated
between Lots 16 & 17, Concession 10, Former Township of Darlington, pursuant to
section 34 of the Municipal Act and By-Law No. 95-22 (Attachment 1 to Report
EGD-058-07);
-10 -
310
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19,2007
THAT when Section 34 of the Municipal Act and By-Law No. 95-22 have been complied
with, Council pass a by-law and declare that portion of the road allowance to be surplus;
THAT subject to Council's consideration of any representations made at the public
meeting respecting the passing of by-laws authorizing the closure of the subject lands
as a public highway, declaring the subject lands to be surplus, and its conveyance to
the applicant, Council pass the necessary by-laws to implement Report EGD-058-07;
THAT the applicant pay all legal, advertising, appraisal and land costs associated with
this transaction; and
THAT St. Mary's Cement Inc. be advised of Council's decision.
CARRIED
Councillor Trim chaired this portion of the meeting.
OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT
EMERGENCY REPLACEMENT OF HAMPTON OPERATIONS HOIST
Resolution #GPA-651-07
Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Novak
THAT Report OPD-011-07 be received; and
THAT the hoist be replaced and the cost to replace this equipment be financed from the
Operations Equipment Fleet Reserve Fund, FORTHWITH.
CARRIED
Councillor Woo chaired this portion of the meeting.
EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY RESPONSE REPORT - OCTOBER 2007
Resolution #GPA-652-07
Moved by Councillor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper
THAT Report ESD-015-07 be received for information.
CARRIED
- 11 -
311
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19, 2007
Councillor Robinson chaired this portion of the meeting.
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON'S APPLICATION TO THE YOUTH FRIENDLY
COMMUNITIES RECOGNITION PROGRAM
Resolution #GPA-653-07
Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Woo
THAT Report CSD-017-07 be received; and
THAT Council endorse the application for the Municipality of Clarington, as required, to
be recognized as a Youth Friendly Community.
CARRIED
SUMMARY REPORT - WORLD RECORD WALK - OCTOBER 3, 2007
Resolution #GPA-654-07
Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Woo
THAT Report CSD-019-07 be received for information.
CARRIED
CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda.
CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda.
Mayor Abernethy chaired this portion of the meeting.
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
CASH ACTIVITY - THIRD QUARTER OF 2007
Resolution #GPA-655-07
Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Novak
THAT Report FND-023-07 be received;
-12 -
312
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19, 2007
That in accordance with provision of Chapter 25, Section 268 of the Municipal Act, S.O.
2001, the Treasurer reports the cash position of the Municipality of Clarington for the
third quarter of the year 2007, as shown on the schedule attached to Report
FND-023-07; and
That part "A" of the expenditures for the third quarter of the year be confirmed.
CARRIED
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
There were no reports to be considered under this section of the Agenda.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
MEETING INVESTIGATOR - CLOSED MEETINGS
Resolution #GPA-656-07
Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Hooper
THAT the Addendum to Report CLD-036-07 be received;
THAT Report CLD-036-07 be received;
THAT a by-law be forwarded to Council to appoint Local Authority Services Ltd. (LAS)
as the meeting investigator in accordance with section 239.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001;
and
THAT LAS be advised of Council's decision.
CARRIED
BOWMANVILLE 150TH ANNIVERSARY FUNDING ASSISTANCE
Resolution #GPA-657-07
Moved by Councillor Trim, seconded by Councillor Robinson
THAT the delegation of Mr. Kevin Anyan be received;
THAT $5,000.00 be given to the Bowmanville 150th Anniversary Steering Committee as
seed money for celebration events; and
THAT the funds be drawn from the Unclassified Administration Contingency Account
100-21-211-00000-7298, FORTHWITH.
CARRIED
-13 -
313
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Minutes
November 19, 2007
OTHER BUSINESS
There were not matters to be dealt with under this section of the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Resolution # GPA-658-07
Moved by Councillor Robinson, seconded by Councillor Foster
THAT the meeting adjourn at 12:35 p.m.
CARRIED
MAYOR
DEPUTY CLERK
-14 -
314
Cggron
, DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BY:
\,iUKt'UKAIIUNUt'INt
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
PUBLIC MEETING
REPORT # PSD-137-07
THE NORTHGLEN LANDOWNERS GROUP
BAYSONG DEVELOPMENTS INC. 2084165 ONTARIO LIMITED,
KEMP AND CARRUTHERS
AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington w1Rconsider epproving e proposed Official
Plan Amendment, under Section 17 of the Planning Act, 1990. as amended.
APPLICATION DETALS
The proposed Official Plan Amendment submitted by Baysong Developments Inc., 2084165 Ontario Limited, Kirl< Kemp,
Douglas Kemp. Helen Kemp and Robert and Patsy Carruthers would permK two Plens of Subdivisions, totalling 1668
residential units within the Nor1hglen Nelgbhourhood by: .
. Increasing the Northglen Neighbourhood housing targets and population largots from 1325 to 2175 and from 3,750
to 6500 respectively;
. Relocaling a separate elementary school symbol and parl< symbols, medium density symbols and a portion of a
collector road;
. Relocating an east-west Typa C Arterial Road from within the Bowmanvi... Urban Area to the area north of the
Bowmanvllle Urban Area;
. Deleting both public elemenlary and public secondary school symbols and a portion of a collector road;
. Adding four medium density symbols; and
. Adjusting the EnvironrMnlal Protection Area designation.
The proposed Clarington Official Plan AmendrMnt includes lands In Part of Lots 11, 12, 13 & 14, Concession Road 3, in the
former T~ship on Darlington, as shown on reverse.
Planning File Nos.: COPA 2007-0004
PUBLIC MEETING
The MunicipaHty of Clarington will hold a public meeting to provide Interested parties the opportunity to make comments,
Identify issues and provide additional information relative to the proposed development The public meeting will be held on:
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
Monday I December 3 I 2007
9:30 a.m.
Council Chambers, 2nd FJoor, Municipal Administrative Centre,
40 Temperance St., Bowrnanvll., Ontario
/>J'4Y PlORSON may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal representation either in support of or in
opposition to .the proposal. The start tine listed above reflects the time at which the General Purpose and Administration
Committee Meeting commences.
If you cannol attend the Public Meeting on this appHcation you can make a deputation to Council at their meeting on
Monday December 10th, 2007, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Should you wish to appear before Council, you must register
with the Clerl<s Department by the Wednesday noon, December 5, 2007 to have your name appear in the Agenda.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
If you wish to make a written submission or W you wish to be notified of subsequent meetings Of the adoption of the proposed
Official Plan Amendmen~ you must submK a written request to the Clerk's Departmen~ t" Floor, 40 Temperance Street,
Bowmanvlle. Ontario L lC 3A6.
AA Official Plan Amendment adopted by the Municipality of Clarington is forwarded to the Region of Durham for approval,
unless it is determined during the review process that the Amendment is exempt from Regional appro~. For an exempt
Amendmen~ the decision to adopt by Clarington Council becomes final~ subject to any appeal during the statutory appeal
period.
Additional Information relating to the proposells available for inspection belween 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Planning
Services Departmen~ 3~ Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanvlle, Onlario L1C 3A6, or by calling Cynthia StrIke al (!lO5).
623-3379 extension 327 or by e-mail at cstrikellOClarinaton.nel
APPEAL
If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to the
Municipality of Clarington Planning Services Department before the proposed Official Plan Amendmenl is adopted, the
person:
i) is not entnled to appeal the decision of Clarington Council to the Onlario Municipal Board; and
i1) the person or publiC body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal
Board unless. In the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a
perty.
Dated at the Municipality of Clarington this
~.yC~
'l~rector of Planning Servlc..
31" day of October 2007.
40 Temparance street
Bowmanvllle, Dntarlo
501
.._--~
I 'l! l!
't .. ~g ",Ill il~
c,s ...c
c c C"i' CC ~E~
~J "i'... "i'''i' ...::J II
"'c ...... 00
CC -1:-
Ii C c Cc CC ~ ~ III
N .. :;IN NN . ~
:I c(- c(U c(U ClOCl
i A.!!: IS~ 1IIl/) IlI",'l!
oo!! N" c'"
U u o ~ ..
I ~ c c .:t:
~ c ~. ~. ID~;:
Z. I s i!
e III ~
.. c
I 1:
.. ii.
U ~
~
Cl~.n
CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
NonCE OF PUBLIC MEETING
PUBLIC MEETING
REPORT I PSD-138-07
w. MICHAEL ARMSTRONG
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BY:
W. MICHAEL ARMSTRONG
AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CLARINGTON ZONING BY-LAW
TAKE NOTICE that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington will consider a proposed
Zoning By-law Amendment, under Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1990, as amended.
APPLICATION DETAILS
The proposed application for a Zoning By~aw Amendment submitted by W. Michael Armstrong would perm~ an
in-ground swimming pool to be located within an Environmental Protection Zone.
The subject property is located in Part Lot 24, Concession 5, former Township of Darlington, as shown on
reverse.
The Municipality of Clarington has deemed the above-noted application to be a complete submission.
Planning File No.: ZBA 200Hl045
PUBLIC MEETING
The Municipality of Clarington will hold a public meeting to provide interested parties the opportunity to make
comments, identify issues and provide add~ional information relative to the Pl11posed development. The public
meeting will be held on:
Monday, December 3, 2007
9:30 a.m.
Council Chambers, 2"" Floor, Municipal Adminislrlllive Centre
40 Temperance Sl, Bowmanvllle, Ontario
ANY PlORSON may attend the.public meetin9 and/or make written or verbal representation e~her in support of or
in opposition to the proposal. The start time listed above reflects the time at which the General Purpose and
. Administration Committee Meeting commences.
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
If you cannot attend the Public Meeting on this application you can make a deputation to Council at their meeting
on Monday, December 10, 2007, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Should you wish to appear before Council, you must
register wilh the Clerks Department by the Wednesday noon, December 5, 2007 to have your name appear in
the Agenda.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
If you wish to be notified of subsequent meetings or the approval of the proposed zoning by-law amendment or
of the refusal of a request to amend the zoning by-law, you must make a written request to the Clerk's
Department, 2"" Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L lC 3A6,
Additional information relating to the proposal is available for inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (during
July and August 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) at the Planning Services Department, 3"' Floor, 40 Temperance
Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L lC 3A6, or by ceiling Glen Ferguson at (905) 623-3379 extension 327 or bye-mail
at aferausonlfDclarinaton.net
APPEAL
If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submissions to
the Municipal~y of Clarington Planning Services Department before the proposed zoning by~aw amendment is
approved, the person or public body is not entilled to appeal the decision of Clarington Council to the Ontario
Municipal Board. In addilion, the person or publiC body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal
before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to add the
parson or public body as a party.
Dated at the Municipality of Clarington this 19~ day of October 2007.
David me, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning Services
Municipality of Clarlngton
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanvllla, Ontario
L1C 3A6
503
1
I
I
Ii
!
...
.
iii
t
I
...
i
III
~
!.
..
z
WOZ'9L
h
~~
z
L-- W9Yl:~
3.ou~..L ~N
WZl:"9~ M.O~.g~N
_'Ill: 3.o~.8~N
"'-- WW~~
M.W:.~8N
...- ,."^
!i
w
:I
C
onZ
3w
q~
i~
~~
Nc:l
z
i
2
..
CII
III
'C
III
I!
"
j
'0
C
II
.5
'0
u
Ii
c
~
I
I
I
I
I
)
J
I
~ (
---- I
---" 1
--- .......... \ W)
\ ~ ~
\ I) ~ I ~
\~\ 11\'/\
'Ci \...J \..,
I
I
I
~
3.D~.8~N
a
iii:
~
Z
:::l
i!
wro'~~ ~.8~N
\ /
l" ........ /'
~~
"'.
!Z
504
Clw;inglOn
CORPORATION OF THE
MUNICIPALllY OF CLARINGTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
PUBLIC MEETING
REPORT # PSD-139-07
PRESTONVALE HEIGHTS LTD.
I DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION BY: PRESTONVALE HEIGHTS LIMITED
AN APPUCATION TO AMEND THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW FOR PROPOSED DRAFT
PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
TAKE NOTICE that the proposed Clarington Official Plan Amendment submitted by Prestonvale Heights Limited would delete a
Public Secondary School no longer required by the School Board and provide for a Medium Density Residential development
on a portion of the subject lands.
The Zoning By-law Amendment and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision would perm~ the development of 157 residential units
including 90 single detached dwellings and 67 townhouse dwelling units.
The Municipality of Clarington has deemed the above-noted application to be a complete submission.
The subject property is located on Lot 34, Concession 2, in the former Township of Darlington, as shown on reverse.
Planning File Nos.: COPA 2007-0010, ZBA 2007-0031 and 5-C-2007-o007
PUBLIC MEETING
The Municipality of Clarington will hold a public meeting to provide interested parties the. opportunity to make comments,
identify issues and provide additional information relative to the proposed development. The publiC meeting will be held on:
DATE: Monday, December 3"', 2007
TIME: 9:30 a.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, Municipal Administrative Centre,
40 Temperance St., Bowmanvllle, Ontario
ANY PERSON may attend the public meeting and/or make written or verbal representation either in support of or in opposition
to the proposal. The start time listed above reflects the time at which the General Purpose and Administration Committee
Meeting commences.
If you cannot attend the Public Meeting on this application you can make a deputation to Council at their meeting on
Monday December 101h ,2007, commencing at 7:00 p.m. Should you wish to appear before Council, you must register with
the Clerks Department by the Wednesday noon, December 51h , 2007, to have your name appear in the Agenda.
COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
If you wish to make a written submission or if you wish to be notified of subsequent meetings or the adoption of the proposed
Official Plan Amendment and approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision, you must submit a
written request to the Clerk's Department, 2nd Floor, 40 Temperance Stree~ Bowmanville, Ontario L 1C 3A6.
An Official Plan Amendment adopted by the Municipality of Clarington is forwarded to the Region of Durham for approval,
unless it is determined during the review process that the Amendment is exempt from Regional approval. For an exempt
Amendment, the decision to adopt by Clarington Council becomes final, subject to any appeal during the statutory appeal
period.
Additional information relating to the proposal is available for inspection between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (during July and
August 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.) at the Planning Services Department, 3'" Floor, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario
L 1C 3A6, or by calling Tracey Webster at (905) 623-3379 extension 4270r bye-mail atlwebster@clarinoton.net
APPEAL
If a person or publiC body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or does not make a written submission before
the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Draft Plan of Subdivision are approved, the person or public
body is not entitled to appeal the decision of Clarington Council to the Ontario Municipal Board. In addition, the person or
public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion
of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party.
Dated icipality of Clarington this 181h day of October, 2007.
Dav! C e, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning Services
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanvllle, Ontario
L 1C 3A6
505
1 j J
E
!i E c ::J
~ . t
w ....~
:& .
Q ~~ o c "i
....z o 0 :E:
- C")w q c q . .
I q~ ......! .... > I
0"- 0-
i~ 0- 0:8
8 N..! N ::I
U CJII)
- f~
Do ~ c(~ (/)'5 "-
.
::E o c c ..
~Cl lIII ..
c CJi ii: .
0 z &
] z c ~
2 'C
lIII
t u Q
e
lL
"~'a
;"'.I85ii.!f lU("O
" ~
31V"NOJ.S3~d
"'~"78
.. ,ltOO18 DNfN3ij6/,l 0'r'0~ lU.cZ'
.laSab' .ur'o
- II ", . '" '"
"
'" 0; II III III l:; 1Il iii " :l II
Q ::! ~ ~
" ~
~
II a ~ ~ ~
, I:l III III ~ :;: ll! ~ # it it ~
'"
. III '" '" ..., ..., ,<, '"
"
.9. J.33~J.S
.
:c . ill ... ..., ..., " .
" ,
'K :l ::l II ;; II , it n, 2 ~
I- Q II a . ;
" .
w =
w ; Il , a .
0:: . I ~
Q I II Ii II ::l : ill I
",
I- ,.. Il ;
II) , II ..., ... ...,
.9. J.33~J.S
I-
W
w
0::
I-
U)
C"IE R ;
~
.
!! :!
.. "
~ .
e ~
!! .
!! .
f'LG::t ;
:! ;
~ ;
:: ~
!! .
.. "
'1rJt . ~
;'IC"..
..,..
; I
('1'1 "I O~I a'll f"&'j
"I lh', Cl'll O'll
Ii! Ii!
/; II I': Ii! I:
~
it ~
."
Qb-
O~
~
o
o
"
'Cl)
506
CI~il1gron
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
PUBLIC MEETING
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
Monday,December3,2007
Report #: PSD-137 -07
File #: COPA 2007-0004
By-law #:
Subject:
PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICANTS: BAYSONG DEVELOPMENTS INC., 2084165 ONTARIO
LIMITED, KEMP, CARRUTHERS
PART LOTS 11,12, 13 AND 14, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF
DARLINGTON
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-137-07 be received;
2. THAT the application to amend the Clarington Official Plan COPA 2007-0004, submitted
by Baysong Developments Inc., 2084165 Ontario Limited, Kemp and Carruthers be
referred back to Staff for further processing and the completion of the Financial Impact
Study;
3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
Submitted by:
D I ;J. Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning Services
R..,;eweo byo ~uc;
~ ranklin Wu,
./ U Chief Administrative Officer
CS' CP'DJC'sh
November 26, 2007
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ClARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVlllE, ONTARIO l1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
601
REPORT NO.: PSD-137-07
PAGE 2
1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS
1.1 Owners: Baysong Developments Inc., 2084165 Ontario Limited, Kirk Kemp,
Douglas Kemp, Helen Kemp, Robert Carruthers, and Patsy Carruthers
1.2 Applicant: Tunney Planning Inc.
1.3 Clarington Official Plan Amendment:
. Amend Table 5-1 by increasing the population target for Bowmanville
from 60,000 to 63,900 and amending all corresponding totals.
. Amend Table 9-2 by increasing the housing target for Northglen to
reflect the following:
i) 975 low density units to 1500 units
ii) 250 medium density units to 500 units
Iii) 50 high density units to 100 high density units; and
iv) amend all corresponding totals.
. Amend Map A-3 -"Land Use Bowmanville Urban Area" by:
i) revising the collector road pattern by deleting a portion of the
mid-block collector road and relocating other portions;
ii) removing a public elementary and a secondary school symbol;
iii) relocating a separate elementary school;
iv) relocating one neighbourhood park symbol and adding three
new neighbourhood park symbols;
v) relocating and adding four (4) Medium Density symbols; and
vi) adjusting the Environmental Protection Area.
. Amend Map B1 -"Transportation - Clarington Rural Area" by adding a
"Type C Arterial Road" on the north side of the Bowmanville Urban
Area boundary;
. Amend Map 83 -"Transportation - Bowmanville Urban Area" by
revising the collector road pattern by deleting a portion of the collector
road and relocating other portions, and by deleting the "Type C Arterial
Road"; and
. Amend Map H2 -"Neighbourhood Planning Unit- Bowmanville Urban
Area" by changing the population of the Northglen Neighbourhood from
3,750 to 6,500.
1.4 Site Area: 185.88 hectares
602
REPORT NO.: PSD-137-07
PAGE 3
1.5 Location:
The lands subject to this amendment are located north of Concession
Road 3, east of Regional Road 57, and west of Liberty Street, being the
south half Parts of Lots 11,12, 13 & 14, Concession 3, and former
Township of Darlington. (Attachment 1)
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 On March 2, 2007 Staff received an application to amend the Clarington Official Plan
submitted jointly by Baysong Developments Inc., 2084165 Ontario Limited, Kirk Kemp,
Douglas Kemp, Helen Kemp, Robert Carruthers, and Patsy Carruthers also known as
the Northglen Landowners Group. The Official Plan Amendment application is for the
entire Northglen Neighbourhood. Two separate applications for draft plan of subdivision
and rezoning were submitted for lands on the west side of Middle Road, owned by
Baysong, 2084165 Ontario Limited, Kirk, Douglas and Helen Kemp referred to as
Northglen West. Similarily, applications for draft plan of subdivision and rezoning have
been submitted on the east side of Middle Road by Kirk Kemp and Robert and Patsy
Carruthers referred to as Northglen East.
2.2 A Public Meeting was held on May 22, 2007 for all of the applications. The Official Plan
Amendment was referred back for further processing upon receipt of all outstanding
support documentation, outstanding comments from the various agencies and
completion of the Neighbourhood Design Plan process. The rezoning and subdivision
applications were referred back for further processing and completion of a Financial
Impact Study.
2.3 The proposed official plan amendment has been revised from that considered at the
May public meeting. The applicants have now requested deletion of the Type 'C'
Arterial from the Bowmanville Urban Area Transportation Map and adding it to the
Clarington Rural Transportation Map. In addition, the population and housing targets
have been changed to address discrepancies between the Neighbourhood Design Plan
and the draft plans of subdivision. All other aspects of the original proposed
amendment remain the same. The purpose of this report is to satisfy the requirements
for Public Meetings under the Planning Act with respect to the revised Official Plan
Amendment (Attachment 2).
3.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
3.1 The site characteristics are varied throughout the Northglen Neighbourhood. Natural
heritage attributes include ponds, swamps, woodlots, thickets and regenerating
vegetation where agricultural activities have ceased. Creek valleys associated with
permanent and intermittent tributaries of the Soper Creek are also present. The lands
west of Middle Road include cultivated agricultural lands, orchards, an auto wrecking
yard and existing residential uses. The lands east of Middle Road include orchards, a
Place of Worship, existing residential uses including an Estate Residential subdivision
known as the Rills of Liberty.
603
REPORT NO.: PSD-137-07
PAGE 4
3.2 Surrounding Land Uses
North _ Rural residential, agricultural crops, Bowmanville Golf Course and Quarry
Lakes Golf Course;
South - Existing urban residential development and lands that have been draft
approved for urban residential development;
East- Regional Road 14, estate and rural residential, agricultural lands and
valleylands associated with Soper Creek tributaries; and
West- Regional Road 57, estate residential, and Bowmanville Creek valley
4.0 PROVINCIAL POLICIES
4.1 Provincial Policv Statement
4.1.1 The Official Plan amendment application and the corresponding applications for Draft
Plan of Subdivision and rezoning were reviewed in the context of the 2005 Provincial
Policy Statement.
4.1.2 The Provincial Policy Statement encourages planning authorities to create healthy
liveable and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of
residential, employment, recreational and open spaces uses to meet long term needs.
4.1.3 Policy related to Settlement Areas states that new development shall occur adjacent to
built up areas and shall have compact form, a mix of uses and densities that allow for
the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public services.
4.1.4 The Housing policies state that Planning authorities are required to provide for a range
of housing types and densities with a ten year supply of lands which are designated and
a three year supply of lands zoned and serviced within draft approved and registered
plans. New housing is to be directed to locations where infrastructure and public
services are or will be available. A full range of housing types and densities shall be
provided to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional
market area.
4.1.5 The Public Spaces, Parks and Open Space policies state that healthy active
communities should be promoted by planning public streets and spaces that are safe
and facilitate pedestrian and non-motorized movement. A full range of publicly
accessible built and natural settings for recreation including facilities, parks, open space
and trails should also be considered.
4.1.6 Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities policies state that infrastructure and public
service facilities shall be provided in a coordinated efficient and cost effective manner.
Planning for these shall be integrated with planning for growth so that they are available
to meet current and projected needs. The use of existing infrastructure and public
service facilities should be optimized where feasible before considering developing new
infrastructure and public service facilities.
604
REPORT NO.: PSD-137-07
PAGE 5
4.1.7 The proposed Official Plan Amendment is generally consistent with the 2005 Provincial
Policy Statement
4.2 Provincial Growth Plan
4.2.1 The Provincial Growth Plan encourages municipalities to manage growth by directing
population growth to settlement areas. Growth is to be accommodated by building
compact, transit-supportive communities in designated greenfield areas and by reducing
dependence on the automobile through the development of mixed use, pedestrian-
friendly environments. Growth shall also be directed to areas that offer municipal water
and wastewater systems. Municipalities should establish an urban open space system
within built up areas.
5.0 OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES
5.1 Durham Reaional Official Plan
5.1.1 Within the Durham Regional Official Plan, the lands are designated as "Living Areas".
Living Areas shall be used predominantly for housing purposes. However, a mix of uses
such as certain home occupations, convenience stores, public and recreational uses,
limited office development and retailing of goods and services may also be permitted in
Living Areas provided there are appropriate provisions and designations in the area
municipal Official Plan.
5.1.2 In consideration of development applications in designated Living Areas, regard shall be
had for the intent of this plan to achieve the following:
. A compact urban form;
. The use of good urban design principles;
. The provision of convenient pedestrian access to public transit,
educational facilities and parks; and
. The grid pattern of roads.
5.2 Clarinaton Official Plan
5.2.1 Within the Clarington Official Plan, the subject lands are designated as Urban
Residential, and Environmental Protection Area. The use of lands within the Urban
Residential designation shall be predominately for single and semi-detached housing.
Public elementary, separate elementary and public secondary school, medium and high
density, neighbourhood centre commercial and neighbourhood park symbols are also
identified throughout the neighbourhood.
5.2.2 The Northglen Neighbourhood has a population allocation of 3900 and a housing target
of 1325, being 975 low density units, 250 medium density units, 50 high density units
and 50 units for intensification.
605
REPORT NO.: PSD-137-07
PAGE 6
5.2.3 The Neighbourhood Centre designation is located at the northeast corner of Regional
Road 57 and Concession Road 3, within the subject lands. Neighbourhood Centres are
to serve as focal points for residential communities and provide for day to day retail and
service needs. The maximum gross leasable f100rspace shall be 5000 m2.
Neighbourhood Centres are intended to be developed with adjacent areas such as
transit nodes containing higher density residential uses, recreation, community, cultural
and institutional uses.
5.2.4 It is an objective of the Official Plan to provide for phased, sequential growth with
specific policies for consideration of plans of Subdivision. The Clarington Official Plan
states that prior to the consideration and approval of a plan of subdivision, the
Municipality shall require the preparation of neighbourhood design plan. The plan shall
be prepared in consultation with the Municipality and other agencies. A neighbourhood
design plan is a visual interpretation of the future development of an entire
neighbourhood and does not require the approval of Council. A neighbourhood design
plan has been prepared for the Northglen Neighbourhood.
5.2.5 The policies of the Official Plan require an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for
development applications located with the Lake Iroquois Beach or within or abutting any
natural heritage feature on Map 'C' and any significant natural heritage feature which
may exist but which is not presently identified on Map 'C'. The majority of the Northglen
Neighbourhood is located with the Lake Iroquois Beach. Significant Woodlots and
Significant Valleylands are also identified on Map C. The purpose of an Environmental
Impact Study is to provide recommendations on the development limits for the
Neighbourhood Design Plan. An EIS has been prepared for this neighbourhood.
5.2.6 The Official Plan requires subwatershed study to be undertaken prior to approval of a
plan of subdivision. The plan also states that where a Master Drainage Study has been
approved, prior to the approval of the Official Plan, a master drainage plan can be
substituted for the requirement for subwatershed plan. A master drainage plan for
Northwest Bowmanville, was prepared by G.M Sernas & Associates in 1989, which took
into account the development potential of the majority of lands in the Northglen
Neighbourhood. However, the lands east of Middle Road and north of the proposed
draft plan of subdivision by Kemp & Carruthers are within the Soper Creek
Subwatershed. Development of these lands require a subwatershed study.
6.0 SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND STUDIES
6.1 The applicants have provided documentation to support the Official Plan Amendment
application. The studies submitted below:
6.1.2 Phase 1 - Environmental Site Assessment
Four individual Environmental Site Assessments (EAS) were prepared by Soil
Engineers Ltd and Geo-Iogic Inc. for Northglen West. The ESA's for the lands in the
northern portion concluded that based on field investigation, site reconnaissance, soil
and groundwater testing that there is very low potential for environmental liability on
these sites. No further investigation was recommended.
606
REPORT NO.: PSD-137-07
PAGE 7
Two individual ESA's were prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd. for Northglen East. The
sites are used for agricultural and residential purposes. The agricultural lands containing
apple orchards have a potential environmental concern because of the use of
insecticides. Also, two above-ground fuel tanks on the Kemp lands were sited as
concerns. Soil sampling and chemical analysis were conducted and the results
indicated that the tested parameters fall within the soil standard criteria for agricultural/
residential usage. There is very low potential for environmental liability on these sites.
No further investigation was warranted.
6.1.3 Environmentallmoact Study
Niblett Environmental Associates Inc. prepared an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for
the entire neighbourhood. The EIS was prepared in response to policies in the
Clarington Official Plan regarding development within the Lake Iroquois Beach. A
number of recommendations were made with respect to protection of the woodlands
and fisheries, including, additional buffers to the forest edge east of Middle Road,
additional planting to enhance the buffers; additional buffers from a tributary of the
Soper Creek to prevent impacts to fish and fish habitat; the creation of a new
amphibian breeding pond between two tributaries of the Soper Creek; and various
measures to maintain pre-development flows, infiltration and baseflow to this tributary in
the post development scenario.
A number of recommendations were made with respect to erosion and sediment control
during clearing, grading and construction.
6.1.4 Hvdroaeoloaical Analvsis
Hydrogeological Analysis prepared by Geo-Iogic Inc., dated May 2005 was prepared for
the lands subject to development applications in the Northglen Neighbourood. The
report examined subsurface conditions and the hydrogeology. The report states that
test pits encountered a relatively shallow groundwater table, an average 1.22 metres in
the west to 1.5 metres in the east side of the neighbourhood. A shallow non-continuous
unconfined aquifer runs in stringers across the property. Two additional aquifers are
present below the study area at depths of 35 m (115 ft) and 46 m (152 ft). One hundred
and three (103) well records on file with Ministry of Environment were examined. There
are 61 bored/dug wells and 42 drilled wells. The dug wells were an average depth of 9.8
metres (32 ft) while the average depth of the drilled wells was 38.8 metres (127.6 ft).
The report concludes based on the results of the hydrogeologic investigation, the site is
suitable for the planned development. However, there appears to be potential for
groundwater impact as a result of construction. Excavations should be restricted to
shallow levels. Excavating beiow 2 to 3 metres is not recommended. Mitigative
measures and techniques have been recommended in order to address this concern
during the construction phase and operational phase.
Due to the potential for impact during the installation of the sewer system on some
private wells in the area, the report recommends a groundwater monitoring program be
implemented before during and after the construction phase.
607
REPORT NO.: PSD-137-07
PAGE 8
Pre and post construction water budget was prepared and concluded that additional fill
in certain areas is required to raise grades. Roof leaders should be directed to rear
yards. Site grading should ensure that the majority of surface water will infiltrate into the
rear yards.
6.1.5 Archaeolooical Assessment
Archaeological Assessments were prepared by Advance Archaeology, September 2006
and November 2006. Five individual reports were submitted, one for each of the
individuals properties that are subject to development applications. Stage 1 and 2
assessments on four of the five sites were carried out and concluded that nothing of
significance was found anywhere on the sites. Stage 1, 2 & 3 assessment was carried
out on the lands owned by Baysong Developments and no significant artifacts or other
heritage resources were recovered.
6.1.6 Functional Servicino Report
Functional Servicing Report prepared by Sernas Associates, dated April 2007 was
submitted for the entire Northglen Neighbourhood. Minor system flows (5 year post
development flows from the development will discharge to one of four locations; the
Soper Creek Tributary, Northwest Bowmanville storm sewer system, Middle Road storm
sewer or the Bowmanville Creek.
Major system flows (overland flows) from the neighbourhood will be conveyed via public
road allowances and easements to one of three locations; Soper Creek Tributary; Soper
Creek Main Branch via Liberty Street, or Bowmanville Creek via the Northglen
stormwater management facility located at the corner of Concession Road 3 and
Regional Road 57.
Stormwater quality and erosion control will be provided for the development by the two
existing off-site facilities, namely the Jackman Road pond, and the Northeast
Bowmanville pond, and a proposed on-site facility located at the north-east corner of
Concession Road 3 and Regional Road 57. Quantity control will be provided by the
Northeast Bowmanville pond and the proposed Northglen pond.
The existing sanitary sewer system has the capacity to convey the flows generated by
this development and the existing Port Darlington Water Pollution Control Plan can also
accommodate the treatment of these additional flows. Connecting the proposed
watermain to the existing feedermain on Middle Road and extending the feedermains
across Concession Road 3 can adequately provide the domestic and fire flow demands
required by this development.
6.1.7 Neiohbourhood Desion Plan
Neighbourhood Design Plan prepared by Tunney Planning Inc. was submitted in
accordance with the Official Plan Policies. The Neighbourhood Design Plan will be
discussed in Section of 9 of this report.
608
REPORT NO.: PSD-137-07
PAGE 9
7.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS
7.1 A Public Meeting for the Official Plan Amendment, two Draft Plans of Subdivision and
the Rezoning was held on May 22, 2007.
A number of area residents expressed some concerns with the proposed
development. Their concerns are noted below;
. Proposed lots adjacent to Rebecca Court should be a minimum of 18m wide;
. Proposed homes on lots adjacent to Rebecca Court should be not more than
two storeys and all brick, any structure two storeys or more should be at least
500 metres away from existing properties on Rebecca Court;
. Existing fencing along the property line between proposed lots and existing
properties on Rebecca Court should replaced to prevent shortcuts to Liberty
Street;
. Development will increase traffic volumes on major roads in Bowmanville;
. Development will increase noise levels and crime rates;
. Deleting school sites means that children will have to be bussed outside of
their community to attend schools;
. Development will have an impact on wells in the area;
. Development will effect water pressure in the Rills of Liberty; and
. Balanced growth at non-residential to residential assessment ratio 25:75 is
not being achieved in the municipality, nor is 1 job for every 3 residents being
achieved.
7.2 A second Public Notice for the revised Official Plan amendment has been circulated to
landowners within the Northglen Neighbourhood and within 120 metres of the
neighbourhood boundary. Public Notices signs for each development were posted on
Concession Road 3, Regional Road 57, Middle Road, and Liberty Street North.
7.3 As of the date of writing this report, there has been only one inquiry.
One individual wanted to know what how their previous concerns are being addressed
by the developers.
8.0 AGENCY COMMENTS
8.1 The application for the Official Plan Amendment and was circulated to various agencies
and municipal departments for comment.
8.2 The Clarington Engineering Services did not offer any objection to the revised Official
Plan Amendment. The Parks Division has requested that the Neighbourhood Design
Plan specify the park land area. The exact size and location of the park in the
Neighbourhood Centre would have to be determined through site plan process.
8.3 Clarington Operations have offered no objection at this time, however the extent of
development will be monitored for future budgeting exercises.
609
REPORT NO.: PSD-137-07
PAGE 10
8.4 The Kawartha Pine Ridge School Board offered no objection to the Official Plan
amendment and the Neighbourhood Design Plan. It is anticipated that the current
proposed elementary school site will meet the projected future needs of the Board in
this area.
8.5 The Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School
Board has noted that the location of the school at Middle Road and Street 'B' will be a
busy intersection and has requested a number of conditions that will be addressed in
the Plan of Subdivision.
8.6 The Region of Durham Planning Department provides comment on the conformity with
the Region of Durham Official Plan, Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and Growth Plan
as well as on Regional infrastructure. The Region has noted that the revised Official
Plan Amendment and Neighbourhood Design Plan conforms to the PPS and the Growth
Plan.
The Type 'C' Arterial abutting the north side of the neighbourhood boundary is
acceptable. The exact alignment of the Future Type C Arterial would be determined
through the undertaking of a future Environmental Assessment (EA) Study.
Reaional Servicina
Municipal Water Supply
The subject lands are within the Zone 2 Water Distribution System in Bowmanville.
Municipal water supply can be provided from an existing feedermain on Middle Road
and the future extension of feedermains across Concession Road 3. These works are
conditional on budget approval by Regional Council. Internal watermains are to be
designed to provide maximum day flows plus fire protection.
Sanitary Sewers
The Northglen Neighbourhood with the exception of Rebecca Court can be serviced by
extending the Bowmanville Truck Sanitary sewer located on Middle Road and the sub-
truck sanitary on West Scugog Lane. The sanitary sewer servicing for lands south of
Rebecca Court are dependant on the extension of Soper Creek Truck Sewer on Mearns
Avenue which are identified in the Region's Capital Budget for the year 2011-2015.
Transportation
With respect to the neighbourhood design plan submitted by the application, the Region
advises that road widenings are required on Regional Roads 57 and 14. Appropriately
sized site triangles are also required were roads intersect with Regional Roads. The
Region requested a traffic study to rationalize the location of the future Type 'C' Arterial
road and the removal of the north-south collector road west of Middle Road. The
Region also identified concerns with two intersection intervals on Regional Road 57 and
on Concession Road 3. Although the issues regarding the future Type 'C' Arterial and
collector road locations has been resolved, a revised Traffic Study is required to
address intersection spacing. This report is required prior to approval of the NDP and
610
REPORT NO.: PSD-137-07
PAGE 11
the plans of subdivision. The Region has advised, that as of writing this report, the
revised Traffic Study had not been submitted.
9.0 STAFF COMMENTS
9.1 Baysong Developments Inc., 208412 Ontario Limited and the Kemp and Carruthers
families (Northglen Landowners) own large parcels of lands that are equal to
approximately 62 % of all lands in the Northglen Neighbourhood. They have submitted
one application to amend the Clarington Official Plan.
9.2 The revised proposed Official Plan Amendment differs from the original submission by
reducing the population for the Northglen Neighbourhood; reducing the number of
housing units and relocating the east-west Type 'C' Arterial from south of the
Bowmanville Urban Area, Map B3 and moving it north of the Urban Area boundary, Map
B1.
The reduction in population and housing targets is a result of recalculating the
developable area based on 7 units per acre or 17.3 units per hectare based on gross
net residential land area, which is consistent with other neighbourhoods in Bowmanville.
In addition, the housing targets were adjusted to meet the distribution of 70 percent low
density, 20 percent medium and 10 percent high density units.
The changes to the population and housing targets are noted below on Table 1 and
Table 2.
Table 1
Clarington Official Plan 3750
Previous Amendment 7500
Revised Amendment 6500
Table 2
Low Medium High Intensification Total
Density Density Density
Units Units Units
Clarington 975 250 50 50 1325
Official Plan
Previous 1600 725 100 50 2475
Amendment
Revised 1500 525 100 50 2175
Amendment
9.3 The Clarington Official Plan shows an east - west Type 'C' Arterial between Regional
Road 57 and Liberty Street, located at the mid point between Concession Road 3 and 4.
As part of the peer review process, the Municipality's engineering consultants, Totten
611
REPORT NO.: PSD-137-07
PAGE 12
Sims Hubicki, concluded that the Type 'C' Arterial was riot required to accommodate
vehicular traffic within the urban area boundary as proposed through the NDP. After
discussion with the Region of Durham Works and Planning Department it was agreed
that the Future Type 'C' Arterial should be moved north of the Bowmanville Urban Area
provided that north-south road connections were made to it in the Northglen West
subdivision. The actual location of the Future Type 'C' Arterial will be determined
through an Environmental Assessment (EA) at such time a need for the road is
determined. In addition, the Region advised that a Regional Official Plan Amendment
would not be required. As this road was originally identified to address traffic needs
from the Bowmanville urban area, and it is not being incorporated in the proposed NDP
or subdivision applications, the Clarington Official Plan Amendment submitted by the
applicants was revised to relocate the Type 'C' Arterial north of the urban area
boundary. The Type 'C' Arterial is also shown in the Region of Durham Official Plan.
9.4 Neiqhbourhood Desiqn Plan
9.4 1 In keeping with Official Plan policies, the proponents prepared a Neighbourhood Design
Plan (NDP) to provide a more detailed design of the entire neighbourhood. The NDP is
the basis for this Official Plan Amendment. The NDP was peer reviewed by municipal
consultants, and a community design peer review workshop facilitated by The Planning
Partnership and transportation consultants, Poulus & Chung was also held. The
workshop was attended by the landowners group, stakeholders and agencies.
The Neighbourhood Design Plan was revised after the workshop. Although a number of
changes have been made to reflect the peer reviewed plan, staff are of the opinion that
the plan requires further revisions including relocation of the park in the northwest
quadrant of the Northglen West, and changes to the lot configuration around the
proposed round-a-bout are required. In addition Regional staff have recently advised of
a concern regarding the access spacing on Regional Road 57 which may affect the
Neighbourhood Plan.
9.4.2 The Neigbourhood Plan has reconfigured the road pattern around the heritage structure
at 3187 Middle Road, (Kemp homestead) and it is now situated on a larger lot.
Incorporating the structure into the plan is desirable and is consistent with comments
from the Clarington Heritage Committee. The heritage structure at 3222 Middle Road is
still identified as a medium density block in the Neigbourhood Plan. Staff advise that the
land owner has obtained a demolition permit application and as of writing this report, the
application has not been submitted to the Building Division. Since the house is not
designated under the Ontario Heritage Act as historical structure and Council has not
initiated the designation process, it can be demolished.
9.5 Financial Impact Studv
The servicing and road infrastructure required to support development in the majority of
this neighbourhood is forecasted in the Development Charges Background report
beyond 2016. These lands together with five other development applications in similar
positions are the subject of a Financial Impact Study underway by Hemson Consulting
on behalf of the Municipality of Clarington. The results of the Financial Impact Study
612
REPORT NO.: PSD-137-07
PAGE 13
were presented to the developers in October 2007 and they were given an opportunity
to comment and provide additional information. The information is currently under
review by our consultants and staff. Staff will be reporting on this matter to Committee
in the new year. However, until that time, Staff will not prepare a recommendation
report on any of the applications subject to the Financial Impact Study.
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 The purpose of this report is to satisfy the requirements for a Public Meeting under the
Planning Act, and taking into consideration the outstanding comments, and the
outstanding recommendation of Financial Impact Study. Staff respectfully request that
this report be referred back to staff for further processing and the preparation of a
subsequent report.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Key Map
Attachment 2 - Revised Official Plan Amendment
Attachment 3 - Revised Neighbourhood Design Plan
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Reverand Gordon Belyea
Cindy Craig Murdoch
Hielka Holkema
Glenn Genge
Wendy Busuttil
Hannu Halimnen
Baysong Developments Inc
Kemp
Carruthers
Kevin Tunney
Dave and Janet Passant
Rick and Donna McCreary
Mike and Caroline Dodds
Peter and Heather Abramczuk
Gord and Rosemary Baker
Grant Martin
George and Cheryl Strilchuk
Dominick and Angela Forsellino
Kurt and Sylvia Graichen
Ardyth Korte
Rick James
613
-
:!
'>
c
I
ED
-
...
..
::i
c
o
:;:;
..
u
o
oJ
~
CD
...
E!
lL
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-137-07
~VH~ngJ
..
c
~ CD
o E
o'tl
o C
I CD
..... E
00(
o C
N III
<C-
Q.~
C.!!!
~~
c
I i
c
I :;
C3
.
~ I
.
: I
: I
I
; I
H
.
; I
31aal~ I
-it
I
I
I
Hl.~ON l.S Al.~381:1
~
avo~
LS avo~
.
.
u
c
J!lj",
C._ ~
~ .5 11
c. oJ ..
002
CD -;: ~
~.eu
CC'tl
o C
ga It) III
o CQ .
~ .00'" ~
III CD
lD~:lI::
i.:
CD
c
~
Cl)1t)
_0
00
00
. I
..........
00
00
NN
<cO
CD(/)
N"C
~~
&
I
><
It)~
_0
00
00
I I
..........
00
00
NN
<cO
CD(/)
N"C
~~
ai
It:
I
><
614
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-137-07
AMENDMENT NO.
TO THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
PURPOSE:
To permit development in accordance with the Northgeln
Neighbourhood Design Plan.
The subject is located north of Concession Road 3, east of Regional
Road 57, west of Regional Road 14, being the south half of Lots 11,
12, 13 & 14, Concession Road 3 in the former Town of Bowmanville,
now in the Municipality of Clarington.
This amendment is based on a Neighbourhood Design Plan, prepared
by Tunney Planning Inc. 2007, Environmental Impact Study prepared
by Niblett Environmental, 2005 and peer reviewed by The Planning
Partnership and as further reviewed by Municipal Staff.
LOCATION:
BASIS:
ACTUAL AMENDMENT:
The Clarington Official Plan
The Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended as follows:
1. In Section 9.4.5, Table 9-2 "Housing Targets by Neighbourhood" by
amending the target for Northgeln Neighbourhood N 10 amending
all corresponding totals as follows:
... .. Table 9-2
.. Housina TaraetS b\lNeiahbourhoods ..
Neighbourhood Housing
Units
Low Medium Hiah Intensification Total
N 10 Northalen 1500 525 100 50 2175
TOTAL 13200 4825 3100 1800 23375
2. By Amending Map A3-Land Use Bowmanville Urban Area as
shown on Exhibit "A" to this amendment. .
3. By Amending Map B1 - Transportation Clarington Rural Areas as
shown on Exhibit "BOO to this amendment.
4. By Amending Map B3 - Transportation Bowmanville Urban Area as
shown on Exhibit "COO to this amendment.
5. By Amending Map H2 - Neighbourhood Planning Units -
Bowmanville Urban Area as shown on exhibit "D" to this
amendment.
IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, amended,
regarding the implementation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this
amendment.
INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, amended,
regarding the interpretation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this
amendment.
615
Exhibit "A", Amendment No. To The Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan, Map A3, Land Use, Bowmanville Urban Area
Add "Environmental
Protection Area"
Add "Neighbourhood
Park" Symbol
.
Add "Medium Density
Residential" Symbol
I
.
Add "Medium Density
Residential" Symbol
Add "Neighbourhood
Park" Symbol
~ :
Delete "Public Secondary @
School" Symbol
Relocate "Medium Density
Residential" Symbol
:.
@
.
@
I-
W
W
616
Exhibit "B", Amendment No. To The Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan, Map B1, Transportation, Clarington Rural Area
E
UPlb
I ~ i d iii
II! i i
I: Ii
I: I'
. I i
I: I I
I I
I i
I- ()
;_ 0
i
~ i I .1
10 i! ~ ~~ ~ ~ !
.. .. ii! illS"" I
~ ~ e eli I · .
~ 11 0:; ~ i I
..Ii! "
>-il i
!
---------,--
: ------------
I I
. I
! ~---------
I F"";;! 9L CMJH ~
. -I I
I ~I
. II
I I
I
I
~
,
"
I'll
&.
ii
;:
Gl
1:
<0(
Co)
Gl
a.
~ I
"
"
<0( ~
'-~----
; ~,
I ~
~
.
,
~
~
~
617
Exhibit "C", Amendment No. To The Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan, Map B3, Transportation, Bowmanville Urban Area
o 200 400 600 800 m
200 m
Realign "Collector Road"
I
· -----r
I I
I
--- ----
I
---4-----
~l
'~I
.
:.
----of
~li
:.
s:1
z'
j5:
m'
---i
.
'.
;1
'.
.
,
,
,
LAKE ONTARIO
MAP B3
TRANSPORTATION
BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA
FREEWAy
lYPE A AR1ERIAL
_ _ _ _ TYPE B ARTERIAL
____.__..___ TYPE C ARTERIAL
OFFICIAL PLAN
MUNICIPAillY OF CLARINGTON
JANUARY 2. 2007
REFER TO SEC1l0N t 9
THIS CONSOUDATlON 15 PROVIDED FOR CONVDIENCE ONLY
AND REPRESENTS REQUESTED NOOIF1CA.T1ONS AND APPROVALS
("', GRADE SEPARATION
--'
COumTOR ROAD
_ _ _ _ _ - REGIOIW. TRANSIT SPINE
. .... . .. . INTER-REGIONAL
TRANSlTUNE
-= GO STATION
ElClSTINO
.
o
FUTURE
~ FREEWAY INTERCHANGE
Exhibit "D" , Amendment No. To The Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan, Map H2, Neighbourhood Planning Units, Bowmanville Urban Area
r=-- --
I
I
I
I
I 0 200 400 600 800 m
200 m
r-----
CONCESSION
.
12 I
DARUNGTON
GREEN
(3200) I
Change Population
From "3750" To "6500"
t
~
0:
'"
CD
~
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
~I
0:
14
WAVERLY
(4200)
BASELINE ROAD
HIGHWAY
401
s'
~I
ONTARIO MAP H2
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING UNITS
BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA
- - - URBAN BOUNDARY
NElGHBOURHOOO BOUNDARY
(1000) POPULATION
OFFICIAL PlAN
MUNICIPAUTY OF CLARINGTON
JANUARY 2. 2007
REFER TO SECTIONS 5 AND 9
I TtlS CONSOI.I:IA11OH tS PRCMDED FOR COPMNlENCE.oNLY I
AND REPRESEHTS REQUESTED MODlFICATlONS AND 1PPROVAl.S
Cl!JlmglOn
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
PUBLIC MEETING
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
Monday, December 3, 2007
Report #: PSD-138-007
File #: ZBA 2007-0045
By-law #:
Subject:
TO PERMIT AN EXISTING IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL TO BE LOCATED
WITHIN AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ZONE
APPLICANT: W. MICHAEL ARMSTRONG
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-138-07 be received;
2. THAT the rezoning application submitted by W. Michael Armstrong to permit an in-
ground swimming pool within an "Environmental Protection Zone" be APPROVED in
principle and that a Zoning By-law Amendment be forwarded to Council for APPROVAL
at such time the applicant has undertaken restoration and vegetation on-site to the
satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington and Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority;
3. THAT a copy of this Report and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham
Planning Department and a Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC); and
4. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
Reviewed by:
Submitted by:
Davi Cro , M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director, Planning Services
1/~
Franlin Wu
Chief Administrative Officer
f
CP/DJC/df
28 November 2007
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
621
REPORT NO.: PSD-138-07
PAGE 2
1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS
1.1 Applicant:
W. Michael Armstrong
1.2 Owner:
Colin and Laura Briggs
1.3 Proposal:
To recognize an illegally constructed in-ground swimming pool in
an "Environmental Protection (EP) Zone".
1.4 Area:
0.38 hectares
1.5 Location:
1994 Taunton Road East
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 In April of 2007, Colin and Laura Briggs purchased the lands at 1994 Taunton Road
East from the previous owner Les Stephenson. A condition of the purchase and sale
included the construction of the in-ground swimming pool, subject of this application.
2.2 On June 13, 2007, Clarington By-Law Enforcement sent a letter to the new owners of
the property advising them that the in-ground swimming pool that was recently
constructed is not a permitted use on this property. The owners were given sixty days
to take action on the matter, either through and application to rezone the lands or by
removing the in-ground swimming pool altogether.
2.3 As a result of several conversations with Clarington Staff and Central Lake Ontario
Conservation, on October 4, 2007, W. Michael Armstrong, on behalf of Colin and Laura
Briggs, submitted an application for rezoning to permit an in-ground swimming pool
within an Environmental Protection (EP) Zone.
3.0 LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES
3.1 The subject property is 0.38 hectares in area and has frontage onto Taunton Road just
east of Solina Road. There is currently one single detached dwelling located on the
property. The subject in-ground pool is situated to the northwest of the single detached
dwelling (see Figure 1.0 on following page).
3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows:
North - Agricultural, Rural Residential
South - Agricultural, Rural Residential, Commercial
East - Agricultural, Rural Residential
West - Agricultural, Rural Residential
622
REPORT NO.: PSD-138-07
PAGE 5
8.0 AGENCY COMMENTS
8.1 The application was circulated to a number of agencies for comment. Clarington
Emergency Services, Clarington Engineering Services, Clarington Operations
Department, and the Durham Region Health Department have reviewed the application
and have no objections to the application.
8.2 Clarington Building Division has noted that a "Pool Enclosure Permit" is required.
8.3 Central Lake Ontario Conservation has noted that the property is located within 120 m
of the boundary of a Provincial Significant Wetland (PSW) and the property is within the
regulatory flood plain of the Black Creek. Generally it is CLOC policy to direct growth
away from flood prone areas and require an Environmental Impact Study for
development within 120 metres of a PSW. However in consideration of the pre-existing
development of the property, they do not see the need for an EIS to address impacts of
the in-ground pool.
CLOC noted that during construction of the pool excavated material was placed
adjacent to the creek without permission. CLOC staff are addressing this through
Ontario Regulation 42/06. The Conservation Authority has no objections to the rezoning
application.
8.4 Durham Region Planning Department has commented that the in-ground swimming
pool is a use related to an existing residential dwelling and thus may be permitted by the
policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan.
9.0 STAFF COMMENTS
9.1 The swimming pool is in-ground and therefore it has no impact on the floodplain.
Central Lake Ontario Conservation was consulted in this regard and has confirmed that
although it is an area subject to flooding that an in-ground swimming pool will have no
impact on any potential floods in the future.
9.2 The Official Plan policies require an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be undertaken
for development within or adjacent to a natural feature identified on Map 'C'. Staff
reviewed this requirement together with staff from the Conservation Authority. It was
determined that as the property is already being used residentially and the pool will
have no impact on the flood feature, there was little benefit in preparing an (EIS).
Rather the money would be better spent on naturalizing areas of the lot that have been
cleared of vegetation in the past.
9.3 Construction of the in-ground swimming pool has caused some disruption to the natural
heritage system on the property. The land owners have already begun the process of
restoring the areas that were disturbed to the north and to the west of the existing in-
ground swimming pool. The land owners have identified with the opportunity to make
improvements to the valleylands through this application. As part of the rezoning
625
REPORT NO.: PSD-138-07
PAGE 6
application, the land owners provided receipts to the Municipality outlining
approximately $1,800.00 of landscaping purchases at their own cost and have
expressed their continued interest in re-establishing natural environment on their
property.
9.4 As the property is within proximity of a Provincially Significant Wetland and within the
flood plain of the Black Creek staff believe restoration of the property and additional
vegetation planting is appropriate. To accomplish this staff are recommending that a
restoration and vegetation planting plan be prepared to the satisfaction of the Central
Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and the Municipality of Clarington and that the
works required to implement the plan be undertaken 90 days prior to the zoning by-law
being adopted by Council.
10.0 CONCLUSION
10.1 Based on the comments in this report, it is recommended that the application to permit
an in-ground swimming pool within an Environmental Protection Zone be approved in
principle, provided that no significant issues or concerns are raised at the public
meeting, and that a by-law be forwarded to Council for adoption at such time as the
applicant has completed a vegetation planting and restoration to the satisfaction of .the
Municipality of Clarington and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority.
Attachment:
Attachment 1 - Key Map
626
1
c
i
c
'E
to
Q
..
..
~
o
!!:.
Do
to
::Iii
c
o
i
..I
t
l!
a..
WO~'9L
w
be
~~
~ .
. "I
~~
Z
t
wg"'U
3.01.L".L ~ N
e
co
co
III
w
.
o
:0-
N
~
.
N
....
Z
W~~'8~
\
M.O~.!nN
3,O~.8~N
............
-
'-....
\
\
\
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-138-07
I-
Z
W
2
It) 0
.,Z
oW
02
~c(
g~
N,
<>-
ram
NCI
z
Z
o
N
~
I
I
I
I
I
!
/
I
( 0
~
I a::
I z
0
l-
) Z
;:)
~
/\
I
I
I
WO"'8~ 3,O~.8~N
W9"'~~ r
M."~.~8N ~ I
:o-e
NO
:-~
N..a-
....
z
e
S
g
---
'1
I ~
~ ..a-
1 ?( I ~
~ \ II \ ,
(!) \..,)0 ~
\ W~(n~
..........
3,O~.8~N
/
/"
III
DI
Ql
1:
m
I!
:l
~
'tl
C
III
.E
is
CJ
t:
GI
C
~
CI!llillgton
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
PUBLIC MEETING
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
Monday, December 3, 2007
Report #:
PSDC139-07
File #: COPA 2007-0010, ZBA 2007-0031 By-law #:
and S-C-2007 -0007
Subject:
PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND PLAN OF
SUBDIVISION TO DELETE A SECONDARY SCHOOL SITE AND TO PERMIT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF 90 SINGLE DETACHED DWELLINGS AND 67 BLOCK
TOWNHOUSE DWELLINGS
APPLICANT: PRESTONVALE HEIGHTS LIMITED
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to
Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-139-07 be received;
2. THAT the applications to amend the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law; and for
proposed Plan of Subdivision, submitted by Prestonvale Heights Limited to permit the
development of 157 residential units be referred back for further processing and the preparation
of a subsequent report;
3. THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board; and
4. THAT the applicant, Region of Durham, all interested parties listed in this report and any
delegations be advised of Council's decision.
Submitted by:
ome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Planning Services
TW/CP/DJC/sh/df/av
November 27,2007
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
628
REPORT NO.: PSD-139-07
PAGE 2
1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS
1.1
Applicant:
Prestonvale Heights Limited
1.2
Proposal:
Official Plan Amendment:
To amend Schedule A-2 to delete the provIsIon for a Public
Secondary School and to add a Medium Density Residential
symbol; amend Map H1 to increase population target of
Neighbourhood 9 Penfound and amend Table 9-2 to increase the
Low and Medium Density housing targets, as well as the total for
the Penfound Neighbourhood and Courtice Urban Area and amend
Map A-Land Use of the South-West Courtice Secondary Plan by
deleting the Public Elementary School and replacing it with Low
Density Residential and Medium Density Residential.
Prooosed Draft Plan of Subdivision:
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision includes 157 residential
units consisting of 15 lots for 11 metre single detached dwellings,
64 lots for 12 metre single detached dwellings, 11 lots for 13.7
metre single detached dwellings and a block for 67 block
townhouse dwellings.
1.3
Rezoning:
To change the current zoning to permit the development of the
proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision.
1.4
Site Area:
6.657 hectares (16.449 acres)
2.0 LOCATION
2.1 The subject lands are located on the west side of Prestonvale Road, north of Bloor
Street and west of Meadowglade Road (Attachment 1).
3.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
3.1 The subject site is currently vacant. There is a large mound of topsoil and rubble
which was transported to the site during the development of adjacent lands within
registered plan of subdivision 40M-2148.
3.2 The surrounding area:
North -
South -
East -
West -
Dr. G.J. MacGillivray Public School
Residential and a vacant commercial mixed use block
Agricultural and large lot single detached dwellings
Residential
629
REPORT NO.: PSD-139-07
PAGE 3
FIGURE 1: View of Subject Site from the West
4.0 BACKGROUND
4.1 On May 29, 2007 Staff received applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-
law along with an application requesting approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision. A
Noise Impact Study and a Functional Servicing Brief were submitted in support of the
applications. In order to deem these applications complete, a Phase 1 Environmental
Site Assessment was requested. This document was submitted on October 9, 2007
and the application was deemed complete on October 17, 2007.
The subject property was draft approved and subsequently registered as a school block
for a Public Secondary School in May 2003. The School Board's option on the property
since expired. The applicant has advised that School Board staff had verbally advised
that they were not going to pursue a school on this block. Formal comments have yet to
be received from the School Board on this application
630
REPORT NO.: PSD-139-07
PAGE 4
5.0 PROVINCIAL POLICY
5.1 Provincial Policv Statement
The applications are consistent with the Housing policies of the 2005 Provincial Policy
Statement (PPS). Planning authorities are required to provide for a range of housing
types and densities with a ten year supply of lands which are designated, and a three
year supply of zoned and serviced lands within draft approved and registered plans.
New housing is to be directed to locations where infrastructure and public services are
available.
5.2 Provincial Growth Plan
The Provincial Growth Plan directs growth to built-up areas where the capacity exists to
best accommodate the expected population. The guiding principles include building
compact, vibrant and complete communities while optimizing the use of existing and
new infrastructure to support growth in a compact efficient form.
Greenfield areas are required to achieve a minimum density target not less than 50
residents and jobs combined per hectare. This proposal has a population projection of
444 residents or 66.72 persons per hectare. The applicant's proposal is consistent with
the Provincial Growth Plan.
6.0 OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES
6.1 Durham Reaion Official Plan
The lands are designated as Living Area within the Durham Regional Official Plan.
Lands designated as Living Area permit the development of communities with defined
boundaries, incorporating the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure.
The proposed uses appear to conform to the Plan.
6.2 C/arinaton Official Plan
The subject lands are within the South-West Courtice Secondary Plan and are
designated as Urban Residential with a Public Secondary School symbol. The lands
are within the Penfound Neighbourhood, which has a population target of 3500 people
and a housing target of 1225 units. The applicant is requesting to amend the land use
schedule to add a medium density symbol and to delete the public secondary school
provision.
An increase in the number of low density units from 1075 to 1165 and medium density
units from 75 to 142 has also been requested. This will increase the total housing units
in the Penfound Neighbourhood from 1225 to 1382; and the population projection for
the Courtice Urban Area from 3500 to 3940.
631
REPORT NO.: PSD-139-07
PAGE 5
The goals of the South West Courtice Secondary Plan are to provide a residential living
environment that promotes a desirable quality of life and social interaction; and to
provide a broad range of housing to meet evolving needs of current and future
residents.
The Clarington Official Plan designates Bloor Street as a Type 'A' arterial road, which is
designed to move large volumes of traffic at moderate speeds over a relatively long
distance. Meadowglade Road is a Type 'C' arterial which moves lower volumes of traffic
at slower speeds over a shorter distance. Prestonvale Road is a collector road with a
purpose of moving moderate volumes of traffic over a short distance primarily to collect
traffic and distribute it among local roads, collector roads, arterial roads and major traffic
generators. Streets "A" and "B" are to be constructed as local roads. Street 'A' will
connect to Meadowglade and Prestonvale Roads.
7.0 ZONING BY-LAW
7.1 Within Comprehensive Zoning By-law 84-63 as amended the lands are zoned "Holding-
Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-42)" Said zoning is specific to a school use hence
the need for the rezoning.
8.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS
8.1 Public Notice was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject site.
Public Meeting signs were installed on the property along the Meadowglade Road,
Prestonvale Road and Bloor Street frontages.
No inquiries have been received as of the writing of this report.
9.0 AGENCY COMMENTS
9.1 Comments have been received from a number of circulated departments and agencies.
9.2 Clarington Emergency and Fire Services, Clarington Building Division and Hydro One
offered no concerns or objections to the proposal. Bell Canada and Enbridge Gas
Distribution Inc. offered no objections to the proposal and asked that standard
conditions be included in the conditions of draft approval.
9.3 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority indicated that the property is located
within the Robinson Creek watershed; therefore stormwater management for the site
would need to conform to the approved Robinson Creek Master Drainage Plan (MDP)
and addendums.
The Robinson Creek MDP indicates that the subject property will take overland
drainage from the school property to the north, through an identified easement. The
Storm Drainage Area Plan (drawing G-302B) shows the subject property to be a public
632
REPORT NO.: PSD-139-07
PAGE 6
school block. Given the proposed change in land use, the applicant is required to
provide confirmation that the site can accommodate the flows form the property to the
north.
Authority staff has reviewed the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment completed by
Golder & Associates and advise that they are satisfied with the findings of the report.
The property is not within an area that is subject to Ontario Regulation 42/06,
Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and
Watercourses Regulation. As such, a permit from CLOC is not required for any
construction activity located on the property.
9.4 The Region of Durham Planning Department offered no objections subject to the
following comments. The subject property is located within the "Living Area"
designation in the Durham Regional Official Plan. The predominant use of land within
the Living Area designation is for residential purposes. The draft plan of subdivision
proposes 90 single detached dwellings and 67 townhouse units within a block of land
considered for medium density residential. This plan, which also includes roadways,
access lanes and parking, and common areas, would conform to the Regional Official
Plan.
The subject lands are adjacent to Regional Road 22 (Bloor Street), which is identified as
a Type "A" Arterial in the Durham Regional Official Plan. The lands also abut
Meadowglade Road, a Type "C" Arterial Road. A Noise Impact Study was submitted by
Sernas Associates in relation to this proposed development. Appropriate noise barriers
and warning clauses are recommended for this development.
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Golder Associates for the
subject property. The assessment indicated that there are no potential sources of
environmental contamination in association with the site. No additional work is
recommended for the subject property.
Any possible issues concerning stormwater management are to be addressed to the
satisfaction of the Conservation Authority.
There are no other provincial interests or delegated review responsibilities applicable to
this application.
The subject property is located within the Zone 2 Water Pressure District of the water
supply system for Courtice. Municipal water supply and sanitary sewers can be
provided to the proposed development. Water supply is available from the existing 200
mm watermain on Prestonvale Road and the existing 300 mm watermain on
Meadowglade Road. Only one domestic and one fire line will be permitted for proposed
Block 91, with preference for servicing from Meadowglade Road.
Sanitary sewer servicing is available from the existing 200 mm sanitary sewer on Bloor
Street, extending 50 metres east of Meadowglade Road. Proposed Lots 22 to 31 on
Prestonvale Road should be placed on hold until the existing sanitary sewer has an
633
REPORT NO.: PSD-139-07
PAGE 7
outfall to service these lots. Only one sanitary sewer will be permitted to service
proposed Block 91. This Block has been pre-serviced with a 200 mm sanitary service
on Bloor Street. If this service is not utilized, it will be required to be abandoned at the
mainline at the applicant's expense.
Transit service is currently provided along Prestonvale Road and Bloor Street. A transit
stop currently exists at the north-west corner of this intersection. A transit stop also
exists on Meadowglade Road. Durham Region Transit requests bus stops with hard
surfaces and transit shelters at these locations.
9.5 The Clarington Operations Division requested that the purpose of all easements
between lots be indicated and noted that if the easements are to be maintained by the
Municipality a minimum width of 9 metres is required.
9.6 The Clarington Engineering Services Division offered no objection to the proposal
subject to the inclusion of standard conditions through the approval of the proposal.
The requested conditions included the provisions for a 3.0 metre road widening and
associated reserves on Prestonvale Road; a sight triangle at the intersection of
Prestonvale Road and Street A; On-Street Parking plan showing all proposed driveway
locations; a Preliminary Master Grading Plan; and cash contribution in lieu of the normal
parkland dedication.
10.0 STAFF COMMENTS
10.1 The Clarington Official Plan was prepared to provide for two Public Secondary Schools
to serve Courtice and surrounding rural areas anticipating a future population in
Courtice of 45,000. Given that the existing Courtice Secondary School was in the north-
east quadrant of Courtice, a site for a second school was selected in the south-west
quadrant to provide for geographic separation. Since the School Board is not
proceeding with acquiring the lands due to funding constraints, there is no other site
identified for a future secondary school in Courtice. While there may be other
opportunities a future change to the Official Plan will be required to provide for a
Secondary School.
10.2 Even though Prestonvale Road is only designated as a Collector Road (north of Bloor),
given its direct connection to Highway 2, it functions closer to a minor arterial. Access
to individual lots near the intersection of Bloor Street is not desirable and needs to be
investigated further.
10.3 There are a number of other design issues with the proposed plan that will require
further review. Staff will review these issues further with the applicant and agent.
10.4 Although the layout of the medium density block (Block 91) would be finalized through
the review of a Site Plan application staff has some concerns with the proposed
Concept Plan. The common area is currently divided into three separate areas. Staff
would like to see the common areas consolidated into one larger space. There is some
merit in retaining a smaller common area at the north-east corner of Boor Street and
634
REPORT NO.: PSD-139-07
PAGE 8
Meadowglade Road to provide a walkway connection/entrance feature at the
intersection for access to Bloor Street. This common area should also include a
landscape feature which would be reflective of the Neighbourhood Centre located on
the south side of Bloor Street. It may be preferable to have access to the medium
density block directly off Meadowglade Road rather than an internal lane off Street 'A'.
11.0 CONCLUSIONS
11.1 The purpose of this report is to satisfy the Public Meeting requirements under the
Planning Act and taking into consideration the outstanding comments, staff respectfully
request that this report be referred back to staff for further processing and the
preparation of a subsequent report.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Location Map
Attachment 2 - Air Photo with Key Features of the Area
Attachment 3 - Clarington Official Plan Amendment
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Janice Robinson
Nick Mensink
Doug Wilson, Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board
635
~ I ~ g !
raF11
.Ll..L1..J
~- (~1iI '''." 'T, ... '" ..., ", ", ",
~. · ~ . Ii. lil ~ Ii! I: Ii! Ii! ~ ::! ~
'''';D~ ::l~, . _, _, "'J
. , , ;t'" '7<, -I
".. . "" 1 ,
"l'. .. ~ " ,,~, '11~mif1L.~O " '1/1jrllj
~. .' ll'~ -'v'--JU~UI[,u ,J,;;
.,'Il'~ ,'(fJ ~~Q:
.,' 10 ~'..' _, 0
" 'm ll,~ ',' I , I · 41f'J, 'I 0
D U ~~ ~
;@h %'" ~_ ~ .' Q)
u ~d ;W
..<~.
.~.~
..1
~
~
E
i~8
~ ~~
o a ::j
~ ~I~.
!I ;~lli
iii t::l:=!~
g \
...J
~ ~ \)
1~ ~
lL~
~
.c
~\
~
bIT
1=
8t>lOCJ1e
"~sal:l'UJf:.~
- .'""1
N ..
~
$"<t II: ;
~ ~
D "
- -
~ ;
!!!
!!
". ;!: .
.
:l .
.
.....
w
~:i UJ
0::
.....
en
;:: !:i
2
m .
nt "!
.. .
... N
.
~~~-Y-, "
.o-''1:l:t-
~,
o
.
~
Ob--
o~
-i>> '.
Ob--') ....~~
0""'0 .....~~~
Ob--
-i>>",
--e:-
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-139-07
1: '1:11
.. GI .s
Ii E E
l- E '1:11 :::i
c
Z '0 ~ .s
w c .c
:E GI ....ce Q
Q o E Gi
...z co( o c
MW 00 ::a::
o c 0- GI
0:E . III I.!! !:
Cjlo( ....- .... >
00. e -
g~ 0- 0'1:11 C
N.!! N.g 0
0 1;;
N, ~E 00 I!
~~ 00 (1)0 0.
C t:
NO o :5 III GI
Z Q ii: ~
Z c 4::
2 "C l!!
III
U Q
"
i
.
O\fo~
31\fI\NO.LS3~d
'(8~1a
'NlNja", a"". '"7
;e:~le
.L.:a8a~ lU['.O
.. Il
'"
COlt
; ~
;; R ~
3
III l:; III III
3
'"
~ ;'~
;:t;
. III
~
.. III
.
:"
~ . 3
~ 3
::; III III ljl " ~ t1 ~ ~ il' !;
'" '" '" ", .
." ",
.S. .L33~.LS
.....
W
W
0::
.....
CI)
3
ill ." .., 0" i'
.. 1"
;t :l N Ii Ii! ~ il'
f"lt .. '"
; II :i ~ ; R ~
; lO . :
. II . ; ~ D
.. iii D "
" ::l .. II II
". D D '"
t m .., 0" ~ ;
.. . 0" D
./
.S. .L33~.LS
''iI
fJ~
"'Ii
~3
,.,
..
,
-
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-139-07
o
....
o
o
I
.....
o
o
N
<(
Il.
o
o
~
.....
o
o
o
.
.....
o
o
N
o
U)
~
....
M
o
CjI
.....
o
o
N
<(
m
N
PURPOSE:
LOCATION:
BASIS:
ACTUAL
AMENDMENT:
Attachment 3
To Report PSD-139-07
AMENDMENT NO.
TO THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
The purpose of this amendment to the Clarington Official Plan and the South-
West Courtice Secondary Plan is to delete a public secondary school symbol
and add a Medium Density Residential symbol in the Penfound
neighbourhood, and adjust the neighbourhood housing targets accordingly.
The subject site is located on the northwest corner of Prestonvale Road and
Bloor Street, within Part of Lot 34, Concession 2, in the former Township of
Darlington.
This amendment is based on Council's consideration of an Official Plan
Amendment Application (COPA 2007-0010) submitted by Sernas Associates,
on behalf of Prestonvale Heights Limited.
A)
The Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended as follows:
i) By amending Map "A2", as indicated on Exhibit 'A'
attached to this amendment.
ii) By amending Map "H1", as indicated on Exhibit 'B'
attached to this amendment.
Iii) By amending Table 9-2 by:
a. Adjusting the housing targets for the Penfound
neighbourhood (N9) as follows:
Low Denisty units from "1075" to "1165"
Medium Density units from "75" to "142"
Total housing units from "1225" to "1382"
b. Adjusting the housing total for the Courtice
area as follows:
Total Low Density units from "8775" to "8865"
Total Medium Density units from "1735" to
"1802"
Total housing units from "12918" to "13075"
638
Courtice
N9 Penfound
TOTAL
1,165
8,865
142
1,802
375
375
75
2,033
1,382
13,075
B) The South-West Courtice Secondary Plan is amended as
follows:
i) By amending Map 'A' Land Use, South-West Courtice
Secondary Plan, as indicated on Exhibit 'c' attached
to this amendment.
ii) By deleting Section 4.3 of the South-West Courtice
Secondary Plan.
IMPLEMENTATION:
The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official
Plan and South-West Courtice Secondary Plan, as amended
regarding the implementation of the Plans, shall apply to this
amendment.
INTERPRETATION:
The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official
Plan and South-West Courtice Secondary Plan, as amended
regarding the interpretation of the plans, shall apply to this
amendment.
639
EXHIBIT ".6.:' TO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT No.
1_<
,J I!' : -=--.,
f ~ ,: :'
( r: li",~!
...BSPEM. .: snJI:W :.
I STUIIY. AAQl ~ ~
"".~: I
/ ,.---::
/'" /' : '.
0-
., \J /
I.___;r'
~'~
j
'" '" /~"),-':
1/(-"-")'
I ,:, ,J 'I ~("
I ~-' ; I "
,L/ I,
r
I
\.
r
,
,
,
'.
t
,'l-; ~
<J
MAP A2
LAND USE
COURT ICE URBAN AREA
LAKE ON,;;,(RIO
I~OErERRrOBY
~THER(GIONOF'OUIlHMl
OFFICIAl Pl..AN
MUNICIPALITY OF ClAAINGTON
DOCrMBt.R4.lOOO
- - - URBMf BOUN[MJ'lY
CJ~':~ERESIOENTlAL
L~JURBANRESIOEtlrlA.l
[-,~iA)'1 IolEDlUIol DENSITY
'-" RESIDENTIAl
rr;;YJ HIGH OENSIT'!
~_ RESIDENTIAL
.. WJN CENTR.ll AREA
l1li SUB-CENTRAL ARf)l.
.. LOCAl CENTRAt ARE/l.
. ~~~OOO
.. HIGHWAY COMl.4ERCIAl
_PRESTIGE
EMPlOYMENT AREA
_UGHT
liliiii INOUSTR",,- AREA
_GE"""
INDUSTRiAl AREA
~ UTILITY
~_j' [NYlRONlooI[NTAl
_0""",,;,- PROTECTION AREA
"GREl::NSPACE
.. WATERFRONT GREENWAY
.. COMWUNlfY PARK
.
.
~
~
oIi
a
OISTRICTPARK
NElGH80URHOOO PARK
PUBUC
SECONOARY SCHOOL
S(PARATE
SECOWDARY SCHOOL
""'-<
!:Lf).l(HTAR'f SCHOOL
~~,..."t',!<:
aElArHTARY SCHOOL
SECON(),O.Ry
--PlANNlNGAREA
------- SPECIAl f>Ol..ICY.4R(A
__SP€CIALSTlJOYAREA
t= GO STATION
:roo _ _ 800",
~-
640
--,
I
\
,
EXHIBIT 'B'
If~
I
I
~~
---=;\
,
\~
,
6 \g
1~
NASH ROAD
,
~I
''I
Q
9 ~
P~;;i
(3940) 5
i
1
'"'"'
CENTRE
('00
7
AWNllALE
(3600)
'!i{
o
"
_ _ - URBAN BOUNDARY
NElGHBOUIltiOOD BDUHIlARY
(1 000) POPUlATION
(.) SEE SECTION 1'.6
!i{
o
"
MAP H1
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING UNITS
COURTICE URBAN AREA
OmCIAL PLAN
MUNICIPAUlY OF CLARINGTON
JANUARY 2, 2007
REFER TO SECTIONS 5 AND 9
TtIS coNSOl..O'iOON IS PfiOYlDEIJ FOR cQtI\IENflICE OM..Y
AND REPRESENTS REOUESTED IolODlF'lCATIOHS AND APPAO't'H.S
u>
~
~
"
'"
~
I
/g
I~
BLOOR STREET U
'"
z
"
z,
~I
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
't
D 200 400 lOCI 800 In
'00 m
------
'e
~
BASELINE ROAD
Ii
___..-..,:0::
HIGHWAY .0'
~~
1
I
,
I
,
tAKE ONTARIO
641
M1
8LOOR ST.,
,
@
()
Q:
GRANDIII~w
DRIVE:
~
~
.
TO:
.
'"
~D
o
....
.
.
SOUTHGA~
l5RiVfl~
l~
....
""
~
:;"
o
I
8ASELINE ROAD
EXHIBIT 'e'
FROM: PUBLIC
SECONDARY SCHOOL
TO:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DELETE PUBLIC SECONDARY
SCHOOL SYMBOL
- - - PlANNING AREA BOUNDARY
~ rulUftE ~BAN RESIDENTIAL
C:=J LOW DENSIlY RESIDENTIAL
I , ":~tl WEOIUW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
lillIITI] HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
1:::@l:::1 NEIGHBOURHDOO PARK
1:::0:::1 PARI<Em
r....~..~~._~ i EN\1RONWENTAL
.t....~.\..:r. PROTECTION AREA
~ STOAN WAlER FACILITY
~I'\JBLJC
~ SE~DAAY SCHOCt.
~1'\J8UC
~ ElEMENTARY SQiOOL
~ SEPARA1E
~ ElEMENTARY SCHOOL
_ NOGHBOURHOOO CENlRE
~"".~ UnUTlES
@ HERITACE HOUSE
ARTERiAl ROADS TYPE A
ARTERIAL ROADS 1'Il'E B
- - - ARTERIAL ROADS -rn'E: C
uun_.. co.u:ClOR ROADS
... LOCAL ""AD ACCESS
,~-,
l ) INTERSEcnON IMPROVEMENT
'-'
_ PEDESTRI~ AND
SlCYa.E ROUlES
MAPA
LAND USE
SOUTH-WEST COURTICE
SECONDARY PLAN
JANUAAY 2. 2007
I TI15 CONSOUDA'OON IS PftOW)fD FOR COM'EHIENCE ONLY I
NtD REPRESEN'IS REQl.ESTID WODlFJCA,TlONS ~D N'PROV..ui
642
CI~mgron
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
Monday, December 3, 2007
Report #: PSD-140-07
File #: ZBA 2007-0048
By-law #:
Subject:
APPLICATION FOR REMOVAL OF HOLDING SYMBOL
APPLICANT: BOWMANVILLE ARMS RESIDENTS LIMITED
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-140-07 be received;
2. THAT the application submitted by Bowmanville Arms Residents Limited, to remove the
"Holding (H)" symbol, be APPROVED and that the attached By-law to remove the
"Holding (H)" symbol, be PASSED and a copy forwarded to the Regional Municipality of
Durham; and
3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
Submitted by:
Da id . Crome, M.C.I.P., RP.P.
Director of Planning Services
Reviewed by:
o~~
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
BR*CP*DJC*sn*df
November 26, 2007
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
643
REPORT NO.: PSD-140-07
PAGE 2
1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS
1.1
1.2
1.3
Applicant:
Owner:
Rezoning:
Bowmanville Arms Residents Limited
Bowmanville Arms Residents Limited
Removal of "Holding (H)" symbol from "Holding - Urban Residential
Exception ((H) R4-23)
1.4
Location:
The area subject to the proposal is located at 61 Clarington
Boulevard, Bowmanville, in Part Lots 15 & 16, Concession 1,
former Township of Darlington
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 On November 5, 2007, Bowmanville Arms Residents Limited submitted an application
for the removal of the "Holding (H)" symbol from 61 Clarington Boulevard,
Bowmanville. Conditional Site Plan approval for the subject lands permitting
development of a 72 Unit Apartment Building was issued on May 12, 2007. Removal
of the "Holding (H)" symbol was inadvertently omitted but is being done now prior to
issuance of Site Plan Amendment and building permits for the two proposed 6-Car
Detached Garages.
3.0 COMMENTS
3.1 The "Holding (H)" symbol affects all of 61 Clarington Boulevard, Bowmanville, which is
the entire site of the Apartment Building, lawns, driveways and parking areas including
the two 6-Car Garages. The application has been reviewed in accordance with
Sections 23.4.2 and 23.4.3 of the Clarington Official Plan. Staff is satisfied that the
following matters have been addressed and approved to the satisfaction of the
Municipality including but not limited to:
. Services and municipal works;
. Submission of technical studies; and
. Execution of the appropriate agreements.
The Site Plan Development Agreement was executed October 27,2006. Execution of
a Site Plan Amending Agreement for the two above detached garages is anticipated in
the near future.
3.2 Clarington Finance advises that all taxes have been paid for the subject lands.
644
REPORT NO.: PSD-140-07
PAGE 3
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 In consideration of the comments noted above, approval of the removal of the
"Holding (H)" symbol as shown on the attached by-law and schedule (Attachment 2) is
recommended.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Site Location Key Map and Property Plan
Attachment 2 - Zoning By-law Amendment
List of Interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Kelvin Whalen
645
~
~
">
c:
..
E
!
-
...
..
:E
c:
o
:;
~ "
.
~ ~
8. 0
e
a.
. ~
mi
"
i
.
1
.
~
To R AUacnment 1
_ eport PSD-140-07
~ .~
o:E
o 0
':l:
.......
o 0
o
Niii
< >
1XI 0
N E
/}.
~
.I!l
c
CD
'tI
~
E
.:(
!
">
C
III
J
;.:
CD
C
~
646
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-140-07
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW NO. 2007-
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for
the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington' .
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems n
advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporatign of the former Town
of Newcastle to implement application ZBA 2007-0048;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington enacts as foliows:
1. Schedule "3" to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zone designation from:
"Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H) R4-23) Zone" to "Urban Residential
Exception (R4-23) Zone";
As illustrated on the attached Schedule "A" hereto.
2. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to
the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act.
BY-LAW read a first time this
day of
2007
BY-LAW read a second time this
day of
2007
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this
day of
2007
Jim Abernethy, Mayor
Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk
647
This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2007- ,
passed this day of , 2007 A.D.
J
~ Zoning Change From .(H)R4-23" To "R4-23"
Jim Abernethy, Mayor
Patti L Barrie. Municipal Clerk
~
I~j
'i:' ~
"""""'
.......y 2
I I
, I
, ,
I,
I' ~
' I
, I
~ : I ~
:i! ___________.J L_________ u
[)lJRHIIloI HIIJtWlA.Y 2.
~
~ ----------------------
~
,
\
---------...
~
i
Bowmsnville
648
CJ!J!illglOn
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
Monday, December 3, 2007
Report #:
PSD-141-07
File #: PLN 33.3.10
By-law #:
Subject:
DURHAM/YORK RESIDUAL WASTE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY .
SITE SELECTION PROCESS
MUNICIPAL COMMENTS ON STEP 7 - EVALUATION OF SHORT-LIST OF SITES
AND IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED SITE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to
Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-141-07 be received;
2. THAT this Report and Attachments 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 be adopted as the Municipality of
Clarington's comments on Step 7 - Durham/York Residual Waste Environmental
Assessment Study - Site Selection Process;
3. THAT the Regions of Durham and York be requested to respond to and address, early
in 2008, the issues identified by the peer review consultants that are necessary for the
submission of the EA documentation to the Ministry of the Environment;
4. THAT the Regions of Durham and York commit to including in the Request for
Proposals and Certificate of Approval, Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) for the emission standards and monitoring that the EFW facility will meet;
5. THAT the Regions of Durham and York be requested to delay the final selection of a
preferred site for the Energy from Waste facility until such time as the submissions in
response to the Request for Proposals have been reviewed, a preferred technology and
vendor has been selected, and the sensitivity analysis in relationship to the site
selection and the specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment has been
carried out;
649
6. AND FURTHER THAT the final site selection be delayed until the business case for the
Energy from Waste facility clearly indicating the cost to the taxpayers of the Regions of
Durham and York has been adopted by the Regional Councils;
REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07
PAGE 2
7. THAT a copy of Report PSD-141-07 and Council's decision be forwarded to the
Durham-York Joint Waste Management Group, the Region of York, the Region of
Durham, the Ministry of Environment, and the other area municipalities in Durham
Region; and
8. THAT all delegations and interested parties be notified of Council's decision.
Submitted by:
Da CI J rome, .C.I.P, R.P.P.
Director of Planning Services
RevieWedbY~~
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
JAS/FUDJC/sn
27 November 2007
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623>f
REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07
PAGE 3
1~0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 On September 21, 2007, the Regions of Durham and York issued the reports
prepared by their Consultants related to Step 7 of the facility siting process for the
Durham/York Residual Waste Environmental Assessment (EA). Step 7 involves the
evaluation of the Short-List of sites and the identification of a preferred site for the
Durham/York energy-from-waste (EFW) facility.
1.2 As a result of their evaluation of the Short-Listed sites, the Regions' Project Team
Consultants have identified Clarington Site 01 as the Recommended Preferred Site
for the EFW facility. The reports relating to the Step 7 evaluation have been issued
for public and agency comments, with December 10, 2007 being the deadline for
submitting comments on Step 7 of the site selection process.
1.3. The purpose of this report is to provide the Municipality of Clarington's comments
on Step 7 of the facility siting selection process. This report incorporates comments
prepared by both staff and the Municipality's peer review consultants. The report
discusses and focuses on the over-arching issues related to the EA process, the
evaluation of the Short List of Sites and the selection of a Recommended Preferred
Site. More detailed comments regarding these and other issues are provided in the
reports prepared by the Municipality's peer review consultants, attached to this
report as Attachments 5 through 9.
1.4. Clarington's Peer Review Team and Staff met with the Regions' Project Team on
October 10, 2007 to review questions and seek clarification on items; the responses
provided by the Regions' Project Team Consultants are indicated in Attachment 10.
However, for 62 of the 127 issues raised by Clarington, the Regions' Project Team
Consultants responded that the issue would be addressed at a later date and/or
prior to the submission of the EA documentation in late 2008.
2.0 OVERVIEW OF STEP 7 (SITE EVALUATION PROCESS)
2.1 Steps 1 through 5 of the site selection process resulted in the identification of the
following four Short-Listed sites (see Attachment 2), which were then evaluated in
Step 7:
Clarington 01 A 12.4 ha parcel owned by the Region of Durham located
on the west side of Osbourne Road immediately north of the
CN rail line in the Clarington Energy Business Park
Clarington 04 A 14.8 ha privately owned parcel located immediately south
of Highway 401 east of the South Service Road
Clarington 05 A 27.2 ha privately owned parcel located immediately south-
east of the Highway 401 /Courtice Road interchange
East Gwillimbury 01 An 11.5 ha site owned by York Region in the Town of East
Gwillimbury, immediately adjacent to York Region's Waste
Management Centre.
651
REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07
PAGE 4
2.2 The Short-Listed sites were evaluated by the Regions' Project Team Consultants on
the basis of criteria grouped into five categories - Public Health & Safety and
Natural Environment, Social and Cultural, Economic/Financial, Technical Suitability,
and Legal. Each category was assigned a priority on the basis of public consultation
undertaken in Step 1 of the facility siting process. The first and last categories were
assigned high and low priorities respectively, while the other three were assigned a
medium priority. Attachment 3 provides more detail on the evaluation criteria.
2.3 Using these criteria, the Regions' Project Team Consultants undertook a
comparative evaluation of the four Short-Listed sites. Potential effects to the
environment and reasonable measures to mitigate these effects were identified,
resulting in the identification of the net effects for each of the sites. Under each
criterion, the net effects for each site were compared and ranked as follows: Major
Advantage, Advantage, Neutral, Disadvantage, and Major Disadvantage. The
Regions' Project Team Consultants evaluation was primarily qualitative, relying on
their professional judgement and using previously established community priorities
as noted in 2.2 above. How the evaluation was carried out and the professional
judgment applied is not clear.
2.4 The following table summarizes the evaluation of the Short-Listed sites undertaken
by the Regions' Project Team Consultants. According to this evaluation, Clarington
Site 01 was the only site that was ranked as having an advantage in all high and
medium priority categories, and the only site ranked as having an overall
advantage. No site was ranked as having a major advantage in any category.
Environmental Clarington 01 Clarington 04 Clarington 05 E. Gwillimbury 01
Cateaorv
PRIORITY: HIGH
Public Health & Major
Safety & Natural Advantage Neutral Disadvantage Disadvantage
Environment
PRIORITY: MEDIUM
Social & Cultural Advantage Disadvantage Disadvantage Neutral
Economic/Financial Advantage Disadvantage Neutral Neutrai
Technical Advantage Neutral Advantage Advantage
PRIORITY: LOW
Leaai Neutral Disadvantage Disadvantage Neutral
OVERALL ADVANTAGE DISADV ANT AGE DISADV ANT AGE NEUTRAL
Attachment 4 provides a more detailed breakdown of the evaluation undertaken by the
Regions' Project Team Consultants.
2.5 The Regions' Project Team Consultants have a number of separate reports
attached as Annexes to the main report of the site selection process. These reports,
as noted below, provide the detailed information and rationale of how the evaluation
criteria were applied and how the indicators were used in the evaluation process:
652
REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07
Annex A
Annex B
Annex C
Annex D
Annex E
Annex F
Annex G
Annex H
Annex I
PAGE 5
Potential Air Quality Impacts
Potential Water Quality Impacts (Surface Water and Groundwater)
Potential Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Species Impacts and
Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology Impacts
Compatibility with Existing and Proposed Land Uses
Report on Archaeological and Cultural Resources
Potential Traffic Impacts
Capital Costs and Operation and Maintenance Costs
Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure and Design/Operational
Flexibility
Complexity of Required Approvals and Agreements
3.0 CLARINGTON'S PEER REVIEW OF STEP 7 DOCUMENTS
3.1 Clarington's Peer Review Consultants and Staff have prepared brief reports
highlighting the substantive issues that have not been adequately addressed to date
(Attachments 5 through 9). The focus of this staff report will be the over-arching
issues related to the site selection process and those that have previously been
identified by Clarington Council through its endorsement of the recommendations
contained in PSD-070-07 (Attachment 11) and PSD-097-07 (Attachment 12) as
items critical to any decision to be a host community to the EFW facility.
3.2 General Concerns in Site Evaluation Process
3.2.1 A review of the evaluation process used to identify the recommended site has
identified a number of deficiencies with the evaluation process. In particular, the
evaluation process is not clearly described, and parts of the process do not appear
to be consistent with either the Environmental Assessment Act or the approved EA
Terms of Reference. It is the opinion of Staff and the peer review consultants that
the site evaluation process has been inconsistent, as discussed below.
653
Determination of Advantages and Disadvantages
3.2.2 The Environmental Assessment Act requires an EA to describe the advantages and
disadvantages to the environment associated with each alternative method (Le.
site). However, the EA study determined the advantages and disadvantages of
each site in comparison to the other sites. For example, under some criteria a
negative impact on the environment is seen as an "advantage" because the impact
is not considered to be as great as for the other sites. This approach creates
difficulties in undertaking a consistent comparison and assumes that all of the
REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07
PAGE 6
Short-Listed sites are suitable for the EFW facility. The peer review consultants note
that this assumption has not been justified by the EA study work done to date.
3.2.3 The definitions used for the terms "advantage", "disadvantage", and "neutral" in the
main study report are not the same as those used in the technical background
documents. For example, the main study report uses the following definition of
Major Advantage: "Development of the site would have minimal impact based on
the criteria/indicator being applied and in most cases a net benefit would result from
facility development." However, in the Annexes (supporting technical documents), a
major advantage was identified for any site "with the significant ability to meet the
evaluation criteria when compared with the other sites." This lack of consistency in
the definitions of the indicators used to evaluate and rank the Short-List of sites
remain a concern.
Assessment of Net Effects
3.2.4 The EA Terms of Reference states that each potential effect will be considered with
respect to the availability of measures to mitigate a negative effect or to enhance a
positive effect, resulting in a "net effect". It is these net effects that are to be
considered when evaluating and ranking the sites on the short list. However, it
would appear that the Regions' Project Team Consultants ranked an alternative that
does not require mitigation as being preferable to an alternative that does require
some mitigation, even though the net effects would be the same. This is illustrated
by the following example given in the main study report to describe a Major
Advantage - "A site that would not require the development of additional
infrastructure would be considered a major advantage when compared to a site that
does require additional infrastructure development." A proper analysis would
consider alternatives that have the same net effect as being equal. Any effect would
be more appropriately considered in the relevant criteria group - for example, the
costs associated with the various mitigative measures should be considered under
the Economic/Financial criteria.
3.2.5 In addition, the Regions' Project Team Consultants did not adequately consider the
application of mitigative measures when determining the net effect of an alternative.
For example, in the assessment of impacts to surface water quality, Clarington Site
01 was considered to have an advantage over the other Short-List Sites because it
is located 600 m from the receiving water course, while Clarington Site 05 was rated
as neutral because it is located 250 m from the watercourse. In fact, the net effect
for both sites should have been rated the same since surface water runoff from both
sites would be collected in a stormwater pond prior to being discharged to the
stream.
Transparency and Traceability of the Evaluation Process
3.2.6 The evaluation process undertaken as part of EA process must be transparent and
traceable, and readily replicated by others reviewing the EA document. A number of
both quantitative and qualitative approaches can be used to ensure that these
654
REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07
PAGE 7
objectives are achieved. Quantitative approaches such as the arithmetic method
seek to quantify the evaluation by assigning numerical values to the effects
associated with an alternative, and thus are generally traceable and replicable.
Qualitative approaches, on the other hand, rely on the professional judgment of the
reviewers and, by their very nature, are more subjective and less easily traced and
replicated or sensitivity assessed. Some EA studies use both approaches, not only
to improve the understanding of the evaluation process, but also to confirm the
validity of the results (sensitivity testing).
3.2.7 The Municipality's peer review consultants do not necessarily disagree with the use
of a qualitative-only approach to the site evaluation. However, in such cases, the
rationale used in the evaluation must be clear and sufficiently detailed to enable
readers to clearly trace and replicate the process. This information has not been
provided in the EA study documents. The Regions' Project Team Consultants have
indicated that additional information will be provided before the EA documents are
submitted to the Ministry. However, given the deficiencies in the evaluation process
discussed above and in Attachments 5 through 9, both Staff and the Municipality's
peer review consultants remain concerned that there are flaws in the evaluation
process used to identify a preferred site. It is unlikely that they can be addressed
by providing more information.
3.2.8 The Regions' Project Team Consultants used a qualitative approach to consider
and compare site advantages and disadvantages, identify trade-offs, and select
preferences. A quantitative approach was not used to validate the results of their
evaluation process. For these and other reasons discussed below, both staff and
the Municipality's peer review consultants have not found the evaluation process
used in the EA study to be traceable, transparent and replicable.
3.2.9 A defiCiency in the evaluation process was the absence of a mechanism to weight
the importance of the various criteria. The Regions' Project Team Consultants
indicated that, as a result of public consultation early in the EA process, a high
priority was assigned to the Public Health & Safety and Natural Environment criteria
group, a medium priority was assigned to the Social and Cultural, Economic/
Financial, and Technical Suitability criteria groups, and a low priority was assigned
to the Legal criteria group. However, it is not readily apparent how these relative
priorities were incorporated into the evaluation process, other than through the
professional judgement of the Regions' Project Team Consultants. An appropriate
mechanism to accomplish this could have been to assign a relative weight to each
criteria group that reflected the priority given to it by the public.
3.2.10 Another deficiency in the site evaluation process results from the combining of
diverse criteria into one criteria group. This is most significant in relation to "Public
Health and Safety" and "Natural Environment". These criteria were assigned a high
priority by the public and each is worthy of its own criteria group. However, the
Project Team Consultants combined both into one criteria group entitled "Public
Health and Safety and Natural Environment". Given that there are only a total of five
criteria groups, this results in the devaluing of public health and safety and natural
655
REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07
PAGE 8
environment considerations in the overall evaluation. This effect is further
compounded by the absence of a mechanism to assign relative priorities (ie. weight)
to the different category groups as discussed above. It is unclear whether the
public, when they were asked the questions about weighting of the criteria in March
and June of 2005, had a clear understanding of how they would be employed and
there has been no mechanism for confirming with the public that they concur with
how the evaluation criteria has been applied.
3.3 Separation of Site Selection from Technology Selection
3.3.1 Clarington's peer review consultants have questioned the rationale for separating
the site selection process from the competitive vendor selection process. Clarington
Staff appreciate that the Request for Proposals (RFP) is being carried out in a
confidential and objective manner. However, it would not be compromised by
including two (2) geographically separated sites as suggested in PSD-097-07.
Carrying two sites forward would allow for a better evaluation of the sites once the
specific thermal treatment is selected since there are differences in the background
environmental data and emissions control technologies.
3.3.2 This issue was addressed in Section 7.4 of PSD-097-07, as noted below:
"The Region has committed to revisit the short list site evaluation
after a vendor technology has been selected to determine if the site
comparison remains valid and if a change in the preferred site is
warranted. The Region should consider whether the anticipated
cost saving of determining a preferred site prior to knowing the
specific thermal technology is adequate justification given the
potential costs to revisit the short list site evaluation and the
problems that changing the preferred site could involve. The
Region should consider whether carrying forward at least two
geographically separate sites through the RFP to provide for the
option on siting in relation to the specific technology and the
specific HHERA may be beneficial."
3.3.3 The comment that the Region should carry at least two geographically distinct sites
through the RFP process remains valid, especially given the deficiencies and lack of
clarity in the site selection process identified by Staff and the peer review
consultants. As such, the benefit of retaining more that one site in the process
would allow a detailed rather than a generic evaluation of the sites to be
undertaken. In particular, this would allow for the Public Health & Safety concerns
discussed below to be addressed when a specific thermal technology is selected.
3.3.4 In the site evaluation process, the indicator "Air Quality Impacts", which is included
in the Public Health and Safety and Natural Environment criteria group, has been
used as a surrogate for human health and safety. The Municipality's peer review
consultants have indicated that there is insufficient information currently available
656
REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07
PAGE 9
on both background air quality and the emission controls at the EFW facility to
provide for air quality impacts to be adequately addressed at this time (see
Attachment 6). Rather, it is only when the background air quality monitoring has
been completed and the specific thermal treatment technology has been selected
that the issues concerning air quality can be addressed with any degree of certainty.
3.3.5 The underlying assumption used by the Regions' Project Team Consultants
throughout the EA study and the site selection process is that any of the thermal
treatment technologies being considered will meet MOE's A7 Guidelines, and thus
will not adversely affect human health or the natural environment. However, staff
note that some areas of potential risk have been identified by the Generic Human
Health and Ecological Risk Assessment and will need to be addressed through the
evaluation of emissions technology.
4.0 UPDATE ON RFQlRFP PROCESS
4.1 The Region issued a Request of Qualification (RFQ) to Design, Build and Operate
an Energy from Waste Facility on July 12, 2007 with a closing date for submissions
of October 11, 2007. The Region received 11 submissions from 9 different bidders
being:
1. City of Amsterdam Entity of Afval Energie Bedrijf (Waste and Energy
Company AEB)
2. Dongara Pellet Plant LP and Algonquin Power Income Fund
3. Veolia Environmental Services Waste to Energy Inc.
4. Greey CTS Inc.
5. Covanta Energy Corporation
6. WRSI/DESC Joint Venture and the Project Team Members
7. ATCO Power Canada Ltd., Thermoselect
8. Wheelabrator Technologies Inc. (A Waste Management Company)
9. Urbaser SA (Note: 3 submissions were made).
4.2 The Regions RFQ Evaluation Team will be providing a Report to Regional Council
in January 2008 indicating which of the bidders have met the 60% threshold and are
qualified to proceed to the Request of Proposal (RFP) stage. It is conceivable that
all the bidders could qualify. The RFP is to be issued in April 2008 with selection in
late-2008. The successful proposal/proponent at the end of the process will
determine both the vendor and the specific thermal treatment technology. The
Regions' Project Team Consultants will then be able to finalize the EA
documentation for submission to the Ministry of Environment by the end of 2008
based on the specific thermal treatment technology.
657
REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07
PAGE 10
4.3 The RFP will be formulated by the Regions' Project Team and their consultants. To
maintain the confidentiality of the process, Clarington staff are not involved in the
review process and do not wish to be. Rather Clarington can recommend certain
criteria be included in the RFP which is being drafted at this time.
Council through Resolution # Resolution GPA 632-07 and C-592-07 (Attachment
13) has requested the Region to:
"Agree to protect the health and safety of the residents of Clarington
and Durham by incorporating into the design and installation of the
EFW facility the most modern and state of the art emission control
technologies that meet or exceed the European Union (EU) monitoring
and measurement standards".
At this time Clarington Staff cannot confirm for Council that the Region is committed
to including this level of emissions control technology in the RFP; however, there
are ongoing discussions in this regard. Clarington's peer review consultants have
provided a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) outline (Attachment
14). MACT is technology-based standards based on the best-performing similar
facilities in operation and state of the art monitoring.
4.4 For the EFW facility appearance and site development, regardless of the site
selected Clarington staff have recommended that an adequate cost allowance for
the architectural finishes and site development be included in the RFP. The
qualifications of the architectural design team should be submitted as part of the
requirements; however, the evaluation of the bids should not include the "look" of
the facility. The RFP evaluation should concentrate on the interior design and
function of the facility and its emission controls and ongoing operational
improvement. A process for determining the exterior finishes and site development
can be part of the Site Plan Requirements and could be carried out in consultation
with the host community staff. Since the Region is committed to providing an
aesthetically pleasing facility and the architecture is essentially a shell around the
mechanical and emission control systems, a process for exterior and site
development design can be determined after the vendor and thermal technology are
selected. This also maintains the integrity and confidentiality of the evaluation
process.
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 The Regions' Project Team Consultants will have the opportunity to address the
deficiencies in the site selection process that have been identified by Staff and
Clarington's peer review consultants prior to the submission of the EA Study to the
Ministry of Environment. Staff and the peer review consultants will continue to work
with the Region and assist with the review of the EA documentation prior to its
submission to MOE to address the deficiencies.
658
REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07
PAGE 11
5.2 Clarington Council has already passed Resolutions GPA 632-07 and C-592-
07(Attachment 13) which requests the Region to protect the health and safety of the
residents of Clarington and Durham by incorporating the most modern and state of
the art emission control technologies and monitoring systems. Clarington's peer
review consultants have been working on a Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) outline (Attachment 14) which is a technology-based standard
based on the best-performing similar facilities. The MACT and continuous
monitoring for key parameters should be included in a Host Community Agreement
and the Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of the Environment. In addition, it
will be necessary to demonstrate that the actual levels of emissions are acceptable
and low risk.
5.3 In Report PSD-097-07, Staff and Clarington's peer review consultants suggested
that two geographically separated sites should be carried forward to the Request for
Proposals. This is especially important given the anomalies identified in how the
site evaluation has been carried out and the significant differences between the
sites depending on which specific thermal treatment technology is selected. It is
therefore again recommended that two geographically separate sites be carried
forward to the Request for Proposals stage. The site specific Human Health and
Ecological Risk Assessment can then be used to determine which site is more
suitable with respect to public health and safety.
5.4 An area of concern, not just to Clarington but to all residents of Durham and York, is
the business case for the EFW. There are significant assumptions, outstanding cost
implications and anticipated off-setting revenues that have been used to reach the
conclusion that the Clarington 01 site is preferred. However, given that there are
concerns regarding the financial analysis, as demonstrated in Attachments 8 and 9
and that the infrastructure cost savings could be off-set by the costs of the
emissions control technology required, there does not appear to be a clear
advantage for any of the four Short-Listed sites from an economic perspective. A
formal business case will have to be approved by Regional Council, including the
costs of a Host Community Agreement before the impact on the Regional taxpayers
can be estimated.
Attachments:
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Glossary of Terms
Map - Short List of Alternative Sites
Table 3.1 Comparative Evaluation Criteria for the Evaluation of Short-
Listed Sites
Table 4.6 Summary of Short-Listed Sites Advantages and
Disadvantages
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste
Study, Evaluation of Short-List of Sties and Identification of
Consultants Recommended Preferred Site, Steven Rowe
AMEC Peer Review - Preferred Site Selection Process - Conclusion
SENES Consultants Limited, Memorandum, Review of Site Selection
Study Documents - Main Report! Annex Band C
659
REPORT NO.: PSD-141-07
PAGE 12
TSH Memorandum, DurhamNork Residual Waste Study, Peer
Review Comments
Finance Department Memo
Jacques Whitford/Genivar response chart
Resolution for PSD-070-07
Resolution for PSD-097-07
Resolution GPA 632-07 and C-592-07
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) outline
Attachment 8
Attachment 9
Attachment 10
Attachment 11
Attachment 12
Attachment 13
Attachment 14
I nterested Parties.
Joachim Baur
Alexandra Bennett
Barry Bracken
Kathi Bracken
Wendy Bracken
Karen Buck
Terry Caswell
Katie Clark
Shirley & Keith Crago
Kevin Diamond
Wayne Ellis
Linda Gasser
James Gibson
Glenda Gies
Tenzin Gyaltsan
Ron Hosein
Dr. Debra Jefferson
Laurie Lafrance
Lee McCue
Warren McCarthy
Cathrine McKeever
Kerry Meydam
John Mutton
Karen Nichol
Dave Renaud
Jim Richards
Andrew Robson
Yvonne Spencer
Nicole Young
Lucy Wunderlich
Bill Collie
Anthony Topley
Katherine Miles
Paul Andre Larose
Don Wilkinson
Noah Hannah
Katherine Miles
Donna Mcaleer-Smith
Kristin Robinson
Steve Tharme
David Climenhage
Steve Conway
Chester Miles
Bernadine Power
Hilary Balmer
Willis & Marilyn Barrabal
Stewart and July Dayes
Maureen Dingman
Carl Zmozynski
Gaston Morin
Ann and Mike Buckley
Fraser and Cathy Grant
Jean and Wallace McKnight
Stephanie Adams
Julie Allen-Freeman
John & Dale Cerniuk
Garland & Anne Foote
Sylvain Gagnon
Melissa Girard
Beth Hewis
Manuel Jimenez
Debbie Kuehn
John MacDonald
Ralph Machon
Mary Anne & Gerry Martin
Kristin D. McKinnon-
Rutherford
Lorna McSwan
Brent Mersey
Donna Packman
Devon Richard
Brian & Sharon Thompson
Bill & Lorna Turner
Doug Woods
Don Wright
Benjamin Fuller
Chief & Medical Director
Lorraine Huinink, MCIP,
RPP
John Oates
Rev. Christopher Greaves
Leslie Heinrichs
Diana Kanarellis
Elaine & Vincent Ho
Ron Campbell
Stephanie Adams
Betty Robinson
Nicola Keeme
Mable M. Low
Jacqueline Muccio
Charlie and Irene Briden
Nadia McLean-Gagnon
Mrs. Dorothy Barnet
Marc Tepfenhart
660
EA
EFW
HHERA
MOE
MACT
RFP
RFQ
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-141-07
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Environmental Assessment
Energy From Waste
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
Request for Proposals
Request for Qualifications
661
f
I T ~ I
---------. O\Io~ 113NN3a~ r/ /
~L- I
>- 9.., / I
~ ~ =101 as l~nos}
~ ~~ If [
<<~~
S:
/
\ 1f1r ~:' ~ I
l"'\ ,..J i n I ~ I tN....
r->'\, 1U'w IJUD
-,-"\.-r,1rlJTl -;;j- =:ffiLV
Cj :.:s c=r~ ~ 13". "W",-
~ ~~ IDI L ~ .YU..L
~L I ~~ I~
lIr\- ., I.., 7- ill
AU- f..JU~\ ~AO ~
P ''J ""......-I~F t' J \
I ~II t 1.,1/ "1 -.n"
T I --j \~U 7r::J 1-'
\ \C.U l..f'4"
, '\'~~,,--
I ' \~ 1 1 j..trI:;
i 1-:Yo- .~i
__________:~ _.....~_ ,.~o- ____ _____.
r %.
;--"..... .. 1i
~.~f!f'.'2 .- \
.f ,J
... T
, ,
7/ \
J'
~
-~
/ ;~
e III
wo-
e <Il
o <Il
_Gl
Ole
.Sou; ~
la ::l ... Gl
U III r 7- ;\ J!l :=:
'L/~ I J,,~, ;~
i ~f .....~'F,~ ~
I 52 / eJ!
I~-p:r It) of!!
avo~ 3:m~nm iJ ~ 0 0-
~
_1
>-- 0'"
~
~
~
~
r
I
:::j
J
f
l -
(
~
< ~
--~\_-----\
%. \
-0. .
'\ \
<) \
,
)
,
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
...."
,..'
,
O\Io~ VNI10S !
Y",
~
~
o
...
>-
~
j(
7'
---
)
/
'.
,
gl!
'''~-
.L (~
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-141-07
-
<Il
:::i
1::
0
.c
(/)
E
0
..
u.
e
2
..
'tl
-
;:
<Il
Gl
-
in
~
0
0' >-
;> ==
'"
0 u
~ III
U.
5 Gl
-
<Il
~
E
0
..
u.
>-
21
Gl
e
W
<Il
Gl
:=:
(/)
e
0
-
01
e
"i:
.!!
0
III
:;::;
e
Gl
-
0
D.
0
662
Attachment ~
To Report PSD-141-0'i
T bl 3 1 C
f
E
f
C Ot 0 f th E
f
f Sh rt LO t SOt
.
Criteria Indicator
Public Health & Safety and Natural Environment
Air Quality Impacts Local meteorological conditions
Note: The prefelTed technology must at
least meet all applicabte air
quality regulations.
Distance travelled from main source(s) of waste generation to the
site.
Water Quality Impacts (Surface Relative distance to and type of watercourses (aquatic habitat)
Water and Groundwater) present within close proximity of sije for wastewater
or surface water discharge from facility (if applicable).
Receiving body for wastewater discharge from
the facility (if applicable)
Quality of water in the receiving body based on
size and fiow of watercourses.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Species of special concem, threatened andlor endangered species
Species Impacts identified by Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in the area
potentially impacted by the site or haul route.
Distance from site or haul route to areas that are designated
Natural Heritage Features and Areas including: Significant
Wildlife and Fish Habitat; Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific
Interest; Significant Wetlands, Woodlands, etc.;
Designated Hazard Lands; and, Conservation Areas
Aquatic and Terrestlial Ecology Amount of woodlands, hedgerows, etc., affected or removed at
Impacts the site and the degree of impact on the edge of a
woodloVhedgerow.
Social and Cultural Environment
Criteria Indicator
Compatibility with Existing andlor
Proposed Land Uses
Consistency with current land use, approved development plans,
and proposed land use changes.
Compatibility with existing land use designations.
Size of buffer zone available on the site.
Residential Areas
Opportunity for brownfield development.
Distance from sije to designated residential areas within an
appropriate separation distance of the site and within an
appropriate separation distance of the haul route(s).
Number and distlibution of residences within an appropriate
separation distance of the site and within an appropriate
separation distance of the haul route(s).
663
Social and Cultural Environment
Criteria Indicator
Parks and Recreational Areas
Number and type of recreational areas (i.e., parkland) within an
appropriate separation distance of the site and within an
appropriate separation distance of the haul route(s).
Institutional Facilities or Areas
Number and type of institutions within an appropriate separation
distance of the site or area and within an appropriate separation
distance of the haul route(s).
Archaeological and Cultural Resources
Number and significance of known archaeological and cultural
areas at the site based on review of documented sites and the
potential for uncovered resources to be located at the site.
Traffic Impacts
Type of roadway (i.e., paved, gravel) and access to businesses
and/or subdivisions & proximity of site to major arterial roads or
highways.
Existing and projected volume of traffic along haul route (i.e., high,
moderate or low).
Conformity with Durham's Goods Movement Network
Economic/Financial
Criteria Indicator
Capital Costs
Site development costs, including: infrastructure required,
upgrades to existing infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc.), property
acquisition and possible site remediation.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Distance from waste generation points. transfer stations (e.g.,
length of haul route), annual operating costs and maintenance
costs.
Mitigation requirements
Monitoring requirements
Distance from potential markets for sale of marketable materials
(i.e. heat, electricity. recovered metals, etc.).
Technical Considerations
Criteria Indicator
Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure
Design/Operational Flexibility Provided
by Site
Distance from required infrastructure (i.e., sewers, hydro, road
access, water).
Area surplus to minimum requirement provided by site.
Legal Considerations
Criteria Indicator
Complexity of Required Approvals
Nature of approvals required.
Complexity of Required Agreements
Nature of property acquisition (related to the need for expropriation,
Region owned or willing seller site).
664
Attachment ~
To Report PSD-141-Qi
T_ 4.6 Summory of Short-List SilK Advantages and DisodvantogK
Air Q~ality Impacts NEUTRAL DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL NEUTRAL
Waler Quality Impac1s
(Surface Waw and ADVANTAGE NEUTRAL NEUTRAL OISADVANTAGE
Groundwater)
Environmentally Sensitive
Areas and Species NEUTRAL ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE
Impacts
Aquatic and Terrestrial ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE MAJOR DISADVANTAGE
Ecology Impaets DISADVANTAGE
OVERALL: ADVANTAGE NEUTRAL MAJOR DISADVANTAGE
DISADVANTAGE
Compatibil~y _ Existing MAJOR
andl", Proposed Land ADVANTAGlO DISADVANTAGE DISAOVANTAGE NEUTRAL
Uses
Residential Areas ADVANTAGE MAJOR NEUTRAL OISADVANT AGE
DISADVANTAGE
Parks and Recr&ational NEUTRAL ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE
A",as
Institutionst Facilities or ADVANTAGE AOVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE
Areas
Archaeotogical and OISADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE MAJOR NlOUTRAL
Cultural Resources DISADVANTAGE
Potential Traffic Impacts NEUTRAl DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL DISADVANTAGE
OVERALL: ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL
665
Attachment!
To Report PSD-141-0j
REVIEW OF THE STEP 7 DRAFT REPORT: DURHAMNoRK
RESIDUAL WASTE STUDY
EVALUATION OF SHORT-LIST OF SITES AND IDENTIFICATION OF
CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDED PREFERRED SITE
Prepared for
The Municipality of Clarington
By:
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner
November 2007
666
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Background ..........................................................................................3
1.2 Adoption of a Preferred Alternative to the Undertaking ........................3
1.3 Short List Report .................................................................................. 3
2. Identification of a Preferred Site.................................................................... 6
2.1 The Preferred Site Report ....................................................................6
2.2 Approach to the Review....................................................................... 7
2.3 Commentary on the Preferred Site Report........................................... 7
2.3.1 Report Introduction .................................................................... 7
2.3.2 The Evaluation Criteria ..............................................................8
2.3.3 Description and Approach to the Preferred Site Identification... 9
2.3.4 Review Against the Evaluation Criteria.................................... 10
3.0 Conclusion............................................................................................... 14
667
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner was retained by the Municipality of
Clarington in May 2007 to review a process being conducted by the Regions of
Durham and York to identify a site and vendor/technology for a thermal treatment
or energy-from-waste facility. The process forms part of a study being conducted
under the Ontario Environmental Assessment (EA) Act to identify an undertaking
"to process... .the waste that remains after the application of both Regions' at -
source waste diversion programmes in order to recover resources - both
material and energy - and to minimize the amount of material requiring landfill
disposal."
The EA must be conducted in accordance with Terms of Reference (TOR)
approved by the Minister of the Environment on March 31, 2006. The TOR
outlines a screening and comparative evaluation process for "alternative methods
of implementing the undertaking" (i.e. siting alternatives). Preliminary screening
and evaluation criteria for alternative methods are provided in Appendix F to the
TOR. The TOR and subsequent documentation - including the documents under
review here - relating to this process may be found on the project website at
http://www.durhamvorkwaste.ca/.
1.2 Adoption of a Preferred Alternative to the Undertaking
In May 2006 the Durham/York Joint Waste Management Group (JWMG)
established to oversee the EA process recommended that their respective
Regional Councils approve their consultants' recommendations regarding a
preferred "alternative to" the undertaking or waste management technology
system. The preferred alternative encompassed two generic types of system,
both involving heat treatment of waste and production of energy. The exact
thermal technology will not be known until Durham and York Regions have
identified a preferred vendor through an ongoing Request for Qualifications and
Request for Proposals process.
1.3 Short List Report
In March, 2007 the consultants for Durham and York Regions produced a "Draft
Report, Thermal Facility Site Selection Process, Results of Steps 1-5,
Identification of the "Short-List" of Alternative Sites" (the "Short List Report"). The
report describes a process of "screening" lands (i.e. removing from further
consideration based on exclusionary criteria) across the two Regions, identifying
a "long list" of sites within the unconstrained areas, and evaluating these to
identify a "short list" of sites.
The short list comprised Clarington Sites 01 and 05, which are located in the
Clarington Energy Business Park south of Courtice, Clarington Site 02 located
south of the Energy Park, Clarington Sites 03 and 04 located on industrial land
west of Bennett Road and south of Highway 401, and East Gwillimbury Site 01
located north of Davis Drive and east of Woodbine Avenue. Clarington Site 02
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg. 3
668
was later removed from the list when its "Greenway" land use designation -
which was an exclusionary criterion - was confirmed. Clarington Site 03 was
removed when its owner withdrew it from consideration. The short listed
Clarington sites are shown on Map 1 attached to this report.
In July and August 2007 Steven Rowe Environmental Planner reviewed the Short
List Report and produced an "Interim Report: Gap Analysis of the EA Process
and Review of the Site Selection Process" that was presented at Clarington's
General Purpose and Administration Committee on September 4, 2007 as
Attachment 6 to Report PSD 097 07. The Interim Report identified a number of
concerns with the Short List Report and found that it did not provide enough
information to support the conclusions reached. The following is a list of the
issues identified in the conclusions of the Interim Report, with insertions in italics
where findings need to be qualified based on present day circumstances.
"Issues in relation to the site selection process conducted to date are:
. The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not provide screening maps to
show which parts of the study area were excluded under each of the criteria,
and it does not provide sufficient explanation of how each of the criteria were
applied. The process is not traceable as described. The Regions' consultants
subsequently provided Clarington with a set of screening maps, but they have
not been provided to the public or other stakeholders.
. Despite the lack of screening information it is apparent, for example, that not
all federally regulated airports were considered in the screening, and it is not
clear whether or how federal requirements were applied in relation to organic
waste as an attractor for birds, or stack height as an obstruction to aircraft, or
both. If all regulated airports are considered under a consistent approach this
may result in the exclusion of additional lands from the study area. The
Oshawa Airport was added to the airport constraint mapping, but the
remaining concerns are not addressed. Around the proposed Pickering
Airport land is shown as constrained when permitted heights of structures
based on federal airport zoning are well in excess of the assumed stack
height for the facility.
. The information presented in the Site Selection Short List Draft Report does
not describe a comprehensive approach to the identification of public lands.
There may be public lands in the study area owned by agencies that were not
directly approached as part of the process.
. There is uncertainty regarding the size of the facility being sought by the
proponent team and the size of site required to accommodate it. The process
as presently structured would give preference (other things being equal) to a
large site such as the 27.4 hectare Clarington Site 5, when the site size being
sought is around 10-12 ha. There is also ambiguity over the scale of facility
that would be required, with a proposal by York Region to scale back its
involvement, and by Durham Region to seek expanded capacity. On a large
site there may be no physical limitation on the ultimate scale of a thermal
treatment facility. It is now proposed that the facility be constructed with a
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg.4
669
capacity of 150,000 to 250,000 tonnes per year, depending on the outcome of
altemative arrangements made for a portion of York Region's waste. The
ultimate proposed capacity is 400,000 tonnes per year, which may include
waste from other non-GTA municipalities, and industrial, commercial and
institutional waste. Site size issues are dealt with further in the Preferred Site
Report.
o The sites in the Clarington Energy Business Park are being analyzed as part
of a different economic study and could have either a positive or negative
affect; the effects are potentially different depending on which site is selected.
o The Report indicates that a change in direction was undertaken to bring lands
in the Greenbelt into the site selection process, but it does not describe
whether or how lands in the Greenbelt were examined to identify potential
public and willing seller sites other than the East Gwillimbury Site 1. There
may be other potential sites in the Greenbelt that have not been identified.
o The Site Selection Short List Draft Report does not provide a full description
of how consultation on the proposed methodology and criteria affected the
approach now being undertaken. The Regions' consultants subsequently
posted a copy of a missing consultation document on the project website.
In relation to the site evaluation and comparison currently under way (at that
time - i.e. the preferred site comparison now completed in draft form):
o The proponent team now proposes to identify a recommended preferred site
and to submit an interim environmental assessment planning document to
the Ministry of the Environment in the fall of 2007, before a preferred vendor
and the exact thermal technology has been identified. This would mean that
a site would be selected without knowledge of the facility that would be sited
on it or its specific environmental effects. Therefore the assumptions being
made by the consulting team must be reviewed in light of information on the
specific selected technology and its environmental effects.
o It would be greatly preferred if information on the vendor/technologies and
their environmental effects was available for the site comparison. The final EA
submission will have to include the vendor and specific technology to meet
the EA terms of reference and EA Act.
o There is also concern that the process of selecting a preferred vendor/
technology through the ongoing Request for Qualifications and future
Request for Proposals may not meet EA Act requirements.
In relation to the short-listed sites identified in Clarington:
o There are existing and proposed residential uses in close proximity to Sites 3
and 4, which are in the Bowmanville Urban Area. (Site 3 was subsequently
withdrawn)
o The Durham Region Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan identify a
proposed interchange between Lambs Road and Highway 401 that would
likely be displaced by a thermal treatment facility on Site 4.
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: DurhamIYork Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg. 5
670
. A proposed industrial service road passes through both Sites 3 and 4.
A thermal treatment facility occupying the whole of Site 5 would displace the
primary entrance to the Clarington Energy Business Park from the Courtice
Interchange, and the western part of the 'spine' route through the Park. The
Energy Business Park was initiated, planned and approved in partnership
with Durham Region, and there is potential for an EFW facility to compromise
the vision and planned function of the Park. The proponents are examining
alternative siting concepts for each site and not all of each site will necessarily
be required."
Other than the instances noted above, the proponents have not provided
information to resolve the identified issues and have not committed to resolve
them in an interim environmental assessment planning document that the
Regions propose to provide to the Ministry of the Environment at some later date.
2. Identification of a Preferred Site
2.1 The Preferred Site Report
On September 21, 2007 the Regions' consultants produced a "Draft Report,
Thermal Treatment Facility Site Selection Process, Results of Step 7: Evaluation
of Short-List of Sites and Identification of Consultants Recommended Preferred
Site" ("Preferred Site Report"). The report describes the application of criteria
derived from those provided in the TOR, priorities identified through consultation
and the team's professional judgement in evaluating and comparing the four
remaining short-listed sites to identify a preferred site. The preferred site as
recommended by the Regions' consultants is Clarington Site 01, located in the
Clarington Energy Business Park.
There are a number of technical "Annexes" to the report that describe the
evaluations conducted under individual disciplines, as follows:
Annex A: Report on Potential Air Quality Impacts
Annex B: Report on Potential Water Quality Impacts (Surface Water and
Groundwater)
Report on Potential Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Species
Impacts and Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology Impacts
Report on Compatibility with Existing and/or Proposed Land Uses
Report on Archaeological and Cultural Resources
Report on Potential Traffic Impacts
Report on Capital Costs and Operation and Maintenance Costs
Report on Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure and
Design/Operational Flexibility Provided by Site
Report on Complexity of Required Approvals and Complexity of
Required Agreements
Annex C:
Annex D:
Annex E:
Annex F:
Annex G:
Annex H:
Annex I:
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste StUdy
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg. 6
671
2.2 Approach to the Review
This document review relates to the broad consistency, transparency and
traceability of the EA process and includes the Preferred Site Report and
selected parts of the Annexes that relate to the assumptions, information and
methodology used in the site comparison.
As part of an ongoing effort to resolve issues to the extent possible, the
Municipality of Clarington peer review consultants undertook a preliminary review
of the report and the appendices/annexes relevant to their disciplines, and
Clarington staff provided their consultants' initial concerns and questions to the
Regions and their consultants. A meeting was held (October 10th) between
Clarington's and the Regions' staff and consultants, and written responses were
provided to Clarington for the majority of the issues by October 26, with further
clarification being received by November ih.. These responses are reflected in
the review that follows.
Clarington's peer review consultants met on November 16th to jointly review the
Regions' responses and methodology employed in the evaluation of the sites.
2.3 Commentary on the Preferred Site Report
2.3.1 Report Introduction
This review follows the sequence of material in the Preferred Site Report, with
references to the technical annexes where appropriate.
Section 1, Introduction, provides an overview of the study and a summary of
the Terms of Reference and the process conducted to date. This includes a
description of the site selection process up until Step 5, for which comments are
provided above and, in more detail, in our earlier report.
Under "Shared Opportunities" Section 1.1, states:
"Facing common waste disposal issues, the Regions are acting to
implement, as quickly as possible, a Durham/York based solution that: is
socially and politically acceptable to both communities; maximizes
environmental protection; and, fosters the wise management of resources
that are currently lost by way of landfill in Michigan."
The reference to "as quickly as possible" relates to the 2010 deadline after
which Durham and York will no longer have the option of waste disposal at
landfill sites in Michigan. The need for an accelerated process to accommodate
this deadline has reduced the amount of information available to support
decisions at each step of the process, and the ability to respond to issues raised
as the process proceeds. As indicated in our earlier review of the Short List
Report, details on the specific technology to be used and its environmental
effects are not available as the preferred site is being selected. The proponents
have made a commitment that when the preferred vendor has been selected a
sensitivity analysis would be undertaken to confirm that the process leading to
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg. 7
672
the selection of the preferred site remains valid. Clarington's Peer Review Team
believe it would be prudent to carry more than one site in the Request for
Proposals to allow for the sensitivity analysis to have more validity.
The reference to "maximizing environmental protection" raises an issue identified
by the Municipality's technical peer review consultants, that the Regions'
commitment to environmental protection, the actual level of protection and the
means of implementing and monitoring this is very unclear at the present time.
Section 1.2.2 describes the evaluation of "alternatives to" (i.e. technologies). The
descriptions of the two selected systems, Systems 2(a) and 2(b) include
gasification of mixed waste or solid recovered fuel, respectively, whereas the
following description identifies gasification as a "new technology" in relation to
System 2(b) only. The proponents have confirmed that both systems could
include gasification, however this description could have been written more
clearly (i.e. is gasification a new technology when applied to both mixed waste
and solid recovered fuel, or to solid recovered fuel only?).
Section 1.3.2 includes a description of facility/site size requirements, and
identifies a need for 13.7 ha site with a 100m buffer and 7.3 ha without a buffer, if
all required facilities are included within the site. In Appendix E to Annex H
("Technical Memorandum on Facility Site Size") it is assumed that an additional 1
ha would be required for a stormwater pond, however Clarington staff have
indicated that shared, off-site stormwater facilities would be required in the
Clarington Energy Business Park, and therefore for the preferred Clarington Site
01 and Clarington Site 05. At 12.4 ha, Clarington Site 01 is smaller than the 13.7
ha requirement if a 100m buffer is to be included. The Technical Memorandum
includes "Usable Site Area" plans of all the short-listed sites showing how a
facility could be configured within each site - Figure 2, the plan for the preferred
Clarington Site 01 and Clarington Site 05, is attached as Map 2.
The Technical Memorandum also states that land on Clarington Site 05 south of
a watercourse is "unusable", and this is reflected in the above "Usable Site Area"
plan. There appears to be an opportunity to sever and dispose of this additional
land, and yet the cost of the full area of the site is assumed for the purpose of the
cost comparison. When this comment was provided to the proponents'
consultants they responded by conducting a cost sensitivity analysis that
excludes an estimate of the value of the area south of the watercourse. This is
further discussed below.
2.3.2 The Evaluation Criteria
Section 3 of the Preferred Site Report describes the evaluation of the short-listed
sites. Table 3.1 provides the criteria used for the evaluation, with corresponding
"indicators" and "rationale". The following comments are provided on the contents
of this table:
. The "rationale" under "Compatibility with Existing and/or Proposed Land
Uses" mentions a need for rezoning when the evaluations under this criterion
state that public uses are generally permitted in all zones in Durham Region.
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: DurhamlYork Residual Waste StUdy
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg. 8
673
However, Clarington staff will have to consider whether a rezoning would be
required for the proposed facility on lands within the Energy Park.
. There is potential for double- counting between the "Compatibility" and
"Residential Areas" criteria. The Regions' consultants response to this
concern is that "As the evaluation approach was qualitative in nature the risk
of double counting generally does not apply. A qualitative process allows for
the evaluation to account for, discount and therefore avoid double-counting.
Where necessary, this consideration can be documented and explained in the
evaluation text" In practice, the Preferred Site Report limits the use of the
"Compatibility" criterion to permitted land uses and future land use changes
rather than actual land uses on the ground.
. In our initial comments to the Regions' consultants we noted that there seems
to be an inherent conflict in the "Institutional Facilities or Areas" criterion.
While the indicator is "number and type of institutions within an appropriate
separation distance", the rationale notes that there are some institutional
facilities that can benefit from close proximity to the facility. The consultants'
response is that there would not be a conflict, but this appears not to be an
issue in the actual site comparison.
2.3.3 Description and Approach to the Preferred Site Identification
The description and application of the "advantages and disadvantages"
evaluation and the application of mitigation measures in the report generated a
number of comments and questions for the Regions' consultants. Overall, it was
considered by Clarington's consultants that the description of the evaluation
approach in the Preferred Site Report is unclear. For example:
. The description of the net effects analysis on page 3-6 of the Preferred Site
Report states that the net effects analysis was done based only on available
data, and yet it is clear from the annex documents that the work included field
work in a number of instances. In the consultants' initial responses it was
suggested that a more accurate description be provided. The Regions'
consultants responded that there was only limited field reconnaissance and
the field studies were not considered to be sophisticated. They should still
have been included in the description, however.
. The description of the process on page 3-6 describes the application of
mitigation measures to determine net effects, however Table 4.1 suggests
that no site specific mitigation was considered.
. "Advantages and disadvantages" are defined differently in the main report
versus the annex documents, suggesting that the technical consultants had a
different understanding of this term than those who prepared the main report.
The explanations are also unclear. The Regions' consultants reply that "the
intent of a relative site comparison is achieved by both".
. The descriptions of advantages and disadvantages appear to be at variance
with the meaning of these terms in the EA Act. For example, the definitions in
Table 3.2 state that alternatives with a "major advantage" or an "advantage"
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg. 9
674
under a criterion can have "minimal" or "manageable" effects, respectively.
Also, under the "Potential Air Quality Impacts" criterion the effect on air quality
based on distance of collection and transfer vehicles travelled to Clarington
Site 01 is considered an "advantage". Under the EA Act, however, the
proponent is to consider advantages or disadvantages to the environment. An
advantage cannot be a negative effect or simply an advantage for one
alternative over another.
. The description of the "advantage" ranking in Table 3-1 suggests that if an
alternative does not require mitigation, it is preferable to one that does (I.e.
where an impact is "manageable"), even though the net effect is the same. In
fact alternatives with the same net effect should be assessed equally - if the
mitigation itself has an environmental effect (including cost) this can be taken
into consideration in the comparison under the appropriate criteria.
. The description of the process does not make a clear distinction between
environmental effects and advantages and disadvantages, whereas these are
two different concepts in the EA Act. The Regions' consultants have
responded that their approach did involve identifying and rating environmental
effects first, followed by application of tradeoffs and interpretation of effects in
terms of advantages/disadvantages. This is not clear from the report,
however.
. There is no demonstration that the "advantages" and "disadvantages"
identified represent equivalent or comparable increments or magnitudes of
effect. As indicated above, in this process an "advantage" is not necessarily a
positive effect but can represent a lower level in a range of negative
environmental effects. In the actual evaluation results are traded off against
each other as if they are positive and negative effects, which they are not. In
some instances a "neutral" and an "advantage" are combined to result in an
"advantage", which further distorts the comparison.
. In addition, the evaluation uses a prioritization of criteria categories derived
from public consultation as well as "professional judgement" in comparing the
siting alternatives, however the application of these priorities is not explained.
The Regional consultants' response to these concerns is to state that a more
comprehensive description of the process will be provided in a draft EA
document to be submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. It is unclear
whether this more comprehensive description will reflect the concerns identified
in relation to Steps 1-5 as well as Step 7 of the site selection process.
2.3.4 Review Aoainst the Evaluation Criteria
Public Health and Safety and the Natural Environment
Air quality impacts are dealt with by Clarington's air quality consultant (AMEC).
Water quality impacts: Our initial response to the Regions' consultants
asked why there would be different environmental effects resulting from a facility
location 600m versus 15m from a watercourse. In response to this concern the
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste StUdy
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg. 10
675
Regions' consultants explained that a lengthy outlet channel that is "shady" is
more beneficial than a shorter outlet channel because it can mitigate water
temperature effects. We defer to Clarington's technical consultants in verifying
this.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Species Impacts: In our initial response we
asked why species of conservation concern that (p.3-10) that are highly unlikely
to occur on the site - Bushy Cinquefoil (occurs on lake beaches) and Red-tailed
Hawk (dense deciduous forest) contribute to the identification of environmental
impact. The response was that "There is evidence to suggest that these species
are known to exist in the areas and therefore, may be potentially impacted by this
development.....in a relative comparison of sites, a site without this potential is
advantaged over another with no potential impact"
For the Bushy Cinquefoil, the consultants' Annex C states (p. 3-1): "Bushy
Cinquefoil is a lakeshore species preferring beach and wet prairie habitats. This
type of habitat is not found on the site (Clarington 01), thus it is unlikely this
species would occur on site. The NHIC record of this species in the general area
is likely a record from the nearby Lake Ontario shoreline." Also, "the Red-
shouldered Hawk is a woodland nester that occurs throughout southern Ontario.
Given the absence of woodland habitat on the East Gwillimbury 01 site, it is
extremely unlikely that this species breeds on or immediately adjacent to the site.
There are existing woodlots east and north of the site that may provide suitable
habitat for this species. This species was not observed on-site during the site
visit." In neither case - and particularly in the case of Clarington Site 01 - does
the evaluation establish a potential environmental effect with any degree of
certainty.
We also questioned the disadvantages posed by hazard lands if the facility can
be accommodated on the rest of the site. The Regions' consultants responded
that the presence of hazard land presents a relative disadvantage, and
consideration includes the potential need for monitoring of impact to the area
during construction and operation. It is still unclear, however, what the potential
environmental effects would be, other than those already addressed by other
criteria (e.g. water quality impacts, aquatic and terrestrial ecology).
There is a lack of explicit consideration of mitigation, or measures that would
reduce potential environmental impact, thereby reducing the net environmental
effect. This is illustrated by the "Major Disadvantage" rating given to Clarington
site 05 under the "Aquatic and Terrestrial Impacts" criterion. This is based on the
presence of woodland and hedgerows, and potential aquatic habitat on site. The
woodland and watercourse identified in Annex C, Public Health and Natural
Environmental Considerations is 100 metres or more distant from the "site
infrastructure" and "site layout" templates shown in Annex H, Infrastructure and
Site Size (Appendix 2 to this report). The conceptual facility location also appears
to avoid most if not all of the hedgerow. There appears to be an opportunity to
mitigate the impact through placement of the facility at a distance from these
features, but this was not taken into consideration in the comparison. This places
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg.11
676
the site at an unnecessary disadvantage when it is compared with other sites,
and similar concerns arise (for different sites) for a number of the other criteria.
The "Public Health and Safety and Natural Environmental Considerations"
category has the highest rating in the evaluation. Because of the methodology
adopted by the proponent, however, public health and safety and natural heritage
"advantages and disadvantages" are traded off against each other in arriving at
an overall rating under this category for each site. Clarington Site 1, for example,
was assigned a "disadvantage" under "local meteorological conditions". This
rating, however, was discounted against an "advantage" assigned in relation to
emissions from haul traffic, resulting in a "neutral" level for "Potential Air Quality
Impacts". This, when traded off against natural heritage ratings, resulted in an
"advantage" overall for Clarington Site 1. Even if the Clarington Peer Review
Team's other concerns with the evaluations carried out under the criteria in this
category were discounted, the public may not have intended the potential air
quality effects of the facility and the haulage effects on air quality to be
discounted against each other and for air quality effects overall to be discounted
by natural environment considerations when it assigned a high priority to this
category as a whole.
Social and Cultural Considerations
Compatibility with Existing and/or Proposed and uses: Table 4.2 states that a
Regional Plan Amendment "may" be required to permit a facility at East
Gwillimbury Site 01 - the consultants indicated in response to our comment that
York Region was not willing to comment or provide clarification as to whether a
ROPA would be required.
The land use profile of the East Gwillimbury site in Annex D: Report on
Compatibility with Existing and/or Proposed Land Uses does not discuss the
Greenbelt Plan, although the Plan is identified in the evaluation tables. The
proponents' consultants have indicated that this matter will be addressed in the
EA documentation to be submitted to the Minister.
We noted in our initial comments that the 1 km distance for land use compatibility
is calculated from the centre of the site and not the edge or a conceptual location
as shown in the "Usable Site Area" plans. The Regions' consultants responded
that the 1 km radius was applied consistently, and that the potential configuration
of the facility on the site has little impact on the application of this criterion. At the
same time, it is preferable to use a more detailed level of information when this is
available.
In relation to the "Archaeological and Cultural Resources" criterion we requested
a clearer description of the advantages and disadvantages of the sites with
mitigation, and the Regions' consultants committed to review and enhance the
material where necessary.
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste StUdy
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg. 12
677
Economic/Financial Considerations
We noted in our initial review that the haul cost analysis is based on savings from
existing rather than actual costs, and that this would comprise a saving from
costs of haulage to Michigan, which would no longer be available. The
consultants responded that a remote Ontario landfill was assumed for the
purpose of calculating haul cost savings. Section 3.2.2 of Annex G, Costs, states
that "Operating costs are presently incurred to haul residual waste from existing
transfer stations and collection areas to remote landfill sites such as Green
Lane." We still consider that a comparison of actual costs would have been more
appropriate than savings over long distance haulage, which is not an alternative
considered in this EA, would not represent the true cost of the alternatives, and
would tend to reduce the relative magnitude of difference between the short
listed sites.
We also noted that acquisition costs for Clarington Site 01 and East Gwillimbury
Site 01 are rated at zero because they are owned by Durham and York Regions,
respectively. This is inappropriate because there would be an opportunity cost to
the public purse of "losing" either of these sites - they still have value that should
be reflected in the site comparison. The Regions' consultants responded to this
concern and the concern about including the "unusable" portion of Clarington Site
05 in the cost comparison by undertaking a sensitivity analysis that considers the
opportunity costs of using the two publicly owned sites and discounts the
"unusable" Clarington Site 05 land. They found that this analysis showed that
with these factors considered the overall conclusions do not change.
The findings from the capital cost analysis in the Preferred Site Report and in the
sensitivity analysis are compared in the following table:
Clarington 01 Clarington 04 Clarington 05 E. Gwillimbury 01
Capital Costs: Site specific Site specific Site specific Site specific
Preferred Site capital costs capita I costs capital costs capital costs
Report range from $7.6 range from $8.9 range from $10.6 range from $3.8
to $11.3 million to $16.7million to $15.5 million to $11.4 million
Overall rating, Neutral Disadvantage Disadvantage Advantage
Preferred Site
RepOrt:
Capital Costs: Site specific Site specific Site specific Site specific
Sensitivity capital costs capital costs capital costs capital costs
Analysis range from $7.6 range from $8.9 range from $8.9 range from $3.8
to$13.1 million to $16.7million to $15.5 million to $13.1 million
Overall rating, Neutral Disadvantage Disadvantage Advantage
Sensitivity
Analvsis
Comment Lower end of No change Lower end of Lower end of
range would be (privately owned) range is reduced range wouid be
$9.4m (second ("unusable" land $5.5m if land
highest) if land discounted) but cost added
cost added not the higher
range (would be
$13.8m\
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: DurhamlYork Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg. 13
678
It is not clear why the sensitivity analysis applied changes at only one end of
each of the cost ranges affected. If the changes were applied to costs at both
ends of each range Clarington Site 01 would be seen as roughly equivalent to
Sites 04 and 05 from a capital cost perspective. This would, in turn, affect a
present value calculation of both capital and operating costs as discussed below.
We also commented to the Regions' consultants that the evaluation treated
operational cost and capital cost "advantages and "disadvantages" as equal
when there is no basis for comparing them. It was suggested that these costs be
"present valued" (Le. converted to reflect total costs over the long term, rather
than capital costs versus annual costs). The Regions' consultants responded by
producing a present value calculation that they say shows Clarington Site 01 as
preferred under their "lower" and "higher" capital cost assumptions.
Lower Site
Specific Capital
Costs ($ X1000)
Savings +ve and
costs -ve)
Higher Site
Specific Capital
Costs
CL 01
$23,308
CL04
$21,610
CL05
$20,455
EG01
$22,750
$19,774
$14,163
$15,760
$15,471
This calculation appears to depend on the effects of savings in long term haulage
to a remote landfill site over a 20-year term, however. As noted above, actual
haul cost figures would have been a more appropriate measure to compare the
sites with each other, and may have resulted in a different outcome.
3. Conclusion
Overall, further information is required from the Regions' consultants to
demonstrate that their EA planning process is traceable, replicable, logical and
systematic, and that Clarington Site 01 is indeed the preferred site.
The most significant issues raised in this review comprise:
. Use of secondary information such as information on species at risk and
endangered species for the broader area, rather than site specific data that
would have provided more certainty as to actual effects for the purpose of the
comparison and would have been more appropriate in the final siting decision
for a major public utility use;
. Lack of identification and consideration of reasonable mitigation in identifying
rankings, resulting in unnecessary distortions in the site comparison;
. Concerns with the lack of consideration of the opportunity cost of publicly
owned sites in the site comparison, and with the consultants' approach in
attempting to resolve this in its sensitivity analysis.
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg. 14
679
. Concerns with trading off capital against operational costs and the use of
"savings" to calculate operational costs, and the consultants' approach in
attempting to resolve this in their sensitivity analysis;
. Flaws in the way "advantages and disadvantages" are identified, aggregated
and considered in the site comparison. Advantages and disadvantages do not
necessarily represent advantages and disadvantages to the environment, as
required by the EA Act, and this has the potential to affect the site
comparison.
. The effect of the selected evaluation methodology in reducing the relative
significance of the air quality and natural environment criteria rated highest by
the public through the consultation process, by trading these criteria off
against each other.
The Regions' consultants have committed to describe the evaluation
methodology in more detail in their interim environmental assessment document.
In their covering letter to their responses to our comments they state that "we
confirm that it is our position that the process we employed is sound and all of
the conclusions and findings are valid". They also appear to assume that the
finding regarding the preferred site will remain unchanged in the face of the
concerns raised earlier in relation to Steps 1-5.
The Regions' consultants have also committed to a sensitivity analysis of the site
comparison based on full consideration of the characteristics and environmental
effects of the selected technology once it is known. By this time, however, a high
degree of commitment will have been reached (for example, the preferred site
will be the basis for the Requests for Proposals) and a shift to a different site
would be costly and time consuming, especially considering the deadlines
imposed on this project. As noted above, the Clarington peer review team has
advised that it would be more prudent to proceed with more than one site.
The Regions' consultants responded to concerns expressed by SENES
Consultants in their peer review on behalf of Clarington, by saying that the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment recognized the potential environmental
effects of a thermal treatment as "minimal" when it established Regulation 101/71
and the associated Environmental Screening Process, "and therefore, such
facilities can be located on sites selected by proponents outside the historic EA
process". As described in our Interim Report, however, the proponents had an
opportunity to undertake their EA under the Environmental Screening Process
and elected to continue under the full requirements of the EA Act. They therefore
have an obligation to consider alternatives and environmental effects as required
by that legislation, rather than the Environmental Screening Process.
There are potential uncertainties regarding the process conducted to date,
including the potential for a consistent site selection process at an appropriate
level of detail to result in a different preferred site. It would be preferable to
resolve the outstanding issues now to the extent possible rather than to address
them later in the process.
.
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg. 15
680
Map 1, Step 7 Report
November 2007
,I
';--',
\...,.---.~
I r--l
-
'"
::J
t::
0
.r:.
<1/
E
E
u..
e
3:
..
...
'C
-
~
'"
<I>
:=:
...... <1/
0 ~
0
('If
I 0:::
W ~
1Il
::!! 'CJ
~ ..
W u..
> <I>
0 -
'"
Z ..
3:
......~ E
, Cl.. E
\ w u..
, >.
, I- 0
, en ...
\ :g
. .... w
I
, Cl.. '"
I <( ~
. ::!!
I <1/
, e
I 0
, -
":0/ 0
e
,.... .:=
I .!!
, u
0;
:=
e
.l!l
0
e.
0
---------
;'
~J
7"'UJ
.,
/
--......f/-
....,.:2 I
I/? i
I/E.....~ ..->....
i/
1)/
>if
,
.---
~
...""
<1>...
e..
we.
e",
0'"
-<I>
Oc:
C'-
,- '"
"'::1
.!!aJ
U
.
I
.
I
.
I
.
I
./
i
if
/
r--
i
1,
, "
~~~
Ii C1! I i
. ",-+..,y
, OVO~ 3:l1l>1no::l
!
Review of the Step 7 Draft Report: Durham/York Residual Waste Study
Steven Rowe Environmental Planner November 2007
Pg.16
681
Auacrllllt:::111. u
To Report PSD-141-07
ame~-
November 20, 2007
Faye Langmaid
Manager of Special Projects
Municipality of Clarington
Dear Faye
Re: Peer Review - Preferred Site Selection Process - Conclusion
AMEC was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to undertake a peer review of the air
quality issues for specific aspects of the Environmental Assessment for the proposed thermal
treatment plant to be sited in either Durham Region or York Region.
We have reviewed the overall methodology and approach taken by the Region in reaching their
selection of the preferred site. There are some serious concerns related to overall process and
the current availability of key data and information necessary to make a final determination of
the preferred site.
The weighting or ranking of the sites is done on the basis of professional judgment. Professional
judgment is used to compare the sites against each other, determining which site is preferred
over another site for each criterion and then again using professional judgment as the criterion
rankings are combined to give an overall ranking. Though this may be appropriate when all data
is available and studies completed, with incomplete data and studies still in progress, it is
possible that rankings could change for various criteria and final ranking of the sites may be
different. The "judgment" aspects of the system, do not allow for a re-assessment of rankings
based on different assumptions or different results of ongoing studies and efforts (e.g..
technology selection). As a result, the current preferred site may not stay preferred as more
data and information comes in. We would recommend carrying a second site through the
technology selection and the detailed site and background studies.
The Region is currently assuming that any technology and pollution control system can be
placed with equal impact on any of the sites. This basically assumes that the emissions from all
possible technologies and all potential facility sizes are either trivial or so insignificant that any
change to current or future air quality at these sites would be acceptable. This has not been
demonstrated. In fact, the HHRA performed for a "generic" site, indicated that a number of
parameters (e.g. dioxins and furans) were potentially at unacceptable levels at the generic site.
This lead to a statement in the "Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment" that if
the site specific risk assessment shows unacceptable risks that further emission reductions
("enhance the performance of the technology") could be undertaken to reduce the risk. This
suggests that different sites might require different air pollution control systems. The level of
control, and therefore the cost of the system, could therefore be very site specific. This cannot
AMEC Americas Limited
2020 Winston Park Drive
Oakville, ON. L6H 6X7
905-829-5400
www.amec.com
AMECPreferred Site Selection Process
final
683
Page 2
be assessed without further selection of a technology and control system, in conjunction with
appropriate background air quality' studies. As noted previously, the ranking system does not
allow for a determining if the ran kings of the sites would change based on whether or not
technology costs varied from site to site.
The current site selection process has considered background air quality based on existing
MOE monitors. The MOE monitors were located in Newmarket, Stouffville, Oshawa and
Mississauga. Though these are appropriate to provide a general regional background, these
monitors will not pick up specific nearby sources. As a result, the selection process does reflect
the regional background air quality, but it does not reflect any significant sources near the short
list sites. Key sources in the area that will impact the site specific local air quality in the
Clarington sites include St. Marys Cement (SMC), Oshawa urban area, General Motors and
major transportation corridors (e.g 401 and 35/115). These are existing sources that will impact
the sites and though these have been qualitatively assessed (i.e. the presence of these sources
reduces the desirability of the Clarington sites), it has not yet been determined if the absolute
level of impact at the sites are acceptable. As part of the air quality assessment and
subsequent risk assessment, it will also be necessary to determine a future baseline for these
sites. This would include modelling increased traffic and other development in the areas. Again,
as with existing air quality, the future air quality will be different at various sites. As noted
previously, the ranking system does not allow an assessment of changes in the rankings of the
sites based on either actual current background data or future predicted background data.
The MOE monitoring stations only consider a number of the key emissions (e.g. S02, Nox,
PM2.5). These stations do not monitor a number of the contaminants of concern related to
thermal waste treatment. These will include dioxins and furans and key heavy metals (e.g.
mercury). As noted previously, this background data is important in differentiating cumulative air
quality impacts (i.e. health risks) at each site. When combined with the previous discussion
above concerning technology options and control; it may be premature to choose a single
preferred site.
The Regions assessment recognizes that differences in local meteorology can influence
dispersion and as a result, the air quality at each site. The local meteorological conditions need
to be assessed with respect to specific impacts. Data is being collected for the sites. The
current challenge is that without the speCific technology and control, without the site specific
background for all key contaminants and without the site specific meteorological data; it is not
pOSSible to determine actual differences in air quality impacts aUhe various sites. As all of these
are still under consideration, it is not currently possible to properly assess the sites with respect
to air quality; a key component in the potential health impacts at the sites.
Further, one of the key criterion used by the Region is the air quality impacts related to traffic to
and from the site. The current assessment considers traffic for a 150,000 tpy facility and a
, It is important to note that my assessment is focused on emissions and air quality impacts. The
background assessment needed to complete an appropriate site-specific HHRA would require
background data for all media; including water and soil.
AMECPreferred Site Selection Process final
684
Page 3
250,000 tpy facility. As noted in the TSH review of the Region's traffic assessment report, a
proper assessment to adequately compare difference in haul distances and optimizing for road
links (e.g. the 407 has not been used in the traffic analysis) and transfer stations, indicate that
for the 250,000 tpy case, the ranking of the Clarington and Gwillimbury sites can change. The
Gwillimbury site could then go from a "disadvantage" to an "advantage". As discussed above,
since the ranking is done on professional judgment, it is not clear how this would translate into
final overall rankings. No analysis for truck traffic for the 400,000 tpy has been carried out.
In summary and conclusion, the current site selection process starts with an underlying
assumption that all of the potential technologies have air emissions at levels that can see any
technology placed on any site at the same costs and impacts. Even though the Regions own
consultants state that further control might be needed if site specific risks are present, this
potential technology change has not been considered in the site selection process. The
Region's consultants also assume that background data (current and future), site specific
meteorology and site specific key receptors are such at all sites, that the inclusion of a thermal
waste treatment facility is acceptable as a cumulative impact and that once these factors are all
taken into account the ranking of the sites will still follow the current ranking based on
professional judgment. This has not been conclusively demonstrated. We would strongly
recommend that a second site be carried forward into the detailed assessment and technology
selection process to allow for a quantitative comparison of the air quality (and human risk) and
thereby chose the appropriate preferred site.
Yours truly,
AMEC Americas Limited
~--:
---_.....
Tony van der Vooren Ph.D., P.Eng., QEP
Manager; Air Quality
Environmental Department
tony. vandervooren@amec.com
AMECPreferred S~e Selection Process final
685
Attachment 7
To Report PSD-141-07
SENES Consultants Limited
MEMORANDUM
121 Granton Drive, Unit 12
Richmond Hill, Ontario
Canada L4B 3N4
Tel: (905) 764-9380
Fax: (905) 764-9386
E-mail: senes@senes.ca
Web Site: http://www.senes.ca
TO:
Faye Langmaid/ Janice Szwarz, Municipality ofClarington 34574
FROM:
M. Ganapathy / M. Monabbati / Y. Hamdy/ B. Lebeau 21 November 2007
SUBJ:
Review of site selection study documents - Main Report / Annex B - Potential Water
Quality Impacts / Annex C -Terrestrial-Aquatic Biology
This is the second draft of the SENES's review of site selection study documents which was
prepared after receiving the consultant team response to the first draft of the SENES's review.
MAIN REPORT
Our review of the main thermal treatment facility site selection process indicated that there are gaps
and shortcomings in the selection process. The conclusion of the assessment that Clarington 01 may
be a suitable site for the proposed project could have been arrived at by adopting a more transparent
and logical approach to the entire process using the existing information and assumptions. Some key
issues are as follows:
I The study claimed that the initial screening process ensured that unsuitable areas, such as
significant natural features, agricultural lands and existing residential areas would not be considered
further in the siting process. The main report indicates that some of the selected sites are in fact
located near Natural Heritage Features including: Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI),
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA), Wetlands, community parks and residential areas. This
undermines the effectiveness of the initial screening process in reviewing the other sensitive sites.
2. The main report indicates that the areas from the initial screening process consist of primarily
industrial and commercial land uses, located away from city centres and suburban communities.
However, SENES believes that this statement is not accurate as some of the short-listed sites could
be considered as close to suburban communities. The consultant team indicated subsequently that
they will "adopt the references description in future documentation to reflect the fact that some areas
may abut some sub-urban communities as set-backs were not applied to constraints at Step 2".
686
34574
21 November 2007
Memo to Municipality ofClarington (Continued)
Page 2
3. SENES questioned the validity of the rationale for separating the siting and the competitive
vendor selection processes. The report cites the "fairness of the selection process" as a reason to
separate the siting and vendor selection processes. It conveys an impression that all thermal
technologies are similar. This impression is evident from the Regions' consultant team response that
"modern EFW facilities are expected to have minimal environmental effects and, therefore, such
facilities can be safely located on sites selected by proponents outside of the historic EA process,"
This is the stated justification for the separation of the siting and vendor selection processes. In our
opinion, the site-specific impacts of a selected technology need to be assessed prior to finalizing the
selection of the preferred sites. Given the level of uncertainty in the site selection process, in our
opinion the possibility of consideration of two sites for the tendering process should be considered.
4. SENES commented on the inappropriate use of the word "advantage" / "disadvantage"/
"neutral" etc. causing confusion in the comparative site selection study. The consultant team clarified
that the actual trade-offs were made during the evaluation process and these will be better
docwnented in the various discussions and tables in the future draft of the EA report and hopefully
clarifY the usage of these words. However, there is a lack of traceability for the EA process at this
time.
5. The siting process uses a qualitative process to identifY the preferred site for the project. The
consultant team indicated that during the preparation of the EA Terms of Reference, the public was
consulted and ultimately a qualitative methodology was specified. The record of public consultation
and approval of the selected qualitative methodology should be provided as an appendix to the main
report to provide evidence that the community/ stakeholders consented to a qualitative evaluation
process of the sites. In addition, weighting of the factors should be clearly identified.
687
6. The capital cost allocation for site infrastructure is relatively small compared with the capital
cost of the thermal treatment facility, and the facility cost is associated with a large uncertainty as it
is evident from the Low-Cost and High-Cost estimates in the costing report. The difference in capital
infrastructure cost estimates for various sites has no statistical significance with respect to overall
capital costs. In addition, some of utility costs may be offset by the capital cost of the project (e.g.
cost of wastewater treatment and sewer connection against potentially more expensive dry scrubbing
process), thus making the utility costs even less important factor in the site selection process. In
34574
21 November 2007
Menw to Municipality of Clarington (Continued)
Page 3
addition, special costs were compared to "distant landfill", which is not a comparative cost among
the alternatives. Distant landfill is not one ofthe alternatives being considered.
Therefore, in our opinion the capital cost of infrastructure has no significant input to the selection
process and this cost was not reviewed in detail by us. The consultant's justified inclusion of the
costs based on "Approved EA Terms of Reference"; however, our comment is concerned with the
fairness of the site selection process and documentation, irrespective of the EA Terms of Reference.
It will be desirable to include the record of public consultation and approval of the selected criteria in
the main report.
7. SENES had questioned the validity of the criteria considered for Evaluation of Short-Listed
Sites, particularly the last three criteria (page 10 of the draft site selection process report) which are
closely related to each other. Further, in our opinion, public health and safety and natural
environment are separate issues and should have been dealt with as separate criteria for impact and
fairness of assessment. In particular, the weight of air quality impact, which is the primary human
health concern, is subsumed under natural environment. Both the Clarington 01 and East
Gwillimbury 01 sites have been ranked "neutral" for air quality. However, Clarington 01 was ranked
"advantage" compared with the East Gwillimbury 01 site which was ranked "disadvantage" for
Public Health & Safety and Natural Environment Considerations.
It is also our opinion that utility costs and legal considerations have no role to play (relative to the
much larger total capital costs) in selecting a site because communities do not care whether "the legal
permitting issues are more or less" or "something costs more or less". SENES comments are
concerned with the soundness of the site selection process and selected criteria irrespective of the EA
Terms of Reference. The consultant team indicated that the criteria and indicators for these five
categories of criteria were all developed as part of the approved EA Terms of Reference. Again, it
will be desirable to include the record of public consultation and approval of the selected criteria and
EA Terms of Reference in the main report.
8. We disagree with the consultant team's assertion that the qualitative assessment avoids the
risk of double-counting. If this were the case, the proponent would not have needed to have multiple
criteria and the report could have been much shorter, with all three criteria lumped together as one
criterion.
688
34574
21 November 2007
Memo to Municipality of Claring/on (Continued)
Page 4
In summary, in our opinion, the site selection process and documentation do not convey the
impression that the process was fair and transparent.
ANNEX B - POTENTIAL WATER OUALITY IMPACTS (SURFACE WATER AND
GROUNDWATER)
The following peer review considered the responses received from the Region's consultants on the
questions previously raised by SENES regarding the report on potential water quality impacts. In
general, the responses to SENES' questions have clarified the report and provided explanations.
Some of our additional observations are as follows:
. The construction of the thermal treatment facility will result in an increase in paved areas,
parking lots, and landscaped areas which in turn will result in an increase in stormwater
flows. Stormwater Management facilities are required to detain the excess stormwater flows
and release flows which are equivalent to pre-development flows.
. The concern regarding the inclusion of the regional storm was addressed by stating that this
event will be added at the detailed design stage. We accept this response.
. The identification of the length of the modeled storm or the CN (a parameter related to the
permeability of the soil for penetration of precipitation) values for post development were
clarified by stating that the post-developed area was calculated based on an impervious site
area of 45% and the DESIGN STANDHYD (a hydrology computer model) was used for the
developed area. For the remaining undeveloped area, the post-development conditions are
still to be the same as the pre-development conditions and therefore, the CN value of74 stays
the same and the DESIGN STANDHYD.
. The response regarding the need to provide a description oftopography and existing drainage
is not satisfactory. Although the response indicates that the topography and drainage pattern
are illustrated on the maps, a description should be added to the text.
. The response to the availability of 1 OO-yr and regional flood plain mapping under existing
and proposed conditions indicated that it will be investigated during the detailed design
stage. We concur with this response.
. The response to comment on the removal efficiency indicated that it will be up to the
Conservation Authority. However, as per the MOE guidelines, the requirement is 80%
removal of solids especially for sensitive streams and hopefully this will be investigated
during the detailed design stage.
689
34574
21 November 2007
Menw to Municipality ofClarington (Continued)
Page 5
. Section 3.3 of the report will be revised to include the requirement for Permit-To-Take-
Water (PTTW) application for the dewatering activities.
. In Table 4.1, the temperature of the receiving water (cold or wann) was used as one of the
criteria for ranking purposes. However, the Storm water Management facility should provide
enhanced treatment, i.e. 80% removal of solids as outlined in the MOE Stormwater
Management Planning and Design Manual (2003) regardless ofwann or cold fishery in the
receiving water. Therefore, the receiving water temperature should not be used as a factor in
ranking the sites.
ANNEX C ESA'S AND SPECIES IMPACTS, AND AOUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL
ECOLOGY IMPACTS
Key issues SENES had were primarily the lack of explanations or descriptions as to the methodology
and approach of this study, and the quality of technical writeup leading to low confidence in the
evaluations. These aspects were addressed specifically in the memo from the consultant team
entitled "Clarification Questions" and are not discussed in the present document. The consultant
team indicated that they will incorporate changes in the document to address these aspects. The
report, as its present condition, does not adequately support the conclusions. SENES expects that the
changes in the follow up version of the report would make the methodology acceptable.
1 A key issue with respect to this report is that it was prepared without consultation with
(area/district) biologists and experts from government agencies. Only website databases
were consulted and these could be out dated. The Natural Heritage Information Centre
(NHIC) website was last updated in 2005.
2 The report did not evaluate the plants that are locally and regionally rare and endangered.
These plants are as important as those listed by the Natural Heritage Information Centre
(NHIC) for the Province of Ontario. We raised this issue in the first version of this review.
The report's authors responded that they were not aware of any such list of rare plants listed
as locally or regionally significant. Here are the two main references (these plants are now
under the jurisdiction of Conservations Authorities):
a. J.L. Riley (with contributions from Bakowsky, W.D. and 11 other). 1989.
Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Central Region. Ontario Ministry of
690
34574
21 November.2007
Memo to Municipality of Clarington (Continued)
Page 6
Natural Resources, Parks and Recreational Areas Section, Central Region, Richmon
Hill. Report.
b. Varga, S. and 8 others. 1999. The Vascular Plant Flora of the Greater Toronto Area.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Aurora District. Report.
691
Attachment 8
To Report PSD-141-07
~. ~
architects
planners
513 Division Street
Cobourg, Ontario K9A 5G6
(905) 372..2121 Fax: (905) 372-3621
E-mail: cobourg@tsh.ca
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP
Municipality of Clarington
FROM:
Will McCrae, P. Eng.
TSH
DATE:
November 22, 2007
RE:
DurhamNork Residual Waste Study
Peer Review Comments
Introduction:
As per the request of the Municipality ofClarington, we have undertaken a peer review of Annex 'F',
Annex 'G' and areas of Annex 'H' where it impacted on considerations in Annex 'F' and Annex 'G'.
Our report looks at the approach and economics assigned to the development of a Thermal Treatment
Facility (TTF) at each site and the conclusions reached with respect to the assessment of the short-list
sites.
Discussion:
ANNEX F - "REPORT ON POTENTIAL TRAFFlC IMPACTS"
The report provides a basic assessment of future traffic operations at the intersections in close proximity to
each site for a 2016 horizon year. In summary, the facility would generate low peak hour and daily traffic
volumes, and as such would have minimal impacts on adjacent roads or intersections from a traffic volume
perspective.
In general, the three Clarington sites were found to be preferred over the East Gwillimbury site, and
specifically, the two Clarington sites in proximity to the Highway 40I/Courtice Road interchange were
preferred to the Clarington site in proximity to the Highway 40I/Bennett Road interchange. The key factor
that gave the latter site a disadvantage was the uncertainty with respect to maintaining direct access to
Highway 401 (via South Service Road) ifthe Bennett Road interchange were to be replaced in the future by
an interchange at Lamb's Road.
I. The lane configuration shown in Figure 3-5 for the Highway 40 I eastbound off ramp intersection
with Courtiee Road shows two eastbound through lanes on the approach to Courtice Road, but it
appears that there is only one receiving lane as the South Service Road is shown on the same figure
692
Memorandum to: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP
Date: November 22, 2007
2.
to be a basic two lane road. There are in fact two receiving lanes on the South Service Road, one of
which terminates a few hundred metres from the intersection.
2. Further to the previous point, there is an inconsistency in the related analysis of this intersection. For
the existing and future a.m. peak hour analysis, the eastbound approach is analyzed as one
left/through lane and one through/right lane, which corresponds to the lanes depicted in Figure 3-5.
For the existing and future p.m. peak hour analysis, the same approach is analyzed as one left turn
lane and one through/right lane. With the very heavy volume of eastbound left turns that occur
during the p.m. peak hour, it is understood that the through/left lane could function as a "de facto"
left turn lane and this appears to be what was intended in the analysis. Depending on the actual
number of receiving lanes on South Service Road opposite the ramp approach, consideration may be
given to designating the eastbound approach lanes as left and through/right as used in the analysis.
In terms of the conclusions drawn from the analysis, this inconsistency can be considered
inconsequential,
3. The impact of the future Highway 407 extension appears to be limited to detrimental effects to site
Clarington 05. At this location, major interchange works will result in property requirements
effectively reducing the available area of the Clarington 05 site. The report does not fully reflect the
impact of the future Highway 407 with respect to this site. It has not been considered as a possible
haul route either.
4. The use of the South Service Road and Osbourne Road as truck routes to service the TTF on
Clarington 01 site is not acceptable in terms ofthe road uSeS envisaged in the Secondary Plan for the
Clarington Energy Business Park.
A route following Courtice Road with a southerly east/west access road north of the CP Rail corridor
is the arrangement envisaged by the Municipality. Osboume Road, for example, is promoted within
the Park Plan as a local street built to an urban standard, complete with sidewalks, landscaped
borders and treed boulevards, a street standard hardly conducive to heavy truck traffic.
5. In Section 4.1 of the report, it is indicated that a full build out of the Energy Park will influence
traffic patterns and traffic composition. How can the traffic impact of the TTF located in this area,
social and otherwise be fully appreciated without some knowledge oftraffic trends from the Park
development?
At the time of the preparation of the report, no applications for site plan approvals for the Energy
Park had been made. Given this and with no knowledge on timing of the park build up, a traffic
impact study in support of the TTF, prepared to support a site plan application in the near future, will
have to make assumptions on future park traffic.
6. In Section 7 "Haul Distances", it is indicated that haul distances have not been applied to the report
as a factor in determining social and cultural impacts. A conclusion is reached, however, which
shows a reduction of 40% in vehicle kilometres for the Clarington Oland 05 sites under the 150,000
tpy scenario which we understand to only include 20,000 tpy of waste from York Region. This
'UH
693
Memorandum to: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP
Date: November 22, 2007
3.
skews the analysis in favour of the Clarington sites. The advantages of the Clarington sites as
compared to the East Gwillimbury site diminish under the 250,000 tpy scenario.
It could be concluded that the Clarington sites only have a social/cultural advantage under the
150,000 tpy scenario and that under the 250,000 tpy scenario, there is no real advantage between the
Clarington sites and East Gwillimbury and in fact, the East Gwillimbury site could be considered
more favourably because access roads are already exposed to truck traffic carrying municipal waste.
7. Section 8 "Maximum Scenario (400,000 tonnes per year)" - In order to properly assess impacts on
each site under the maximum scenario, a traffic impact study should be promoted for each site or are
we to assume that the two paragraph discussion on the East Gwillimbury 0 I under this section
constitutes a study for this site? The fact that further studies are required for the Clarington sites
would seem to preclude making a meaningful comparative evaluation of the Clarington 01,05 sites
and East Gwillimbury 0 I site from a traffic view point.
In addition, it should be noted that the EA planning process allows for the proposed thermal facility
to receive waste from other non-GT A municipalities such as Peterborough. With regard to the
400,000 tpy scenario, it is our understanding that no agreement has been reached with Kawartha
Lakes, Peterborough or Northumberland regarding disposal of waste at the York/Durham facility.
No assumptions can be made with respect to potential volumes from these sites or their applicability
as potential sources for disposal of ash.
It is indicated in the report that the origin of additional waste beyond the 250,000 tpy scenario is
unknown (page 8,1). Thus it is difficult to determine the preferred site located under this scenario
using haul distance criteria as pointed out by the proponent.
8. The "Significant Findings from the Traffic Study" section should be revised on Page 10-2, in that
mitigative measures for the East Gwillimbury site should be addressed.
Section 12 "Identification of Preliminary Site AdvantagesJDisadvantages"
In Table 12.1, it is indicated that there are critical movements affecting waste truck travel associated
with the East Gwillimbury site. An assessment of this situation should be addressed in detail
including the potential introduction of signalization, which has been promoted at the Clarington 05
and 01 sites, The present use ofthis site for resource receiving should be highlighted in terms of its
potential to handle increased truck volumes.
It is difficult to relate this "disadvantage" for the East Gwillimbury site to the assessment on Page
10.2, which indicates that no improvements to this site are required to accommodate future truck
traffic. This is again emphasized in Table 4.2 of Step 7 - "Evaluation of Short-List Site", which
gives a disadvantage rating to East Gwillimbury from a traffic perspective.
9. Haul distances used to assess air quality impacts are detailed in Table 7.2. The following concerns
are noted:
IIH
694
Memorandum to: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP
Date: November 22, 2007
4.
. Criteria should be established for different haulage approaches, i.e. trailer or packer truck and
utilized consistently in each scenario. In C]arington 01,04 and 05 scenarios, haul distances of
10 kIn are used for trailers whereas in East Gwillimbury, haul distances are included up to 60
kIn for packer truck use.
. ]n the East Gwillimbury scenario, packer trucks are used to haul waste for Brock and Uxbridge.
It is not clear in the Clarington scenalios how this waste is being hauled or if it has been
accounted for.
. Haulage distances under "Other Eastern Municipalities" should not be included for the reason
outlined in Item No.7 above.
. For the East Gwillimbury scenario, the haul distance for packer trucks used to haul waste from
Aurora, East Gwillimbury, King, Newmarket and Whitchurch-Stouffville are included even
though these haul distances are common to all scenarios. For the Clarington scenarios, waste
from these locations would be hauled to the East Gwillimbury TS which is adjacent to the
proposed location of the East Gwillimbury TIF and then to Clarington by means of transfer
trailers.
. The location of a site for disposal of residual materials from the TIF, i.e, ash, has not been
decided. Hau]age distances associated with this disposal should be reflected in the comparison
of vehicle-kilo metre costs for the different sites.
. Under the Clarington scenarios, is it practical to continue to operate three transfer stations
within a 20 kilometre radius ofthe TTF, while in East Gwillimbury packer trucks are operating
in haul distances from 20 - 60 kIn?
Haul costs calculations were well documented in Annex 'G' Appendix' A. Similar detail
should be provided for haul distances summarized in Table 7.2. A more detailed and
representative assessment mayor may not alter the conclusions, but will remove any concerns
regarding bias and misinterpretation.
ANNEX G - "REPORT ON CAPITAL COSTS, OPERA nON AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS"
Section 2: Methodology of Study
In the "Study Approach and Key Assumptions", capital costs for water supply, sanitary sewer connection,
natura] gas and electrical grid connections have been estimated on the basis of 250,000 tonnes per year.
Given that these facilities may be supplied to the site by installation within reconstructed roads, it would
seem prudent to service the site initially for the final capacity requirements of 400,000 tonnes. This is what
is proposed for stOlmwater management facilities. The implications of upgrading services at a later date for
'UH
695
Memorandum to: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP
Date: November 22, 2007
5.
the 400,000 tonne facility have not been assessed due to uncertainty with respect to infrastructure at the time
of expansion.
It is important to note that the choice of actual treatment technology has a serious bearing on certain aspects
of infrastructure. This is highlighted by the sanitary sewer costs for the East Gwillimbury site as outlined in
Item No. I of the discussion which follows.
There are a number of areas where infrastructure costs need to be revisited in order that a proper evaluation
be given to allow advantage/disadvantage assessment to be attached.
I. There are options with respect to the type ofTI'F which will eventually be used. In one type, there is
no need for sanitary sewer facilities. For an option which requires sanitary sewer facilities, there is a
severe cost disadvantage indicated for the East Gwillimbury 01 site. Table 3.4, "Cost of Sewer
Connections" indicates a sewer cost for the East Gwillimbury site of approximately $7,500,000.00.
2. Within the Clarington Energy Park, road reconstruction is required to an urban standard. The cost
estimates for road works on Clarington 05 and 01 sites should be increased accordingly. The costs
are currently estimated for rural standard construction. Standards should conform to the Clarington
Energy Business Park Secondary Plan.
3. The analysis revealed that from the traffic operations stand point, the four sites can generally
accommodate the future facility without improvements to the study area intersections. However,
there is a potential need for signalization ofthe south ramp terminal intersection of Highway 401 and
Courtice Road beyond 2016.
4. Watermain costs for Chuington 01 site and Clarington 04 sites should be revisited. The same unit
price has been used for different size mains.
5. Do we need a 450 mm diameter sanitary sewer at each site? In some areas the proper allocation of
costs may well change the advantage/disadvantage designation for particular indicators. Apparently
the sewer size is based on the TTF vendors' recommendations for a worst case scenario.
It is important to emphasize that infrastructure costs with respect to the TTF are minor in comparison
to the overall cost. As such, it is misleading to emphasize advantages with respect to infrastructure
without giving a relative weighting between infrastructure and air quality, for example. We do not
feel that infrastructure servicing costs should rate highly in the final analysis. It should also be noted
that infrastructure servicing costs cannot be fully estimated until such times as a decision is made on
the actual treatment technology to be utilized.
As an example in Table 4.1, Page 4.1, the site specific-capital cost range for sites Clarington 05 and
01 should be increased to reflect an acceptable route built to standards reflected in the Municipality's
Secondary Plan. We would suggest because of this that the designation for Clarington 0 I should be
altered from neutral to disadvantage, more in line with the other Clarington sites.
lilt
696
Memorandum to: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP
Date: November 22, 2007
6.
6. With respect to the assessment for annual haul cost savings; cost differences are diminished by
increased waste haulage volumes. An advantage designation we feel would be a more appropriate
assessment for the East Gwillimbury 01 site, given the relative costs for the short-list sites and the
cost of this component in the larger cost of the overall project. We question why cost savings are
calculated in comparison to the status quo, rather than being calculated for each individual site based
on the haul distances and methods detailed in Table 7.2 of Annex 'F'.
7. Under the indicator "Distance from potential markets for sale of marketable materials (i.e. heat,
electricity, recovered metals, etc.)", there is considerable advantage (with detailed analysis) given to
the Clarington 05 and 01 sites. There is less analysis given for the East Gwillimbury 01 site for
direct comparison. (See Section 3.2.2 of Annex 'H')
8. Depending on the scale of operation, i.e. 150,000 tonnes or 250,000 tonnes, the initial potential for
heat use by adjoining facilities is small for both the Clarington and East Gwillimbury sites.
Accordingly, the cost savings are small compared to, say, a non-sewer TIF option which would
reduce the East Gwillimbury site servicing costs to zero with respect to sanitary sewer needs.
For comparison purposes, it should be noted that if a TTF option is chosen, which does not require
sanitary sewers, then the cost difference in servicing costs between Clarington 01 and East
Gwillimbury 01 is in the order of $7.5 - 8 million, even allowing for appropriate urban access
construction on the Clarington site and signalization in some form on the East Gwillimbury site.
We feel that the disadvantage assessment in Table 4.1, Page 4.1 given to East Gwillimbury 01 is not
sustained by the report discussion. The assessment of CIa ring ton 01 with a "Major Advantage" and
East Gwillimbury 01 with a "Disadvantage" based on a heat load indicator, Table 4.1, Page 4.2,
Annex 'G', is at odds with this assessment, given that elecl1icity and recovered metals are considered
equal for all short-list sites, as indicated in Section 3.2.4, Page 3-7.
9. Further to Item No.6 with respect to conclusions reached in Table 4. I, Page 4.1, the neutral rating
for East Gwillimbury under "Distance from Waste Generation etc." seems somewhat contrived given
the small differences in cost savings for annual haulage.
In addition, there should be a more detailed breakdown on the recovered costs of marketable
materials. The disadvantage assessed to the East Gwillimbury site appears to be for its alleged
limi ted market for heat. This component of the assessment effectively rules out the East
Gwillimbury site with an overall "neutral" rating.
10. There should be some form of weighing of a "disadvantage" or "advantage" assessment. These
appear to be given equal weight in the final summary of the site considerations, i.e. cancelling each
other out.
II. We feel there should be a more detailed analysis of the potential "recoverable" costs than that
outlined on Page 3.7, given the importance attached to the conclusions in Table 4.1. The assessment
in Section 3.2.4 should be expanded to reflect a balanced view.
697
tIH
Memorandum to: Ms. Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, MCIP
Date: November 22, 2007
7.
Conclusion:
It is our conclusion that the methods adopted for site comparison of Annexes 'G' and 'R' do not fully
address the economics and other factors related to each site. It would seem appropriate that a decision be
reached on the type of Thennal Treatment Facility that will be adopted and then proceed to quantify the
logistics of the respective sites. Each site could then be rated in a manner that would allow clearer
comparison and remove any elements of guess work or bias that may otherwise skew results.
As examples, please note the following:
. A traffic analysis should be undertaken for the East Gwillimbury site as is proposed for the Clarington 05
and 01 sites. Mitigative measures for the East Gwillimbury site should be outlined.
. The matter of mitigation on a number of issues has not been properly handled in the analysis of the sites
and as such is not reflected in the final assessment of advantage/disadvantage under the various
indicators.
. It would seem that a decision on the type ofTTF to be used should be made early in the process as to
establish the level of need for site works.
. The attributing of "advantage" and "disadvantage" to site potentials is too vague and there is no
weighting between the various indicators in the analysis.
. There are too many areas in the analysis which are left for future analysis/study once the preferred site
selection process is complete.
. Of the questions that we have raised related to servicing and traffic impacts, twelve responses indicate
that further study and refinement is required once the site selection process is complete. Where such
questions pertain, for example, to capital costs from which an evaluation is derived, it is difficult to
respond to the "advantage"/"disadvantage" assessments based on incomplete data.
(~4Y!/k
William McCrae, P.Eng.
Senior Project Engineer
WMc/ym
P:\DepI12\12-29694\Corresp\22454.doc
Cc: Tony Cannella
TIH
698
Attachment 9
To Report PSD-141-07
Cl~illgron
MEMO
TO: David Crome, Director of Planning
FROM: Laura Barta, Internal Auditor
DATE: 27 November 2007
RE: Review of EFW Study
Finance staff was asked to review the DurhamlYork Residual Waste Study,
Application of Short-List Evaluation Criteria from a cost analysis prospective. To
this end, the Economic and Financial Considerations: Annex G - Report on
Capital Costs, Operation and Maintenance Costs was reviewed in some detail.
Our review concentrated on reviewing the financial calculations included in a
selection of tables. We did our testing based on each new type of table, not on
testing every table. During the course of the review, the following discrepancies
were noted for Annex G:
CONCERNS:
1. Page 13 and 14 of Appendix A of the report contained calculations that
rounded the Total per Truck Minute cost to two decimal places. The
resulting value shown in both Table 3.3.1 and Table 3.3.2 were not the same
number used in the calculation used to arrive at Total Cost per Tonne
Minute of Haul in the tables.
2. Page 15 of Appendix A of the report contained an error in the total for the
value of Annual Haul Cost. The total York number did not include the value
for Georgina Transfer Station of $174,396. This oversight will make the
overall total short by this value as well. The effect of missing this value will
cause an increase in the relative cost saving between scenarios. It was
pointed out that all schedules should be reviewed for this type of error. This
value was used an additional four times in our review of the subsequent
tables.
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARlNGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO LIC 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F(905)623-0608
699001
3. In an attempt to recreate the Annual Haul cost values shown in table 3.4.1
on page 15, we attempted to cross multiply the numbers and came up with
a difference of close to $300,000. We asked that all schedules be
restructured to reflect numbers that come closer to those you can multiply
out or that more decimals could be shown where necessary to increase the
accuracy of the calculation.
DIALOGUE:
Clarington's concerns were forwarded through the Region to be addressed by
Betsy Vaghese, E.I.T., GENIVAR Ontario Inc. To ensure the public is able to
follow the information in the tables, Clarington staff felt it was important for the
tables to accurately reflect the correct data. The following responses were
received:
1. Ms. Vaghese agreed with Clarington's comments and made the changes to
page 13 and 14 stating that both Table 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 contained a
typographical error. She assured us that the actual calculations were done
correctly.
2. The missing costs for York's Georgina Transfer Station were also adjusted on
the revised tables Ms. Vaghese forwarded. No revisions were provided for
tables that would have been subsequently affected by this change. An
example is Table 4.1.1 or 4.2.1 in the Appendix, summarizing the Haul Cost
Savings for each scenario.
3. Ms. Vaghese has recalculated the Annual Haul Cost Tables to address our
concerns related to rounding. These changes have been used to update
Tables 3.4.1 to 3.4.4 for both 150,000 tpy and 250,000 tpy as shown in
Appendix A. Again, no revisions were provided for tables that would have
been subsequently affected by this change
CONCLUSION:
A review of these tables will necessitate a change in section 3.2.2, Table 3.13
page 3-6 of the Annex itself. The East Gwillimbury site will need to be moved to
the top of the list with the overall system cost savings for Annual Haul Costs for
250,000 tpy Residual Waste. This rating could then have an effect on the overall
ranking of the site. The new shift the Short-List Site Ranking as Follows:
o East Gwillimbury 01 $3,731,775
o Clarington 01/05 $3,641,453
o Clarington 04 $3,525,767
The Values shown in Table 3.12 will also need to be changed although the
ranking will remain the same.
Section 4, Table 4.1 on page 4-1 will need to be re-evaluated. With the change in
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F(905)623-0608
699002
ranking for East Gwillimbury, their neutral status should revisited.
As mentioned, the changes identified in our review do not appear to have been
applied through the balance of the study. We would recommend that this be
followed through. We also did not test the calculations on all tables throughout all
Annexes and would therefore also recommend that this be done.
Cc: Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance
Fred Horvath, Director of Operations
Tony Cannella, Director of Engineering
Dennis Hefferon
Faye Langmaid
CORPORA nON OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO LIC 3A6 T(90S)623-3379 F(90S)623-0608
699003
MEMORANDUM
TO:
DurhamlY ork Project Team
DATE:
November 9, 2007
DurhamlY ork Consultant Team
FROM:
Attachment 10
To Report PSD-141-07
RE:
FI NAL _ Comments received from Clarington Peer Reviews on the Step 7 Preferred Site
Report
The following provides the final Consultant Team's responses to comments received from Peer Review consultants
retained by the Municipality ofClarington to review the document entitled "Draft Report - Thermal Treatment Facility
Site Selection Process - Results of Step 7: Evaluation of Short-list and Identification ofthe Consultants Recommended
Preferred Site, September 2007".
Comments RCCCI\cd 110111 StcH':l1 Rll\H: 011 r\lal1l Rl'pOlt
~-= ~~""~~~'~"'-'~~~~"""-~-~-- ~ ~~~':' "~--~--~ ~~-- ~""-----~-~-~~~-~~-~~--~~~t:~
I
General Observation;
2
The "Annexes" generally reflect a more
comprehensive approach to data collection and
analysis than is reflected in the draft "Results of
Sten 7" report.
Title Page:
Does Clarington need express written consent to
"use" this report?
3
Section 1, Introduction
Why does the report refer to gasification as specific
to System 2(b) on page 1-4 (1st para) when
gasification (and pyrolysis) is common to both
Systems 2(a) and 2(b) in the fifth and sixth bullets
on page 1-3, and in the RFQ materials? (There
seems to have been an evolution whereby
gasifi",r~. d pyrolysis were treated as specific
'hen the preferred Alternative ''to''
lced, whereas they are common to
N.)
The purpose of the Annexes is to provide the detailed
information to support the information presented in the main
body of the report.
Clarington does not need express written consent to review and
provide comments on this report.
The note on the title page is provided to ensure that unrelated
third parties do not use the information in the documents for
purposes other than their intended use (e.g. attempts by a real..
estate agent to use the information on Archaeology provided in
Annex E in connection with a real-estate transaction in the
areal.
Systems 2(a) and 2(b) are clearly described in the second and
third bullets on page I -3 namely:
. System 2(a) - Thermal Treatment of Mixed Waste with
Recovery of Materials form the Ash/Char.
This system involves the thermal treatment (by combustion,
gasification or pyrolysis) of the post diversion waste to
produce electricity and heat. The resulting ash would be
processed to recover metals for recycling, with the
remaining ash disposed in a landfill.
. System 2(b) - Thermal Treatment of Solid Recovered Fuel
This system includes mechanical and possibly biological
processing (composting) of the post diversion waste to
recover recyclable materials and produce a solid recovered
fuel (SRF). The SRF is then thermally treated (by
combustion, ~asification or pvrolvsis) to oroduce electricitv
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road.
Burlington ON. L7N 319
Tel: (905) 631-3929 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699004
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 2
4
The preferred site, at 12.4 ha, is smaller than the
13.7 ha specified on page 1..7 for a site with all
required infrastructure and buffering within its
boundaries. In Appendix E to Annex H ('~echnical
memorandum on Facility Site Size"), however, the
minimum site size is indicated as 7.3 ha plus
stormwater management (around I ha) - a total of
around 8.3 ha. In terms ofthe earlier Step 1-5
process this could mean that some small sites were
missed because prospective '"willing sellers" were
told that the minimum size is 10- 12 ha. This
appendix provides quite a lot of information on
configuring the facility within each site and
provides concept plans, This information could
have been more effectively applied in the actual
site evaluation and comparison. For example the 1
krn circle used for the land use and air quality
analyses is centred on the centre of the site and not
on the perimeter or the potential location of the
facility as set out in this Section. Also, this material
states the portion ofClarington Site 05 south of the
watercourse is "unusable" for the facility.
Presumably this portion ofthe land could have
been severed and disposed of separately, and yet
the cost of the entire acreage ofthe site is utilized
in the cost com arison.
and heat. The residues from the processing of the residual
waste and ash/char from the thermal treatment process
would be disposed in a landfill.
In both systems it specifically states that '~hermal treatment"
includes combustion gasification and pyrolysis.
This description of the systems is consistent with the
information provided in the consideration of "Alternatives To".
The information presented in the RFQ is also consistent with
this description of the systems.
In the sentence in question namely:
"Many of the technologies that could be used to thermally treat
the solid recoveredfuel (e.g.. gasification) in System 2(b) are
regarded as "new technologies ", with active research and
development, but are less proven than the System 2(0)
technologies that are currently available to combust residual
waste. "
The term "gasification" is used as an example and in no way
implies that there has "been an evolution whereby gasification
and pyrolysis were treated as specific to System 2b when the
preferred Alternative ''to'' was first announced, whereas they are
common to both s stems now".
The Step 1-5 process to identifY willing sellers included a
Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) which identified a
conservative site size of 10-12 ha as being the ideal size for a
"stand alone" facility with all required features and
infrastructure accommodated on the site as well as allowing for
adequate on-site buffer zones and set backs.
The REOI went on to say that a basic facility could be
accommodated on 8-9 ha and further went on to say that if
proponents had a site smaller than described, but with potential
for sharing infrastructure, buffer zones, or other features with
neighbouring property, then those sites could also be submitted
for consideration. Accordingly, the intended purpose of
identifYing a site size requirement (i.e. sufficient capacity) was
conveyed.
During the short-list site evaluation process. in order to compare
the sites, we used a conceptual plan prepared by Rarnboll
consultants to more accurately determine site size requirements.
We noted that Rarnboll's plan indicates a size of about 9 ha to
accommodate all features with a moderate buffer zone from the
building perimeter of approximately 60 m. The calculations
based on the Rarnboll concept plan indicated firstly that the
building footprint requires 3. I ha and secondly the minimum
required site area excluding the stormwater management facility
and with no bufferin r uires 7.3 ha. The total of8.3 ha, which
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699005
4
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 3
6
Table 3.1, Evaluation Criteria:
7
The "considerations" included in the circulated
evaluation criteria for Step 7 have been replaced by
the "rationale" in the Ste 7 Re ort.
The "rationale" under "Compatibility with Existing
and/or Proposed Land Uses" mentions a need for
rezoning when the evaluations under this criterion
state that public uses are generally pennitted in all
zones (though 1 nnderstand Clarington staff
consider rezonings to be required for this facility
on sites in that municipality). The land use profile
of the East Gwillimbury site in the Annex does not
discuss the Greenbelt Plan.
There is potential for double counting between the
"Compatibility" and "Residential Areas" criteria.
8
9
There appears to be a conflict in the rationale for
the Institutional Facilities criterion (proximity a
bad or a good thing?), though this appears not to be
an issue in the actual site com arisen.
includes the stonnwater management facility of 1.0 ha, but still
with no buffer zone, was then compared with the actual site size
to determine surplus area at each of the sites. This surplus area
was then used to assess advantages and disadvantages of each of
the sites relative to one another. For example, as a rough
calculation a site size of 13 ha would provide a buffer zone of
approximately 90 m from the building perimeter. Accordingly,
the larger site of 13 ha, providing a buffer of 90 m, is
advantaged in this regard over the 9 ha site with a 60 m buffer.
Given the imprecise nature of the calculation of building size,
infrastructure requirements, buffer zone needs, etc, up until the
actual site and vendor are determined we feel that the estimated
numbers we have used throughout the siting process are
consistent and will not have led to the exclusion of any sites
because of size.
The methodology chosen was to estimate the cost of purchasing
land offered by private sellers on the basis of the size of the
parcel offered. The possibility of severing unused portions and
selling it off at some future date was not considered as there is
significant uncertainty regarding the ease with which this could
be accomplished and the price that could be realized in such a
sale.
In response to this question from the reviewer, the implications
of selling off the unused portion of Site 5 are considered in a
cost sensitivi anal sis discussed below.
Further discussion with the reviewer is required to confirm what
is meant by "circulated evaluation criteria"
The EA documentation to be submitted to the Minister will
include a discussion of the Greenbelt Plan as part of the land use
profile.
As the evaluation approach was qualitative in nature the risk of
double counting generally does not apply. A qualitative process
allows for the evaluation to account for, discount and therefore
avoid double-counting. Where necessary, this consideration can
be documented and ex lained in the evaluation text.
We do not consider this aspect to represent a conflict but rather
the reality that an opportunity may exist for creation of a district
heating or distributed energy arrangement which could be
consistent with some munici a1 olicies and the overall conce t
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (90S) 631-8684. Fax: (90S) 631-8960
699006
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 4
10 The haul cost analysis is based on savings from the
existing costs of haul to Michigan. This is not a
valid "base line" because this option will no longer
be available (just as the overall cost evaluation is
not done in relation to the cost of landfilling in
Michigan). The evaluation should be based on
actual costs.
II Acquisition costs for Clarington Site I and East
Gwillimbury Site I are rated at zero because they
are owned by Durham and York Regions,
respectively. This is inappropriate because there
would be an opportunity cost to the public purse of
"losing" either of these sites - they still have value
that should be reflected in the site comparison.
of sustainabili .
The haul cost analysis was based on the assumption that waste
would be hauled and disposed in remote landfills located in
southern Ontario.
The methodology chosen was to not include the opportunity
cost of the public sector sites.
In response to this question from the reviewer, the implications
of including an opportunity cost for the public sector sites are
considered in a cost sensitivity analysis discussed below.
Peer reviewers have raised several points with respect to the
estimated land acquisition costs included in the Total Site
Specific Capital Costs.
In particular, these points were:
. That a portion of the Clarington 05 site is not required for
facility development and that this 13.4 ha portion of the
property, could be sold off and thus reduce the lower cost
estimate for acquisition of the site from $3.4 million to $1.7
million.
. That an opportunity cost be assigned for the value ofthe
publicly owned Clarington 0 I and East Gwillimbury 0 I
sites. For this higher cost estimate, the cost of the
Clarington 0 I site Is estimated at $1.8 million. Because
acquisition was not required, an estimate for the land price
at the East Gwillimbury 01 site was not developed. Ifthe
Clarington higher land price of $60,000/acre were assumed,
the East Gwillimbury site would have a value of $1.7
million.
With these changes in land prices the comparison of capital
costs are summarized in the attached Table 1.
In summary, even with taking into consideration, the points
regarding land prices raised by the peer reviewers, the overall
findin s with res ect to the ca ital cost criterion do not chan e.
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699007
4
FINAL.. Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred S~e Report
November 9, 2007
Page 5
12 Operational cost and capital cost "advantages" and
"disadvantages" are treated as equal when there is
no basis for comparing them. Suggest that these
costs be "present valued" so that they can be
compared together, or at least consistently.
13 Operation and maintenance costs include cost of
transportatiou of ash to a landfill, but the landfill
location is not known.
14 While complexity of required approvals aud
agreements was in the TOR, there is a question as
to whether this represents an envirorunental effect
uuder the EA Act.
The Approved EA Terms of Reference does not specifY that
capital and operating costs be combined in "Present Value
Analysis" so this was not done.
The Approved EA Terms of Reference does not specifY that
capital and operating costs be combined in a "Present Value
Analysis" so this was not done.
In response to this question a present value analysis was done
utilizing the Site Specific Capital Costs from Annex G Tables
3.9 & 3.10 and the Overall System Operating Cost Savings
presented in Tables 3.12. The Haul Cost Savings analysis for
the 150,000 tpy facility was selected as this is the most likely
size for the facility given that the Dongara facility is currently
under construction in Yark Region. It is also noted that the
Overall System Cost Savings used in the analysis incorporate a
updated set of numbers as a minor error was identified in the
underlying calculations of Haul Cost Savings. This arithmetic
error did not have any effect on the overall findings presented in
Annex G.
The analysis was performed over a 20 year operating time frame
assuming constant 2007 price levels and using a real (i.e.,
exclusive of inflation) discount rate of 4%. The results,
summarized in the Table below, confirm that the Clarington 01
is preferred to the other sites under both the "Lower" and
"Higher" Site Specific Capital Cost Assumptions.
Present Value of Lifecycle Costs and Savings ($ X 1,000)
(Savings +ve & Costs -vel
CLOt CL04 CLOS EGO!
Lower Site Spedfic 23,308 21,610 20,455 22,750
Ca ital Costs
Higber Site 19,774 14,163 15,760 15,471
Spttific Capital
Costs
The cost to dispose of ash is included in the estimated facility
operating costs presented in Table 3.11 of Annex G. Although
the specific site for disposing of these residues has not been
identified yet, a variety of options for disposing of these
residues do exist (e.g. licensed private sector landfill sites). The
estimated costs presented in Table 3.11 include a provision for
haul to one of these sites.
The consideration of legal aspects such as these are considered
to fall within the auspices of the broadly defined environment as
required by the Environmental Assessment Act. Through the
process to date including preparation of the EA ToR and
completion of the EA, the application of this criterion has not
been questioned by the public nor commenting agencies. It has,
however, been identified as a lower riori com ared to other
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699008
J!L
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 6
15
Net effects analysis description on page 3-6:
16
The draft Step 7 report states that the net effects
analysis was initially done based only on available
data, and yet it is clear from the annexes that the
work was more sophisticated than that (e.g. full site
surveys in the natural heritage report). The Step 7
Report should provide a more accurate description
of the rocess.
What mitigation measures were considered? Table
4.1 (page 4-12) suggests that there were none - so
why describe it as part of the process? The annexes
are also very weak on systematic consideration of
mitigation (e.g. net effects re: archaeology).ln other
areas this is probably at least partly a function of
the lack of information on the preferred
vendor/technolo .
Why is the description/definition of advantages and
disadvantages on page 3-6 different from the
descriptions in the Annexes (e.g. Table 2-1, page 2-
2 of Annex "A")?
]7
18
Overall I believe the established approach in
identifying and rating environmental effects first
followed by application oftradeotfs and
interpretation of effects in terms of
advantages/disadvantages is clearer, more traceable
and more consistent with the EA Act than
combining all of this into a single operation.
19 In the Table 3-2 description:
For "Advantage", if impact is "manageable", does
that mean it is mitigable and that there would be no
net effect?
20 Table 4.2 shows "neutral" advantage/disadvantage
arising from a balance of
advantages/disadvantages, which cannot mean
there is no benefit or impact. Also, a cost range is
shown as "neutral" when this should strictly be
applied to zero cost.
21 For "disadvantage" and "major disadvantage", if
mitigation measures are required should this not be
used to derive a net effect before a ranking is
assigned, rather than using it to identify an effect?
22 Is ancill infrastructure considered onl under
cate ories of the environment.
The modeling and calculations undertaken as part of the
analysis was predominantly based on secondary data sources.
Otherwise, limited field reconnaissance is referenced. These
field studies were not considered to be sophisticated compared
to studies that will be completed in the future to confirm the
advantages and disadvantages to the environment (as required
by the EAA) and environmental protection provided by the
preferred site (as required by other legislation such as the EP A
and OWRA .
The consideration and application of mitigative measures where
applicable will be more clearly outlined in the EA
documentation to be submitted to the MOE.
We acknowledge that the description is different between the
main text and annexes. However, having reviewed both are of
the opinion that the intent of a relative site comparison is
achieved by both. The inconsistency will be rectified in the
final documentation of this ste ,
Please be advised that the approach we took did involve
identifying and rating environmental effects first followed by
application of tradeoffs and interpretation of effects in terms of
advantages/disadvantages. In the draft EA document, to be
prepared, the text will be modified to provide a more
comprehensive description of the actual approach applied.
In the more comprehensive description to be provided. in the
draft EA document, the meaning of what constitutes an
advantage and disadvantage will be more clearly described.
In the more comprehensive description to be provided in the
draft EA document, the trade-otfs between the advantages and
disadvantages will be fully described. Where a "neutral" rating
has been applied, additional text will be supplied to describe the
actual trade-offs made.
The intent in this regard was to establish that those sites that
were more reliant on mitigative measures for a particular effect
under consideration exhibited, in relative terms, a disadvantage
compared to those sites not requiring mitigation. The net effect,
after mitigation, was also factored into the determination of
whether or not a relative advanta e or disadvanta e existed.
The nature of the available infrastructure is rovided as an
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684' Fax: (905) 631-8960
699009
4
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 7
(OJ11l1lents ReCC1\ed tlOJ11 Sh.'\cn Rcmc on \1<1111 RCpOl1
~~: _ ~_~__ __~_ ,_ ~ _ ~_ ,_ ~ ~_~:--~ ~_-:~__-:_..-~:~~ -:~ ~.~-t"~-~~'~>--~]"
"major disadvantage"? Does the ancillary example in Table 3.2. The word "ancillary" is not used in the
infrastructure not form part of the undertaking? examples provided in Table 3 .2. Perhaps further clarification of
this comment is reouired with resoect to the word "ancillarv".
23 In the Annex A page 2-2 description: In the more comprehensive description to be provided in the
draft EA document, the meaning of what constitutes an
What is "ability" or "inability" to meet the advantage and disadvantage will be more clearly described.
evaluation criteria when the criteria include no
values, ramles or thresholds?
24 What is the difference between "ability" and In the more comprehensive description to be provided in the
"significant ability" / "inability"? If something is draft EA document, the meaning of what constitutes an
not significant, should it be considered? advantage and disadvantage will be more clearly described.
25 In the methodology description: We disagree with the impression that a weighting system was
applied. Priorities were applied in a qualitative sense. In the
Page 3-7, 3-8: Identification of the preferred site more comprehensive description to be provided in the draft EA
involves an implicit weighting system. While the document, the trade-offs between the advantages and
results of a public survey are provided, the disadvantages will be fully described.
priorities ofthe study team (other than
"professional judgement") and the application of
this svstem is not described.
26 Page 3..8 and Page 4-18: There is no demonstration In the more comprehensive description to be provided in the
that the levels of advantage/disadvantage identified draft EA document, the trade-offs between the advantages and
reflect equivalent increments or magnitudes of disadvantages will be fully described.
environmental effects for different criteria and
indicators, and yet they are treated as being the
same or interchangeable (see above re: capital and
operating costs). For example, for Clarington Site I
a ""disadvantage" for stack emissionsl meteorology
cancels out an "'advantage" in terms of haulage
emissions (a positive impact??), to result in a
"neutral" overall finding. Impacts are additive and
should not be used to cancel each other out to give
the appearance of no impact. Net impacts should be
identified before tradeoffs are annlied.
27 Page 3-8: How was best available technology Best available technology was considered as technology capable
considered? (page 3-8) of achieving, and in some cases exceeding, all regulatory
reouirements.
28 Page. 3-8: The proponents appear to be responding In the more comprehensive description to be provided in the
to the negative aspects of complex computer - draft EA document, the trade-offs between the advantages and
generated comparisons by reverting to an disadvantages will be fully described. In this description
essentially intuitive approach with very little in the additional relevant information from the Annexes will be
way of traceability. While much of the work in the brought into the Main Report.
Annexes is quite comprehensive, there is often no
clear linkaJ!e to the tradeoffs in the comoarison.
29 Page 3-11, second bullet, again, what mitigation The consideration and application of mitigative measures will
measures were considered in assigning potential be more clearly outlined in the EA documentation to be
effects? None are specifically identified in the submitted to the MOE.
renort.
30 Page. 3-11, What was the process for obtaining Information on facilities and associated contact information was
information from technoloO'V vendors? obtained from directories such as:
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-B684. Fax: (905) 631-B960
699010
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 8
COlllments Reccl\cd hom Ste\en Rm\l: on \lam Repott
~~~-~~":;'~_.- -'" --- -=-~'~~'-~-~~-~~~-~~-~<~~~-~~~~-_._--~'"'~ ~-..- --:-"'y:;=;~ ,f'y,\
31 Page. 3-12 - What is the undertaking as understood
at present? Is it a facility expanding from 150,000
to 250,000 to 400,000 tpa? - if so should say so.
32 Page 4-18 All other things being equal (which they
are not), combining a "neutral" and an "advantage"
to result in an "advantage" (for example) is a
misrepresentation of the data and would distort site
comoarisons. '
33 Table 4-1, Application of Criteria
Air quality
Based only on regional level data - still to be
verified based on local air oualitv monitorin..
34 Water quality:
The different environmental effects arising from a
location 600 m VS. 15 m from a watercourse should
be explained, along with their significance
considering mitigation.
35 Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
. 2005-2006 municipal waste combustion in the United
States, Yearbook and Directory; and,
. International Solid Waste Association (lSW A), Working
Group on Thennal Treatment of Waste, Energy from Waste
State of the Art Report, 5th Edition 2006
In addition, representatives of several key facility
owner/operators (potential vendors) were contacted by email to
request additional specific information that was not available in
the referenced directories.
The size of the proposed facility is explained in Section 3.4.1. In
summary, "the initial plan is to build a facility in the range of
150,000 tpy to 250,000 tpy to satisfY the immediate and short-
term need, but to seek EA approval for the larger 400,000 tpy
facility, should this expansion be required within the planning
period".
The nature ofthe undertaking, for which approval is being
sought, will be more clearly specified in the EA documentation
to be submitted to MOE.
Actual trade-off's were made during the evaluation process and
these will be better documented in support of the summary table
4.6.
Comment noted.
Temperature is a major concern in regard to fish and their
habitat, especially where the discharge is to a cold water stream.
Urbanization causes temperature increases in stonnwater and
ponds can compound this increase since open water will tend to
acclimate with the ambient air temperature.
There are a number of reports which indicate that urban
development end-of-pipe stonnwater facilities increase the
temperature of water before it is discharged to the receiving
waters (Beland, 1991, Galli 1990, Schueler 1992).
In cases where there is a lengthy outlet channel or ditches from
the stonnwater facility to the receiving watercourse. The shady
channel or ditch will help minimize temperature increases of the
water discharged to the receiving watercourse. Therefore, the
lengthy convey channel or ditch is more beneficial than the
short distance travellen<rth.
The indicator utilized refers to the identification of potential for
these species to be impacted bv this proposed develonment.
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (90S) 631-8684 . Fax: (90S) 631-8960
699011
J!L
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 9
Comments Rc":cl\~d flom StC\(:l1 Ro\\e on !\Idlll Rep011
7~~:~=-~-"~-~~~--~~~~-- -~~:~;-----~~~--~-~~~~
Why would species of conservation concern that There is evidence to suggest that these species are known to
are highly unlikely to occur on the site - Bushy exist in the area and therefore, may be potentially impacted by
Cinquefoil (occurs on lake beaches), Red- this development. Again in a relative comparison of sites, a site
shouldered Hawk (dense deciduous forest) without this potential is advantaged over another with potential
contribute to identification of environmental impact.
imoact?
36 If Annex "C" identifies an effect as "minimal", In a relative comparison, a "minimal" impact is disadvantage
why is this translated as a "disadvantage"? over a site where there is no potential impact identified.
37 Why do sites identified as having "minimal" There is no reference in Annex C to either Clarington 04 or East
natural environment effects in Annex "C" (e.g. Gwillimbury 01 as having "minimal natural environmental
Clarington 04, East Gwillimbury 0 I) have different effects". The wording minimal has been used specific to certain
advantage/ disadvantage ratings? features evaluated, however, has not been utilized as outlined in
the comment above. Each feature has been assessed on a
number of different indicators, some of which identified
minimal impact, however the overall evaluation and application
of advantages and disadvantages reflects all of the indicators
annlied not iust a specific feature assessed.
38 What disadvantages do hazard lands pose if the The presence of hazard lands on-site present a relative
facility can be accommodated on the rest of the disadvantage to other sites without hazard lands regardless of
site? Ifnot, shouldn't the site be rejected? whether the remainder of the site can accommodate the facility.
The consideration of hazard lands is more than an land area
development consideration but also includes the potential need
for monitoring of impact to the area during construction and
oneration.
39 Land Use Compatibility: At the time of the preparation of this report, the Region of York
was not willing to comment or provide clarification as to
Shouldn't the proponents know whether a ROP A whether a ROPA would be required on the East Gwillimbury
would be reauired for East Gwillimburv Site Ol? Site 01.
40 Why is a site area of 11.5 ha or 12.4 ha seen as an Please see the response above under comment # 4.
advantage when 13.7 ha was the optimal size, now
aooarentlv reduced to 8.3 ha?
41 1 km distance and land use proximity is calculated Given that this is a relative comparison, the application of a
from the centre of the site, not the edge - potential I km radius from the centre of the site has been applied
for inconsistencies depending on where the facility consistently around each site and therefore the relative
is ultimately located within the site - especially comparison holds true. The potential configuration of the
when the site size annex identifies a conceptual facility on the site, has little impact to the application of this
location for each site. particular criterion given the size of the facility itself and the
distance within which potential impacts were identified.
42 Archaeological: The Report and Annex will be reviewed and the description
enhanced where necessary. The mitigative measure applied will
Advantages/disadvantages with mitigation should be determined based an the results of the Stage 2
be more clearly described in the Step 7 Report and Archaeological Assessment which will be completed on the
the Annex -land is designated for development, preferred site. The landuse designation does not have any
effects are mitigable. impact on the potential for mitigation. It will be the ultimate
determination of archaeological resources that will dictate the
ootential for miti2ation.
43 Economic / Financial and Technical: The available facts re2ardin2 ootential heat loads are nresented
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960
699012
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 10
COlllments Rccel\ed 110m Steven RO\,c on t\lam Repol1
~~~~:""""'''"-~ =~",~--:~~"'."'--~~ -y~~-~-~.~-,~~---~~~. :.~ .",..-,.-=-~~~~~~"'"-~~"' ~~ "::~~
Heat load sales and usage are dealt with quite well
in the Annexes but are still uncertain, cannot be
known at this time - how to account for uncertainty
in assigning advantages I disadvantages? Also
uncertainty re: air quality, ash haul
in the documentation and the associated uncertainty is
identified. A potential revenue stream from the sale ofheat has
not been included. If it were included, the operating cost
advantage identified for the Clarington 0 I and 05 sites would be
enhanced.
The cost to dispose of ash is included in the estimated facility
operating costs presented in Table 3.11 of Annex G. Although
the specific site for disposing of these residues has not been
identified yet, a variety of options for disposing of these
residues do exist (e.g. licensed private sector landfill sites). The
estimated costs presented in Table 3.11 include a provision for
haul to one of these sites.
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South SelVice Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699013
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 11
COllllllents RCCCI\cd flom SENcS on 1\1Zl1l1 Rcpolt
44 Page 1-5 of the main report - The initial screening This observation reflects the fact that site selection
process ensured that unsuitable areas, such as significant processes narrowing the area of consideration from a
natural features, agricultural lands and existing regional to site speciflc level of detail rely on data that
residential areas would not be considered further in the initially can be efficiently applied at a regional scale
siting process. Later in page t -1 0, the report says that (recognizing that some site specific anomalies may not
One (1) site is located near Natural Heritage Features be specifically represented) followed by the
including; Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest consideration of more detailed site specific data as the
(ANSI), Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA), area of consideration is narrowed. At each level of
Wetlands, community parks and residential areas and consideration, previously applied considerations are
was therefore removed from further consideration. This reviewed for the remaining areas based on the more
undermines the effectiveness of the initial screening detailed data and adjustments made as required. This is
process in removing sensitive sites. The process is not an established and accepted practice in site selection
explained adequately in the Step 7 and Step 1-5 Reports. that recognizes the level of detail that may be afforded
The question is "Could it be possible that potentially to and obtained from various data sources.
suitable sites have been excluded through such a
aualitative initial screenim!: orocess?"
45 With respect to separation of siting and competitive With respect to facility siting, the requirements,
process, the report on Step 1-5 says: properties, effects and impacts of all thermal treatment
technologies (i.e. combustion, pyrolysis and
"Completing these processes as part of the same gasification) are all similar.
competitive process could represent an unfair advantage Therefore, the site can be selected prior to choosing a
to those vendors offering both a site and technology specific technology and vendor.
versus only those vendors providing a technology and
thereby jeopardize the success of the competitive This fact was also recognized by MOE when they
process. By "uncoupling" the RFQ and Request for established Regulation 101107. The premise for this
Proposals (RFP) process from the siting process, it "Environmental Screening Process" is that modern
allowed for a more "fair" process to those involved and EFW facilities are expected to have minimal
also allowed for the completion of siting activities in environmental effects and, therefore, such facilities can
advance of a formal RFQ/RFP process for be safely located on sites selected by proponents
technology(ies)." outside of the historic EA process.
We do not see any significant benefit in the completion One of the benefits of selecting a site in advance of the
of siting activities in advance of a formal RFQ/RFP RFP process is that firmer prices, and sounder
process for technology(ies). Conducting the siting technical proposals will be obtained if these proposals
process in the absence of technology-specific are based on developing a facility on a specific site
information, particularly the information regarding the selected by the Region.
conditions of Certificates of Approval for emission
control levels, HHRA and other technical studies,
introduce a large uncertainty in the comparative site
analysis. Would a fair competitive process, which is an
administrative issue and should be dealt with
appropriately in a separate process, justify the
shortcomings of the analysis due to lack of technology-
snecific information?
46 Further, in our understanding, the separation of With respect to facility siting, the requirements,
technology selection and site selection processes will properties, effects and impacts of all thermal treatment
mean that the site will selected based on generic criteria technologies (i.e. combustion, pyrolysis and
and impact assessment. The site specific information will gasification) are all similar.
be used onlv to confirm whether the selected site Therefore, the site can be selected Drior to choosin2: a
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road · Unit 203
Burlington ON. L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699014
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 12
Comments Rer..:el\cd ham SEI\ES on [\lal11 RcpOlt
continues to meet the criteria. However, all sites will not specific technology and vendor.
be compared at this stage to select the best site and in our
opinion; this site selection process does not necessarily This fact was also recognized by MOE when they
choose the best site. established Regulation 101107. The premise for this
"Environmental Screening Process" is that modem
EFW facilities are expected to have minimal
environmental effects and, therefore, such facilities can
be safely located on sites selected by proponents
outside of the historic EA process.
One of the benefits of selecting a site in advance of the
RFP process is that firmer prices, and sounder
technical proposals will be obtained if these proposals
are based on developing a facility on a specific site
selected bv the Reuion.
47 The report for Steps 1..5 indicates that the areas from The referenced description will be adopted in future
initial screening process consist of primarily industrial documentation to reflect the fact that some areas may
and commercial land uses, located away from city abut some sub~urban communities as set-backs were
centres and suburban communities. This statement is not not applied to constraints at Step 2. It is noted however
accurate as some of the short-listed sites could be that this observation is consistent with the intent of the
considered as close to suburban communities. Step 2 area delineation exercise.
48 The capital cost allocation for infrastructure is associated The cost information presented is consistent with the
with a large uncertainty as it is evident from the Low- criteria and indicators set out in the EA Terms of
Cost and High-Cost estimates in the cost report. In Reference and accompanying Background Documents.
addition, the cost of water connection may be Table 2-3, Step 6 - Evaluation of Short List and
overestimated (water requirements and the pipe size) Identification of Preferred DurhamNork Site, of the
while the cost of 44 k V transmission line might be EA Terms of Reference supporting Background
underestimated. All these add to the large uncertainty Document 2-3, Consideration of Alternative Methods
associated with the estimated cost at this level. The base of Implementing the Understanding identified the
capital cost estimate for the plant was reported in the "indicator" for the capital cost criterion as follows:
order of$200,000,000. At the planning level, in the most "Site development costs, including: infrastructure
optimistic scenario, this cost has at least 30% required, upgrades to existing infrastructure (roads,
contingency, which translates to $200 Mil '" $60 Mil. sewers, etc.) property acquisition and possible site
The difference in capital infrastructure cost estimates for remediations. "
various sites have no statistical significance with respect To do what the reviewer suggests - "Infrastructure
to overall capital costs and therefore infrastructure costs costs should not be used as a criterion for selection at
should not be used as criterion for site selection at this this stage" would not be consistent with the approved
staoe. Terms of Reference.
49 Use of word "advantage" creates a lot of confusion in Actual trade-offs were made during the evaluation
comparative study. While the intention is to compare the process and these will be better documented in the
advantage of one site or process or procedure. over various discussions and tables.
another, it may tend to imply the improvement in an
absolute sense. The use of "Advantage" for Site We disagree with your opinion on the use of the
Clarington 01 under the heading "Public Health and quantitative methodology. During the preparation of
Natural Environment" may imply that the construction the EA Terms of Reference, the public was consulted
of the incinerator improves the environmental quality and ultimately a qualitative methodology was
surrounding that site vis-it-vis Clarington 04, which specified. The rationale for this decision was that
maybe Neutral!! I!! In our opinion, the sites should have qualitative methodologies are more easily understood
been ranked usino numerical weighting factors rather bv the general nublic and have been successfullv used
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (90S) 631-8684 . Fax: (90S) 631-8960
699015
Ii
FINAL _ Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 13
Comments Recel\cd flOll1 SF1\ES 011 !\lal11 Repolt
than qualitative comparison criterions and these in a number of complex, comprehensive individual
weighting factors should have been established early on Environmental Assessments (EA's). The use of
through public opinion polls and information sessions. quantitative methodologies in complex, comprehensive
EA's has not been as successful.
50 The major criteria considered for Evaluation of Short. The criteria and indicators for these five categories of
Listed of Sites were: criteria were all developed as part of the approved EA
Terms of Reference.
Public Health and Safety and Natural Environment
Considerations Details on these specified criteria and indicators
Social and Cultural Considerations together with the rationale for these indicators are
Economic/Financial Considerations provided in Table 2-3, Step 6 - Evaluation of Short-
Technical Considerations List and Identification of Preferred DurhamNork Site,
Legal Considerations of the EA Terms of Reference supporting Background
Document 2-3, Consideration of Alternative Methods
The last three criteria (3, 4, and 5) are closely related to of Implementing the Understanding.
each other. F or example, larger distance to source of
service water with major road crossing would lower the As the evaluation approach was qualitative in nature
rating of site in all these three categories and this ends up the risk of double counting generally does not apply.
triple-counting the same issue. (Compatibility with A qualitative process allows for the evaluation to
Existing Infrastructure; Design/Operational Flexibility; account for, discount and therefore avoid double-
and Legal Considerations) in the overall process and counting. Where necessary, this consideration can be
thereby diluting the importance of Public Health and documented and explained in the evaluation text.
Safety; and Natural Environmental Considerations.
Further, in our opinion, the selected criteria are not
appropriate for evaluation of sites. Firstly, Public health
and safety and Natural environment are two different
issues and need varying weightages. Further, issues
relating to traffic, noise, air quality, odour, public
nuisance etc. would be of much greater importance in the
eyes of the community relative to technical
considerations or economic issues. Also, cost and legal
considerations have no role to play in selecting a site
because public does not care for either '~e legal
permitting issues are more or less" or "something costs
more or less".
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699016
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 14
5]
Meteorological Data
The study uses two meteorological stations for wind
speed and direction (Port Cobourg and Buttonville).
Have these two stations be checked to confirm that
they are appropriately sited either by the project team
or through consultation with MOE?
52 How will the meteorological data collected at each
site be compared against the existing meteorological
stations?
Will this be done on long-term data for the other two
stations, or will this be done by comparing data for
the same time period?
53 The Port Cobourg station shows very distinct east-
west wind trends? Has a sensitivity assessment been
done to determine if the predicted maximum impact
areas change as a result of this trend?
54 There are other meteorological stations in the area
that are maintained by Darlington Nuclear Station,
Pickerin Nuclear Station and the Port Ho e Low
The Buttonville airport site has been previously reviewed
by Jacques Whitford and the wind rose from this station
was also compared to Pearson Airport, which showed
similar trends. The Port Cobourg meteorological tower
siting was not specifically reviewed, however, the wind
rose from this site was compared to Toronto Island Airport
and the stations show similar trends (i.e. more prominent
westerly and easterly winds relative to northerly). The
wind roses from both of these sites were obtained from the
National Climactic Data Centre and the data has been
QA'ed by this organization.
The purpose of displaying these wind roses was to
examine if there were disc em able differences in the winds
in the region of the Clarington area versus the East
Gwillimbury area. Buttonville and Cobourg wind data
will not be used in the dispersion modelling assessment of
the preferred site.
The data collected on each site will be compared on both a
short-term basis (the same time period as the on-site
measurements) and on a long-term basis to the existing
meteorological stations. The long-term data (on both an
annual and seasonal/monthly basis) from the existing
stations will be compared to the site-specific data to
examine how closely the measured data matches long term
trends. Other available meteorological data will also be
included in the analysis.
The data from the Port Cobourg and Buttonville stations
were only used to qualitatively assess if there were
discemable differences in the winds in the Clarington area
versus the East Gwillimbury area.
The air quality /HHRA screening assessment that was
previously conducted placed the receptors used in the
exposure assessment at the location of the maximum
ground level concentration (regardless of direction), and
thus conservatively ignored wind directionality. The site
specific air quality assessment that will be conducted on
the final site will utilize meteorological data collected at
the site, and the directionality of the winds at the site with
respect to maximum impact areas will be assessed.
A multi-level meteoroiogical tower is currently collecting
data in the immediate vicinity of the Clarington 01-05 sites
(to su ort a otential wind farm stud ,and due to its
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960
699017
Ji
FINAL _ Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred S~e Report
November 9, 2007
Page 15
Level Waste Office. Have these been obtained to
determine if they are more appropriate than the
Buttonville and Port Cobourg Stations?
55 Background Air Quality
Is there a rationale or guidance for selecting the 90th
percentile as the maximum background level for the
criteria (NOx, PM, S02, CO) contaminants?
56 What monitoring for other parameters is proposed for
the final site?
How will backgrounds be established for all other
parameters in the risk assessment and air quality
assessment?
57 Page 4-2. "..results ofthe site specific monitoring
will be available prior to the final site selection of the
preferred site". This has not happened due to timing.
What evaluation will be done ofthe data and what
changes in final site selection might occur.as a result
of the data collection?
58 How will the background data collected at each site
be compared against the existing air quality stations?
Will this be done on long-term data for the other
stations, or will this be done by comparing data for
the same time period?
59 The NPRI summaries provided deal only with criteria
pollutants. Has an background assessment of other
pollutants been undertaken (e.g. heavy metals,
dioxins and furans)?
location, is expected to be the most representative data for
the site. Durham-York is currently contacting the
proponent to acquire data from this tower. Data for the
stations listed above may also be collected for use in the
detailed air quality assessment of the preferred site.
The MOE typically requires tbat 90 percentile ambient
monitoring data be added to dispersion model predictions
to conservatively account for existing ambient
concentrations when assessing the impact of a project plus
background. The 90th percentile was therefore considered
an appropriate level on which to judge the existing air
quality of each region, as this is the level that would be
used in the site specific assessment.
Background monitoring for dioxins (once per month),
PAHs (once every 12-days) and metals (every six-days)
will be conducted in addition to the continuous monitoring
for criteria air contaminants.
At this stage, the Clarington 01 site has beeu put forward
as the consultant's recommended site, but has not yet been
accepted by DurhamlY ork. The data from the monitoring
sites will be analysed on an ongoing basis and interim
updates provided to DurhamNork.lfthe monitoring data
suggests that the assessment presented in the report is not
representative of actual conditions, the report and
conclusions would be revised.
We would expect to compare the data collected at each site
to the long-tenn data at the existing monitoring stations
(on both an annual and a monthlylseasonal basis). If
ambient data for the same time period from the existing
stations is available from the MOE at the time of the
assessment, direct (same time period) comparisons of the
site data to the existing stations will also be conducted.
Other contaminants were not assessed for the Potential Air
Quality Impacts report, as the focus ofthe NPRl review
was to supplement the available ambient monitoring data,
which were for criteria pollutants only. Other pollutants
will be assessed in greater detail during the site-specific air
quality study.
60 Page 3-1. Houses, parks, utilities, commercial and
industrial facilities are specifically mentioned. Have
schools, day cares and other "sensitive uses" as
defined in the MOE DI-06 Guidelines also been
considered?
All surrounding land uses considered potentially sensitive
to a thermal treatment facility were considered.
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960
699018
J!L
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 16
Comments Rc\';cl\,ed flom A..\lEC
==~~~ ,=~-~-.-~' '"""""-~~-~.....",~~- -~ ~ ~- --~.~---~^--~-- -~,~--~-- ><,- --"",-"~~~'
, ,
61
The air quality assessment done for the HHERA
indicated that the maximum impact zones were on
the order of 200 to 300 m from the site. As such,
impacts would be greater at that distance than
impacts at I Ion (chosen impact zone for assessment).
Has a sensitivity analysis been done to see if site
rankings would change if a 200 or 300 m impact zone
was used?
The Peer Reviewer is directed to the Air Quality
Assessment conducted as part of the Generic HHERA
where the Maximum Ground Level Concentrations ranged
from 300m to less than 800m from the theoretical facility.
As such, in order to maintain a level of conservatism in
our evaiuation a I km radius was identified to
accommodate this range. A sensitivity analysis has not
been completed, however, based on the way the criteria
were applied we do not believe that the site rankings
would change with the use of a smaller radius.
62
In previous documents the site selection criterion
"capital costs, operation and maintenance costs"
indicated that additional site specific mitigation
requirements might be required for some sites. Why
has this not been addressed in the current report?
63
There is also a statement in the "Generic Human
Health and Ecological Risk Assessment" that if the
site specific risk assessment shows unacceptable risks
that further emission reductions ("enhance the
perfonnance of the technoiogy") could be undertaken
to reduce the risk. This suggests that different sites
might require different air pollution control systems
with associated different financial considerations.
The site specific HHERA has not yet been
undertaken, nor, as noted above, have the background
assessments for criteria pollutants (NOx, S02,
particulate) been completed. In addition, the
background assessments for the key parameters of
concern in the HHERA (e.g. dioxins and furans) have
not been started.
When will these issues be assessed?
Table 2-3, Step 6 - Evaluation of Short List and
Identification of Preferred DurhamNork Site, of the EA
Terms of Reference supporting Background Document 2-
3, Consideration of Alternative Methods ofImplementing
the Understanding identified "Mitigation Requirements
and Monitoring Requirements" as potential indicators for
the operation and maintenance cost criteria within the
economic/financial category.
These indicators were considered and addressed in Section
3.2.3 Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements (page 3-7)
of Annex G Report on Capital, Operation and
Maintenance Costs.
In summary, no unique site~specific mitigation or
monitoring requirements were identified and therefore no
site~specific costs were included in this indicator.
This finding is also summarized in Table 4.1 (page 4-1) of
Annex G.
The site specific HHERA will be completed for the
preferred site and preferred vendor technology once
selected. This will be completed in support of EAA and
other site specific environmental approvals.
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (90S) 631-8684 . Fax: (90S) 631-8960
699019
JJL
FINAL - Comments to Clanngton Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 17
(oll11l1cnls Recel\cd tJOlll A \lE(
~-"-.-----~~-~ -,~~ ._~--- - ~~~~-~- ~--~--~ -." ~-~-~-",,^~-- ~--"-"""'"'~
->'>"< "" - ~ ~
How will this be undertaken and how will decisions
be made given the timing of those assessments
(background and site specific HHERA)?
How will this be linked to the vendor RFP and
selection rocess?
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-86B4 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699020
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 18
Comments Recel\ed from SENES on Annex l3
1!"'''''''''71ry'1T~''' ~ ~ ----~~"'",..".",~ '""~~1 -. ~ - ~ ~~ ~- ~~~~~_7 ~ ...~ -- ~ ~ ~,~ -~--- --~--- ~- ~-, ~--~~f
... , . '
64 General Comment: Consideration of cumulative effects related to air quality
will be undertaken as part of the site specific air quality
The overall site selection process fails to include impact assessment in support of EA and EP A approvaL
the cumulative effects assessment (effects from
neighbouring facilities) while assessing the short-
listed sites. For example the implications of
construction of thermal treatment facility at
Clarington 1 close to Darlington NGS and St. Mary
cement on the future development of energy park
and other land-use categories has not been
addressed adeauatelv.
65 Annex B: Sections 2.5 and 3.1 The length of the modeled storm was the SCS 24 hour
Type II storm with a time step (DT) of 5 minutes. The
The conceptual design of the SWM facilities must Hurricane Hazel storm event will be added at the site
include the regional storm in addition to the 2, 5, specific stage.
20,25,50 and 100 years storm. What was the
lemrth of modeled storm?
66 Was the CN kept the same for post-development For the post -developed area, we calculated an impervious
condnions?Ifso,why? site area of 45% and the DESIGN ST ANDHYD was used
for the developed area. For the remaining undeveloped
area, the post-development conditions are still to be the
same as the pre-development conditions and therefore, the
CN value of74 stays the same and the DESIGN
ST ANDHYD was used
67 10o-yr and regional flood plain mapping under We did not obtain any flood plain mapping because the
existing and proposed should be outlined in the process is extensive and lengthy. Floodplain mappings for
report. the tributary of watercourses may not be available from the
Conservation Authorities. This will be investigated at the
site snecific stage.
68 A description of topography and existing drainage All topography and drainage patterns are illustrated on the
should be documented. maDDing Drovided in Annex 8, ADDendix D.
69 Why are the drainage areas under post development The] 0 hectare post development drainage area is the area
conditions less than those under pre-development contributing to the stonnwater pond. The remaining area is
conditions? considered as pre-development conditions and was coded
as such in the SWMHYMO model, to compute the total
flows discharged to the watercourse. The totai site area
under post.development conditions is still the same as
under Dre-develoDment conditions.
70 In Table 3.1: Explain calculations for permanent The calculation uses standard figures from the Ministry of
pool and extended detention volumes. i.e., specifY Environment Stormwater Management Planning and
requirement guidelines for % imperviousness used. Design Manual (Table 3.2), March 2003. We do have
backup calculations that could be added (attached in an
appendix) if required.
71 The quality control criteria for Clarington 04 must This would be up to the Conservation Authority (CA). The
be revised to enhanced level 80% suspended solids Central Lake Ontario CA and Lake Simcoe CA has set the
removal especially there is a potential for airborne protection levels within the watershed as "Enhanced
contaminants that are deposited into the top 10cm Level" for all Short-Listed sites except for the Clarington
of the surficial soil (as outlined in Table 4-2) which 04 site which is set as "Normal Level", Based on the
could be discharged to the SWM facility. In watershed study of Bennet Lake, the Central Lake Ontario
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699021
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 19
Comments Recel\~d 1rolll SENFS on Annex B
~--~~~~~ --~.~-~~~-~ ~-- - - -- -~--~-~-~--~~--~~-~~- ~ _~_~__ ---~- ""'~o/
~~ ' ~ ~ ,~ ~ "'
addition, MOE design manual did not allow 70% CA indicated the level of protection as a "Normal"
for warm water fishery. You may wish to elaborate requirement.
on why fish habitat in Bennet Creek is not as
sensitive to sediment and siltation.
72 Table 3.3: "Quality Control Criteria", Clarington This is a typo, Clarington 04 has "Normal" level removal
04 was previously mentioned as having ''Nonnal'' and Claringtoo 05 has "Enhanced" levels,
level removal, while Clarington 05 had "Enhanced"
levels. This has been reversed here. Please exnlain.
73 There is no mention of how outflows from the This will be shown at the detailed design stage of the
S WM pond will be conveyed to the water courses preferred site.
ILe., throu.h channels, culverts, existin. ditches\.
74 Section 3.3 Comment noted. Section 3.3 will be revised,
Include PTTW under Approval requirements (this
is for dewaterin s~ \.
75 Section 6 Temperature is a major concern in regard to fish and their
habitat, especially where the discharge is to a cold water
Table 6.1: This indicates the relative distance from stream. Urbanization causes temperature increases in
the S WM pond to watercourses as an indicator but stormwater and ponds can compound this increase since
provides no explanation as to the environmental open water will tend to acclimate with the ambient air
effect of a shorter distance. Please elaborate. temperature.
There are a number of reports which indicate that urban
development end-of-pipe stonnwater facilities increase the
temperature of water before it is discharged to the
receiving waters (Beland, 1991, Galli 1990, Schueler
1992).
In cases where there is a lengthy outlet channel or ditches
from the stormwater facility to the receiving watercourse.
The shady channel or ditch will help minimize temperature
increases of the water discharged to the receiving
watercourse. Therefore, the lengthy convey channel or
ditch is more beneficial than the short distance travel
lenoth.
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-B6B4 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699022
Ii
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 20
76
Comlllents ReCel\ed flom SCl\ES on 4.nnex C
~~~_.~',",,~-~~~'~-~~"~- ~-~,~,-=------~~--~~. ~~_. ~- ~-~",....-~~.~., ~-.,-,~~
. ,0 ~
- ,
~'"'" ,. ~ > '""=
77
Page 1-2. The EA Terms of Reference (ToR). Why
not have some descriptions of the EA Terms of
Reference that are applicable to this report only. The
purpose of these descriptions would be to supplement
information on the decision-making process of the
indicators and rationales presented in Table 1.2 at
page 1-10, as well as Table 2.1 at page 2-2, and
throughont the report. The following questions may
heln the renort authors to c1earlv see this noint.
Page 1-10. Table 1.2. Why was the Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) list of
sensitive species (taxa would be a better word)
ignored in the evaluation for the sites? Floral and
faunal sensitive species on the CLOCA list, usually
taxa at a iocal and regional level, have as much
weight in EAs as those found in the Federal and
Provincial lists. Also, why is the Committee on the
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC) not mentioned at this time?
78
Page 1-10. Table 1.2. 1st column: "Aquatic and
Terrestrial Ecology impacts". Why is the table
failing to present aquatic indicators along with an
aquatic rationale in the following two columns? Are
the sites not relevant to an aquatic evaluation?
Nothing is said. Was any effort directed at
considering amphibians and reptiles, as well as
mammals (other than white-tailed deer)? Was the
word "wildlife" defined in the reoort?
Page 2-1. Field Work. Field work dates are July 18,
19 and 20. Why field work in that time period? Was
there a particular relevance to have biological
fieldwork performed in that time period for this
project?
79
80
Furthermore, it is said "evaluation of aquatic
habitats. .."; "an inventory of aquatic habitats".
These words provIde little understanding of the work
that was done. Was electrofishing performed to
know whether fish are present (so that fish habitat are
present on sites) or not (no fish habitat)? This is most
important and has direct implications on this EA.
81
Furthermore, under this section, it is said that the
tasks nerformed in the field included "calculation of
Comment addressed in responses below.
Comment noted. We are not aWare ofa list of regionally
significant species compiled by Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority (CLOCA), and therefore it could
not be used in the evaluation process. Species of
conservation concern ranked as S3, S2 or SI or those
ranked by COSEWIC or MNR as Special Concern (SC),
Threatened (THR), Endangered (END) or Endangered-
Regulated (END-R) that are known to occur on-site were
considered under the environmentally sensitive areas and
species impacts criteria.
In the final documentation the indicators for the criterion
'Aquatic and Terrestrial Impacts' will be corrected to
include the aquatic characteristics actually considered in
the evaluation. Section 2.2 and Table 4.1 clearly
demonstrate that aquatic indicators were considered
along with the types of considerations.
The word wildlife was not defined in the report.
Comment noted. Field work is typically conducted
between mid-March and November, and the scheduling
of this project happened to fall during the summer
months. This time period is appropriate, as most plants
are in flower, and birds and wildlife are typically active.
Although this level of effort was deemed appropriate for
the present exercise, more detailed fieldwork will be
undertaken for the preferred alternative to fully
characterise the environment to be Dotentiallv affected.
Comment noted. The sites were surveyed and any
potential fish habitat was noted for each site. No
electrofishing was performed at the sites, and the
presense of fish species has yet to be determined. These
watercourses or lagoons were flagged during the field
survey as providing potential fish habitat. More detailed
fieldwork will be undertaken for the preferred alternative
to fully characterise the environment to be potentially
affected
All distances and lengths of hedgerow were measured
using .eos""tial data and GIS aDolications.
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (90S) 631-8684 . Fax: (90S) 631-8960
699023
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 21
Comments KCCel\cd trom SrNES on \nllex C
~-,-"~~~=------'--- --< ~ -~-~=~-- - -~-~-~~~-~ ~-- ~~- ~ ---~-~.,~ --~--~~
.>" ^ ^ - -- - - - ii
the distance from the site or haul route to the areas
designated as Natural Heritage Features and Areas".
Was this measured with a tape?; a car odometer?; or
with GIS at the office and not in the field? What was
measured more exactly in the field? What could be
measured in the field? It is said "evaluation of the
amount of woodlands, and hedgerows". How was
this evaluated exactly? From the above questions,
what was done in the field? Is the next paragraph,
"This included ..." does it provide any relevant
information on the above auestions?
82 Page 2- L Last line. "where possible, a handheld There were no areas on-site with dense forest cover.
GPS unit was used". Were there locations with a
dense forest canopy at the sites where it was not
possible to receive a GPS signal?
83 Page 2-2. "Potential net effects to the environment The following paragraph in the report and Table 2.1
were identified based on the application of the specifically describe the criteria and indicators used in
comparative evaluation criteria identified in the the subject assessment. The final documentation will be
approved EA Terms of Reference, to identify the edited to include a reference that these are from the
compatibility of existing iand uses ... with the approved EA Terms ofReference.
proposed undertaking and potential effects on the
environment. As a stand alone text, how can I
understand and decide on the quality and credibility
ofthe work if something as important as that is
elsewhere than in the text where it should be? Are
comments above for page 1-10 applicable here? Yes.
What was approved exactly in the EA ToR? Could
the text help the reader to understand what the report
is intended to "rovide?
84 Page 2-3. Table 2.2. Should the words "significant This adjustment will be considered during preparation of
ability", "ability", "'inability" and "significant the final documentation. It will not, however, change the
inability" kept for other uses, and be replace by a iess relative outcomes of the assessment.
anthropomorphic term such as "characters" or
"traits", even "parameters"? A site does not have
abilitv, oeoole have abilities.
85 Page 3-1. Para 2 and 3. What is the status on aquatic Comment noted. No watercourses were found on.site,
aspects? Nothing is said. A ditch is mentioned tater only a small culvert and dry ditch was found running
on the next na~es. south from the access road constructed on the site.
86 Page 3-1. Table 3.1. Rare species. Is this table well The text and tables presented in Section 3 are intended to
applied to the EA? Such table is assembled before document the study results for each site and the rationale
fieldwork to learn what may be found in the general (including process logic) for arriving at the relative site
area, and later verified in the field whether the rare advantages and disadvantages described in Section 4. It
species are present or not on site. If present on site, is our professional opinion that the information presented
there is a concern? Yes. Would this information be in Table 3.1 is a requirement of the study and that the
better placed in an appendix to note that the rare supporting text is clear on the role of this information.
species in questions were noted for the general area, Whether or not it is presented in the main text or an
but not found at the site? Why would the rare species appendix is a matter of sty Ie.
not found at the site be relevant in the evaluation of
the site?
87 In addition, last sluhtinu dates for the rare suecies are Comment noted. Anv soecies of conservation concern
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960
699024
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 22
Comments ReCel\ ed from SE'\IES on Annex C
~~~,-"----~_.~""" ~-"-~-,~, ~ ___~ -- ~~__"~~ .......,..____~~~_"~~ ____~__c~_~ ~ ~-~ -~ -~7""":!'t';
,>~"".~- ~ .. ,
provided on MNR NHIC website and should be known to occur on or in the vicinity of the project area
provided in Table 3.1. How often are these dates are noted, no matter how old the record. A field survey
within the last 25 years? Is it reasonable to mention is then conducted to determine whether that species
Bushy Cinquefoil if it was observed in I9I4? Was exists on-site.
there any discussion with MNR biologist regarding Sensitive Species generally involve those vulnerable to
the above, as well as the "hidden" infonnation for the collection (such as herptiles). No herptiles were noted
next species written as "Sensitive Species". MNR on-site, and consultation with the MNR has yet to be
biologist will tell you if this "sensitive species" is conducted.
relevant today, or not. According to the above, was With regards to the relevance of the information and its
this section as presented and used in the evaluation role, please see response provided for previous comment
relevant / misleading, and how, to the EA? on Table 3.1.
88 Page 3-2. Why 10 km, not I or 20 Ian? Is the Comment noted. Jacques Whitford typically employs a
answer presented in the methodology section, or is it standard radius of 10 km around any site during
found in the "approved EA ToR"? ecological impact assessments. This practice has been
accepted in past studies as suitable for the purpose of
identifying Dotential imnacts at this level of detail.
89 Page 3-3. Significant Wildlife Habitat. Does this Comment noted.
para need to be rewritten? The word ''vulverable" is
not used properly. Are 4"roosting areas" and
"migratory stop-over areas" (should say for birds?)
"vulverable points"? No. There may be other
aspects to the roosting and stop-over areas that make
them important and vulnerable for a species life
cycle, but not these as stand alone criteria. The
above are rather examples for the next sentence
"Significant Wildlife Habitat does not include
Q"eneral areas ..,".
90 Furthermore, considering the proximity of 3 of 4 sites Comment noted. Significant topographical features
being nearly adjacent to the Lake Ontario shoreline, (such as a peninsula) that would concentrate any
and knowing how the Lake Ontario shoreline and migrating birds during stopover were not noted in the
adjacent land is important to migratory birds, was area. Therefore, birds are not any more likely to flock to
there any consideration / search whether the general this site than any other adjacent land. There was no
area is flocked by migratory birds in the spring and in discussion with an MNR area biologist due to the
the fall as expected? Was there any discussion with significant amount of suitable habitat/stopover area
MNR area biologists? available on adiacent lands.
91 Page 3-3, and other pages in the report. What Deer is an acceptable reference made to White-tailed
44deer"? Is that not the accepted common name for Deer. We presume the reviewer was trying to reference
deer, the "white-tailed deer"? (See NHIC web site). Deer Mouse in an attempt to show the presence of
Or was the finding in the field regarding the mouse confusion. The field survey recorded terrestrial wildlife
deer? What species of "rabbits"? Why is the observations and obvious signs of wildlife (such as deer
mammal list so short? Was the field survey restricted trails or beds). Clarington 01 was the only site where a
to visual records of whole animals, or it included terrestrial mammal species was observed (a Raccoon).
remains, scats and tracks as facts to be used to Clarington 0] and 05 showed signs of deer (White-tailed
determine presence of mammals at the site? Deer) trails and beds throughout some of the fields. Scat
and tracks were not recorded. The lagomorph group
(rabbits and hares) was meant by the term "rabbit",
which was thought to be a better descriptive term than
the technicallagomorph. No lagomorph species (e.g.,
Eastern Cottontail) was recorded on-site, however, it was
Jacques Whitford Ltd. · 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699025
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 23
Comments ReCel\ed tlOI11 SENES on \nno: C
~_~_ ~~_~ _~ -----:_ _ _ ~:-"~",__,.~ ~_~~_ ~"~~>r-~ --~-~--- -----~~-~::~
noted that the hedgerows contained potentiallagomorph
and white-tailed deer browse species.
92 Page 3-3. 3rd last line. "wood" is referring to what? Comment noted. Wood is referring to a wood palate or
planks coverin~ the hole located in Clarington 01.
93 Page 3-4. 1st para. Is the '1he drainage ditch" Comment noted. The drainage ditch is not connected to
connected to a watershed or is it a swale? Could we the local watershed and is therefore not ranked by
provide more aquatic inform,ation on the ditch? What CLOCA. No small mammal species were noted on-site
is the CLOCA status of this ditch? How many small or within the vicinity of the ditch.
mammal species was seen while walking gently near
the ditch?
94 Page 3-4. Clarington 01 - Conclusion/Summary. Comment noted. No watercourses are located on
What is the status on the aquatic aspects? Is the Clarington 01. Birds are a form of wildlife, but due to
information provided allows for an evaluation in the the mobile nature of birds, the impact from the loss of
EA? Are birds not wildlife? habitat is minimal owing to the amount of suitable
habitat still available in the area. Birds will be displaced
during the construction phase. but as long as clearing is
avoided during the nesting season, there should be little
or no effect on the local bird population. This would be
addressed during the evaluation of the preferred
alternative.
95 Page 4-2, Table 4.1 (also applicable to Table 5.1). In With regard to what constitutes an advantage or
consideration for the questions raised above, some of disadvantage for each site under each criterion, it should
which being applicable to all sites described in the be understood that the detennination is in relative terms
report (questions from pages 3-1 to 3-4 above), what between sites based on the full slate of indicators per
are the changes to be made to table 4.1? Is the table criterion.
row regarding "species of special concern" not
simply showing "ADV ANT AGE" in each column? We disagree with the reviewers observations on whether
On the next row, "Distance from site...", why not or not the presence of hazard lands or floodplain on-site
using 3 Ian as normally done in EAs, instead of 10 is a disadvantage. Irrespective of the natural or
km? What is the scientific basis for a 10 kIn radius? ecological characteristics of these features, where
Why is the "Hazard Lands On-Site" or the possible, their disturbance is typically avoided as part of
"Floodplain On-Site" called a "DlSADV ANT AGE"? planning and land development processes.
Why hazard lands and floodplain areas would
disqualiry a site from being selected? Usually, these
features are incorporated with the design of the
undertaking, allowing areas for tree compensation,
rehabilitation, and therefore seen as an advantage. not
disadvanta~e.
% Page 5-1. The three statements ''this site is well These statements will be modified in the final
suited given the lack of ....waterbodies...". Could documentation to read lack of watercourses on or
we not address early in the text the fact that Lake abutting the property.
Ontario is at a leg stretch from sites Clarington 01. 04
and 05? Would a reader not feel at odd with these
conclusions?
97 Table 5.1. See commentsforTable 4.1. See response to comments on Table 4.1 above.
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960
699026
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarin9ton Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 24
Comments Received from TSH
':""'"''''''tl"~_.~~=~~ -=="'~~~"-=~~--~---~-~ _~o~._.."".,.,,,,.,,...,,~~~__ - -_~_ _~ ~ ,_"~ ~ ~ ~~~, _ ~ ~~c_~
~o _ ~ _ _ ~, ~~
,
' , -
98
The dates of traffic counts undertaken by URS in
Clarington were not specified (may be June 2007 as
specified for similar traffic counts undertaken in East
Gwillimbury);
The lane configuration shown in Figure 3-5 for the
Highway 401 eastbound off ramp intersection with
Courtice Road shows two eastbound through lanes on
the approach to Courtice Road, but it appears that
there is only one receiving lane as South Service
Road is shown on the same figure to be a basic two
lane road; and
Further to the previous point, there is an
inconsistency in the related analysis of this
intersection. For the existing and future a.m. peak
hour analysis, the eastbound approach is analyzed as
one left/through lane and one through/right lane,
which corresponds to the lanes depicted in Figure 3-
5. For the existing and future p.m. peak hour
analysis, the same approach is analyzed as one left
turn lane and one through/right lane. With the very
heavy volume of eastbound left turns that occur
during the p.m. peak hour, it is understood that the
throughlleft lane could function as a "de facto" left
turn lane and this appears to be what was intended in
the analysis. Depending on the actual number of
receiving lanes on South Service Road opposite the
ramp approach. consideration may be given to
designating the eastbound approach lanes as left and
through/right as used in the analysis. In terms of the
conclusions drawn from the analysis. this
inconsistency can be considered inconsequential.
Table L2, Page I 10
99
100
]01
ClarifY the statement - "Generally, the higher the
projected traffic volumes along the route, the lower
the impact along the route and to the community".
102
Page 4-1
The opening statement in paragraph 4 seems to
indicate that the social impact of more trucks and trip
generation has not been considered. The overall
report has the sub-title "Social and Cultural
Considerations". This is confinned by the statement
under the Section "Haul Distances", Page 7.1, last
paragraph. Some clarification is required in this
section to substantiate the comments.
The counts were undertaken in June 2007.
The current lane configuration of the eastbound approach
at the south ramp terminal intersection includes shared
through/left and shared through/right lanes. There are
two receiving lanes on South Service Road one of which
terminates a few hundred metres downstream from the
intersection.
The through/left lane was assumed to operate as a de
facto left turn lane in the p.m. peak hour considering the
amount of left turns during this peak hour (over 500 left
turning vehicles per hour compared to approximately 50
through/rights). In the a.m. peak hour traffic distribution
across the two lanes (through/left and through/right) is
almost equal. As such, during the a.m. peak period these
lanes are likely to function as currently designated:
through/left and through/right
With the same amount of additional traffic (site traffic),
net impact to a roadway that carries higher traffic
volumes (background traffic) would be lower than to a
roadway with lower traffic volumes. Please refer to the
example provided in the report after the statement in
question.
The main purpose of the traffic assessment was to
provide a quantitative and qualitative comparison of the
short-listed site locations based on specific criteria rather
than preparing a detailed traffic impact assessment for
each location under consideration. Social impacts of
more trucks/trip generation associated with the future
Clarington Energy Business park will be considered in
detail at the next stage, should this location be selected
and approved as the preferred one. This future
assessment will not only incorporate anticipated future
auto and truck volumes associated with the full build out
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699027
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarin9ton Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 25
Comments Rccc1\.ed h01l1 TSH
~--~-""~--~~--_.~-~~~ ~~~-~~~~-- ~",...".......-~-~~~-~~-~---~-,>~~.,,~
""'''''' - -~ ' <'
103 5.1 Trip Generation
In Tables 5.1 and 5.2, the number of packer trucks
remains the same for both the 150,000 and 250,000
tonnes per year scenarios for the Clarington sites.
Should this not be adjusted for the East Gwillimbury
site where packer trucks will not deliver directly to
the TTF for the 250,000 tonnes per year scenario?
104 Section 8 - "Maximum Scenario (400,000 tonnes per
year)"
Paragraph 3 opens with the statement: "It is also
important to take into account origin of unbound
trips... ... ... ". The wording then proceeds by stating
that at the time of the report preparation, origin of
trips associated with additional tonnage was
unknown. Clarification of these apparently
conflicting statements is required.
105 Section 9 - "Other Considerations"
9.3 Summary of Road Improvements
Costs in Table 9.1 should be revised to refiect that
road construction will be to an urban standard. This
is in conformity with the Secondary Plan
recommendations for "Clarington Energy Business
Park", Rural cross section roads are not acceptable.
of the business park, but also incorporate planned and
committed road improvements in the area to
accommodate this growth, which have not been
considered in the preliminary comparison analysis. This
also applies to other sites locations. where a more
detailed assessment would be required. The statement on
Page 7.1 of the report confirms that the haul distances
calculated for each site location were not used in
detennining impacts along actual haul routes, but rather
for comparative purposes amongst all potential site
locations provided that longer haul distances would
generally result in higher overall impacts to traffic and
environment.
For a 250,000 tpy ITF at the East Gwillimbury 01 site,
waste will be directly hauled in packer trucks from
Aurora, King, Newmarket. East Gwillimbury,
Whitchurch-Stouffville and Georgina to the ITF. Waste
will also be transported to the ITF in packer trucks from
northern Durham Region local municipalities (Brock and
Uxbridge).
The number of additional trucks used in this analysis was
based on the maximum tonnage of 400,000 tonnes per
year. However, the origin of this additional waste
(consequently vehicular trips) is unknown, and haul
distances/tonnage-kilometres for each site could not be
calculated. Thus, it is difficult to determine the preferred
site location under this scenario using the haul distance
criteria applied in other annual waste tonnage scenarios.
Preliminary cost estimates were used to compare the
short~listed site locations utilizing existing road
infrastructure and determining required upgrades. South
Service Road currently has a rural cross-section, which
was assumed to require an upgrade to handle more truck
traffic associated with the proposed site, similar to other
site locations. In the context of the Clarington Energy
Business Park Secondary Plan (OPA 46), there will be a
need to eventually upgrade all road infrastructure to
urban design. As part of this process, there will
be/should be a cost sharing agreement in place (e.g.
development charge credit) between all future
developments within the Clarington Energy Business
Park and the municipality. Costs of
upgrading/constructing the road(s) to urban design will
be in the $1,000,000-$1,500,000 /km range, as
mentioned in the comment. However, only a percentage
of the total cost would be assumed bv the subject
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (90S) 631-8684. Fax: (90S) 631-8960
699028
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 26
Comments Recer\cd flom TSH
=_c=_~"_~~~~_~_~,,,,___~_~,~~_~__~ ~-~~-~~-__ ~_""'____,___ _~_~~ r_ ~-~7
"' -~ ^~ ~ H ,
106 The "Significant Findings from the Traffic Study"
section should be revised on Pa e 10-2.
107 The use of the South Service Road and Osbourne
Road as truck routes to service the TTF is not
acceptable in terms of the road uses envisaged in the
secondary plan for the Clarington Energy Business
Park.
A route following Courtice Road with a southerly
east/west access road north of the CP Rail corridor is
the arrangement envisaged by the Municipality.
Osbourne Road, for example, is promoted within the
Park Plan as a local street built to an urban standard,
complete with sidewalks, landscaped borders and
treed boulevards, a street standard hardly conducive
to hea truck traffic.
development. for reasons discussed above.
In addition, there are still many unknown factors, which
to some extent may affect roadways currently illustrated
in the Clarington Energy Business Park Secondary Plan.
These potential changes include widening of Highway
401 with possible realignment of South Service Road,
improvements to the Courtice Road interchange with
possible changes to the west terminus of the future
Energy Drive. Recognizing that access to the subject site
may change in the future, for the purpose of this
assessment and for consistency purposes, only upgrades!
improvements to exiting roadway infrastructure were
considered in all cases. Costs associated with future road
construction/upgrades wlll be determined in more detail
at the next stage once the preferred site selection process
is com leted.
This will be addressed as part of the Traffic Impact
Stud in su ort of a roval a lications, as re uired.
The comparison of short-listed sites was based on
specific information available at the time the analysis
was completed.
The detailed site-specific studies and ultimately
documentation for obtaining EP A level and other
approvals will consider the best available information at
that time.
108 Section 2: Methodology of Study
In the "Study Approach and Key Assumptions",
capital costs for water supply, sanitary sewer
connection, natural gas and electrical grid
connections have been estimated on the basis of
250,000 tonnes per year. Given that these facilities
may be supplied to the site by installation within
reconstructed roads, it would seem prudent to service
the site initially for the final capacity requirements of
400,000 tonnes. This is what is proposed for
stonnwater management facilities. Have the
implications of upgrading services at a later date for
the 400,000 tonne facili been assessed?
109 Table 3.1, Page 3.1
The maximum size for the initial facility is 250,000
toones per year. The expansion to 400,000 toones per
year is a possibility in the future. The site itself is sized
to accommodate a facility capable of processing up to
400,000 tonnes per year. The development of the
required servicing infrastructure depends on both the
nature of the existing infrastructure and the requirements
of the facility. Neither the timing of the potential
expansion to 400,000 tonnes per year, nor the nature of
the existing infrastructure at the time of that expansion is
known. Given the uncertainty regarding the potential
expansion to 400,000 tonnes per year, the servicing
infrastructure was based on the more certain capacity of
250,000 tonnes er ear.
General site work includes provisions for parking and
on-site draina e. The estimates for the various facili
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South SelVice Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699029
J!L
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 27
Comments ReCC1\ed bom 1 SH
~-~ ~-~~~-~-~~-----~~~-,...--~~~~ -~.,......,....,.~---~--"~~
"
~-"~, ~= - -- ,
Does the General Site Works cost include for components listed in Table 3.1 include provisions for the
parking, internal drainage, engineering design and associated engineering and related administration.
administration costs, etc.?
110 Section 3.1.2, Page 3.1 Recognizing that access to the subject site may change in
the future, for the purpose ofthe preliminary assessment
Road improvement costs should be adjusted to reflect of potential site locations (road improvement costs) and
urban standard construction. for consistency purposes, only upgrades! improvements
to exiting roadway infrastructure were considered. Costs
associated with future road construction/upgrades (urban
design) will be determined in more detail at the next
stage once the preferred site selection process is
comoleted.
111 With respect to Table 3.4, Cost of Sewer Vendors operating existing TIF provided facility design
Connections, it is not clear why such large diameter data. Vendors suggested a 300 mm diameter sanitary
sanitary sewers are envisaged. Annex H - forcemain which without exact design criteria, was
''Technical Considerations" indicates waste water assumed to be equivalent to a 450 mm gravity sewer.
discharge of 63 litres per second. A 450 mm dia. The assumptions were based on a worst case scenario.
gravity sewer seems very large for such relatively
small flows.
112 The costs in Table 3.4, Page 3.2 should be revisited The unit price incorporates the total cost to install the
(i.e. the 450 mm dia. sewer proposed west of sewer, including connections and manholes. These costs
Osbourne Street has a projected higher unit price than represent a greater proportion of the total cost due to the
the Clarington 04 site sanitary sewer which would be relatively short length of the sewer required for the
constructed within existing roadways and involves an Clarington 04 site and therefore, inflating the unit price.
expensive bored/tunnelled crossing of the CPR tracks This cost will be refined at the detailed design stage.
and a watercourse).
113 Section 3 - "Results and Findings" The cost to construct a tile bed septic system would be
common to all four sites and were therefore not included
We note that the requirement for sanitary sewer in the overall costs.
connections is predicated on the type of facility
design proposed, i.e. 'dry' air pollution control and
zero process water discharge.
There will however still be a requirement for sewer
facilities to accommodate staff "domestic" waste,
which may be handled by a tile bed septic system as
indicated.
114 Section 3.1.3 - ''''Stonnwater Management Costs" The initial cost estimate in Table 3.7 includes the cost to
construct the stormwater pond. The function of the
In the Report on Potential Water Quality Impacts, stonnwater pond is to provide enhanced or normal
Annex B, sites Clarington Oland 05 and East protection to the respective watercourses. During the site
Gwillimbury 01 require enhanced levels of specific design stage, we will consider the costs from the
stormwater protection due to receiving waters being outlet to the receiving watercourse.
cold water fisheries. The costs in Table 3.7 are fairly
similar. Has enough costing been included to allow
for "enhanced protection", including outlets to
receiviml waters?
115 Section 3.1.6 - "Summary of Site Specific Capital The cost to construct a tile bed septic system would be
Costs" common to all four sites.
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road' Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684' Fax: (90S) 631-8960
699030
Ji
FINAL - Comments 10 Claringlon Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 28
Cotllments RCCCI\ ed frol11 TSH
~~,~y~~~"~~~ ~ -- --~-- ~ --- -,--~ -- -~--~"'~---~~,--,- --~ - ~~ -~~ ~~~- ~~-~-
. . -
116
As indIcated above, same sewage handlIng capabIlIty
will be required. Table 3.7 should be revised to
reflect the need to provide for staff "domestic" waste
dis osal.
Appendix 'A' - Technical Memorandum
On Page 4, Waste Supply Truck Capacity, it is stated
that the location of the TTF facility will detennine
whether packer trucks will haul directly to the TTF or
to a transfer station.
In the "Status Quo" situation, Table 3.1.2, for
example, all Clarington waste is hauled to the transfer
station on Courtice Road. With the construction of
the TTF in Scenarios 2 and 3, packer truckers will
still haul waste to the proposed TTF. There will be
an impact from the establishment of new haul routes
for packer truckers if they are to haul directly to a
TTF at Location Clarington 04. C1arington 05 and 01
would not alter the haul route patterns for packer
trucks.
It is our understanding for Tables 3.1.2 - 3.1.4 that
packer truck use will still be the preferred haulage
method for some areas, i.e. Brock and Uxbridge.
What change in truck patterns has been allowed for if
a TIP takes the place of a transfer station as the
disposal area for packer trucks, i.e. Brock and
Uxbrid e.
As previously indicated, waste water discharge is
estimated at 63 litres per second, Section 3.2.2, Page
3.2. How was a 450 nun diameter sewer size arrived
at for such a relatively low flow? Are there other
considerations that have not been incorporated in the
re ort?
118 Section 3.4 - "Road Access and Improvements"
Table 3.4, Page 3.4, should be clarified to indicate
road reconstruction will be to urban standard. Note
also that the South Service Road and Osbourne Road
cannot be used for site access.
1 19 There has been comment (Steven Rowe) that a large
facility on Short-List Site 5 would displace the
primary entrance to the Clarington Energy Park and
the western part of the "spine" through the park.
There is no indication in Section 3.4 that any major
road issues exist with respect to the assessment of
Site No.5.
In order to do a comparison of the haul costs, we only
looked at the haul costs that changed due to the potential
development of the TTF at a particular short-list site. We
did not look at haul costs that would be the same across
all four scenarios (e.g. waste from Markham will always
be hauled in packers to the Miller Waste transfer station
in Markham).
Depending on where the TTF is located, the haul pattern
of transporting waste in Brock and Uxbridge changes.
For the Clarington sites, waste from Brock and Uxbridge
will be hauled to the Miller Waste transfer station in
Pickering (same as the status quo scenario) and
transferred to transfer trailer vehicles. But in the case of
the East Gwillimbury site, this waste will be directly
hauled to the TTF.
Vendors operating existing TTF provided facility design
data. Vendors suggested a 300 mm diameter sanitary
forcemain which without exact design criteria, was
assumed to be equivalent to a 450 mm gravity sewer.
The assumptions were based on a worst case scenario.
This will be addressed as part of the Traffic Impact
Study in support of approval applications, as required.
Only existing road infrastructure was considered for the
preliminary assessment and comparison purposes.
The comparison of short-listed sites was based on
specific information available at the time the analysis
was completed.
The detailed site-specific studies and ultimately,
documentation for obtaining EP A level and other
a rovals, will consider the best available information at
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (90S) 631-8684 . Fax: (90S) 631-8960
699031
J!L
FINAL _ Comments to Clarin9ton Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9. 2007
Page 29
Comments ReCCI\ed 110m TSH
~--~~-~~ "'--- ~ ~~-~--y-~,"~-~-~~~~~~~--'--~-~--=~~~~""~~~:
- -- ~ ~~ < , ,~
that time.
120 Section 4.2 - "Minimum Required Site Size" Table 2-1 in the Facility Site Size technical
memorandum includes area required for adequate
The minimum required site size discussed in this stormwater management.
section does not appear to take into account the area
required for stormwater management facilities
(calculated at approximately 1.0 hectare average for
all sites). It does appear though that all the Short-List
sites have sufficient area for all requirements
although the extent of buffering requirements are not
clearly defined or what fonn the buffering will take.
We understand that Drawing No. 1-01 in Appendix E
represents a footprint for a 400,000 tonne per year
facility .
121 The "Summary ofeost" Table 3.1 should be revised. The unit price incorporates the total cost to install the
The watermain size projected for Clarington 01 site is watermain, including full engineering design,
300 mm dia. The projected size for the elarington 04 connections and valve chambers. The unit price would
site is 400 mm dia. In the table, the unit costs are be slightly lower than $575/m (approximately $525/m)
indicated as $575/m for each site. due to the reduction in material costs but would not
greatly affect the installation costs. This cost will be
refined at the detailed desilffi stage.
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road · Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684 . Fax: (905) 631-8960
699032
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 30
AdditIOnal Comments Reccl\ cd
.""""""-,.,,..,-~-~ ---~=~.""7W~~-~---~-"~-~~_~~~_ __.~~____ _~_~~_\ __ "~__ ~._~ ~~
"" ? ~~
122 From Faye Langmaid:
I have just had a review of Annex B and your SWM
assumptions. To begin with the assumption that you
would be allowed to have the S WM pond on your
own site without participating in the master drainage
plan for the Energy Park is flawed. This will
obviously then affect the anticipated cost estimates
and also carries that flaw into the
advantage/disadvantage rating. Currently you have
site 0 I and 05 as advantage and neutral respectively
but it is based on the distance to the receiving
stream; once you remove the assumption of using
your own site for the SWM and participate in the
two ponds shown in the master drainage plan I
would think that they both become neutral.
123 Please show transfer stations on overall traffic map
in Annex F.
124 In Table 12.1, the East Gwillimbury site (compared
to the Clarington sites) was at a disadvantage due to
the 2 critical movements at Bales Drive/Woodbine
Ave and at Garfield Wright BlvdlW oodbine Ave.
The peer reviewer commented that this disadvantage
could be mitigated with traffic lights installed at
those intersections and then the overall score would
be neutral instead of disadvantaged.
125 The haul distances and traffic impacts did not factor
in the proposed Highway 407/40 I connection.
The methodology employed in the comparison of all the
short-listed sites was to assume the use of, or integration
with, existing infrastructure. In the case of stormwater
management there are no existing facilities on any of the
sites, nor were we aware of specific facilities that had
been properly designed and approved for construction in
the Energy Park. Given this situation we completed the
analysis documented in Annex B. We have reviewed the
comment from the peer reviewer but we do not believe it
provides a basis for changing our methodology as
summarized above. There is therefore no need to revise
the cost estimates or the allocation of
advantages/disadvantages ratings.
The detailed site-specific studies and ultimately
documentation for obtaining EP A level and other
approvals will consider the best available information on
stormwater management available at the time those future
studies are completed.
Transfer stations will be shown on the overall traffic map
to be provided in the updated EA documentation to be
submitted to MOE .
It would be possible to mitigate delays to site traffic by
placing a traffic signal at one of the site entrances on
Davis Drive (EG 01). It is important to note; however,
that traffic volumes at this intersection would need to
meet the signal warrant criteria in order for traffic signals
to be installed (traffic volumes at the south ramp tenninal
at Courtice Road and Highway 40 I are likely to meet the
signal warrant criteria sooner). The new signal on Davis
Drive will reduce delays to site traffic, although introduce
additional delays to through traffic. Similarly, placing a
traffic signal at Courtice (south ramp tenninal) will also
introduce additional delays to through traffic on Courtice
Road, although some may argue that due to the fact that
the off-ramp carries significantly more traffic than the
arterial road, the new signals at Courtice would likely
result in an overall reduction in vehicular delays at this
intersection, which may not be the case in East
GwiUimburv .
The methodology employed in the comparison of aU the
short-listed sites was to assume the use of existing roads,
The detailed site-specific studies and ultimately
documentation for obtaining EP A level and other
approvals will consider the best available information
on haul routes available at the time those future studies
are comoleted.
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960
699033
J!i
FINAL _ Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 31
126
From Faye Langmaid:
I've had a look at the report and the main focus of it
is on the evaluation of the archaeological potential of
each of the sites. The evaluation was done by Colin
Varley who is the senior archaeologist with Jacques
Whitford.
Page 3-1 of the report notes that the 05 site contains
an occupied house and farmstead in the south west
corner of the site. An abandoned house and remains
of a shed and a barn is identified in the north east
part of the site.
Page 4-1 of the report addresses historic resources
and states that the abandoned house may be the dot
on the 1861 Tremaine map. The 1878 Belden atlas
showed two houses. One is indicated as being the
"identified" house. The second house is on site 0]
and is now demolished. There is no mention of the
south in the north west section that is still occupied.
LDO indicates that this house was built circa 1900.
Section 4.1.2 concludes that both these buildings
were occupied as late as 1973 and there is high
potential for the presence of historic period
archaeological resources on sites 01 and 05.
What is missing from the report is any kind of
cultural heritage evaluation of the abandoned and
occupied house on site 05, and even the demolished
house on site 01. Other than referencing dots on the
maps, and the names written on the maps, there's no
documented information in the report on the
ownership or history of these properties.
It is not listed on our heritage resources listing,
which means the Municipality does not deem it
worthy of preserving.
127 From Laura Barta:
During a review of the above mentioned Study, I
was attempting to work through the Annual Unit
Haul Cost detailed in section 3.3 of Appendix A-
'Technical Memorandum on Haul Cost Analysis'
and was experiencing some difficulty in following
the flow.
In the more comprehensive description to be provided in
the draft EA document, the application of advantages and
disadvantages will be more fully described. In addition,
where mitigative measures and professional judgment
have been utilized, this will be identified in greater detail
as well to provide further traceability. The description,
specific to the particular issue raised will include
justification based on the available data at the time,
however, with the information provided in your
comments, it is likely that the major disadvantage applied
originally with respect to the existing structure on
Clarington 05 will be reduced to a disadvantage, similar
to that on the Clarington 01 site. We have reviewed this
modification with respect to the overall evaluation and
have detennined that it will not impact the identification
of Clarington 01 as the preferred site.
The Haul Cost Analysis was reviewed. The correct cost
per truck minute is $1.79 for packer trucks and $2.06 for
transfer trailers, which was used in all calculations. There
is a typo in the calculation columns for the total cost per
tonne minute of haul in both Table 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. This
error was corrected.
In addition, there was an error in the annual haul cost
s readsheets 150,000 t and 250,000 t for the Status
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Bur1ington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (905) 631-8684. Fax: (905) 631-8960
699034
Ji
FINAL - Comments to Clarington Peer Reviews - Preferred Site Report
November 9, 2007
Page 32
In Table 3.3.1 on page 13 the total per truck minute
is shown as $1.79. On page 14, your calculation
displays the use ofa $1.58/truck minute, however
the calculated vaiue appears to be based on the
$1.79. I am having the Same difficulty following the
flow in Table 3.3.2. On page 14 the total per truck
minute is shown as $2.06, yet your calculation
displays the use of a $1. 911truck minute. Can you
please provide some clarification on these two
tables?
In Table 3.4.1 on page 15 the Annual Haul Cost for
Scenario 1 - Status Quo, how is the column showing
the Annual Haul Cost in ($) calculated?
J have been unable to arrive at the total costs for each
categol}' by multiplying the Unit Haul Cost x Annual
Tonnes x Round Trip Cycle Time.
Is another factor included in this calculation? Would
the Same hold true for Table 3.4.2, 3.4.3, and 3.4.4
under all scenarios?
I would appreciate your assistance in clarifying the
above mentioned issues.
Quo, Clarington 01105, and Clarington 04 scenarios
(Tables 3.4.1 to 3.4.3). As pointed out by Ms. Barta, a
line item was mistakenly excluded in the total York
Region costs. This item was the annual haul cost
associated with hauling waste from the Georgina Transfer
Station to Green Lane Landfill. The haul cost is the Same
($174,108) for these three scenarios. Please note that the
costs originally reported for the East Gwillimbul}' 0 I
scenario are correct.
The numbers in the annual haul cost spreadsheets were
rounded to make it easier for readers to follow the flow.
The following numbers were rounded in Tables 3.4.1
through 3.4.4 for both the 150,000 tpy and 250,000 tpy
facility sizes:
.
Unit cost per tonne - minute ($/tonne-min) was
rounded to two decimal places;
Annual tonnes was rounded to zero decimal places;
and,
Round trip cycle time (min) was rounded to zero
decimal places.
.
.
Revised Tables 3.4.1 through 3.4.4 for both facility sizes
were provided under separate cover. The tables
incorporate the corrections with respect to the addition
error and the results of rounding the calculations.
Please note there was no change to Tables 3.1.2 through
3.1.5 (Summary of Systems and Quantity of Waste
Transported) and Tables 3.2.1 through 3.2.4 (Total Round
Trip Cycle Time).
The corrected versions of the Tables will be included in
Draft EA Documentation. None of the above mentioned
minor arithmetic changes to the tables affect the findings
or conclusions resented in the documents.
Jacques Whitford Ltd. . 3430 South Service Road. Unit 203
Burlington ON . L7N 3T9
Tel: (90S) 631-8684. Fax: (90S) 631-8960
699035
-
Table I
Capital Costs Site development NEUTRAL DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE
costs, including: . Site-specific . Stte-specific . Site-specific . Site-specific
infrastructure capital costs capital costs capital costs capital costs
required, upgrades range from range from range from range from $3.8
to existing $7.6 to $8.9 to $16.7 $8.9 to $15.5 to $13.1 million
infrastructure $13.1 million million million
(roads, sewers,
etc.) property
acquisition and
possible site
remediation
OVEAAl.l/ NEUTRAL DISADVANTAGE DISADVANJAGE ADVA1oI'l'~<,iE'
699036
Attachment 11
To Report PSD-141-07
Resolution as adopted by Clarington Council on May 28, 2007:
"THAT Report PSD-070-07 be received;
THAT Staff be instructed to carry out the requirements of Resolution #C-211-07
by preparing the studies in accordance with the scope of work set out Report
PSD-070-07;
THAT Mr. Steven Rowe be retained to undertake the scope of work as outlined in
Section 4.2 (Site Selection) and Section 4.4 (Gap Analysis) of Report PSD-070-
07, and further to advise on the scope of work set out in Section 5.1 (Oversight of
Technology Procurement Process) and 5.2 (Potential Environmental Effects) of
Report PSD-070-07;
THAT SENES Consultants Limited be retained to undertake the scope of work as
outlined in Section 5.1 (Oversight of Technology Procurement Process) of Report
PSD-070-07, and further to assist with the scope of work set out in Section 5.2
(Potential Environmental Effects) of Report PSD-070-07;
THAT AMEC E&C Services Ltd. be retained to undertake the scope of work as
outlined in Section 5.2 (Potential Environmental Effects) of Report PSD-070-07;
THAT C.B. Richard Ellis Ltd. be retained to undertake the scope of work set out
in Section 6.1 (Impact on Clarington Energy Business Park) and Section 6.2
(Impact on Assessment Base) of Report PSD-070-07 and further to assist with
the scope of work set out in Section 6.3 (Community Stigma);
THAT the Director of Finance be authorized to retain a multi-disciplinary
accounting firm to undertake the sccpe of work set out in Section 6.3
(Community Stigma) and Section 6.4 (Host Community Agreement) of Report
PSD-070-07;
699037
THAT the Municipal Solicitor and Consulting Engineer (Totten Sims Hubicki)
provide information, professional opinion, estimates and advice as deemed
appropriate;
THAT the Directors of Finance and Planning Services be instructed to strike a
committee comprised of Clarington staff and consultants similar in composition to
the Region of Durham's committee in order to facilitate discussions related to the
Host Community Agreement on a without prejudice basis to the Municipality's
decision on whether to be a willing host;
THAT the Directors of Finance and Planning Services be instructed to take any
additional actions or retain any additional consultants deemed necessary to
ensure the Municipality has carried out its due diligence;
THAT the Region be requested to work in cooperation with Clarington Staff to
improve the public engagement process as noted in Section 4.3 and the Air Shed
Study process as noted in Section 5.2;
THAT the Purchasing By-Law 2006-127 be waived;
THAT the Director of Planning Services and the Director of Finance be
authorized to negotiate and approve contracts with the consultants deemed
necessary to complete the due diligence for the Municipality as identified in
Report PSD-070-07;
THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the necessary by-laws to
engage the consultants and execute the contracts deemed satisfactory by the
Director of Planning Services and the Director of Finance;
THAT the peer reviews and studies referenced in Report PSD-070-07 be
deemed to be part of the "necessary studies" to complete due diligence as
referenced in the motion approved by Durham Region Council on April 18, 2007,
and that the Director of Finance be directed to recover these due diligence costs
from the Region of Durham as set out in their motion;
THAT Staff report regularly to Council on the progress and findings of the peer
reviews and analyses being undertaken, and the Host Community Agreement
discussions; and
THAT all interested parties be notified of Council's decision including the Regions
of York and Durham Councils and the Joint Waste Management Committee."
699038
Attachment 12
To Report PSD-141-07
Resolution for PSD-097-07
Resolution C-455-07
THAT Report PSD-097-07 be received;
THAT Section 33 and Attachments 6 and 8A to Report PSD-097-97 be
approved as the Municipality of Clarington's comments to date for the Site
Selection segment of the EA process;
THAT Section 34 and Attachments 7 and 88 to Report PSD-097-97 be
approved as the Municipality of Clarington's comments to date on the
Generic Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, a component of
the EA process;
THAT Clarington request that the Region provide the other reports
including the Traffic Impact Analysis Archeological Assessment Air and
Groundwater Monitoring Environmental Impact Study Land Use
Infrastructure and Servicing Assessments with sufficient time given to the
Municipality and other store view and comment prior to completing their
analysis and selecting a preferred site;
THAT a copy of Report PSD-097-97 be forwarded to the Region of
Durham the Region of York and Ministry of Environment; and
THAT all interested parties including the Regions of York and Durham and
the Joint Waste Management Committee be notified of Council's decision.
CARRIED AS AMENDED
LATER IN THE MEETING
Resolution C-457-o7
699039
THAT the foregoing Resolution C-455-07 be amended by adding a new
paragraph 5 as follows;
THAT the Region of Durham be requested to provide to the Municipality of
Clarington written confirmation of the minimum guaranteed operating
standard for emissions and that a 247 emissions monitoring systems is to
be required in the RFP.
CARRIED
Attachment 13
To Report PSD-141-07
Resolutions: GPA 632-07 and C-592-07
WHEREAS the Consultants retained by the Regions of Durham York
Proponent to oversee an Environmental Assessment EA to site an Energy
From Waste EFW facility have identified a property located in the
Municipality of Clarington as the preferred site for said EFW facility
WHEREAS such EFW facility is to be developed and operating on a date
that appropriately relates with the scheduled closure of the US State of
Michigan border to all Canadian Municipal residual waste shipments
WHEREAS the Municipality of Clarington believes that the Proponent of
the EFW facility shall be fully responsible for all costs and risks associated
with the development and operation of the EFW facility
WHEREAS the Ontario Ministry of Environment must approve the
Environmental Assessment process which includes a site specific Human
Health and Environmental Risk Assessment and issue to the Proponent a
license to operate the EFW facility
WHEREAS it is standard practice in North America that a Host Community
Impact Agreement be entered into between the Proponent and the Host
Community for any type of Municipal residual waste processing facility
NOWTHEREFORE the Municipality of Clarington resolves that staff is
authorized to Undertake without prejudice negotiations with Durham
Region and that the Regions of York and Durham are requested to
1 Agree to protect the health and safety of the residents of Clarington
and Durham by incorporating into the design and installation of the
EFW facility the most modern and state of the art emission control
technologies that meet or exceed the European Union EU monitoring
and measurement standards
2 Agree to continue to support an aggressive residual waste diversion
and recycling programs in order to achieve and exceed on or before
December 2010 a 70 diversion recycling rate for the entire Region and
such aggressive programs shall continue beyond 2010
3 The Host Community Impact Agreement shall address but not be
limited to the following major areas of concern and requirements
699040
. Provide24/7 emission monitoring systems easily accessible
by the public
. Restrict the quantities types and sources of waste Le. no City
of Toronto Waste will be allowed
. Establish a Community Liaison Committee including local
Physicians
. Provide infrastructures to facilitate economic development in
Clarington
. Absorb all Clarington costs that are related to the
development and operations of the EFW facility
. Compensate Clarington for any detrimental costs if any
associated to an EFW facility sited within Clarington borders
. Assume all risks and liabilities associated with the EFW
facility
. Provide a royalty and/or revenue sharing arrangement to
Clarington for the life of the EFW facility in appropriate
amounts and suitably indexed
. The project shall have no adverse impacts on payments in
lieu of taxes
. No ash from the facility shall be deposited in any landfill site
located within Clarington borders
4 To alleviate the concerns of the people of Clarington and Durham by
acknowledging the foregoing and agreeing to negotiate with
Clarington in good faith.
5 Staff is directed to forward this resolution to the Regions of York and
Durham FORTHWITH
699041
Attachment 14
To Report PSD-141-07
Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT)
Short Definition
Technology-based standards based on the best-performing similar facilities in
operation.
Background
Ontario Ministry of the Environment Guideline A-7 (Combustion and Air Pollution
Control Requirements for New Municipal Waste Incinerators) indicates that it was
developed on the basis of "Maximum Achievable Control Technology," (MACT), human
health considerations and the approaches taken by other jurisdictions. However, the A-7
Guideline does not define MACT.
The term MACT seems to have been originally used by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA originally controlled hazardous air pollutants by
setting standards for each pollutant based on an individual basis according to its
particular health risk. In 1990, the federal government directed the EPA to replace this
original approach with one based on what technology could currently achieve, and that
the technology-based approach be followed by a risk-based approach to address any
remaining, or residual, risks.
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
In 1999, the EPA adopted the MACT approach for controlling hazardous air emissions.
Under this approach, the standards for each industry group are based on the emission
levels that are already being achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources within the group.
U.S. MACT standards are designed to reduce hazardous air emissions to a maximum
achievable degree, taking into consideration the cost of reductions and other factors.
When developing a MACT standard for a particular source category, the EPA looks at
the current level of emissions achieved by best-performing similar sources through
clean processes, control devices, work practices, or other methods. These emissions
levels set a baseline (MACT floor). At a minimum, a MACT standard must achieve,
throughout the industry, a level of emissions control that is at least equivalent to the
MACT floor. The EPA can establish a more stringent standard when it makes economic,
environmental, and publiC health sense to do so.
699042
~'w:-!!Jgtnn
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting;
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION MEETING
Date:
Monday, December3,2007
Report #; PSD-142-07 File No's: A2007-0062 & A2007-0063
By-law #:
Subject:
MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 22, 2007
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-142-07 be received; and,
2. THAT Council concurs with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on
November 22, 2007 for applications A2007 -0062 and A2007 -0063 and that Staff be
authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the
Committee of Adjustment.
Reviewed by: c) ~ ~
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
Submitted by:
Dav'
Dire
. Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
or of Planning Services
PW.Cp.DC.sh
November 23, 2007
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
699043
PAGE 2
REPORT NO.: PSD-142-07
1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS
1.1 All applications received by the Municipality for minor variance are scheduled for a
hearing within 30 days of being received by the Secretary-Treasurer. The purpose of
the minor variance applications and the Committee's decisions are detailed in
Attachment 1. The decisions of the Committee are summarized below.
DECISIONS OF COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR
NOVEMBER 22, 2007
A Iication Number
A2007 -0062
A2007 -0063
Staff Recommendation
A rove
Approve with conditions
Decision of Committee
A roved
Approved with
conditions
2.0 COMMENTS
2.1 Staff have reviewed the Committee's decisions and are satisfied that applications
A2007-0062 and A2007-0063, are in conformity with both Official Plan policies,
consistent with the intent of the Zoning By-law, are minor in nature and desirable for the
appropriate development of the respective properties.
2.2 Council's concurrence with the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment for
applications A2007-0062 and A2007-0063, is required in order to afford Staff official
status before the Ontario Municipal Board in the event of an appeal of any decision of
the Committee of Adjustment.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 _ Periodic Report for the Committee of Adjustment
699044
I
CliJ!-ilJ-gron
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-142-07
PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
SERNAS ASSOCIATES
HALLOWAY HOLDINGS LIMITED
PROPERTY LOCATION:
2372 HIGHWAY 2, BOWMANVILLE
PART LOT 16, CONCESSION 1
FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF
A2007-0062
FILE NO.:
PURPOSE:
TO PERMIT THE REDUCTION OF A LANDSCAPE STRIP, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
BUILDING "D", FROM A WIDTH 2.5 METRES TO 0 METRES AND TO PERMIT THE
REDUCTION OF LOADING SPACE SCREENING WALL FOR BUILDING "D" FROM A
HEIGHT OF 5 METRES TO 0 METRES.
DECISION OF COMMITTEE:
TO APPROVE THE REDUCTION OF THE WIDTH OF A LANDSCAPE STRIP ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING "0" FROM A WIDTH OF 2.5 M TO 0 M & THE
REDUCTION A LOADING SPACE SCREENING WALL FOR BUILDING "0" FROM A
HEIGHT OF 5 M TO 0 M & REPLACING IT WITH A 1.8 M WIDE LANDSCAPING
STRIP WITH 1.8 M HIGH CEDARS AS IT IS MINOR IN NATURE, DESIRABLE &
CONFORMS TO THE INTENT OF THE ZONING BY-LAW & BOTH OFFICIAL PLANS.
DATE OF DECISION:
LAST DAY OF APPEAL:
November 22, 2007
December 12, 2007
699045
CJMmgton
PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
MARK HUXTER
MARK HUXTER
PROPERTY LOCATION: 8840 ENFIELD ROAD, ENFIELD
PART LOT 31, CONCESSION 8
FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON
FILE NO.: A2007-0063
PURPOSE:
TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING (DETACHED
GARAGE) BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE FROM 40%
TO 44% OF THE MAIN DWELLING TO A MAXIMUM OF 106 M2 (BY-LAW 84-63) AND
TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIZE FROM 90 M2 TO 106
DECISION OF COMMITTEE:
TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING (DETACHED
GARAGE) BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE FROM
40% TO 44% OF THE MAIN DWELLING TO A MAXIMUM OF 106 M2 (BY-LAW 84-
63) AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIZE FROM 90 M2 TO 106 M2
AND TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FROM 3.7 METRES TO 4.8 METRES
(BY-LAW 2005-109) SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
. THAT NO ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY BE PERMITTED FOR ACCESS TO THE
ACCESSORY BUILDING; AND
. THAT NO WATER CONNECTIONS BE MADE TO THE INTERIOR OF THE
ACCESSORY BUILDING
AS IT IS MINOR IN NATURE, DESIRABLE & CONFORMS TO THE INTENT OF THE
ZONING BY-LAW & BOTH OFFICIAL PLANS.
DATE OF DECISION:
LAST DAY OF APPEAL:
November 22, 2007
December 12, 2007
699046
CI~ilJgton
REPORT
. PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
Monday, December 3, 2007
Report #: PSD-143-07
File #: ZBA 2007-0022
By-law #:
Subject:
PROPOSED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT TO FACILITATE THE
SEVERANCE OF A HAMLET RESIDENTIAL LOT
APPLICANT: WILLIAM AND JEAN KIMBALL
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-143-07 be received;
2. THAT the rezoning application submitted by William and Jean Kimball be APPROVED
and that the attached Zoning By-law Amendment be ADOPTED by Council;
3. THAT a copy of this Report and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of
Durham Planning Department and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation; and
4. THAT all interested parties listed in this Report and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
"'bm_by' ~
Dav J. Crome, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director, Planning Services
ReviewedbO~~ ~
Franklin Wu
Chief Administrative Officer
BR/CP/DJC/df/lw
27 November 2007
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
699047
PAGE 2
REPORT NO.: PSD-143-07
APPLlCA nON DETAILS
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
Applicant:
Owner:
Rezoning:
1.4 Area:
1.5 Location:
William and Jean Kimball
Same as applicant
To change the zoning of a portion of a lot from "Agricultural Exception (A-
1)" to "Residential Hamlet (RH)" to facilitate the severance of a hamlet
residential lot
Severed parcel - 0.40 hectares; Retained parcel - 1.82 hectares
4548 Durham Highway 2, Newtonville, being Lot 8, Concession 2, former
Township of Clarke (see Attachment 1)
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 On May 4, 2007, William and Jean Kimball submitted a rezoning application for the rear
portion of the lot they proposed to sever. They had submitted a land division application
on December 5, 2006. The proposed lot fronts on the north side of Highway 2.
Approximately halfthe lot is zoned "RH" and half is zoned "A-1". Clarington's comments
to Land Division Committee included a condition that the applicants "make application
and receive approval for rezoning the portion of the severed parcel that is zoned
"Agricultural Exception (A-1) Zone."
2.2 A Public Meeting was held September 4,2007. No one expressed objections to or in
support for the application.
2.3 A hydrogeological/site servicing study was submitted on November 16, 2007, in support
of the application.
3.0 LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES
3.1 The property is used for crops despite being in the Hamlet of Newtonville with the
exception of the southwest corner where the existing house, its driveway, an accessory
building (shed) and the surrounding lawns are situated. The rectangular property is
2.228 hectares with a frontage of 76.3 metres and an average depth of approximately
201 metres. The proposed severed lot is located at the east end of the property, is
0.422 hectares in area, with a frontage of 30.48 metres and a depth of 138.29 metres.
See the aerial photograph on next page and Attachment 1.
3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows:
North - Agricultural
South _ Durham Highway 2 and beyond, Hamlet Residential
East _ Hamlet Residential and Agricultural
West _ Hamlet Residential and Agricultural
699048
REPORT NO.: PSD-143-07
PAGE 3
ZBA 2007-0022
~ Proposed Lands To 8e Severed lS:::::SJ Lands To Be Retained
4.0 PROVINCIAL POLICY
4.1 Provincial Policv Statement
The proposed severance represents infill within a rural settlement area. Settlement
areas are to be the focus of growth and their vitality and regeneration are to be
encouraged. This application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.
4.2 Greenbelt Plan
Development, within Hamlets identified in local Official Plans, is not subject to the
policies of the Greenbelt Plan. Clarington Official Plan policies govern the development
of new lots within the existing hamlet boundary.
5.0 OFFICIAL PLANS
5.1 Durham Reaional Official Plan
The Durham Regional Official Plan recognizes Newtonville as a hamlet. Hamlets are
the predominant location for residential development outside urban areas. Severance
for limited infilling on the existing municipal water system conforms to the Plan.
699049
REPORT NO.: PSD-143-07
PAGE 4
5.2 Clarinaton Official Plan
The Clarington Official Plan designates the proposed severed and retained lots as
"Hamlet Residential". Hamlets are to be the predominant and preferred locations for
rural population growth as opposed to scattered non-farm rural residential properties.
The Clarington Official Plan requires a technical servicing report be submitted in support
of the creation of all rural lots. The report shall demonstrate there is no adverse impact
on adjacent wells and septic systems and meets provincial guidelines for assessing
water supply and risk of water quality impact. New residential lots in rural settlements
are to have a minimum area of 4,000 square metres. However, the Official Plan policies
allow the minimum lot size in Newtonville to be reduced for lots with municipal water,
provided a technical servicing report demonstrates to the satisfaction of the approval
authorities that the soil and groundwater conditions can support reduced lot size without
contaminating soil or groundwater. The above technical report in support of this
application has been received and is considered to be satisfactory.
6.0 ZONING BY-LAW
6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the southern half of the proposed lot "Residential Hamlet
(RH)", whereas the northern half of the lot is "Agricultural Exception (A-1)". Although
the proposed severed lot has 30 metres of frontage all within the "RH" Zone and in this
sense complies, said lot does not have the minimum 4,000 square metres of area within
the "RH" Zone but rather, approximately 2,000 square metres. In this way the proposed
lot does not comply. Hence, this application to rezone the remainder of the lot "RH" to
provide 4,000 square metres of property within the "RH" Zone.
7.0 PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
7.1 The public meeting for this application was September 4, 2007. No one spoke at the
public meeting and staff have not received any enquiries with respect to the proposed
rezoning.
8.0 AGENCY COMMENTS
8.1 Comments have been received from all of the circulated departments and agencies.
8.2 Clarington Engineering Services advised that as a condition of the related land division
application, that prior to issuance of a building permit the Department requires, for
review and approval, a grading plan for the severed lot.
8.3 The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority offered no objections to the proposed
application.
8.4 The Regional Health Department staff have verbally advised that they have no objection
to the application.
699050
REPORT NO.: PSD-143-07
PAGE 5
8.5 The Regional Planning Department noted the Regional Official Plan designates the
subject property "Hamlet" and the proposal is permitted by the policies of said Plan.
Municipal water supply is available to the subject property from an existing watermain
on Durham Highway 2 and service to the property has been installed. A private waste
disposal system is proposed to service the property and the Regional Health
Department has no objection. Durham Highway 2 is a Type "A" Arterial Road and a
right-of-way minimum of 13.0 metres from the centre line of the original right-of-way to
the property line will be required. The application was screened according to provincial
plan review responsibilities. As the subject property is adjacent to Durham Highway 2,
a noise study is required to identify any potential impacts from vehicular noise and
identify appropriate noise mitigation measures. The noise study requirement remains a
condition of approval on the related land division application. There are no other
matters of provincial interest applicable to this application.
9.0 STAFF COMMENTS
9.1 The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject property as hamlet residential, the
predominant use of which is single detached dwellings. The proposed use, being a
single detached dwelling, therefore conforms. This individual land severance due to its
location and the surrounding property configurations does not jeopardize the future
development of the hamlet's northeast quadrant. The proposal will utilize existing
municipal water supply and roads, although a widening is required.
9.2 The technical servicing report indicates that the proposed lot size of a little over 4,000
square metres is adequate but no recommendation is made to reduce lot size.
Therefore, the lot size will not be reduced.
9.3 The zoning allows the rear or north half of the lot to be rezoned to Residential Hamlet
consistent with the front (south) half of the lot. The 4,000 square metre minimum lot
area is required to all be in one zone to allow the consent to be approved.
9.4 Clarington Finance advises that for the subject lands all taxes have been paid.
10.0 CONCLUSION
10.1 The proposal has been reviewed in consideration of the comments received from the
circulated agencies, in consideration of Provincial Policy, the Clarington Official Plan
and Zoning By-law 84-63. Based on the comments provided in this report, staff
respectfully recommends the Zoning By-law Amendment as contained in Attachment 2,
be approved.
699051
REPORT NO.: PSD-143-07
PAGE 6
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Property Map and Site Location Key Map
Attachment 2 - Zoning By-law Amendment
List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
William & Charlotte Kimball
Valentine Lovekin
699052
Attachment 1
To Report PSD-143-07
-
i e iii
I- III ..Q
'> z ,~ E
c w Q.
i Cl i':
:E .5 Cl.
C e <c CD
~ NZ . 0 >. ::
CI. NW N lD .0
.. c:E ~ 't' 'i:
:e t?<c III
CD .c
c g~ 0 e 0
0 I- :t.
;: t) 0 't'
.. e
u N..J
0 . CD CD In III
..J <(>- :!:: :Q' 't' E
,., maJ II) ::I e
1: NCI - II) III .!
" u ..J
CI. Z CD In ... 3:
0 't'
~ Z :Q' Gl
11. C .c
0 ::I III - ;.:
N II) ..J 0 CD
C
m~s :t
.,.)~
~h 0
f,:J
~
,
\
\ ,
\
\ '\.
.. , \ .
0 .' .. \
~ ' ~ \
~
WS~'Sg
\ ('ol
~~
K
~\
\,~
E \";1:.
"' .~ ~
,.,
ai ~4t
0 '~'a
\.-::;)
l" ~.p
0
m
"' or; ~;
.i,\\
I'- '\~
z
~\
" , \,
~,~ - \
, \ .
~.\
.\ wag'sa ~ M"OZ,S0.81 N ~
0
...
~ 0
0 ." 0
.. .
~ -"
.. ~
699053
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW NO. 2007-
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zonin9 By-law for
the Corporation of the former Town of Newcastle
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it
advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington for ZBA 2007-0022;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarin9ton enacts as follows;
1. Schedule "17" to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zone designation from "Agricultural Exception (A-1) Zone" to
"Residential Hamlet (RH) Zone";
2. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to
the provisions of Section 34 of the Plannin9 Act.
BY-LAW read a first time this
day of
2007
BY-LAW read a second time this
day of
2007
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this
day of
2007
James Abernethy, Mayor
Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk
Attachment 2
To Report PSD-143-07
699054
This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2007-
passed this day of .2007 A.D.
N73'lS'10"E
, OB.35m
E
OJ
'"
.n
OJ'
E
o
.;
'"
.'
,
.::::::.
~
o
'"
.:':::;:"~
..'
.'
,
z
.'
,
"
.'
,
--------
E
..,
....
en
- ...,...~"
~.
.::-
...-
~
. r\\Gr\'-t-lI'-'i "2-
O\.l~r\I'-~
v////~
~
Zoning Change From "A-1" To "RH"
Zoning To Remain "RH"
Jim Abemethy, Mayor
--
Potti l. Barrie, Municipal Clerk
Newtonville
J
---------T----
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
,
9055
Cl~gton
REPORT
EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
December 3, 2007
Report#: ESD-016-07
File #
10.12.6
By-law #
Subject:
EMERGENCY PLAN, PUBLIC VERSION
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report ESD-016-07 is received for information.
Jd J rL. ()~-S:"' . Jf ".--,.
Submitted by: '- Reviewed by: - '"'-..) ~
e6~," ... AMCT. CMM111 Frn"';" Wo.
Director of Emergency & Fire Services Chief Administrative Officer
GW/MB/sr
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-6506
901
REPORT NO. ESD-016-07
PAGE 2
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The Emergency Management & Civil Protection Act, RSO, 1990 as amended,
requires the Municipality to submit a copy of the municipal emergency plan to the Chief,
Emergency Management Ontario, and shall ensure that the Chief, Emergency
Management Ontario has, at any time, the most current version of the emergency plan.
1.2 The Emergency Management & Civil Protection Act, RSO, 1990 provides for the
exclusion from a public document all personal information as well as pertinent
information found in hazard identification and risk assessments and third party
information.
2. COMMENTS
2.1 The emergency plan has been reviewed.
2.2 A public version of the emergency plan known as Version P has been provided to
the Chief, Emergency Management Ontario, the Clarington Public Library and the Clerk
of the Municipality of Clarington.
2.3 Given the size of the emergency plan it has not been reproduced for this report,
however, the public is able to access it at the library, on-line or through the Clerk's
Department.
902
ClW:-!!lglOn
REPORT
EMERGENCY AND FIRE SERVICES
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
December 3, 2007
Report #:
ESD-017-07
File #
10.12.6
By-law #
Subject:
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - ONTARIO POWER
GENERATION
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to
Council the following:
1. THAT Report ESD-017-07 is received;
2. THAT the conditions outlined in the attached Memorandum of Understanding with Ontario Power
Generation, for Fire Protection and Emergency Response, be endorsed by Council; and
3. THAT the Mayor, Clerk and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to enter into the attached
Memorandum of Understanding with Ontario Power Generation for Fire Protection and
Emergency Response.
/)
~t/~ J
C J
Submitted by: .// tci ~ .
-Gordon Weir, AMCT, CMM111
Director of Emergency & Fire Services
Reviewed by:
~
.
,/., ~-
A,../)L[P
anklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
J
GWsr
/t:
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-650!fl03
REPORT NO. ESD 017-07
PAGE 2
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Report ADMIN 9-93, in part, contains an agreement between the Municipality of Clarington and
Ontario Hydro and sets the Municipality as the primary responder.
1.2 Since that time Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has introduced on site emergency personnel
changing the conditions at OPG and also changing the practice to secondary tiered response by
Municipal services.
1.3 In 2002 Ontario Power Generation, Dariington Nuclear Generating Station (DNGS) agreed to
reimburse the Municipality for services performed by Clarington Emergency and Fire Services
such as firefighter overtime incurred as a resuit of co-training with Emergency Responders (ERT)
at DNGS, annual fire inspections, annual fire safety plan review and joint community fire safety
activities such as Family Safety Day and the Junior Firefighter Program.
1.4 An informal agreement was reached and at that time the sum of approximately $40,000 was
contributed to Clarington Emergency and Fire Services representing cost recovery for these
services.
1.5 Ontario Power Generation approached the Municipality some years ago to enter into a formai
Memorandum of Understanding regarding fire protection and emergency response and
reimbursement for services performed. More recently, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
(CNSC) has strongly suggested that DNGS enter into a formal Memorandum of Understanding
with Clarington Emergency and Fire Services.
2. REPORT
2.1 Along with the Director of Corporate Services and the Human Resource Manager, staff has met
with Jim Coles, Manager of Fire Programs and Training at DNGS, to come to an equitable
resolution and draft a Memorandum of Understanding agreeable to the stakeholders.
2.2 The Memorandum of Understanding sets out the responsibilities of Ontario Power Generation in
responding to off-site incidents upon request by the Municipality. It also provides that the
Municipality is no longer primary responder to OPG incidents on site.
2.3 The Memorandum of Understanding also provides for capitai contributions on an as required
basis.
2.4 As well, this financial plan will be reviewed annually by the Finance Director, Fire Chief and Chief
Administrative Officer along with the Manager of Fire Protection for Ontario Power Generation
(DNGS).
2.5 In total, Clarington Emergency and Fire Service is eligible to receive financial support up to
$93,000 in 2007.
2.6 Subsequent to reviewing several draft documents, staff is satisfied with the proposed
Memorandum of Understanding, which has also been reviewed by the Director of Finance during
the process, for insurance reiated language and any liability issues.
3. CONCLUSION
3.1 It is therefore recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend
to Council that the Mayor, Clerk and Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to enter into the
attached Memorandum of Understanding with Ontario Power Generation for Fire Protection and
Emergency Response.
Attachment: Memorandum of Understandin9 with Ontario Power Generation
904
ATTACHMENT #1 TO REPORT ESD-017-07
,'. ".>~........ ....
i ,_,_ ...... ...., ',>.,'
'/.'~' ... .q ,-, '," ':', :....',..,
'./" -, ...
Memorandum of Understanding
-,' ",.:,..., .-'0 ..,<....,. .,: ,',:. ,,"', "
'0' ... '\'J<:'h,;F;' :ij,.:-(~)_,->... ;+.;;i-,_ -ii'i,-!l;dit,-,;,/':;:,;,-,';;:/Ff;
;',:i' "i{:;,-;J:
... '0'''' ~ "
",,',"','-',-
C.,:.-:.._<' .......: ',:. >.' : _',',,' _ '"'.,,,-, ", '_ ._.,...,......'..:.:
.~.\.~:~;S+~_t~~:i~,':~!~5:':;";:;:~a:-;K?,,?,:~;j<~:-::";!}':',:..X~.:~:-:'-W,:';,;!;,:~::0t";:,,:ofi-f1:F:;::,:;<-"<~'r),,:;,:j5{\:}8':':h:~h;:
'. ,-"_f"',,_:,,~,_,
... '.;
~""
-"":<'/\:.>:::;'
,- ,',
,t.'/ "',
Effective: January 1, 2007
Revised Oct 30107 MOU Between Municipality of ClaringtoD and OPG
905
Memorandum of Understanding
FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Between The Municipality of Clarington
and
Ontario Power Generation, Darlington Nuclear
1. Application
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) applies to the provision of fire protection
services, including fire safety planning, fire inspections, coordinated emergency
response between The Municipality of Clarington and Ontario Power Generation Inc.
(OPG) Darlington Nuclear (herein after referred to as either OPG or ON)
2. Purpose
It is understood that OPG and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) are
solely accountable for all fire safety provisions at ON. Nonetheless, it is recognized that
there exists a cooperative and collaborative relationship between OPG and Clarington
with respect to fire protection, emergency response, and community emergency
management and that relationship should be maintained and enhanced.
In order to clarify and strengthen the co-operative working relationship between OPG
and Clarington, it is appropriate that the two parties execute a formal MOU concerning
fire protection and emergency response. .
The MOU recognizes the significant benefits to be gained by both parties in developing
and maintaining closer ties with respect to emergency response and to improve the
safety of firefighters, Darlington Nuclear Generating Station and the general public.
3. Mutual Aid Arrangements for On-site and Off-site Emergencies, Joint Incident
Command and Specialized Training
3.1 Mutual Aid
Both Clarington and ON have substantial fire fighting and emergency response
resources at their disposal. It is acknowledged that the combined resource is a
Revised Oct 30/07 MOU Between Municipality of ClaringtOD and OPG
2
906
significant force that should be made available to help safeguard the community in the
event of a major incident.
In the event of a major off-site incident, OPG agrees to provide assistance to Clarington,
if requested, and within the limitations of the ON Licenses and the ON Waste Facility
license, OPG's Regulatory Commitments to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
(CNSC), and all applicable CNSC Regulatory Guidance Documents and laws in force at
the time the assistance is sought. This assistance could include personnel (e.g. drivers
for OPG vehicles), equipment and supplies to support Clarington in their efforts to
control and/or mitigate an emergency.
In the event of an on-site incident, it is understood that ON is staffed with full time
qualified emergency response personnel available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Nonetheless, Clarington Fire Services will be called to all fire events at ON to provide
secondary assistance as requested. ON shall provide clearly marked access routes for
responding emergency vehicles and shall provide a security escort from the Holt Road
guardhouse. Clarington will be reimbursed for all costs incurred by invoice to ON.
3.2 Joint Incident Command and Specialized Training
In the event of a major fire at ON it is agreed that the appropriate staff from ON and
CEFS staff would benefit from in-depth incident command training and specialized
training on how to deal with fires in Nuclear Generating Stations.
In recognition of the unique personnel control and incident command issues around
fires in a nuclear power plant, it is agreed that specialized programs should be
developed by ON, and shared with the appropriate CEFS personnel. It is agreed that
the appropriate staff deemed necessary by both parties will jOintly partiCipate in
Advanced Incident Command exercises using plant specific Incident Command Table-
top Model provided by Wesleyville Fire and Rescue Academy.
Additional training for CEFS fire fighters or other staff deemed appropriate by CEFS, in
dealing with fires in nuclear power plants will be facilitated by use of OPG Nuclear
Weselyville Fire Training Field Site, on mutually agreeable dates. There will be no cost
to the Municipality for use of this site.
OPG Darlington also agrees that other specialized training other than fire may be
needed for the CEFS. This training will be evaluated and mutually agreed to by both
parties. Examples of non-fire training courses include, but are not limited to: HAZMAT,
Station Systems Training For Fire Fighters, Orange Radiation Protection Qualification
Training, Plant Layout Training, Radioactive Fire materials, Electrical fires, FDIC annual
conference, and the Fire Chiefs Conference.
Revised Oct 30/07 MOU Between Municipality of elarington and OPG
3
907
4. Fire Safety Plan
The National Fire Code of Canada requires the preparation of a Fire Safety Plan in
cooperation with the fire services and other applicable regulatory authorities, in order to
protect people and property from fire and its effects. To this end, OPG shall prepare a
Fire Safety Plan that is consistent with the requirements of the National Fire Code of
Canada and/or applicable Ontario Fire Code.
The Manager of Fire Protection - OPG will review the plan with the Fire Chief of the
Municipality of Clarington.
In order to ensure the Fire Safety Plan remains current and up-to-date, it shall be
reviewed at least once a year and amendments shall be made as required. These
amendments shall be approved by the Manager - Fire Protection OPG and reviewed by
The Fire Chief of the Municipality of Clarington, and submitted to the appropriate
authorities.
5. Work Plan, Joint Training and Equipment & Supplies
5.1 Work Plan
On or before the end of every calendar year to which this MOU applies, the Manager of
Fire Protection _ OPG and the Fire Chief of the Municipality of Clarington shall approve
an annual work plan detailing the joint activities Clarington and OPG propose to
undertake for the following year. The Work Plan may be provided to and reviewed by
CNSC.
5.2Joint Fire Training
It is agreed that Municipality of Clarington Emergency and Fire Services (CEFS) and
ON staff will participate in fire drills and/or live fire practices as determined by the OPG
Manager _ Fire Protection and the CEFS Senior Management team. This training is to
be arranged so that each of the crews at ON and each of the crews at CEFS should
have the opportunity to participate at least once. The purpose of these drills or live fire
training is to improve the joint response of both organizations to a simulated major fire
at ON and to identify continuous improvements to the response. Deficiencies will be
documented in a report on each drill or practice and corrective actions implemented.
Changes to the training schedule will be made as agreed by the Manager, Fire
Protection OPG and the CEFS Senior Management team.
Drills may be conducted in conjunction with other emergency response organization
drills. Joint response to any unplanned events can also be counted as long as a
response is documented and reviewed by the Manager, Fire Protection and the Chief of
CEFS or their delegate.
Revised Oct 30/07 MOU Between Municipality of Clarington and OPG
4
908
Performance of the CEFS will not be evaluated by OPG during these drills. The
purpose of the drills is to evaluate ON response and to ensure that adequate
procedures are in place at ON to enable effective response by the CEFS staff.
The schedule for the jointly evaluated fire drills will be established annually and agreed
to between the Manager, Fire Protection OPG and the Fire Chief of CEFS.
5.3 Equipment & Supplies
It is recognized that if equipment and supplies are to be shared then such equipment
and supplies should be fully compatible.
It is agreed that, to the extent practicable, shared equipment and supplies purchased
and used at ON shall be fully compatible with equipment and supplies used by CEFS.
Where necessary, equipment purchases made by DGNS will be reviewed by CEFS to
ensure full compatibility with equipment used by CEFS. Self-contained breathing
apparatus shall be the same and air cylinders shall be interchangeable. All fire hose
threads and fittings shall be compatible or adapters purchased to ensure that all CEFS
hoses, nozzles and related equipment are interchangeable.
Where the purchase of a new item of equipment may be mutually beneficial
consideration shall be given to the joint purchase of such equipment to defray the cost
to both parties. Significant capital purchases may be considered on a case by case
basis and require the appropriate level of approval.
6. Community Emergency Managment
Pursuant to the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act and applicable
regulations under this act, the Municipality of Clarington maintains a Community
Emergency Management Program. The Program is designed to ensure that Clarington
is prepared for any type of community emergency.
As host Municipality to DN, the Municipality of Clarington has additional pressure
associated with hosting a nuclear facility. As such additional demands are placed upon
the community as it needs to be prepared for all community emergencies
Additionally, the Municipality of Clarington is routinely faced with non-emergency
management issues related to ON such as CNSC Power Reactor Operating License
renewals and amendment applications.
On an annual basis, OPG agrees to provide a financial contribution to support the
Municipality of Clarington Community Emergency Management Program. The
Municipality of Clarington as a Host Community, agrees to provide regular updates on
the progress of the EP Program to OPG Management.
Revised Oct 30/07 MOU Between Municipality of Clarington and OPG
5
909
7. Financial Plan
On or before the end of every calendar year in consultation with the Municipal Director
of Finance and Fire Chief, the OPG Manager Fire Protection and the Chief
Administrative Officer of the Municipality of Clarington shall approve a Financial Plan
detailing the financial arrangements and commitments to be made between OPG and
Clarington for the following year. The Municipality of Clarington will provide OPG with
invoices documenting expenditures or services provided in accordance with the
financial plan. OPG will reimburse the Municipality of Clarington for expenditures
services
Financial year is a calendar year. The Financial Plan for 2007 is as follows:
Maximum
Pa able
2 Annual Fire Safet Plan Review
5,000
3,000
1 Annual Fire Ins ection Service
4 S ecialized Trainin for CEFS Senior Fire staff
40,000
10,000
3 Joint Fire Trainin
5 Joint Community Fire Safety Activities:
JFF Pro ram, Famil Safet Da etc.,
Annual Contribution - Community Emergency
6 Mana ement Pro ram
Total maximum payment to the
Munici alit of Clarin ton for 2007
10,000
25,000
$ 93,000
Note: Mutual Aid: CEFS reasonable costs incurred will be invoiced after incident to
ON.
Eauicment and Succlies Costs: will share where possible and invoiced to ON in
accordance with inclusion in the CEFS annual budget process.
8. Employees / WSIB
8.1 Employees
Notwithstanding any prOVIsions or arrangements contained within this MOU, all
employees of the Municipality of Clarington and all employees of the Ontario Power
Generation shall remain employees of their respective organizations. Furthermore, all
collective agreements and/or terms of employment of the respective organizations shall
remain in full force and effect.
Revised Oct 30/07 MOU Between Municipality of Clarington and OPG
6
910
8.2 WSIB
Where possible, the Municipality may seek compensation from OPG for any exposures
resulting in a Municipal Firefighter's illness and death under WSIB.
9. Liabilities
OPG shall indemnify and save harmless Clarington from and against all claims, losses,
damages, actions, suits or proceedings arising out of this MOU and resulting from acts
or omissions of OPG, its employees, agents and contractors involving negligence or
misconduct in responding to a request for assistance by OPG and acts or omissions of
Clarington or its employees, agents or contractors related to any involvement at ON,
other than acts or omissions involving negligence or willful misconduct of Clarington , or
its employees, agents or contractors.
Subject to the application of the Nuclear Liability Act R.S.C. 1985, N-28, Clarington shall
indemnify and save harmless OPG from and against all claims, losses, damages,
actions, suits or proceedings arising out of this MOU and resulting from acts or
omissions of Clarington, its employees, agents and contractors involving gross
negligence or misconduct related to any involvement at ON and acts or omissions of
OPG, or its employees, agents, or contractors in responding to a request for assistance
by Clarington , other than acts or omissions involving gross negligence or willful
misconduct of OPG, or its employees, agents, or contractors.
In the event that damages, loss or injury caused by the hazardous properties of nuclear
material, as defined under the Nuclear Liability Act, occur wholly or partially as a result
of an unlawful act or omission of an employee, agent, contractor, sub-contractor of
Clarington done with the intent to cause injury or damage, OPG will not pursue any right
of recourse it may have against Clarington in such an event and any subrogation rights
its insurers may have, will be exercised in accordance with the letter from OPG's insurer
dated May 10, 2001, which forms Appendix 1 to this MOU.
In no event whatsoever will either OPG or Clarington be liable for:
a) indirect, special, incidental, contingent or consequential damages including loss of
goodwill, loss or damage to data, or any information, loss of actual or anticipated
revenue or profits, failure to realize expected savings, loss of use or any other
economic loss whatsoever, even if OPG, or Clarington as the case may be, has
been advised of the potential for such damages. However, Clarington shall be
reimbursed for replacement and rental costs incurred pending delivery of new
vehicle(s) and/or associated equipment, in the event that any vehicle and/or
associated equipment related to any involvement at ON become(s) unusable as a
result of contamination; and
b) punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages.
Additionally, in no event whatsoever will Clarington be liable for:
a) direct physical damage to the radioactive or non-conventional (nuclear) parts of the
ON;
Revised Oct 30/07 MOU Between Municipality of Claringlon and OPG
7
911
b) direct physical damage to the conventional (non-nuclear) parts of the ON, where
such damage results from radioactive contamination; and
c) any physical damage to ON andlor ON property damaged or lost while on the ON,
providing that the damage or loss is not covered by conventional Commercial
General Liability and/or Motor Vehicle Liability insurance policies.
OPG and Clarington shall each maintain in effect Commercial General Liability
insurance in the amount of at least 25 million dollars and Motor Vehicle Liability
insurance in the amount of at least 2 million dollars. Clarington and OPG shall be
named as additional insured's on the respective Commercial General Liability insurance
policies and supply a certificate of insurance evidencing the said coverage and shall
further provide certified copies of insurance policies upon request. Such request only to
be made in the event of a potential claim situation where OPG's or Clarington's interests
may be insured by the insurance coverage noted herein.
The said insurance coverage shall not be cancelled or materially changed by either
party without providing the other party with 60 days written notice. The party's insurers
shall provide a waiver of subrogation to the other party, its employees, agents and
contractors for such liability as the parties have assumed under this provision of the
MOU.
10. Confidentiality of Security Related Information
All information obtained by Clarington in the course of carrying out the tenms of this
MOU and which is expressly identified as confidential by OPG because of its security
implications, shall not be disclosed by Clarington to third parties except with the prior
written consent of OPG and except in accordance with applicable law. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, such information might include the type, location and
operation of the emergency systems of all buildings, the nature and location of any
hazardous materials and the operation, features and location of security equipment.
Clarington shall make its employees, agents and contractors who are likely to become
involved in the activities contemplated in this MOU aware of Clarington's non-disclosure
obligations as stated herein.
11.Security Clearances
Clarington undertakes to exercise reasonable efforts to facilitate OPG obtaining security
clearances for those employees, agents, or contractors of Clarington who will require
access to the ON site in the course of carrying out the terms of this MOU. The
aforementioned security clearances are those, which OPG must obtain in order to
comply with any CNSC requirements for access to the protected areas of the ON and
Waste Facility sites.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this MOU, either party to this memorandum may
provide written notice of intent to terminate this memorandum to the other party at any
Revised Oct 30/07 MOU Between Municipality of Clarington and OPG
8
912
time. A copy of the written notice by reqistered mail. courier or hand delivery, of intent
shall be forwarded to the CNSC and the other party to the MOU. Immediately following
the expiry of 180 days after such notice the MOU shall no longer be in effect.
12. Amendments
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, no supplement, restatement
or termination of this Agreement in whole or in part is binding, unless it is in writing and
signed by each party.
13. Authorization/Enforcement
Clarington and OPG has duly and validly authorized the execution, delivery and
performance of this MOU and no other approvals are necessary to authorize this MOU.
If any provision of the MOU is unenforceable or void by reason of law the remainder of
the MOU will remain intact.
14. Notices
Any communication concerning this MOU shall be issued in writing and delivered or
mailed to the following addresses of the parties respectively:
Municipality of Clarington
Ontario Power Generation
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L 1C 3A6
889 Brock Rd. South
Pickering Ontario
L 1W 3J2
Attention: Patti Barrie, Municipal Clerk
Jim Abernethy, Mayor
Franklin Wu, C.A.O
Attention: John Shaw, Director
Nuclear Protection Programs &
Training
Revised Oct 30/07 MOU Between Municipality of Clarington and OPG
9
913
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this MOU through their officers duly
authorized on that behalf.
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
Jim Abernethy, Mayor
Patti Barrie, Municipal Clerk
Date
Date
ONTARIO POWER GENERATION INC.
j_JuJj~~
Bill Robinson, SVP Nuclear Protection Programs
Mv /4-. ZOO?
,
Date
Attached: Appendix 1, NIAC Letter to OPG Dated May10, 2001
Revised Oct 30/07 MOU Between Municipality of Clarington and OPG
10
914
Memorandum of Understanding
FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Between the Municipality of Clarington and Orltario Power
Generation, Darlington Nuclear
APPENDIX 1
Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada Letter to OPG,
Dated May 10, 2001
915
Revised Oct 30/07 MOU Between Municipality of Clarington and opa
11
Nuclear Insurance AS5ociation of Canada-
18 ICIng s.r.- IiaIC, Sulat 800,
Taranto. Onmio MSC 1C4 .
Tel: (418)801.1801 " I'D: (4181368-0333
NIAC
May 10. 2001
Sluoe power LP.
<:10 BNC8 P<Mw Ine.
Countv Road 20. COllQ8S5ion llI4
11wIton, om.rta
NOG %TO
41CI-
.
OtMrio Pow9r Genendion Inc.
. 700 Unlve~ AVerue
Toronto. Orq\o
M5G 1xe
ee.r 811'5/Ml1$dames:
OnlaIio ~. Generation me. ("OPG") 8I'lCI Bn.acil Power LP. ("9ruct ~ have uKed Ill.
Nuclear 1nlI.....-- AMociaIIan or c:an.ao ("NIAC") to c1..vy its inWntIomI WllI1 _1IG to
~ NlAC's /'lghlS of .ubrogatlon wllh mpec:l to fleright or l'llCO.... IlVallallIl to till
operator under IIdion .12(b) aI the NudHr l.ilIllIII(y Act (R.S.o. 1_ No-28) (lIle "Act").
SeClllan 12(b) of \he Act ptOYldes that wIleI'e . nudear lnclcIent -.1lIng In enf lr1iury or dllmage
of the klnd detCrlbed In eec:tion S or lI1e N:.t occurs v.t1oIy 01' psr1lally - . red ot 11'1 unr.wIlAI
act or omIssiOn of lII1Y person dOI* or omillied Il:I De cIorw wlIlIlnlIlnt to caIAI4i lr1IWY 01' dImaQ8.
Ill. lll*8tof haS . right of _I'M ~ that person. U....lhe _nderlI NIAC iIucI8W
.~ IlabIIIty t1suranC!l P*Y. the nsurW Ia su~ Ie a1is right 01 - of \he
operalDt. .
ThIs IelIIIr """1 canIIrm thIR, in the .vlll1t fit . c1ak'n being made under lIle nucIeIr energy n.lliIIIY
policies of ellher 'OPG or aruce Paw8I', NIAC wi only plllSUl b lubRlQ8lIan rlgI\lII Wlder .
ptnGraph . of the NUClear Energy UebIIIlY Polkly &geNt 1Il.ll'lCliYk1u81 wno hII comml\llld lIlI
unlllWfulllCt or om/s$lan. NIAC WillIICl\ P\II1U' .ny righllI 8QllitI8t -.:rt COI....... bOdy~alhet
~ who migtIt e!f1PloY that II'ICllYIdualllllaccolllll of that indMllUeI'l ac:lS ar om/&slonl.
Thla leu.r may De reIiecI upon by OPG aI'ICl BM8 PClWeI'. as WIll ai -.:rt third pi.rty QCh,~.c:lOr....
supplier pnwiQing goads 01' JeIViC.. '" OPG'lIIldIar BNca Power. and their mpecII1M parent
compenl4M. aIli\1ates. Sl~ ancIIor rU1Ied aomplinles. Iagri1er wIIh !hi ~1AldIln,
Ofllcer.. employees and agents of eaclI such ~.
Yours YWIY lrUIy
~'J}~
ec,a.., P. 0eMerdlant. FClP, CRM
Anillanl Manager
Revised Oct 30/07 MOU Between Municipality of Clarington and opa
12
916
CfNh!gtoo
REPORT
CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
December 3, 2007
Report #: CLD-039-07
File#:
By-law #:
Subject:
QUARTERLY PARKING REPORT
RECOMMENDA TrONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the fOllowing:
1. THAT Report CLD-039-07 be received; and
2. THAT a copy of Report CLD-039-07 be forwarded to the Bowmanville Business Centre
for their information.
/"
/"
Submitted by:
C)~-2 ~
Reviewed by: Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1 C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-6506
1101
PLB*LC*lb
REPORT NO.: CLD-039-07
PAGE 2 of2
BACKGROUND
The following pertinent statistical information relates to Parking Enforcement activities for the
months of July, August and September 2007 and is provided herein for the information of
Committee and Council.
It is noted that the revenue is down significantly over the same period last year. Committee
should be aware that one of the two parking enforcement officers has been on restricted duties
in the office for several months. Also, the numbers of tickets issued by the various private
security companies have decreased significantly. Neither of these situations are something we
can directly control.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Parking Report For The Months of July, August and September 2007
1102
PARKING ENFORCEMENT QUARTERL Y REPORT #3 - 2007
ATTACHMENT #1 to 3rd Quarter Parking Financial Report
TICKETS ISSUED
AGENCY QUARTER 3, 2007 YEAR TO DA TE YEAR TO DA TE YEAR TO DA TE
2007 2006 2005
P.E. Officers 414 1707 2952 2194
Police 14 23 19 25
Public Works 0 0 0 0
Group Four 46 76 34 96
Aspen Springs 21 51 73 n/a
243 King St. 2 2 N/A N/A
Securitas 0 0 96 30
ProSecurity 1 40 565 102
Fire Services 0 0 0 0
REVENUE
Meters
Fines
23 082.50
1003.20
6372.00
56 051.50
2798.70
24 846.00
55941.00
3600.90
51 560.00
44 950.50
Permits
2248.00
34 073.50
MTO Chargeback
(1468.50)
(4784.50)
(5620.50)
(7449.75)
1ST APPEARANCES
Total Conducted 7 41 96 79
# Tickets Cancelled 6 36 75 58
# Tickets Upheld 2 8 22 25
# Requests for Trial 3 3 18 8
# Tickets Disputed 8 44 97 83
1103
,~~~mgton
REPORT
CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
Monday, December 3, 2007
Report #: Report CLD-040-07
File#:
By-law #:
Subject:
MEETING SCHEDULE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council approve the following:
1. THAT Report CLD-040-07 be received;
2. THAT the schedule of meetings adopted by Council on December 4, 2006 be repealed;
and
3. THAT the schedule of meetings attached hereto as Attachment No.1 be approved for the
remainder of the term of Council.
RevieWedbYO~~
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
1104
PLB
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
REPORT NO.: CLD-040-07
PAGE 2
At the first meeting of Council held on December 4, 2006, Council adopted the schedule
of meetings for the term of Council as recommended in Report CLD-024-07. Since that
time, the Provincial Government has announced a new statutory holiday, Family Day, to
be observed the third Monday of February each year. Accordingly, the schedule of
Committee and Council meetings needs to be amended to eliminate the Committee
meeting that would generally occur on that day.
A new schedule of meetings is attached hereto as Attachment No.1. Traditionally, when
a statutory holiday fell on a Monday when a General Purpose and Administration
Committee would be scheduled, that meeting has been scheduled for the following
Tuesday evening in order to avoid conflicts with Regional meetings. Because of the
length of the committee agendas, this generally makes for a very late meeting. These
Tuesday night meetings have been eliminated in the proposed schedule by extending the
meeting schedule into early July. By eliminating these Tuesday meetings, the schedule
for 2009 and 2010 is shortened by two meetings following the summer recess.
It is respectfully recommended that this schedule be adopted as the meeting schedule for
the remainder of the term of Council.
1105
Attachment NO.1
To Report CLD-040-07
2008
Monday January 7 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday January 14 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday January 21 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday January 28 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday Februaty 4 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday February 11 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday February 25 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday March 3 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday March 17 9:30 a.m. GPA
Tuesday March 25 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday March 31 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday April 7 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday April 14 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday April 21 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday April 28 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday May5 7:00 p.m. Council
Mondav May 12 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday May 26 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday June 2 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday June 9 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday June 16 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday June 23 7:00 p.m. Council
Mondav July7 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday July 14 7:00p.m. Council
Remainder of July and August at the Call of the Chair
Monday September 8 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday September 15 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday September 22 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday September 29 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday October 6 9:30 a.m. GPA
Tuesday October 14 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday October 20 9:30 a.m. GPA
Mondav October 27 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday November 3 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday November 10 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday Noyember 17 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday December 24 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday December 1 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday December 8 7:00 p.m. Council
1106
-2-
2009
Mondav January 5 9:30 a.m. GPA
Mondav January 12 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday January 19 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday January 26 7:00 p.m, Council
Mondav Februarv 2 9:30 a.m. GPA
Mondav Februarv 9 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday Februarv 23 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday March 2 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday March 16 9:30 a.m. GPA
Mondav March 23 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday March 30 9:30 a.m. GPA
Mondav April 6 7:00 p.m. Council
Mondav April 20 9:30 a.m. GPA
Mondav April 27 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday Mav4 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday May 11 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday May 25 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday June 1 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday June 8 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday June 15 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday June 22 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday June 29 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday July6 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday July 13 7:00 p.m. Council
July 14 through September 13 at the Call of the Chair
Monday Seotember 14 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday Seotember 21 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday Seotember 28 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday October 5 7:00 p.m. Council
Mondav October 19 9:30 a.m. GPA
Mondav October 26 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday November 2 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday November 9 7:00 p.m. Council
Mondav November 16 9:30 a.m. GPA
Mondav November 23 7:00 p.m. Council
Mondav December 7 9:30 a.m. GPA
Mondav December 14 7:00 p.m. Council
1107
- 3 -
2010
Monday January 4 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday January 11 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday Janu~18 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday Janu~ 25 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday Febru~ 1 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday February 8 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday Febru~ 22 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday March 1 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday March 15 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday March 22 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday March 29 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday April 12 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday April 19 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday April 26 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday May3 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday May 10 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday May 17 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday May 31 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday June 7 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday June 14 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday June 21 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday June 28 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday July 5 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday July 12 7:00 p.m. Council
July 13 through September 12 at the Call of the Chair
Monday September 13 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday September 20 7:00 p.m. Council
Monday September 27 9:30 a.m. GPA
Monday October 4 7:00 p.m. Council
1108
,CIYlinglOn
REPORT
CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
Monday,December3,2007
Report #: Report CLD-041-07
File#:
By-law #:
Subject:
PROCEDURAL BY-LAW
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council approve the following:
1. THAT Report CLD-041-07 be received;
2. THAT the proposed Procedural By-law included as Attachment NO.1 to
Report CLD-041-07 be forwarded to Council for passage; and
3. THAT the local boards be advised of Council's decision.
1109
Reviewed {:)~~~
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
PLB
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
PAGE 2
REPORT NO.: CLD-041-07
1.0 Backaround
Section 238 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (the Act), requires every municipality and local
board to pass a procedure by-law for governing the calling, place and proceedings of
meetings. It also requires that the by-law provide for public notice of the meetings.
The Municipality of Clarington has always had a procedural by-law, however, the last
complete review of it was undertaken in 1995. In order to confirm that the by-law
complies with the current legislation, an entire review of the document has been
undertaken. During the review, by-laws and procedures from other municipalities were
reviewed in order to draw on best practices. While many of the requirements of the
current by-law are included in the proposed document, a number of additions and
amendments are proposed in the new draft. These proposed changes are intended to
streamline the flow of meetings, clarify the roles of Council and ensure compliance with
the Act. As well, the order has been reformatted for ease of reference.
This report will highlight those areas that are new to the procedural by-law.
2.0 Appointment of Deputv Mavor
The Municipality has always appointed a member of Council to act as Deputy Mayor in
the absence of the Mayor. This appointment is in accordance with the Act, however, has
now been included in our by-law. As is the practice in Clarington, the appointment
section allows for two members of Council to be appointed for specified terms.
3.0 Special Meetinas
The current by-law allows for the Mayor or the Clerk, upon receipt of a petition of the
majority of members of Council, to summon a special meeting. The proposed by-law
allows the Mayor to call "emergency special meetings" on urgent and extraordinary
occasions without giving advance notice. Should a meeting be called under this section
of the by-law, consent of two-thirds of the Members to hold such meeting is necessary
and will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
4.0 Seatina and Persons within Council Rin!:!
Subsection 4.4 of the proposed by-law indicates that only members of Council and staff
are permitted to enter the Council floor during the sitting of Council, GPA or Special
Committee or distribute any material without the permission of the Mayor or Committee
Chair. This has been the municipal practice, however, was not previously specified within
the procedural by-law.
1 1 1 0
REPORT NO.: CLD-D41-07
PAGE 3
5.0 Participation of Chair in Debate
This section has been added to the by-law to clearly state that the Chair cannot move or
second a motion while in the chair. This has always been the case, however, it was
never stipulated in the by-law. This section does indicate, however, that the Chair may
state relevant facts and the Chair's position immediately prior to the vote without leaving
the chair.
6.0 Closed Meetinas
Section 239 of the Act addresses meetings being open to the public, with the following
exceptions:
(a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board;
(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board
employees;
(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local
board;
(d) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals,
affecting the municipality or local board;
(f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary
for that purpose;
(g) a matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or other body may hold a
closed meeting under another Act;
(h) if the subject matter relates to the consideration of a request under the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act if the council, board,
commission or other body is the head of an institution for the purposes of that Act;
(i) if the meeting is held for the purpose of educating or training the members provided no
member discusses or otherwise deals with any matter in a way that materially
advances the business or decision-making of the council, local board or committee.
Although the municipality has always observed the requirements of the Act in this regard,
the specifics were never included in the by-law. Subsection 4.7 of the by-law now
outlines the requirements of the Act.
7.0 Notice of Meetina
As stated above, the Act now requires that the Procedural by-law shall provide for public
notice of meetings. The proposed by-law includes, in subsection 4.8, the procedure
which will be followed in this regard, as follows:
1111
PAGE 4
REPORT NO.: CLD-041-07
a) In December of each year, the regular meeting schedule for the upcoming year will
be published in the local newspapers and posted on the municipality's website.
b) The current by-law states that notice shall be given 48 hours preceding the
meeting. The proposed by-law indicates that public notice will be deemed to be
given by making the agenda available in the Municipal Clerk's office and on the
website by the end of the business day Friday preceding the regularly scheduled
Monday meeting. Although the by-law states notice will be provided by the end of
business on Friday, it is the practice of the Municipal Clerk's Department to have
the agendas available in both locations by the end of the day Thursday. The
Friday timeframe noted in the by-law allows for the occasional situation which may
arise making it unrealistic to meet the usual Thursday publication time.
c) For special meetings, the by-law indicates that notice of the meeting will be posted
on the website at least one week prior to the special meeting, where practicable to
do so, but not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting. As well, the notice of the
special meeting shall be given to all members of council at least 24 hours before
the time appointed for the meeting by delivering a hard copy to their offices and
electronically via email to their municipal email address.
d) The by-law states that the notice of the meeting shall indicate the nature of the
business to be considered and the date, time and place of the meeting.
8.0 Adiournment - Due Hour
A new section that has been included in the by-law is the requirement that meetings shall
adjourn at 11 :00 p.m., if the meeting is still in session at that time, and will reconvene at
such other day and time as directed by resolution. Although this clause is new to the
Municipality of Clarington, many other municipalities have it included this provision in their
procedures. When meetings go on into the late hours of the night or even the early hours
of the morning, fatigue takes over and it is extremely difficult for good, informed decisions
to be made. It is felt that the public interest is better served by adjourning the meeting at
a specified hour (in this case 11 :00 p.m.) and reconvening when the members and staff
are rested and fresh.
9.0 GPA Mandate
The current by-law outlines specific matters that the GPA will consider. The proposed by-
law simplifies the mandate by stating "the GPA shall consider all reports submitted to it by
the Chief Administrative Officer or Director of a Department." The one change that has
been incorporated into the new by-law is that when a report has been referred back to a
Director of a Department for further processing or to answer questions raised by the
Committee, or it has been tabled, this recommendation will not be forwarded to Council in
Report #1. The only time the recommendations of the Committee will be forwarded to
Council is when Committee has made its final decision on the matter. This will alleviate
the difficulty in determining whether a matter has been tabled at the Committee or Council
1 1 1 2
REPORT NO.: CLD-D41-07
PAGE 5
level. Should Committee wish to consider a report at the subsequent Council meeting,
the motion which will be brought forward at the Committee meeting will be "to refer the
matter to the Council meeting".
10.0 Council Aaenda
It is being recommended that the order of the Council agenda be amended from the order
currently used. The following new sections are being added:
a) Announcements - This section provides a time for members of Council to
announce or comment on community events and activities. The practice has been
for this to occur under the Other Business section at the end of the agenda,
however, staff recommend that it be moved it to the beginning of the meeting so
that the announcements are being made when more people are in attendance or,
when meetings are televised, while residents are still watching the meeting at
home.
b) Presentations - We have been using this section of the agenda to allow for civic
recognition, consultants' presentations, special committees' reports, etc., however,
it was never previously stated in the by-law.
c) Committee Reports and Staff Reports - Currently these reports are all listed under
the Reports section of the agenda. The proposed by-law differentiates between
Committee and Staff Reports.
d) Business Arising From Notice(s) of Motion - This section of the agenda is where
previous notices of motions will be considered. The notices included will have
been presented at a previous meeting or delivered to the Municipal Clerk prior to
12:00 noon the Wednesday preceding the meeting, thereby providing ample time
for proper notice to be given prior to the matter being considered.
e) By-laws - The current procedural by-law states that no by-law will be presented to
Council without first being considered by Council or by Committee and been
approved by Council. The proposed by-law allows for the following by-laws to be
presented without first being approved by Council:
i) a by-law granting authority to borrow money under the authority of the Act;
ii) by-laws appointing persons affiliated with private parking authorities to
enforce the municipal parking by-law; and
iii) any by-law arising as the result of an order or decision of any judicial or
quasi-judicial body.
The proposed by-law also allows for all three readings of the by-laws to be
considered in one motion, rather than in two as is currently done.
1113
REPORT NO.: CLD-D41-D7
PAGE 6
f) Notice(s) of Motion - All business before the Council is to receive proper public
notice, therefore, introduction and immediate debate of an item of new business
should not be occurring at a Council meeting. Should a member of Council wish to
debate a matter, a notice of motion could be introduced under this section of the
agenda and will appear on the next regular meeting agenda (under the heading of
Business Arising from Notices of Motion) for debate at that time.
11.0 Order of Proceedinas - Committee
The proposed by-law sets out the order of proceedings of the GPA Committee also.
Similar to the agenda of Council, sections for Announcements and Presentations, as well
as the following new sections, have been added:
a) Public Meetings - Although the section "Public Meetings" is not new to the agenda,
the by-law will now outline how the public meetings are to be conducted. This
section essentially documents our existing practices.
b) Communications - The Committee agenda currently does not include a section for
correspondence to be considered. Should an individual forward correspondence
related to a matter included under the "Public Meeting" section of the agenda, but
they are unable to attend the meeting, the correspondence will be included under
this section of the agenda.
12.0 Special Committee Aaendas
The proposed by-law allows for special committees to be to be appointed to enquire into
and report on any matter assigned to it. Subsection 6.3 of the proposed by-law sets out
the agenda format for such special committee meetings.
13.0 Presentations
Subsection 7.4.2 of the proposed by-law outlines the procedure for utilizing the
municipality's audio visual equipment to assist in presentations. This procedure has been
in place for some time, but staff is now recommending that it be incorporated in to the
procedural by-law.
14.0 Deleaations
The delegation section of the proposed by-law sets out rules for delegations at Council,
committee and public meetings.
a) General - The rules of the current by-law addressing delegations comprising a
group of individuals and the timing of registering as a delegation have not
changed. When the agenda is prepared, the delegations who registered by noon
on the Wednesday preceding the meeting will be listed in the printed agenda.
Those individuals who registered between 12:00 noon Wednesday, but before the
1114
REPORT NO.: CLD-041-07
PAGE 7
end of the business day on the Friday preceding the meeting, will be added to the
agenda. A resolution to add these individuals is not necessary; the Municipal
Clerk's Department will prepare a new list and ensure distribution of it prior to the
meeting.
b) Delegations To Council- The proposed by-law provides that delegations are
restricted to speaking to matters that are included on the agenda. Given that,
however, the by-law does not permit a delegate to speak to a matter that is the
subject of a report from GPA which is included on the Council agenda, where the
delegate spoke to the matter at the GPA meeting. Provision has been included in
the by-law to allow for a delegate to address a matter not on the Council agenda if
the Municipal Clerk determines that the matter is of an urgent nature and there is
insufficient time for the delegation respecting it to be heard by GPA.
c) Delegations to Committee - With the exception noted above, the proposed by-law
indicates that all delegations will be heard at GPA.
d) Time Limits - The current by-law allows for delegations to address Council or
Committee for a time limit of 10 minutes. The proposed by-law amends the time
limit to 5 minutes per delegation, in addition to the time taken by Council to ask
questions of the delegate and to receive answers to such questions.
e) Delegations at a Public Meeting - The rules for public meetings or a public
workshop being held in accordance with the Planning Act or Municipal Act or any
other act have not been altered with the proposed by-law, however a section has
been included to stipulate a 10 minute time limit. The time limit for public meetings
is recommended to be longer than that for registered delegations as, in most
cases, the individuals attending the public meeting have not had an opportunity
prior to the meeting to see or hear in detail the development in question. Once the
detail is provided by Municipal Staff at the meeting, the residents then address
GPA without the advantage of having an opportunity to prepare their submission,
thus their comments may not be concise or succinctly conveyed. Individuals
addressing a meeting as a registered delegation, however, typically have had an
opportunity prior to the meeting to research the issue they are interested in and
prepare a more concise and organized submission.
f) Delegations at Special Meetings - The current by-law is silent on whether or not
delegations will be heard a special meetings. Subsection 9.5 has been included in
the proposed by-law to clearly indicate that delegations will not be heard at a
special meeting, unless otherwise directed in the call of the special meeting.
1115
REPORT NO.: CLD-041-D7
PAGE 8
15.0 Conduct of Deleaations and Presenters
Subsection 9.6 of the proposed by-law addresses the conduct of delegations and
presenters. Specifically, it does not allow individuals making representation to Council or
GPA to speak disrespectfully of any person, use offensive words, speak on any subject
other than the subject for which they have given notice to address Councilor GPA,
disobey the decision of the Chair, enter into debate with Members of Councilor GPA or
appropriate any unused time allocated to another delegation or presenter.
16.0 Reconsideration
Subsection 10.12.29 outlines the procedure for introducing a motion of reconsideration of
any matter previously adopted by Council. The proposed by-law includes a section to
allow for reconsideration of a particular matter or decision only once during the term of
Council.
17.0 Conduct of the Audience
Subsection 10.14 of the proposed by-law addresses the conduct of the audience,
specifically stating that they shall maintain order and quiet and may not:
a) address Councilor committee without permission.
b) interrupt any speaker or action of the Members of Council/Committee or any other
person addressing Council or committee
c) speak out
d) clap
e) behave in a disorderly manner
f) make any noise or sound that proves disruptive to the conduct of the meeting
18.0 Forthwith Recommendations at Committee
Traditionally, the Municipality has used "Forthwith" recommendations at the Committee
level for matters which are of an urgent nature and require immediate action by staff. By
moving a motion "Forthwith" staff know that the recommendation is most likely to pass at
the Council level and they can begin to work on the item. It is not, however, fully
approved until such time as Council approves the recommendation at the subsequent
meeting. As items of new business can be introduced at the Committee level at any time
without notice being given, this practice, in fact, allows a matter to receive the almost
certain approval of Council without the public being aware that the matter is even going to
be introduced and debated. In light of the new Accountability and Transparency aspects
of the Act which come into effect January 1, 2008, it is recommended that we discontinue
this practice. Should a matter be of such urgency that it cannot wait for Council approval
the following week, a special Council meeting will be called and convened immediately
following the Committee meeting in order to ratify that Committee decision only. This
special Council meeting will, of course, meet all of the notice requirements contained
within the procedural by-law.
1116
REPORT NO.: CLD-D41-D7
PAGE 9
19.0 Effective Date
Subsection 11.2 indicates that the proposed by-law shall come into effect on January 1,
2008.
20.0 Conclusion
The Municipality's procedural by-law was passed in 1995. Since that time, numerous
amendments have been made to it, however, this is the first full review that has been
undertaken. The amendments that are being recommended ensure that our by-law
complies with all of the requirements of the Act, including those that come into effect
January 1, 2008. The reformatting of the by-law will make it an easier document with
which to work for both Council and staff. The proposed by-law has been reviewed with
the Solicitor and he is agreement with the content of it. It is respectfully recommended
that the by-law be forwarded to Council for passage and circulated to all local boards for
their information. It is staff's intention to hold an education and training meeting on the
new procedural by-law early in 2008.
1117
Attachment 1
Report CLD..o41..o7
BY-LAW 2007-
Being a by-law to govern the proceedings of the Council of the
Municipality of Clarington, its General Purpose and Administration
Committee and Special Committees, and to repeal By-law 95-55, as
amended.
WHEREAS Section 238 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, requires Council to
adopt a procedure by-law for governing the calling, place, proceedings of meetings and
for public notice of meetings;
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON HEREBY ENACTS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 - Definitions and Interpretation
1.1
SHORT TITLE:
This By-law may be cited as the "Procedural By-law".
1.2 For the purposes of this By-law, unless stated otherwise or the context
requires a different meaning:
Chair in the case of the Council means the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, or the Member of
Council appointed to act as Chair during the absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor
from a Meeting or a portion of a Meeting. While acting as Chair the Member shall
exercise all of the powers and responsibil~ies of the Mayor under this Procedural By-
law. In the case of the GPA, Chair means the Mayor, Deputy Mayor or Department
Chair, whoever presides over a portion of a Meeting of GPA as provided for in
subsections 5.1.1 (b), inclusive, of this Procedural By-law. In the case of a Special
Committee. Chair means the Member appointed as such by Council pursuant to
subsection 5.2.3 of this Procedural By-law.
Committee means a committee of Council and includes Standing Committees, or sub-
committees of the Standing Committees.
Council means the Council of the Municipality.
Councillor means a person elected or appointed as a Member of Council but does not
include the Mayor.
Delegation means a person desiring to verbally present information on matters of fact,
or to make a request to Council, GPA or a Special Committee, as the case may be.
Department Chair means a Member appointed as such pursuant to subsection 5.1.1 of
this Procedural By-law.
Deputy Mayor means the Member of Council who is appointed to this pos~ion by By-
law and who in the absence of the Mayor shall exercise all of the powers and
responsibilities of the Mayor as provided for in this By-law or any other by-law or statute.
GPA means the General Purpose and Administration Committee of Council.
Holiday means a holiday as defined by the Interpretation Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chaptar
1.11, as amended.
Mayor means the Mayor who is the Head of Council.
Meeting means a regular or special meeting of Council, GPA, or a Special Committee
of Council, as the context requires.
1118
- 2-
Member means a Member of Council.
Municipal Act, 2001 means the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended or
replaced from time to time.
Municipal Clerk means the Clerk of the Municipality of Clarington and includes the
Deputy Clerk and any official of the Municipality appointed by Council to exercise the
power(s) of the Municipal Clerk in the absence of the Municipal Clerk and Deputy Clerk.
Municipal Conflict of Interest Act means the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S. O.
1990, c.M.14, as amended or replaced from time to time.
Municipal Elections Act, 1996 means the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, S.O. 1996,
c.32, as amended or replaced from time to time.
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act means the
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.56,
as amended or replaced from time to time.
Municipality means the Municipality of Clarington.
Notice of Motion means a written notice, including the names and signatures of the
mover and seconder, advising Council that the motion described therein will be brought
forward at a subsequent meeting.
Pecuniary Interest has the same meaning as the term has in the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act.
Planning Act means the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended or replaced
from time to time.
Point of Order means a statement made by a Member of Council during a Meeting
drawing to the attention of the Mayor or Chair a breach of the Rules of Procedure.
Point of Privilege means the raising of a question that concems a Member of Council,
or all of the Members of Councii, when a Member believes that his rights, immunities or
integrity or the rights, immunities or integrity of Council as a whole have been
impugned.
Presiding Member means the Member appointed to act as Chair pursuant to
subsections 7.1.3 and 8.1.1 of this Procedural By-law.
Procedural Motion means any motion conceming the manner or time of consideration
of any matter before the Council as opposed to the substance thereof and includes,
without limitation, the following:
a) to extend the time of the Meeting;
b) to refer;
c) to amend;
d) to recess;
e) to table;
f) to lift from the table;
g) to adjoum;
h) to defer indefinttely or to a certain day;
i) to divide;
j) Point of Privilege;
k) question be now put; or
I) to suspend the Rules of Procedure.
Public Meeting means a hearing, a public meeting, or a public workshop held in
accordance wtth the Planning Act or any other Act, for which notice has been given and
during which any person in attendance shall be provided an opportunity to make
representation in respect of the matter for which the Public Meeting is held.
1 1 1 9
.3.
Recorded Vote means the written record of the name and vote of every Member
present when the vote is called on any matter or question.
Rules of Procedure means the rules and requirements of this Procedural By-law.
Special Committee means a Special Committee of Council appointed pursuant to
subsection 5.2.3 of this Procedural By-law.
Standing Committee means the General Purpose and Administration Committee of
Council.
Substantive Motion means any motion other than a Procedural Motion and includes
but is not limited to, a motion that embodies andlor establishes a policy, ratifies an
action, or gives direction on a matter.
Websile means the Municipality's website address at www.clarington.net.
1.3 Unless the context otherwise requires, in this Procedural By-law the words
used in the male gender shall include the female gender and the singular
includes the plural, and vice versa, as the context requires.
Section 2 - General Provisions
Applicability
2.1 Without derogating from the other provisions of this Procedural By-law, the
rules and requirements contained in R shall be observed in all proceedings
of Council, GPA and Special Committees and shall be the rules and
requirements which govem the order of their business.
Suspension of Rules of Procedure
2.2 Despite subsection 2.1, the rules and requirements contained in this By-law
may be suspended by a vote ofthree-quarters (3/4) of the Members present
and voting.
Issue not Addressed
2.3 If an issue is raised that is not expressly addressed in this By-law, the issue
shall be decided by the Mayor, Deputy Mayor or Chair, subject to an appeal
to the Council, GPA or Special Committee, as the case may be.
Section 3 - Duties of Council
3.1 Duties ofthe Mayor
3.1.1 It shall be the duty of the Mayor to carry out the responsibilities set forth in
the Municipal Act, 2001, section 225, and:
a) To open the Meeting of Council by taking the Chair and calling the
Members to order,
b) To announce the business before Council in the order in which it is
to be acted upon;
c) To receive and submR, in the manner prescribed by this Procedural
By-law, all motions presented by the Members of Council;
d) To recognize any Member who wishes to speak and to determine
the order of the speakers;
e) To put to vote all questions, which are regularly moved and
seconded, or necessarily arise in the course of the proceedings and
to announce the results;
1120
-4-
f} To vote on all motions, which are moved and seconded, or
necessarily arise in the course of the proceedings;
g) To decline to put to vote, motions which contravene the provisions
of this Procedural By-law;
h) To enforce the provisions of this Procedural By-law;
i) To enforce on all occasions, the observance of order and decorum
among the Members;
j) To call by name, any Member refusing to comply w~h this
Procedural By-law and to order the Member to vacate the Council
Chamber, or the place of Meeting, as the case may be;
k) To cause to be expelled and excluded any member ofthe public
who creates any disturbance or acts improperly during a Meeting
and, if necessary, to direct the Municipal Clerk to seek the
appropriate assistance from the Durham Regional Police;
I) To authenticate, by signature. all by-laws and Meeting minutes;
m) To rule on any points of order raised by Members of Council;
n) To represent and support the decisions of Council, declaring its will
and explicmy and impliciUy obeying its decisions in all things; and
0) To adjoum the Meeting when the business is concluded, or if
considered necessary by him because of grave disorder, to adjoum
the sitting without putting to the vote any question, or suspend the
sitting for a time to be named.
3.2 Appointment of Deputy Mayor
3.2.1 At the first meeting of Council or as soon thereafter as is practicable,
Council shall appoint a Member to act as a Deputy Mayor in the absence of
the Mayor. During any such absence of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor shall
exercise all of the powers and responsibilities of the Mayor under this By-
law or any other by-law or statute.
3.2.2 Further to the appointments referenced in subsection 3.2.1, Council, in ~s
discretion, may appoint a Member to act as Deputy Mayor for the term of
Council. Altematively, Council may appoint two Members of Council each of
whom shall act as Deputy Mayor during periods of the term of Council which
are specified in the by-law by which they are appointed.
3.3 Participation of Chair in Debate
3.3.1 The Chair who presides over any part of a Meeting may state relevant facts
and the Chair's pos~ion on any matter before the Council, GPA, or a Special
Committee without leaving the chair, which may take place immediately
prior to the vote, but ~ shall not be permissible for the Chair to move a
motion or debate a question w~hout first leaving the chair.
3.3.2 If during a Meeting of Council the Mayor desires to leave the chair to move
a motion or to take part in the debate pursuant to subsection 3.3, or
otherwise, the Mayor shall call on the Deputy Mayor to preside until the
Mayor resumes the chair.
3.3.3 If, at a Committee Meeting, the Chair desires to leave the chair to move a
motion or to take part in the debate pursuant to subsection 3.3, or
otherwise, the Chair shall call on the Mayor to preside until the Chair
resumes the chair.
1121
-5-
3.4 Duties of a Member of Council
3.4.1 A Member of Council shall have the following duties:
a) to deliberate on the business submitted to Council, GPA or Special
Committee of Council, as the case may be;
b) to vote when a motion is put to a vote;
c) to Chair the portion of the GPA Meeting for which he is the
Department Chair and assume the duties of the Mayor as detailed
in subsection 3.1.1 with the exception of subsections 3.1.1 (a), (I),
(n), and (0); and
d) to apply and respect the Rules of Procedure.
Section 4 - Meetlnas
4.1 Regular Meetings
4.1.1 Unless otherwise directed by Council, the regular Meetings of Council and
GPA shall be held in the Council Chambers, Municipal Administrative
Centre, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON and at the dates and
times as detennined by Council resolution.
4.1.2 Unless otherwise directed by Council, the Special Committee Meetings shall
be scheduled by the Special Committee Chair at times and locations as
deemed appropriate to the mandate of the Special Committee.
4.2 Special Meetings
4.2.1 In addition to regular Meetings, special Meetings of Councilor GPA shall be
held upon written direction signed by the Mayor and delivered to the
Municipal Clerk stating the date, time, location, and purpose of such
Meeting.
4.2.2 The Mayor may. at any time, summon a special Meeting of Councilor GPA
and shall summon a special Meeting of Councilor GPA when requested to
do so in writing by a majority of Members, at the time mentioned in the
request.
4.2.3 The Municipal Clerk shall summon a special Meeting of Council or GPA,
when requested to do so in writing by a majority of the Members, at the time
mentioned in the request.
4.2.4 Notwithstanding subsection 4.2.1, on urgent and extraordinary occasions,
an emergency special Meeting of the Council may be called by the Mayor,
wnhout advance notice being given by the Municipal Clerk pursuant to this
by-law, to consider and deal wnh such urgent and extraordinary matters. In
this case, consent of two-thirds ofthe Members to hold such Meeting is
necessary and such consent, if any, shall be recorded in the minutes by the
Municipal Clerk.
4.3 First Meeting of Council
4.3.1 The first Meeting of Council shall be held on the first Monday after Council
takes office pursuant to the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, at 7:00 pm in the
Council Chambers, Municipal Administrative Centre, 40 Temperance Street,
Bowmanville, ON.
4.4 Seating and Persons within Council Ring
4.4.1
Seating at the Council table shall be in alphabetical order of the Members'
surname, beginning in the most north/east position and proceeding
dockwise.
1122
- 6-
4.4.2 Only Members of Council and the Municipality's staff shall be permitted to
enter the Council floor during the sitting of Council, GPA or Special
Committee without the permission of the Mayor or Committee Chair.
4.4.3 No person, other than a Member of Councilor the Municipality's staff, shall,
before or during a Meeting, place on the desks of Members or otherwise
distribute any material whatsoever unless such person is so acting with the
approval of the Mayor or Committee Chair.
4.4.4 Members of Council leaving their places prior to the adjournment shall
endeavour to do so in a manner so as not to disrupt the proceedings of
Councilor Committee.
4.5 Quorum
4.5.1 A quorum of Council and the GPA shall be four (4) Members. A concurring
vote of a majority of Members present and voting is necessary to carry a
resolution. A quorum of a Special Committee shall be a majority of the
Members of the Special Committee.
4.5.2 If a quorum is not present within thirty (30) minutes after the time appointed
for a Meeting, the Municipal Clerk, or designate, shall record the names of
the Members present and the Meeting shall stand adjourned until the date
of the next regular Meeting or other Meeting called in accordance w~h this
Procedural By-law.
4.6 Meetings Open to Public
4.6.1 Subject to subsection 4.7, Meetings shall be open to the public and no
person shall be excluded there from except for improper conduct.
4.7 Closed Meetings
4.7.1 Council, GPA or a Special Committee may, by resolution, close a Meeting
or part of a Meeting to members of the public if the subject matter to be
considered is:
a) the security of the property of the Municipality:
b) personal matters about an identifiabie individual, including
municipal staff and local board staff;
c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the
Municipality;
d) iabour relations or employee negotiations;
e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before
administrative tribunals, affecting the Municipality;
f) the receiving of advice that is subject to solic~or-client privilege,
including communications necessary for that purpose; or
g) a matter in respect of which the Council and Committee is
authorized by statute to hold a closed Meeting.
4.7.2 Council, GPA or a Special Committee shall, by resolution, close a Meeting
or part of a Meeting to members of the public where the subject matter to be
considered is a request under the Municipal Freadom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act.
1123
-7 -
4.7.3 Council, GPA or Special Committee may hold a Meeting closed to the public
where the Meeting is held for the purpose of educating or training the
Members and at the Meeting no Member discusses or otherwise deals with
any matter in a way that materially advances the business or decision-
making of the Council, GPA or Special Committee.
4.7.4 A motion to close a Meeting or part of a Meeting to the public shall state:
a) the fact of the holding of the closed Meeting; and
b) the general nature of the matter to be considered at the closed
Meeting.
4.7.5 Where a Meeting or part of a Meeting Is closed to the public, Council, GPA
or the Special Committee shall:
a) retire to the Council Ante Room or other such room as deemed
appropriate by Council, GPA or the Special Committee and only
those persons specifically invited to attend the closed Meeting shall
be permitted to attend; or
b) request those persons not specifically invited to the closed Meeting
to vacate the Council Chambers, or such room in which the
Meeting is being held, as the case may be.
4.7.6 A Meeting shall not be closed to the public during a vote except where the
meeting is a closed Meeting pennitted or required by statute, and where the
vote is for a procedural matter or for giving directions or instructions to
officers, employees or agents of the Municipality or persons retained under
contract with the Municipality.
4.7.7 Notwithstanding subsection 4.7.6, the vote on a resolution approving a
contract for the acquisition or disposal of land, including the sale of road
allowances, shall be conducted in open session.
4.8 Notice of Meeting
Regular Meetings
4.8.1 In December of each year, public notice of the regular Meeting schedule for
the following year shall be pu blished in the newspapers of general
circulation in the Municipality and posted on the Website. This notice of all
Meetings shall include the date, time and location of the Meetings.
4.8.2 Pursuant to Section 238 ofthe Municipal Act, 2001 public notice of each
regulariy scheduled Meeting shall be deemed to be given by making the
agenda available in the Municipal Clerk's Office by end of business day of
the Friday preceding the regulariy scheduled Meeting and on the Website.
For special Meetings notice shall be posted as soon practicable preceding
the meeting on the Website.
Special Mootlngs
4.8.3 Notice of amendment to the Schedule of regular Meetings shall be posted
on the Website at least one week prior to the amended Meeting date where
practicable to do so.
4.8.4 Notice of special Meetings shall be posted on the Website not less than
twenty-four (24) hours before the time appointed for the special Meeting.
1124
- 8.
4.8.5 In addition to the notice provided for in subsection 4.8.4, written notice of a
special Meeting of Council, GPA or Special Committee shall be given to all
Members at least twenty.four (24) hours before the time appointed for such
Meeting and shall be delivered:
a) in hardcopy to the Councillors' Offices located at the Municipal
Administrative Centre; and
b) electronically via email to their Municipal email address.
4.8.6 The written notice referred to in subsection 4.8.5 above shall indicate the
nature of the business to be considered at the special Meeting of Council,
GPA or Special Committee and the date, time and place of the Meeting.
Emergency Special Meetings
4.8.7 Where an Emergency special Meeting of Council is held in accordance with
subsection 4.2.4, notice of the Emergency special Meeting shall be posted
on the website as soon as practicable following the Emergency special
Meeting and shall, subject to subsection 4.7.1, indicate the nature of the
business considered at the Emergency special Meeting.
4.9 Adjournment - Due Hour
4.9.1 Except as provided in subsection 10.12.34, a regular or special Meeting of
Council, GPA or Special Committee shall adjourn at the hour of 11 :00 pm, if
in session at that time, and shall reconvene at such other day and time as
Council, GPA or Special Committee, by resolution, may direct.
Section 5 - Committees
5.1 General Purpose and Administration Committee
5.1.1 There shall be one Standing Committee of Council, namely the General
Purpose and Administration Committee of Council which shall be organized
as follows:
a) The GPA shall be comprised of all Members of Council.
b) Each Member shall be appointed by by-law as a Department Chair
as soon as is practicable after the first Meeting of Councilor a
vacancy occurs for which he has been appointed Department
Chair.. The Department Chair shall take the chair during that
portion of the GPA meeting dealing with the matters pertaining to
the Department for which he has been appointed Department
Chair.
c) The Chair shall call the meeting to order, preside during
presentations and delegations, and chair that portion of the meeting
dealing with the matters pertaining to the Department for which he
has been appointed Department Chair. As well, the Chair shall
chair those portions of the meeting dealing with matters raised
under Other Business or continued to be considered under
Unfinished Business of the agenda and the motion to adjourn.
1125
- 9-
5.2 GPA Mandate
5.2.1 The GPA shall consider all reports submilled to n by the Chief
Administrative Officer or Director of a Department, except where the GPA
tables or refers the report back to the Director of a Department for further
processing or to answer questions raised by the GPA. In all cases in which
the GPA makes recommendations respecting such mailers, the GPA shall
forward such recommendations to Council for consideration at the next
regular Meeting of Council. In addition. the GPA shall report to Councii on
any mailer within the jurisdiction of the Municipality and any other matter
referred to it by Council and exercise such powers as may be delegated to it
by Council.
Exceptions
5.2.2 Notwithstanding the GPA Mandate outlined in subsection 5.2.1 and the
provisions of subsection 9.4.1. Council may consider any matter wnhout
referring it to GPA and may withdraw a matter from GPA at any time.
5.2.3 Notwnhstanding the GPA mandate outlined in subsection 5.2.1, Council
may at any time appoint one or more Members to a Special Committee and
appoint one of such Members the Chair of the Special Committee. A
Special Committee shall enquire into and report on any matter assigned to it
by Council. A Special Committee may appoint a sub-committee of the
Special Committee and the chair of the sub-committee to assist the Special
Committee in performing its mandate.
5.3 Appointments to Municipal Service Boards, Advisory Committees and
Corporations
5.3.1 The appointments of persons to Municipal Service Boards, Advisory
Committees and to the board of directors of Veridian Corporation shall be
considered by Council as soon as practicable following the first Meeting of
Council. or as soon as practicable after a vacancy occurs.
Section 6 - Aqendas and Minutes
6.1 Council Agenda
6.1.1 The Municipal Clerk shall cause to be prepared a printed agenda under the
following headings for the use of the Members at the regular Meetings of
Council:
Meeting Called to Order
Invocation
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
Announcements
Adoption of Minutes of previous meeting( s)
Presentations
Delegations
Communications
Committee Report{s)
Staff Report(s)
Business Arising from Notice of Motion
Unfinished Business
By-laws
Notices of Motion .(for consideration at subsequent Meeting)
Other Information
Confirming By-law
Adjournment
6.1.2 The agenda shall be placed in each Members' mail box at the Municipal
Administrative Centre no later than 12:00 noon the Friday preceding the
commencement of the regular Council Meeting in question.
1126
-10 -
6.1.3 The business of Council shall be considered in the order as n appears on
the agenda, unless otherwise decided by a vote of the majority of the
Members present and voting.
6.2 GPA Agenda
6.2.1 The Municipal Clerk shall cause to be prepared a printed agenda under the
following headings for the use of the Members at the regular meetings of
GPA:
Meeting Called to Order
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
Announcements
Adoption of Minutes of previous meeting(s)
Presentations
Delegations
Public Meetings
Staff Reports
. Planning Services Department
. Engineering Services Department
. Operations Department
. Emergency and Fire Services Department
. Community Services Department
. Municipal Clerk's Department
. Corporate Services Department
. Finance Department
. Chief Administrative Office
Unfinished Business
Other Business
Communications (referred from Councilor urgent)
Adjournment
6.2.2 The business of GPA shall be considered in the order as it appears on the
agenda for its Meeting, unless otherwise decided by a vote of the majority of
the Members present and voting.
6.2.3 The Municipal Clerk shall ensure thatlhe GPA agenda is placed in each
Member's mail box at the Municipal Administrative Centre no later than
12:00 noon the Friday preceding the commencement of the regular
Committee Meeting.
6.3 Special Committee Agendas
6.3.1 The Municipal Clerk shall cause to be prepared a printed agenda under the
following headings for the use of the Members at the meetings of the
Special Committee:
Meeting Called to Order
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
Adoption of Minutes
Matters of Business
Adjournment
6.3.2 The business of Special Committee shall be considered in the order as it
appears on the agenda for its Meeting, unless otherwise decided by a vote
of the majority of the Members present and voting.
6.3.3 The Municipal Clerk shall ensure that the Special Committee agenda is
placed in each Member's mail box at the Municipal Administrative Centre no
later than 24 hours preceding the commencement of the Special Committee
Meeting.
1127
-11-
6.4 Meeting Minutes
6.4.1 The Municipal Cler\(, or designate, shall cause minutes to be taken of each
Meeting of Council, GPA or a Special Committee, whether it is closed to the
public or not. These minutes shall include:
a) the place, date and time of Meeting;
b) the names of the presiding officer or officers and a record of the
attendance of the Members: should a Member enter after the
commencement of a Meeting or leave prior to adjoumment, the
time shall be noted;
c) the reading, if requested, correction and confirmation of the minutes
of prior Meetings;
d) declarations of pecuniary interest;
e) all resolutions, decisions and all other proceedings of Council, GPA
or Special Committee, as the case may be, without note or
comment.
6.4.2 Where the minutes have been delivered to the Members in advance of the
Meeting, the minutes shall not be read, and a resolution that the minutes be
approved shall be in order.
6.4.3 Following approval of the minutes, the minutes shall be signed by the Mayor
and the Municipal Cler\( or designate.
6.4.4 The Municipal Cler\(, or designate, shall ensure that the minutes of the last
regular Meeting of Council, and all special Meetings of Council, GPA and
Special Committee held more than fIVe (5) days prior to a regular Meeting
are included in the agenda prepared in accordance with subsections 6.1,
6.2 and 6.3 of this Procedural By-law.
Section 7 - Order of Proceedinas - Council
7.1 Call to Order
7.1.1 As soon as a quorum is present after the hour set for the Meeting, the
Mayor shall take the chair and call the Members present to order.
7.1.2 If the Mayor does not attend within fifteen (15) minutes after the time set for
the Meeting and a quorum is present, the Deputy Mayor shall preside over
the Meeting and shall exercise all duties and responsibilities ofthe Mayor as
outlined in this Procedural By-iaw until the Mayor is present at the Meeting
and is able to perform his responsibility to assume the chair.
7.1.3 Ifthe Deputy Mayor is also not present within fifteen (15) minutes after the
time set for the Meeting and a quorum is present, the Municipal Cler\(, or
designate, shall call the meeting to order, and the Members present shall
appoint a Presiding Member who shall act as Chair of the Meeting until the
arrival of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, whoever is the first to arrive and is
able to assume the chair.
7.2 Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
7.2.1 All Members shall govem themselves at any Meeting in accordance with the
current legislation respecting any disclosure of pecuniary interest and
participation in the Meeting.
7.3 Announcements
7.3.1
During this portion of the Meeting, Members may announce or comment on
community events and activities when recognized by the Chair.
1128
-12-
7.4 Presentations
7.4.1 At the request of a Member of Council or the Municipality's staff, any
person(s), organization(s), corporations(s), or appointed official(s) may be
permitted to address the Members to inform them of matters of significance
to the Municipality provided that the request has been submitted to the
Municipal Clerk by 12:00 noon the Wednesday preceding the Meeting.
Presentations shall include only the following:
a) Civic recognition I awards;
b) Presentations by Municipal staff or consultants retained by the
Municipality;
c) Presentations of information related to Special Committees of
Council;
d) Presentations from senior leveis of govemment or other municipal
governments; or
e) Other presentations as deemed appropriate by the Municipal Clerl<.
7.4.2 Municipal audio visual equipment may be used to assist in presentations,
provided that permission has been obtained for use of such equipment from
the Municipai Clerk, or designate, at the time the presenter(s) contact the
Municipal Clerk's Department to register for the Meeting. Presentations
must be provided to the Municipal Clerk's Department no later than 4:30 pm
the Thursday preceding the commencement of the Meeting. Presentations
will not be installed once the meeting has begun.
7.5 Delegations
7.5.1 See Section 9.
7.6 Communications
7.6.1 Every written communication, designed to be presented to Council, shall be
legibly written or printed, shall not contain any impertinent or improper
matter or language, shall identify the author(s), and shall be filed with the
Municipal Clerk before tt is presented to Council.
7.6.2 Every written communication shall be delivered to the Municipal Clerk no
later than Wednesday noon before the commencement of the Meeting. The
Municipal Clerk shall determine whether tt should be included in the agenda
for the Meeting. The Municipal Clerk shall ensure that a summary of the
content of the communication and a recommendation for disposal is
prepared and included in the agenda.
7.6.3 Notwithstanding subsection 7.6.2, and at the discretion of the Municipal
Clerk, correspondence received after noon on Wednesday and prior to the
commencement of the meeting of Council, which is of an urgent nature or
directly relevant to a matter on the agenda for the Meeting, may be
communicated to Council by way of memo to Members from the Municipal
Clerk. The memo shall include a summary of the content of the
communication and a recommendation respecting the disposttion of tt.
7.7 Committee Reports
7.7.1 Reports of GPA and Special Committees shall be listed under this section of
the Council agenda.
1'129
7.7.2
7.8
7.8.1
7.9
7.9.1
7.10
7.10.1
7.11
7.11.1
7.11.2
7.11.3
7.11.4
7.11.5
7.12
7.12.1
-13-
Reports of GPA and Special Committees may be disposed of through a
single resolution for each report as presented. Altematively, any Member
may request that one or more recommendations contained in the Report be
separated and voted on separately.
Staff Reports
Notwithstanding subsection 8.7.1, the Staff Reports section of the Council
agenda shall include any staff report that due to timing, urgency, the
important nature of the report and/or expediency, the Chief Administrative
Officer determines should be considered by Council without first being
presented to GPA for consideration and report by GPA.
Business Arising from Notice{s) of Motion
A Notice of Motion properly given at a previous Council meeting, in
accordance with subsection 7.12, or which has been delivered to the
Municipal Clerk prior to 12:00 noon the Wednesday preceding the Meeting
at which it Is to be presented for consideration, shall be listed on the agenda
for the Meeting, and shall be dealt w~h at that Meeting.
Unfinished Business
Any matters presented, considered, referred or tabled or any delegations
not otherwise disposed of through the consideration of an agenda matter,
shall be disposed of during this portion of the Meeting.
By-laws
No by-law, except a by-law to confirm the proceedings of Council; a by-law
granting authority to borrow under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001;
by-laws appointing persons affiliated w~h private parking authorities to
enforce the municipal parking by-law, or any by-law arising as the result of
an order or decision of any judicial or quasi-judicial body, shall be presented
to Council unless the subject matter thereof has been considered by Council
or by GPA and has been approved by Council.
All by-laws shall be given first, second and third readings in a single motion,
unless a Member wishes to discuss the contents of the by-law, at which
time the subject by-law shall be removed from the motion and dealt with
separately.
Every by-law when introduced, shall be in typewritten form, and shall
contain no blanks except such as may be required to conform to accepted
procedu re or to compiy with the provision of any Statute, and shall be
complete with the exception of the number and date of the by-law.
The Municipal Clerk shall endorse on all by-laws enacted by Council, the
date of the several readings, if any, thereof.
Every by-law which has been enacted by Council shall be numbered and
dated, signed by the Mayor and the Municipal Clerk, sealed with the seal of
the Municipality, and shall be retained under the control of the Municipal
Clerk.
.~
Notice{s) of Motion
Notices of Motions introducing new matters, except for those motions listed
under subsection 10.12.8 (motions w~hout notice, without leave and without
debate) shall be given to the Municipal Clerk, in writing and signed by the
mover and seconder at a meeting of Council, but shall not be debated until
the next regular meeting of Council.
1130
-14-
7.12.2
Where a Notice of Motion has been given under subsection 7.12.1, the
Notice of Motion shall be printed in full in the Agenda, under "Business
Arising from Notice of Motion" for that meeting of Council and each
succeeding meeting until the motion is considered or otherwise disposed.
7.12.3
When a Member's Notice of Motion has been called by the Chair at two
successive meetings and not proceeded with, it shall be removed from the
agenda for all subsequent Meetings, unless Council otherwise decides.
7.12.4
Notwithstanding anything contained in this subsection 7.12, a motion
introducing new matters may be introduced without notice to Council, upon
suspending the rules in accordance with subsection 2.2.
7.12.5
During a meeting of GPA, a motion may be introduced by a Member without
Notice.
7.13
Other Business
7.13.1
Items of an "infonnation nature only" shall be raised under the Other
Business section of the agenda.
Section 8 - Order of Proceedinas . GPA
8.1 Call to order
8.1.1 See subsection 7.1.
8.2 Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest
8.2.1 See subsection 7.2
8.3 Announcements
8.3.1 See subsection 7.3.
8.4 Presentations
8.4.1 See subsection 7.4.
8.5 Delegations
8.5.1 See section 9.
8.6 Public Meetings
8.6.1 Public Meetings shall be conducted in the following manner:
a) The Chair shall state the purpose of the Public Meeting and shall
explain to those present how the Public Meeting shall be
conducted.
b) A member of the Municipality's staff shall address the GPA to
present the matter to the GPA.
c) Members of the public shall then be permitted to make
representation regarding the matter. The order in which members
of the public shall be heard is those opposed, those in support, and
then the applicant or agent who is present and indicates his desire
to be heard.
8.7 Staff Reports
8.7.1 Reports from the Municipality's staff shall be submitted to GPA for
consideration.
1131
-15-
8.8 Communications
8.8.1 Notwithstanding subsection 7.6, the following written communications may
be presented to GPA and shall be printed at the end of the agenda under
the heading Communications or shall be distributed to Members of GPA
under separate cover, in cases in which the timing of receipt of the
communication is between the printing of the agenda and the
commencement of the Meeting:
a) written submissions regarding a matter for which a Public Meeting
is scheduled and the author has requested that the communication
be distributed to Members at the Public Meeting;
b) written communications that have been referred to GPA by Council.
8.9
Unfinished Business
8.9.1
See subsection 7.10.
8.10
Other Business
8.10.1
Members may introduce any other business, not otherwise disposed of
under this section of the agenda.
Section 9 - Deleoations
9.1 General
9.1.1 Where a single Delegation comprises more than five persons, only two of
them may make verbal submissions to Council, GPA or the Special
Committee, as the case may be. The Delegation shall be lim~ed to the time
fixed by subsections 9.2.4 or 9.3.2, whichever is applicable.
9.1.2 Members may ask questions of Delegations only to clarify their submissions
or to elicit further information from them that is relevant to their submissions.
9.1.3 Where a Delegation wishes to provide Members with a petition and/or a
written communication supporting the Delegation's comments, the petition
and/or communication shall be provided to the Municipal Cieri<, or
designate. The written communication may be distributed to the Members at
the discretion of the Municipal Cieri<, or designate.
9.2 To Council
9.2.1 Delegations shall be restricted to speaking to matters included on the
Council agenda for the Meeting in question.
9.2.2 Notwithstanding subsection 9.2.1, Delegations shall not be permitted to
speak to a matter that is the subject of Report from GPA which is included
on the Cou ncil agenda. where the Delegation spoke to the matter at the
GPA meeting which is being reported to Council.
9.2.3 Notwithstanding subsection 9.2.1, where the Municipal Cieri< determines
that the matter is of an urgent nature and there is insufficient time for a
Delegation respecting ~ to be heard by the GPA, subject to subsection
9.2.4, the Delegation may be permitted to speak to Council on the matter.
Request to Speak - Requ;1Vd
9.2.4 Delegations shall notify the Municipal Cieri< no later than close of business
on the Friday preceding the Council Meeting and shall state the nature of
the issue they wish to address.
1132
-16-
Time Limits
9.2.5 Each Delegation to Council in respect of a particular matter shall be IimRed
to fIVe (5) minutes in addition to the time taken by Council to ask questions
of the delegate and to receive answers to such questions.
9.3 To GPA or Special Committee
9.3.1 For clarification, except where a particular matter has been reported by the
Director of a Department or the Chief Administrative Officer directly to
Council, or in cases in which the Municipal Clerk determines that the matter
is of an urgent nature and there is insufficient time for a delegation
respecting it to be heard by the Committee, all Delegations shall be directed
to and heard by GPA or a Special Committee, as detennined by the
Municipal Clerk.
Time Limits
9.3.2 Each Delegation to GPA or Special Committee in respect of a particular
matter shall be limRed to five (5) minutes in addition to the time taken by the
Members to ask questions of the Delegation and to receive answers to such
questions.
Request to Speak - Required
9.3.3 Delegations shall notify the Municipal Clerk no later than close of business
on the Friday preceding the GPA or Special Committee Meeting and shall
state the nature of the issue they wish to address.
9.4 At a Public Meeting
9.4.1 Where Council has passed a by-law delegating to GPA, Council's
responsibility to conduct a hearing, a Public Meeting, or a public workshop,
before passing a by-law or prior to adopting and approving an Official Plan
Amendment or approving a draft plan of subdivision, under the Municipal
Act, 2001, or the Planning Act, the GPA shall conduct such hearing, Public
Meeting, or public workshop.
Time Limits
9.4.2 Notwithstanding subsection 9.3.2, Delegation to GPA in respect of any such
matter for which the Public Meeting is held, shall be limited to ten (10)
minutes in addition to the time taken by Members to ask questions of the
Delegation and to receive answers to such questions.
Request 10 Speak - No Request Required
9.4.3 A person wishing to make representation on a matter for which a Public
Meeting is held, is not required to give written notice or to be listed on the
GPA agenda for the Meeting in question.
9.5 Special Meetings
9.5.1 No Delegation will be heard at a special Meeting of Council unless
otherwise directed in the call of the special meeting.
9.6 Conduct of Delegations and Presenters
9.6.1 Delegations and presenters shall not:
a) Speak disrespectfully of any person;
b) Use offensive words;
c)
Speak on any subject other than the subject for which they have
given notice to address CounciVCommittee;
1133
-17 -
d) Disobey the decision of the Chair;
e) Enter into debate wtth Members; and
f) Appropriate any unused time allocated to another Delegation or
presenter.
10.1
Section 10 Rules of Debate and Conduct
Conduct of Members of Council, GPA and Special Committees
10.1.1
10.2
10.2.1
10.3
10.3.1
10.4
10.4.1
No Member shall:
a) Speak disrespectfully of any elected assembly;
b) Use offensive words or unparliamentarily language or speak
disrespectfully against the Council, against any Member, or against
any officer or employee of the Municipality;
c) Speak on any subject other than the subject in debate;
d) Disobey the Rules of Procedure or a decision of the Chair, whoever
is in the chair for the Meeting or a portion of the Meeting, on
questions of Points of Order or procedure or upon the interpretation
of the Rules of Procedure except where the ruling of the Chair is
reversed by Council pursuant to subsection 10.6.3. If a Member
persists in any such disobedience after having been called to order
by the Chair, the Chair shall forthwith order him or her to vacate the
Council Chambers or room in which the Meeting is being held, but if
the Member apologizes he or she may, by majority vote of the
Members, be permitted to retake his or her seat;
e) Speak in a manner that is discriminatory in nature based on an
individual's race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, citizenship,
creed, gender, sexual orientation, age, colour, marital status, family
status, or disability; and
f) Where a matter has been discussed in a closed Meeting, and
where the matter remains confidential, disclose the content of the
matter or the substance of the deliberations of the closed Meeting
to any person.
Address the Chair
Any Member desiring to speak shall signify their desire to speak in such a
manner as the Chair may direct, and upon being recognized by him, shall
address the Chair.
Order of Speaking
When two or more Members signify a desire to speak, the Chair shall
recognize the Member who, in the opinion of the Chair, so signified first and
next recognize in order the other Members.
Point of Privilege
Where a Member considers that his rights or integrity or the rights or
integrity of the Council or Committee as a whole have been impugned, as a
matter of Privilege, the Member may rise on a Point of Privilege at any time,
with the consent of the Chair, for the purpose of drawing the attention of
Council or Committeeto the matter.
1134
10.4.2
10.5
10.5.1
10.5.2
10.6
10.6.1
10.6.2
10.6.3
10.7
10.7.1
10.8
10.8.1
10.9
10.9.1
10.10
10.10.1
-18 -
A Member who desires to address Council, GPA or a Special Committee, as
the case may be, on a matter which concems the rights or privileges of the
Council collectively, or as an individual Member, will be permitted to raise
such Point of Privilege. A breach of privilege is a willful disregard by a
Member or any other person of the dignity and lawful authority of Council. A
Point of Privilege will take precedence over other matters. When a Member
raises a Point of Privilege, the Chair may use the words "Councillor.. .state
your Point of Privilege". While the Chair is ruling on the point of Privilege,
no one will be considered to be in possession of the floor, but thereafter the
Member in possession of the floor when the Point of Privilege was raised,
has the right to the floor when debate resumes.
Point of Order
The Chair shall preserve order and decide on Points of Order.
A Member who desires to call attention to a violation of the Rules of
Procedure will ask leave of the Chair to raise a Point of Order. When leave
is granted, the Chair may use the words "Councillor.. .slate your Point of
Order." The Member will state the Point of Order with a concise explanation
and will comply with the decision of the Chair. The Member in possession
of the floor when the Point of Order was raised has the right to the floor
when debate resumes.
Appeal of Ruling of Chair
With respect to a ruling on either a Point of Privilege or Point of Order, if the
Member does not appeal immediately thereafter to Council, GPA or Special
Committee, as the case may be, the decision of the Chair shall be final.
If the Member wishes to appeal the decision of the Chair, he shall appeal
immediately to Council, GPA or the Special Committee, as the case may be,
otherwise, the decision of the Chair is final.
If the decision is appealed, the Chair will give concise reasons for his ruling,
and will call a vote by Council, GPA or Special Committee, as the case may
be, without debate on the following question: 'Will the ruling be sustained?",
and the decision of Council, GPA or the Special Committee is final. The
Chair may vote on this question. In the event of a tie of votes, the ruling of
the Chair shall be deemed to be sustained.
Members Speaking
When a Member is speaking, no other Member shall pass between him and
the Chair, or interrupt him except to raise a Point of Order.
Question Read
Any Member may require the question or motion under discussion to be
read at any time during the debate but not so as to interrupt a Member while
he is speaking.
Speak Once - Reply
No Member shall speak more than once to the same question without leave
of Council, GPA or Special Committee, as the case may be. except that a
reply shall be allowed to be made only by a Member who has presented the
motion, but not by any Member who has moved an amendment or
procedurai motion in response to that motion.
Time Limited
No Member, without leave of Council, GPA or a Special Committee, as the
case may be, shall speak to the same question or in reply for longer than
five (5) minutes.
1135
-19-
10.11.1
10.11 QUBstions
'.,
10.11.2
10.12
Reading
10.12.1
10.12.2
10.12.3
Withdrawn
10.12.4
A Member may ask a question for the purpose of obtaining infonnation
relating only to the matter under discussion and such questions must be
stated concisely and asked only through the Chair.
Notwithstanding subsection 10.11.1, when a Member has been recognized
as the next speaker, then immediately before speaking, such Member may
ask a question through the Chair to any Member, the Chief Administrative
Officer, or Department Head, or designate, concerning any matter
connected with the business of the Municipality but only for the purpose of
obtaining infonnation, following which the Member may speak.
Motions
All motions must be introduced by a mover and seconder before the Chair,
may put the question or motion on the floor for consideration. If no Member
seconds the motion, the motion shall not be on the floor for consideration
and therefore it shall not be recorded in the minutes. In a Meeting of
Council, unless otherwise provided for in this Procedural By-law, all motions
must be in writing and signed by the mover and the seconder.
When a motion is presented in a Meeting, it shall be read by the Member,
or, if it is a motion which may be presented orally as provided in subsection
10.12.8, it shall be stated by the Chair before debate.
Notwithstanding subsection 10.12.2, a motion, the wording of which is
printed in the agenda as either a separate item or as part of a report, need
not be read in its entirety uniess requested to do so by a Member, but shall
be deemed to have been read for the purposes of introducing the motion.
After a motion is property moved and seconded, it shall be deemed to be in
possession of Council, GPA or Special Committee, but may be withdrawn
by the mover at any time before decision or amendment.
10.12.5
No debate until properly moved and seconded
No Member shall speak to any motion until it is property moved and
seconded, and the mover is entitled to speak first if the Member so elects. If
debated, the question or motion may be read before being put.
10.12.6
Motion Ruled Out of Order
Whenever the Chair is of the opinion that a motion is contrary to these
Rules of Procedure, the Chair shall rule the motion out of order.
10.12.7
Not within jurisdiction of Council
A motion in respect of a matter which requires the exercise of a legislative
power by Council which is not within its jurisdiction, shall not be in order at a
Meeting of Council, GPA or a Special Committee.
10.12.8
Motions Without Notice and Without Leave
The following matters and motions may be introduced orally by a Member
without notice and without leave, except as otherwise provided by this
Procedural By-law, and shall be decided without debate:
a)
b)
c)
A point of order or Privilege;
To adjoum;
To suspend the Rules of Procedure;
1136
-20-
d) To table the question without direction or instructions;
e ) To lift from the table;
f) To divide;
g) To refer (without instructions);
h) Question be now put; and
i) To recess.
10.12.9 The following motions may be introduced orally by a Member without notice
and without leave, except as otherwise provided by this Procedural By-law,
and may be debated:
a) To refer with direction or instructions (direction for referral only to
be debatable);
b) To table with instructions (instructions for tabling only to be
debatable);
c) To amend, and
d) To rescind.
Motion In WrIting
10.12.10 Except as provided by subsections 10.12.8 and 10.12.9, all motions
introduced at a Council Meeting shall be in writing and signed by the mover
and seconder.
Priority of Disposition
10.12.11 A motion properly before Council, GPA or a Special Committee for decision
must be disposed of before any other motion can be received except a
motion in respect of matters listed in subsection 10.12.8 or 10.12.9.
Motion to Refer
10.12.12 A motion to refer a matter under discussion by Council, GPA or a Special
Committee shall be considered before all amendments to the main question
until the motion to refer is decided.
Motion to Amend
10.12.13
A motion to amend:
a) Shall be presented in writing if requested by the Chair;
b) Shall relate to the subject matter of the main motion;
c) Shall not be received proposing a direct negative to the question;
and
d) Shall be put to a vote in reverse order to the order in which the
amendments are made.
10.12.14 Only one motion to amend an amendment to the original motion shall be
allowed and any further amendment must be to the original motion.
Question S. Now Put
10.12.15 A motion that the question be now put:
a) is not debatable;
b) Cannot be amended;
c) Cannot be proposed when there is an amending motion under
consideration, except for the purpose of moving that the amending
motion be put;
1137
-21-
d) When resolved in the affinnative, requires that the question(s),
motion, amending motion or motion as amended, whichever is
under consideration be put forward immediately without debate or
amendment;
e) Can only be moved in the following words, "that the question be
now put"; and
f) A motion "that the question be now put" requires an affinnative vote
of two-thirds of the Members present and voting.
Motion to Refer or Defer/Postpone
10.12.16 A Motion to refer or to refer back or to defer or postpone the question may
include instructions respecting the tenns upon which the question is to be
referred or deferred or postponed.
10.12.17 A motion to refer or to refer back or to defer or postpone the question shall
not be debatable except where instructions are included, in which case, only
the instructions shall be debatable.
10.12.18 A motion to refer or to refer back or to defer or postpone the question may
not be amended except where instructions are included, in which case, only
the Instructions may be amended in accordance with the provisions in
subsection 10.12.13.
Motion to Table
10.12.19 A motion simply to table is not debatable except where instructions are
included, in which case, only the instructions shall be debatable. Such
motion cannot be amended.
10.12.20 A motion to table with some condition, opinion, or qualification added to the
motion to table shall be deemed to be a motion to defer or postpone made
under subsections 10.12.16 t010.12.18, inclusive.
10.12.21 The matter tabled shall not be considered again by the Council, GPA or
Special Committee until a motion has been made to lift from the table the
tabled matter at the same or a subsequent Meeting.
10.12.22 A matter tabled at a Meeting of the GPA or Special Committee may be lifted
from the table by Council.
10.12.23 A matter tabled at Council may not be lifted from the table at a meeting of
GPA of Special Committee.
10.12.24 A motion to lift a tabled matter from the table is not subject to debate or
amendment.
10.12.25 A motion that has been tabled at a previous Meeting cannot be lifted off the
table unless notice thereof is given in accordance with subsection 7.12;
Motion to Divide
10.12.26 A motion containing distinct proposals may be divided and a separate vote
shall be taken upon each proposal contained in a motion if decided upon by
a majority vote of the Members present and voting.
Motion to Rescind
10.12.27 A motion to rescind a previous action of Council requires a majority vote of
the Members present provided that notice has been given at the previous
Meeting or in the agenda for the Meeting, and in case the aforesaid Notice
has not been given, the motion to rescind requires a two-thirds (2/3) vote of
the Members present and voting.
1138
-22-
10.12.28 A motion to rescind is not in order when action has been taken on the order
of Council which n is impossible to revise. The part of an order of Council
which has not been acted upon, however, may be rescinded.
ReconslderaUon
10.12.29 A resolution, by-law or any question or matter (except one of indefinite
postponement) which has been adopted previously by Council may be
reconsidered by Council subject to the following:
a) A Notice of Motion given in writing by a Member, has been
introduced according to the procedure for Notice of Motion,
provided for in subsection 7.12;
b) Debate on a motion to reconsider must be confined to reasons for
or against the subject of the reconsideration;
c) Such motion must be supported by Iwo-thirds (213) of the Members
present and voting in favour of such reconsideration before the
matter is re-opened for debate;
d) If a motion to reconsider is decided in the affirmative, such
reconsideration shall become the next order of business, unless the
motion calls for a future date, and debate on the question to be
reconsidered may proceed as though it previously had never been
voted on; and
e) A vote to reconsider a particular matter or decision will not be
considered more than once during the term of Council.
MoUon to Recess
10.12.31 A motion to recess shall prOvide for Council, GPA, or Special Committee to
take a short intermission within a Meeting which shall neither end the
Meeting nor destroy its continuity and after which, proceedings shall
immediately resume at the point where they were interrupted.
10.12.32 A motion to recess is not debatable, but is amendable as to the length of the
recess and is not in order when another motion is on the floor.
Motion to Adjourn
10.12.33 A motion to adjoum:
a) Shall always be in order except as proVided by this Procedural By-
law;
b) Is not in order when a Member is speaking or during the verification
of a vote;
c) When resolved in the negative, cannot be made again until after
some intermediate proceedings shall have been completed by
Council, GPA or Special Committee, as the case may be;
d) Is not in order immediately following the affirmative resolution of a
motion thatthe question be now put;
e) If carried, without qualification, will bring a Meeting or session of the
Council, GPA or Special Committee to an end;
f) To a specific time, or to reconvene upon the happening of a
specified event, if carried, suspends the Meeting to continue at
such time; and
g)
Is not debatable.
1139
-23-
10.12.34 A motion to proceed beyond the hour of 11:00 pm:
a) Shall not be amended or debated: and
b) Shall always be in order except when a Member is speaking or the
Members are voting.
c) Shall require the support of Iwo-thirds (2/3) of the Members present
and voting.
10.13 Voting on Motions
10.13.1 Immediately preceding the taking of the vote on a motion, the Chair may
state the question in the form introduced and shall do so if required by a
Member.
10.13.2 After a question is finally put by the Chair no Member shall speak to the
question nor shall any other motion be made until after the vote is taken and
the resu It has been declared.
10.13.3 Every Member present at a Meeting, when a question is put, shall vote
thereon unless disqualified under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to
vote on the question.
10.13.4 Except where the Member is disqualified under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act from voting, if a Member does not vote when a question is put,
he or she shall be deemed to have voted in the negative.
10.13.5 A Member not in his or her seat when the question is called by the Chair is
not entitled to vote on that question.
10.13.6 Each Member has only one vote.
10.13.7 The Chair shall announce the result of every vote.
Unreconled Vole
10.13.8 The manner of determining the decision of the Council, GPA or a Special
Committee on a motion shall be at the discretion of the Chair and may be by
voice, show of hands, standing, or otherwise.
Reconled Vole
10.13.9 Notwithstanding subsection 10.13.8, a Recorded Vole shall not be in order
at GPA or Special Committee meetings.
10.13.10 When a Recorded Vote is requested by a Member during a Council
Meeting, or is otherwise required, the Municipal Clerk shall record the name
and vote of every Member, alphabetically until all Members have voted.
The Chair shall vote last.
10.14 Conduct of the Audience
10.14.1 Members of the public who constitute the audience in the Council Chamber
or adjacent to the Meeting room, or other such place where the Meeting is
held in accordance with subsection 4.1 of this Procedural By-law, during a
Meeting, shall maintain order and quiet and may not:
a) Address Council, GPA or Special Committee without permission;
b) Interrupt any speaker or action of the Members or any other person
addressing Council, GPA or Special Committee;
c) Speak out;
1140
-24-
d) Clap;
e) Behave in a disorderly manner; or
f) Make any other noise or sound that proves disruptive to the
conduct of the meeting.
11. Implementation
11.1 By-laws 95-55, 2000-203, 2002-114, 2003-176, 2005-225, and 2006-214
are hereby repealed.
11.2 This Procedural By-law shall come into full force and effect January 1, 2008.
By-law read a first and second time this XX" day of December, 2007.
By-law read a third time and finally passed this XX" day of December, 2007.
Jim Abernethy, Mayor
Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk
1141
CJNJllgron
REPORT
CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
December 3, 2007
Report #: CLD-042-07
File#:
By-law #:
Subject:
ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report CLD-042-07 be received;
2. THAT the Accountability and Transparency Policy be approved by Council;
3. THAT the Accountability and Transparency Policy and all other supporting Corporate
Policies be available for public access through the Municipal Clerk's Department;
4. THAT the Accountability and Transparency Policy and all other supporting Corporate
Policies be posted on the Municipality of Clarington Website; and
5. THAT Council not proceed with appointment of an Integrity Commissioner,
Ombudsman, or Auditor General, at this time.
Submitted by:
a~~
Reviewed by: Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
PLB*
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVllLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-6506
1142
REPORT NO.: CLD-042-07
Page 2
1.0 Backaround
In March, 2007 Council considered and received for information Report CLD-012-07 which
provided summary discussion of the amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended.
Many of the amendments to the Act speak to accountability and transparency principles. This
Report speaks further to Report CLD-012-07 respecting accountability and transparency.
Section 270(1), paragraph 5, of the Municipal Act, 8.0. 2001, as amended, requires all
municipalities to adopt and maintain policies for "the manner in which the municipality will try to
ensure that it is accountable to the public for its actions and that its actions are transparent to
the public".
To comply with the requirements of the Act, accountability and transparency are understood to
mean:
a) Accountability includes the principle that the Municipality of Clarington is responsible to
its stakeholders for decisions made and policies implemented, as well as its actions or
inactions.
b) Transparency includes the principle that the Municipality of Clarington actively
encourages and fosters stakeholder participation, clarity and openness in the decision making
processes.
Based on these principles and definitions, the elements of accountability and transparency
have been well-established within the Municipality of Clarington through various by-laws and
policies adopted by Council. Some matters, such as the Municipal Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act and Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, have been legislated by
the Province of Ontario and the requirements of the legislation have been followed for many
years. Listed below are examples of how the Municipality of Clarington demonstrates
Accountability and Transparency in our standard operating and decision making practices.
2.0 Accountability Throuah Practices
Examples, to date, of demonstrated accountability practices include:
i) Standard procedure governing duties, responsibilities and meetings of Council and
Committee;
ii) Access to Council and Committee meeting agendas and minutes;
Hi) Open meetings;
iv) Procedure for Closed meeting compliance investigations;
v) Procedures respecting access to municipal records and protection of personal privacy
in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
(MFIPPA);
vi) Council compliance under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act; and
vii) Regular and standard Financial reporting (audited and unaudited) including
Performance Measures.
1143
REPORT NO.: CLD-042-07
Page 3
3.0 Transparency - Throuah Policies
Examples, to date, of demonstrated transparency include the enforcement of the following
Policies:
i) Code of Ethics
ii) Staff Development
iii) Phone and Voicemail
iv) Internet and E-mail Usage
v) Communication Equipment
vi) Use of Personal Vehicles
vii) Vehicle Operation - Competent Operator
viii) Loaning of Municipal Equipment Policy
ix) Political Activities (staff participation therein)
x) Public Notification procedures
xi) Land sale policies
xii) Hiring policies
xiii) Procurement policies
Attachment 1 to this Report provides a summary of the accountability and transparency
elements of the above listed practices and policies.
4.0 Transparency - Throuah Deleaated Authority
Section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended permits Council to delegate its powers
and duties to a person or body subject to specific restrictions, section 23.2 details those
restrictions as they relate to legislative and quasi-judicial powers, and section 23.3(1) details
the powers that cannot be delegated.
The purpose of this enabling provision is to permit Council to focus on more substantive,
strategic responsibilities and issues facing the municipality and permit routine powers and
duties to be exercised by delegated staff.
The Act requires that when delegating a power or duty, Council must ensure the power or duty
is minor in nature and, where applicable, have regard to the number of people affected by the
power or duty, the size of the geographic area and the time period affected by the exercise of
the power or duty and any other criteria Council may determine to be appropriate.
Over the past several years, Council has delegated responsibilities to staff through various by-
laws. Attachment 2 to this report is a detailed list of the delegated authorities.
Staff is currently conducting a review of the delegated authorities to ensure the accountability
of the delegate and the transparency of the delegate's actions and decisions. Additionally,
staff is reviewing other minor, routine powers and duties which may better serve the
stakeholders if delegated.
5.0 Accountability I Transparency Policy
The above listed policies and practices indirectly speak to and sustain the accountability and
transparency principles. However, the Municipality has not yet implemented a formal11 44
REPORT NO.: CLD-042-07
Page 4
"Accountability and Transparency Policy". Attachment 3 to this Report is a recommended
Policy that satisfies the requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, and requires
staff and Council to contemplate these principles in their actions, inactions and in the
development and implementation of policies in the future.
6.0 Ootionallntearitv Provisions / Officers
In addition to the requirement for the appointment of a meeting investigator and the
implementation of an Accountability and Transparency Policy, the Municipal Act, 2001, as
amended, also provides for other optional appointments to further promote the principles of
accountability and transparency.
There are four positions generally referred to as the "integrity officers". They are the Integrity
Commissioner, Ombudsman, Auditor General and Lobbyist Registrar. All of these Integrity
Officers must be independent, impartial and have credible investigation processes, and be
subject to confidentiality. These Officers have wide ranging investigatory powers including:
. The right to be provided with information and to have access to documents
necessary for investigations/inquiries;
. Powers to examine a person under oath;
. Confidentiality of information prevails over the Municipal Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act; and
. Integrity Commissioner, Lobbyist Registrar and Auditor General may exercise
some powers of a commission under the Public Inquiries Act.
Attachment 4 to this Report provides a more detailed description of the purpose of each of the
above-mentioned integrity officers.
There is no obligation for Council to make any of the above-mentioned appointments and it is
recommended by staff that we not proceed with these appointments at this time.
7.0 Summary and Recommendations
Recent amendments to the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provide for accountability and
transparency to our ratepayers and stakeholders. The Municipality of Clarington is well
positioned to meet these objectives through its various administrative and Council enacted
policies, through compliance with provincial legislated mandates and through its delegation of
powers and duties to staff. To further ensure accountability and transparency, staff
recommend that Council adopt and comply with the draft Accountability and Transparency
Policy attached to this Report (Attachment 3). Through the adoption of this recommended
policy, through the recent appointment of a meeting investigator, and through Council's
consideration of a new Procedural By-law (presented to Committee in Report CLD-041-07),
the Municipality of Clarington will be in compliance with all new mandatory requirements
imposed by the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended. As for the optional appointments of integrity
officers, staff recommend that these appointments not be made at this time, given that we
have not received any pressure from the community nor Council respecting a disregard for our
existing Code of Ethics and other such accountability policies.
Interested Parties:
1145
Accountability
a) Standard procedure
governing duties,
responsibilities and
meetings of Council
and Committee
b) Access to Council and
Committee meeting
agendas and minutes
c) Open Meetings
Attachment 1
Report CLD-042-07
Detailed Discussion of Existing Practices
.
The Procedural By-law, which has been adopted by Council, governs
the proceedings of Council, its standing committee, special
committees and local boards. The by-law addresses such issues as:
i) the calling of meetings, both regular and special
meetings
ii) notice of such meetings
iii) meetings being open to the public, in accordance with
the Municipal Act, 2001
iv) rules of debate
Note: a new Procedural By-law has been presented to Committee
through Report CLD-041-07.
The Municipal Clerk's Department prepares an agenda for each
Council and Committee meeting in advance of the meeting. In
accordance with the Procedural By-law, the agenda is distributed to
the members of Council and posted on the Municipality's website at
least by the Friday preceding the Monday meeting.
In accordance with the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the
Municipal Clerk, or designate, attends the Council and Committee
meetings for the purpose of recording the minutes, without note or
comment. These minutes are available to the general public by being
posted on the Municipality's website. As well, a hardcopy is available
in the Municipal Clerk's Office for public access, the minutes are
published in the agenda for the next regular meeting of the Councilor
Committee.
In accordance with section 239 of the Act, all meetings of Council
and Committee are open to the public, with certain exceptions.
These exceptions are:
"(a) the security of the property of the municipality or local
board;
(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including
municipal or local board employees;
(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by
the municipality or local board;
(d) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before
administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local
board;
(f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including
communications necessary for that purpose;
(g) a matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or
other body may hold a closed meeting under another Act;
1146
Attachment 1
Report CLD-042-07
Detailed Discussion of Existing Practices
Accountability
d) Procedure for Closed
meeting compliance
investigations
A meeting shall be closed to the public if the subject
matter relates to the consideration of a request under
the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act if the council, board, commission or other
body is the head of an institution for the purposes of that
Act. 2001;
A meeting of a councilor local board or of a committee
of either of them may be closed to the public if the
following conditions are both satisfied:
1. The meeting is held for the purpose of educating or
training the members.
2. At the meeting, no member discusses or otherwise
deals with any matter in a way that materially
advances the business or decision-making of the
council, local board or committee."
All meetings of Council and Committee are held in the Council
Chambers, unless otherwise determined by Council in accordance
with the Municipality's Procedural By-law. The Council Chambers is
an accessible venue and seats more than 100 people in the public
gallery. Additionally, the meetings of Council are televised by Rogers
Cable in accordance with Rogers' filming schedule. Only those
portions of the Council/Committee meetings that are permitted to be
closed to the public are conducted in the Ante Room, or other such
room as determined by Council, in accordance with the Municipality's
Procedural By-law.
In accordance with section 239.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001, a person
may request an investigation into whether or not the municipality has
complied with the requirements of section 239. This investigation will
be conducted by an investigator appointed by the municipality or, if
the municipality has not appointed an investigator, by the Provincial
Ombudsman.
The Municipality of Clarington has appointed Local Authority
Services Ltd. (LAS) as the investigator to conduct these reviews. A
review officer will be appointed by Amberley Gavel (who is providing
this service for LAS). Once a request for an investigation has been
received, the Municipal Clerk shall process the request for
investigation in accordance with the Department Procedure for
Processing Request for Investigation of Closed Meeting Compliance.
As copy of this procedure is included in this report as Attachment 5.
1147
Attachment 1
Report CLD-042-07
Detailed Discussion of Existing Practices
Accountabili
e) Procedure Respecting
Access to Municipal
Records and
Protection of Personal
Privacy
f) Council Compliance
Under the Municipal
Conflict of Interest Act
The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
(MFIPPA) was enacted in 1991 with the principle that all information
under the custody and control of the Municipality would be available
to the public, where requested with the exception of certain, specific
information. Since the enactment of MFIPPA , the Municipality has
been complying with the requirements of the Act, and in April of this
year, Council adopted a formal policy which documented the
requirements of the Act and specifically identified the responsibilities
of members of Council, the Chief Administrative Officer and
Department Heads as they relate to collection, use and disclosure of
information.
The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended,
applies to the members of Council. The purpose of the Act is to
ensure that members do not speak or vote on any issue for which
they have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest. It shall be the
responsibility of each member of Council, not staff, to determine
whether they have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest with respect
to matters either before Committee/Council and any activities in which
they are involved in their day to day municipal business.
The Act requires that a member with a direct or indirect pecuniary
interest, who is in attendance at a meeting where the matter in which
the member has a pecuniary interest must:
. Disclose the interest and the general nature of the
conflict;
. Not take part in the discussion or vote on the matter;
. Not attempt to influence the vote, before, during, or
after the meeting;
. Leave the meeting while the matter is being discussed
(only if the meeting is in camera); and,
. If absent from a meeting where a member's pecuniary
interest is considered, disclose the interest at the next
meeting attended by that member.
The Act states that a member does not have a pecuniary interest in
respect of the following:
(a) as a user of any public utility service supplied to the
member by the municipality or local board in like
manner and subject to the like conditions as are
applicable in the case of persons who are not members;
Attachment 1
Report CLD-042-07
Detailed Discussion of Existing Practices
Accountabilitv c
(b) by reason of the member being entitled to receive on
terms common to other persons any service or
commodity or any subsidy, loan or other such benefit
offered by the municipality or local board;
(c) by reason of the member purchasing or owning a
debenture of the municipality or local board;
(d) by reason of the member having made a deposit
with the municipality or local board, the whole or part of
which is or may be returnable to the member in like
manner as such a deposit is or may be returnable to all
other electors;
(e) by reason of having an interest in any property
affected by a work under the Drainage Act or by a work
under a regulation made under Part XII of the Municipal
Act, 2001 or Part IX of the City ofToronto Act, 2006, as
the case may be, relating to local improvements;
(f) by reason of having an interest in farm lands that are
exempted from taxation for certain expenditures under
the Assessment Act;
(g) by reason of the member being eligible for election
or appointment to fill a vacancy, office or position in the
councilor local board when the councilor local board is
empowered or required by any general or special Act to
fill such vacancy, office or pOSition;
(h) by reason only of the member being a director or
senior officer of a corporation incorporated for the
purpose of carrying on business for and on behalf of the
municipality or local board or by reason only of the
member being a member of a board, commission, or
other body as an appointee of a councilor local board;
(i) in respect of an allowance for attendance at
meetings, or any other allowance, honorarium,
remuneration, salary or benefit to which the member
may be entitled by reason of being a member or as a
member of a volunteer fire brigade, as the case may be;
0) by reason of the member having a pecuniary interest
which is an interest in common with electors generally;
or
1149
Attachment 1
Report CLD-042-07
Detailed Discussion of Existing Practices
g)
Regular and Standard
Financial Reporting
Including Performance
Measures
(k) by reason only of an interest of the member which is
so remote or insignificant in its nature that it cannot
reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the
member. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 4; 2002, c. 17,
Sched. F, Table; 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 33 (1).
A member of Council who allegedly breaches the Act may be subject
to prosecution which could result in the member being disqualified
from his/her seat, being disqualified from running for Council for
seven (7) years, and the member may be ordered to make restitution.
Actions against members may be brought forward by electors within
six (6) weeks after the fact of the alleged breach comes to his/her
knowledge and not later than six (6) years after the alleged
contravention occurred.
On an annual basis, the Municipality of Clarington is required to meet
various financial reporting requirements under provincial legislation.
These reports are prepared by staff and forwarded to Committee and
Council for their consideration and endorsement. The purpose of
these reports is to formally communicate to the ratepayers of the
Municipality and our stakeholders, and in some cases, reports are
required to be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing for information.
1) Annually, staff prepares a report recommending an Operating
and a Capital Budget for the fiscal year. The budget report details the
following:
. Overview of proposed budget
. Tax rate stabilization
. Highlighting any tax policy changes
. Staffing requests
. Capital budget commentary
. Current budget impacts
. Debt status
. Insurance
. Reserve and reserve fund contributions
. Requests from external agencies (eg. Library Board)
. Comments respecting future years' budgets
2) On a quarterly basis, staff report on the Cash Activity of the
municipality which includes:
. Analysis of Revenue and Expenditures
. Continuity of Taxes Receivable
. Statistical Information
. Investments Outstandin 1150
Accountabilitv
Attachment 1
Report CLD-042-D7
Detailed Discussion of Existing Practices
, '. C ,
,
3) The fiscal year-end for the Municipality is December 31st.
Section 296(1) of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, c.25 provides that
"A municipality shall appoint an auditor licensed under
the Public Accounting Act who is responsible for,
(a) annually auditing the accounts and transactions of
the municipality and its local boards and expressing an
opinion on the financial statements of these bodies
based on the audit;"
Deloitte & Touche, Toronto, Ontario, were appointed as the
Municipality of Clarington's auditors through report COD-001-05 for a
five (5) year term to expire January 31,2010. A copy of the audited
financial statements (consolidated statement of Financial Activities
and Fund Balance) are made available for public viewing, and a
condensed version is posted on the Municipality's website.
Additionally, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing requires an
audit letter as well as specialized financial reports entitled Financial
Information Returns. The Ministry reviews these and provides
Financial Indicator Reviews based on the information submitted and
comparable municipalities.
4) In 2001 the province mandated the Municipal Performance
Measures Program (MPMP). The provincial objectives of the MPMP
are to enhance accountability to taxpayers, increase taxpayer
awareness and share best practices between municipalities. The
information is intended to be used as a tool to gauge improvements in
service delivery year over year in the following service areas: Local
government, Fire, Roads, Stormwater, Parks and Recreation,
Libraries, and Land Use Planning.
5) Other annual reports respecting municipal finances include:
. Annual Statement for the Development Charges
Reserve Funds
. Mayor and Councillor's Remuneration and Expenses
. Building Permit Fees
. Insurance Program
. Annual Leasing Report
1151
Attachment 1
Report CLD-042-D7
Detailed Discussion of Existing Practices
a) Code of Ethics
b) Staff Development
Policy
c) Phone and Voicemail
Usage Policy
d) Internet & E-mail
Usage Policy
The Code of Ethics Policy was adopted by Council in December,
2001. The Purpose of this Policy is to provide a standard of conduct
for employees of the Corporation in the carrying out of their work
assignments and their relationships with the public, elected officials
and each other.
The Code of Ethics addresses areas including but not limited to:
. Employees and Council shall not breach the public trust or
misappropriate public funds and/or resources
. Prohibiting the use of municipal property, equiprnent and
supplies for personal use
. Conditions of participation in decision making process
. Solicitation or acceptance of gifts
. Non-disclosure of confidential information obtained through
fulfilling their mandate
. Acknowledgement of Corporate Purchasing policy
. Acknowledgement of Corporate Health and Safety Policy
. Limitations on engaging in business outside the workplace
which is incompatible or which may interfere with the
discharge of their official duties
. Obligation to disclose to the respective Department Head,
any conflict of interest penalties for contravention of the
Code of Ethics
The Staff Development Policy was adopted by Council in March,
2004. The Purpose of this Policy is to provide a system to encourage
the self-development of employees by continuing their education,
training and professional development. The Policy details conditions
respecting training and education funding and reimbursement.
The Phone and Voicemail Usage Policy was approved by the CAO in
January, 2004. The purpose of this Policy is to establish regulations
pertaining to phone and voicemail usage. The Policy addresses
limitations for long distance calls and faxes, prohibits the use of
cellular phones for personal use, and establishes a standard protocol
for voicemail.
The Internet & E-mail Usage Policy was adopted by Council in
December, 2001. The purpose of this Policy is to ensure employees
are knowledgeable in their use of the internet and e-mail and are
aware of the situations in which these forms of communications are
appropriate and permitted. This Policy establishes the rules for
internet site access, downloading of files and states that any e-mails
are legal property of the Municipality. The Policy includes penalties
for contravention.
1152
Attachment 1
Report CLD-042-07
Detailed Discussion of Existing Practices
e) Communication The Communication Equipment Policy was approved by the CAO in
Equipment Policy April, 2007. The purposes of this Policy are:
. to ensure managerial personnel have the appropriate
communication equipment when they are away from
their normal office working environment. Provision of
communication equipment is essential as most
managerial staff is required to respond to off hour
emergencies, as well as to provide supervision to
various services beyond the normal office hour
operation.
. To ensure cost effectiveness in the provision of the
necessary communication equipment.
This Policy ensures that functionality of the communication
equipment matches the staff need.
f) Use of Personal The Use of Personal Vehicles Policy and the Vehicle Operation -
Vehicles Policy and Competent Operator policies were approved by the CAO in
Vehicle Operation - November, 2004 and January, 2005 respectively. The purposes of
Competent Operator these Policies are:
Policy
. To set out the parameters in which a personal vehicle
may be used to conduct Municipal business;
. To ensure the safe operation of personal vehicles as a
means to protect employees, the public, the
Municipality, as well as private properties; and
. To set out the protocol for operator competence to
ensure the safe operation of Municipal vehicles and
equipment as a means to protect employees, the
public, the Municipality, as well as private properties.
These Policies ensure that every driver must possess a valid driver's
licence, have valid insurance and shall notify their immediate
supervisor if there are any conditions or limitations placed on their
licence or if their driver status changes. These policies include
penalties for contravention.
g) Loaning of Municipal The Loaning of Municipal Equipment Policy was adopted by the CAO
Equipment Policy in October, 2005. The purpose of this Policy is to establish
regulations with regards to the loaning of municipal equipment. The
Policy prohibits the use of municipal equipment for personal use.
<. --
Attachment 1
Report CLD-042-07
Detailed Discussion of Existing Practices
h) Political Activities The Political Activities Policy was adopted by Council in March, 2005.
Policy The purpose of this Policy is to protect the integrity of the public
service while allowing employees to exercise their democratic rights if
they so choose. This Policy discourages employees from engaging
in political activities, and should an employee choose to engage in
political activities, this Policy restricts them from doing so in the
workplace. As well, this policy limits the conduct of political activities
within municipally owned facilities.
i) Notification Policy In accordance with Section 251 of the Municipal Act, 2001, By-law
2005-022 was enacted by Council on February 14, 2005. This By-
law prescribes the form, manner and times for compliance with the
provision notice requirements mandated in the Act. The By-law
speaks to notices respecting: passing of by-laws, adoption of the
annual operating and capital budgets and any amendments thereof,
and any service level improvements. Notices shall be typically
included in the newspaper and are posted on the Municipal Website.
The Procedural By-law also provides for notification of dates, times
and locations of regular and special meetings of Council, GPA, and
special committees.
j) Sale of Real Property In accordance with Sections 193(2) and (3) of the Municipal Act,
Policy 2001, as amended, By-law 95-22 was enacted by Council on March
6, 1995 and establishes procedures governing the sale of real
property by the Municipality. The By-law requires that surplus
property must be declared as such by Council in an open meeting
and once declared, the Municipal Clerk shall ensure notice of the
proposed sale of land is posted in the newspaper. In most cases, the
value of the property must be determined by at least one appraisal.
Sale of lands may be conducted through a public tender process,
sold at fair market value to adjacent property owners, or exchanged
and transferred.
k) Hiring Policy The Hiring Practices Policy was adopted by Council in January, 2002.
The purposes of this Policy are:
. To convey the Municipality's continuing practice of
non-discriminatory employment; and
. To create and maintain a standardized means of
recruiting employees
This Policy ensures compliance with the Human Rights Code and
speaks to the practice of neither favouring nor discriminating against
relatives of an employee or elected official.
1154
Attachment 1
Report CLD-D42-07
Detailed Discussion of Existing Practices
I) Purchasing Policy In accordance with section 270(1) ofthe Municipal Act, 2001, as
amended, By-law 2006-127 was enacted by Council. This
Purchasing By-law provides for the purchasing and tendering policies
and procedures applying to the purchase of all types of goods and/or
services. Every municipal department engages in the procurement of
goods and services and to ensure transparency and accountability to
our ratepayers and stakeholders, our By-law:
. Encourages competition among suppliers
. Ensures fairness between bidders
. Maximizes savings
. Ensures service and product delivery efficiency and
effectiveness
. Ensures quality
. Ensures supplier accountability
. Provides for maximizing government service while
minimizing cost
. Provides an objective process
. Fosters openness, accountability and transparency while
protecting the municipality's financial interests
m) Orientation Policy In addition to the above-referenced Policies, the Orientation Policy,
approved by the CAO in January, 2001, was implemented to ensure
that all new employees are properly oriented with their new work
environment. This Policy includes the requirement that new
employees be made aware of and understand their duties and
responsibilities under all relevant corporate policies.
1155
Attachment 2
Report CLD-042-D7
Delegated Duties and Authorities
1
2
3
4
5
6.
7.
8.
Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act
For the purposes of the Act, the Head is the Mayor.
The powers and duties of the Head have been
delegated to the FOI Co-ordinator. However, the
Head still remains accountable for the actions taken
and decisions made under the Act.
Order to Restrain Appeal Hearing
Delegated Council's duty to hold a hearing to
determine whether or not an owner in whole or in
part from the requirements detailed in an Order to
Restrain and to render a ruling on such an appeal
are delegated, in accordance with section 105 of the
Munici al Act, 2001, as amended.
Procurement
Acquisition of goods and services of value equal to
or less than $50,000, in accordance with the rules
set forth in the Purchasin B -law.
Site Plan Control Area
Delegation of the approval of site plans in
accordance with Section 41 of the Planning Act, with
the exception of the authority to define any class or
classes of development as mentioned section
41(13)(a).
Execute any agreement between the Municipality
and the property owner as may be required as a
condition of the a roval of the lans and drawin
Planning Applications - Completeness
Determination
Delegation of authority to make decisions on whether
planning applications submitted pursuant to the
Planning Act and Conservation Land Statute
Amendment Act, 2006, are deemed com lete.
Taxi Licence Application - Approval with
Criminal Record
Delegation of authority to approve taxi licence
application where criminal record is minor or is more
than seven 7 ears old.
Adoption Fees - Approval to Reduce
Delegation of authority to reduce the adoption fees
for animals in s ecified circumstances.
Assessment Review Board - Municipal Appeals
Dele ation of authorit to the
Municipal
Clerk
Manager,
Municipal
Law
Enforcement
Purchasing
Manager
Director of
Planning
Services and
Director of
Engineering
Services
Municipal
Clerk and
Ma or
Director of
Planning
Services
Municipal
Clerk
Municipal
Clerk and
De ut Clerk
Director of
Finance
By-law 90-193
and Resolution
GPA# 815-90
By-law 2005-225
By-law 2006-127
By-law 2005-135
By-law 2007-131
By-law 2005-205
By-law 2007-208
By-law 2003-031
1156
Item Delegated Dutvl Power Deleaate Authority
Director of FinancefTreasurer to appeal
Assessments to the Assessment Review
Board on behalf of the Municipality of Clarington.
9. Minor exceptions to Sign By-law Director of By-law 97-157, as
Delegated authority to make minor exceptions Planning amended
without amendment to the By-law in situations of
extenuating circumstances. These exceptions shall
be only for the size or height of a sign and shall not
exceed 10% of the permissible size or height as
prescribed within the By-law.
10. Subdivision/Condominium Approval - authority Director of By-law 2001-072
under Section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 Planning, or
chapter P. 13 as amended designate
Delegated all of the Council's authority under
Section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter
P.13 as amended. The authority delegated to the
Director extends only to those matters in respect of
which Council adopted procedures which direct the
Director to make a decision.
11. Heritage Conservation District Plan - authority Director of By-law 2006-102
under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. Planning, or
1990, chapter 0.18. as amended designate
Delegated authority to approve minor applications to
grant permits for the alteration of property situated in
a heritage conservation district
12. Community Improvement Plan - authority under Director of By-law 2005-123
Part IV - of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Planning By-law 2005-039
chapter P.13 -Community Improvement, as
amended
Delegated authority to administer and approve the
Grant Program (Building Permit Fee Grant Program,
Site Plan Control Fee Grant Program, and Heritage
Building Fayade Improvement Grant Program) as
contained within the Community Improvement Plan
for Bowmanville and Orono.
13. Road Closures Director of By-law 82-32
Delegated authority to review and approve Engineering
applications from any person, group or agency
wishinQ to occupy a Municipal Road or RiQht-of-Way
Attachment 2
Report CLD-042-07
Delegated Duties and Authorities
1157
Item [)~legaJEl~[)t..il:YII?()\'v~r .. .: Olillegate
for any reason which alters the normal use or status
of same to apply, and grant approval for a Road
Occupancy Permit.
14. Truck traffic routing Director of By-law 91-58, as
Delegated authority to issue permits for the Engineering amended
movement on highways of heavy vehicles, loads,
objects or structures which are in excess of the
dimensional limits set out in Section 92, 104a, or the
weight limits set out in Part VII of the Highway Traffic
Act, R.S.O. 1980, c.198, as amended.
15. Street Signs Director of By-law 91-58, as
Delegated authority to authorized to place or erect Engineering amended
and to maintain such authorized and official signs as
are required to give effect to the provisions of this by-
law.
Attachment 2
Report CLD-D42-07
Delegated Duties and Authorities
1158
~
Attachment 3
Report CLD-042-07
DRAFT
Administrative and Corporate Policies
Section: H
Category: Operations
Subsection: H29
Application: All
Employees
Date Approved:
Last Revised:
Approved by:
1. Purpose:
The Municipality of Clarington is committed to ensuring that it is accountable to the public
for its actions, through responsible and transparent behaviours and the manner in which the
municipality will try to ensure that its actions are transparent to the public. The purpose of
this policy is to detail the guiding principles for Municipal service delivery with Section 270
of the Municipal Act.
2. Policy:
Guiding Principles
This policy is premised on the following two guiding principles:
a) Accountability includes the principle that the Municipality of Clarington is
responsible to its stakeholders for decisions made and policies implemented, as well as its
actions or inactions.
b) Transparency includes the principle that the Municipality of Clarington actively
encourages and fosters stakeholder participation, clarity and openness in the decision making
processes.
Policy Statement
In support of the Municipality ofClarington's Vision,
"Your Choice for a Caring and Vibrant Community" and in support of the Municipality's
Mission,
Page I of 2 - Affiliated and Others: H29
1159
"To provide essential infrastructure and quality services to our community stakeholders
through leadership, accountability and respect."
the Council of the Municipality acknowledges that it is responsible to provide good
government for its stakeholders in an accountable and transparent manner by:
. Encouraging public access and participation to ensure that decision making
is responsive to the needs of its constituents and receptive to their opinions;
. Delivering high quality services to our citizens; and
. Promoting the efficient use of public resources.
Accountability, transparency and openness are standards of good government that enhance
public trust. They are achieved through the Municipality adopting measures ensuring, to the
best of its ability, that all activities and services are undertaken utilizing a process that is
open and accessible to its stakeholders. In addition, wherever possible, the Municipality will
engage its stakeholders throughout its decision making process which will be open, visible
and transparent to the public.
3. Procedures:
3. I The guiding principles of accountability and transparency will be contemplated by
staff and Council in their actions, inactions and in any decision making process.
3.2 Staff reports to Committee/Council shall, where applicable, state how the
recommendations comply with accountability and transparency principles.
3.3 Council shall ensure that policies adopted by Council are consistent with the guiding
principles ofthis Policy.
3.4 The CAO of the Municipality ofClarington shall ensure that all administrative
Policies of the Municipality ofClarington comply with the guiding principles of this Policy.
3.5 Staff, in executing their duties and responsibilities shall ensure that they are guided by
the Guiding Principtes of this Policy. Where Council has delegated any of its duties and
authorities to staff, staff shall ensure that the appropriate Council member(s) is/are regularly
informed of any unusual or notable issues in a timely manner.
4. Appendices:
None
Page 2 of2 - Affiliated and Others: H29
1160
Attachment 4
CLD-042-07
Integrity Officers
Item
1
Office.r . ....
Integrity
Commissioner
2
Ombudsman
3
Auditor General
4
Lobbyist
Registrar and
Registry
Purl:>ose ......,. ... . .... . .... . ..... .> ... .>i
The purpose of the Integrity Commissioner is to investigate and
report to Council on the conduct of its members and the members
of local boards. The intent is to ensure compliance with the Code
of Ethics/Conduct and other procedures, rules and policies
aovernina ethical behaviour.
The purpose of the Ombudsman is to investigate administrative
decisions, recommendations, actions or the lack thereof. The
position as defined has far reaching investigative and review
powers including a review of how the current staff code of ethics is
applied or processes related to any current program. Generally,
Ombudsmen are appointed when an organization is of a
substantial size and when the reporting structures and the
accountability framework are not acceptable to the community or
Council. The rulino of the Ombudsman is final.
The purpose of the Auditor General is to assist Council:
. in holding itself and municipal administrators accountable for
the quality of stewardship over public funds, and
. for achievement of value for money in municipal operators
The Auditor General responsibilities do not include the
responsibilities of the municipal external auditor.
The legislation provides for implementation of an optional, publicly
accessible Lobbyist Registry to provide a system of registration of
persons who lobby politicians and public officers.
In June, 2007 Council passed the following resolution #GPA-463-
07:
"THAT Report CAO-011-07 be received;
THAT the presentation "An Overview of the Lobbyist Registry
System" by the CAO be received;
THAT Council not proceed with the introduction of a Lobbyist
Registry System at this time until such time Members of Council
have the opportunity to examine all the pros and cons of
implementing such a system and until such time the Municipality
acquires best practices knowledge and experience from similar
size municipalities; and
THAT the Chief Administrative Officer be directed to bring forth the
necessary amendments to the existing Code of Ethics to ensure
all Members of Council and staff are governed by clear and
enforceable policies."
1161
Attachment 5
Report CLD-042-07
Cl!1lmglOn
Clerk's
Departmental Procedure
Approval Date:
November 27,2007
Revision Date:
Procedure Number:
L02-001
Title:
Processing Closed Meeting
Compliance Investigations
Approved by:
Purpose:
The Municipality of Clarington is committed to conducting actions and making
decisions in accordance with the Municipality's Accountability and Transparency
Policy. This Procedure details the steps in processing a request for Investigation
of Compliance for the conduct of a closed meeting of Council/Committee.
Procedure:
1. Standard Form
All requests shall be filed by the investigation requester by completing the
Application for Request for Closed Meeting Compliance Investigation. The
Request Form shall be completed in its entirety and signed by the requester and
submitted to the Municipal Clerk's Office.
2. Request Fee
There is no fee imposed on the investigation requester for filing a Request for
Closed Meeting Compliance Investigation.
3. Assemble Request Package
Upon receipt of a complete Application for Request for Closed Meeting
Compliance Investigation, the Municipal Clerk shall ensure that a package is
assembled including the following records:
. The original request for investigation
. Certified copies of the procedural by-law, notice of the meeting
Page 1 of 2
1162
Departmental Procedure
Title:
Processing Closed Meeting
Compliance Investigations
. Certified copies of the agenda and minutes of the meeting
. Contact list for all members of Council, local board or committee for which
the request is made and for all persons present at the meeting
. Any further information determined relevant by the Municipal Clerk
A File is opened under L02.CO (Claims against the Municipality, Compliance
Investigations) and a copy of the complete package is filed.
4. Forward Package to Investigator
The Municipality of Clarington has appointed Local Authority Services Ltd. (LAS)
as the investigator to conduct these reviews. The Municipal Clerk shall prepare a
cover letter and forward the package to the LAS Investigator.
5. Disposition of Report Findings
Upon receipt of the of the Findings Report from the Meeting Investigator, the
Municipal Clerk shall prepare a report to GPA advising of the investigation
findings, associated costs and any necessary actions to be taken in accordance
with the Meeting Investigator's recommendations (where applicable).
If necessary, policies, procedures or the procedural by-law shall be amended to
reflect the Meeting Investigator's recommendations.
The Meeting Investigator's Finding Report shall be filed with the original
complaint and the copy of the complaint package that was forwarded to the
Meeting Investigator.
The file is closed.
Page 2 of 2
1163
CI![mgton
REPORT
CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
December 3, 2007
Report #: COD-058-07
File#_
By-law #
Subject:
CL2007-41, STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS
LOCATIONS AND MEARNS AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee .
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report COD-058-07 be received;
2. THAT Guild Electric Limited, Toronto, Ontario with a total bid in the amount of
$65,322.77 (plus GST), being the lowest responsible bidder meeting all terms,
conditions and specifications of Tender CL2007 -41, be awarded the contract for
the Street Lighting Improvements at Various Locations and Mearns Avenue
Reconstruction as required by the Engineering Department;
3. THAT the total funds required in the amount of $94,875.83 ($65,322.77 tender
plus work by Veridian and Hydro One, plus contingencies and consulting) be
drawn as follows:
a) $20,000.00, Street Lighting, Various Location from 2007 Capital Budget
Account # 110-32-324-83221-7401;
b) $70,000.00, Mearns Avenue Reconstruction from the 2007 Capital Budget
Account # 110-32-330-83208-7401; and
c) THAT the remaining funds in the amount of $4,875.83 for Street Lighting,
Various Locations be drawn from the General Capital Reserve; and
4. THAT the attached By-law marked Schedule "A" authorizing the Mayor and the
Clerk to execute the necessary agreement be approved.
1201
REPORT NO.: COD-OSS-O?
S"bmitted by' .0-U!iJ
Marie Marano, H.B.Sc., C.M.O.
Director of Corporate Services
A.S. Cannella, C.E.T.
Director of Engineering Services
(LA Na c Taylor, B.BA, t::
{U \. Director of Finance
MMIASCINT\JDBlkm
PAGE 2
Reviewed bY:O ~- ~
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-4169
1202
REPORT NO.: COD-OSS-07
PAGE 3
Tender specifications were provided by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates for the Street Lighting
Improvements at Various Locations within the Municipality of Clarington and for Mearns Avenue
Construction, as required by the Engineering Department.
Tenders were advertised in local papers, as well as electronically. Subsequently, tenders were
received and tabulated as per Schedule UB" attached.
The total project cost, including project administration and costing allocation is as detailed in the
letter from Totten Sims Hubicki Associates, marked Schedule UB" and will be provided from the
accounts specified in the recommendations of this report. As the total funds required from the
Various Street Lighting Improvement Account # 110-32-324-83221-7401 exceeds the available
funds of $20,000.00, it is recommended that additional funds required in the amount of
$4,875.83 be drawn from the General Capital Reserve.
The low bidder has previously performed satisfactory work for the Municipality of Clarington.
The Director of Finance has reviewed the funding requirements and concurs with the
recommendation. Queries with respect to department needs, specifications, etc., should be
referred to the Director of Engineering.
After further review and analysis of the bids by the Engineering Department, Totten Sims
Hubicki Associates and Purchasing, it was mutually agreed that the low bidder, Guild Electric
Limited, Toronto, Ontario, be recommended for the contract for the Street Lighting
Improvements at Various Locations and Mearns Avenue Reconstruction.
Attachment:
Attachment 1 - Schedule "A", By-law
Attachment 2 - Schedule "B", Memo from Engineering Services & Letter from Totten Sims
Hubicki
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1 C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-4169
1203
A'lTACHMENT Ii I TO
REPORTIi (<JD-OS<O-07
Schedule "A"
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW 2007-
Being a By-law to authorize a contract between the
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and Guild Electric
Limited, Toronto, Ontario, to enter into agreement for the
Street Lighting Improvements at Various Locations and
Meams Avenue Reconstruction.
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON HEREBY ENACTS AS
FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington and seal with the Corporation Seal, a
contract between, Guild Electric Limited, Toronto, Ontario, and said Corporation;
and
2. THAT the contract attached hereto as Schedule "A" form part of this By-law.
By-law read a first and second time this day of
,2007.
By-law read a third time and finally passed this
day of
,2007.
Jim Abernethy, Mayor
Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk
1204
engineers
architects
planners
!~:::::"--i1:~<:-'r, L--;:~;,;.,;,:x:" C'
, ~,-- --...~.._.u._~._ '
--IJ.i!:r : GL:'Y!::c;~'(r-_J .
.-.___. f r,~n' .,c.; ~ I'
. i.,. '- !.:L -..+Gtt~n"Sims Hubicki Associates
.,- ---':.:,---'~-~-J 513;Pi"ision Street,
,_,. _ _...~___~.~_I ~~G~! 1 }. r,,...,,..,C;obourg, Ontario,Canadi(K9A 5GB
, . v . ",. cbI905l372-2121. Fax:l9dSI372-3621
__~.____"~._,. _ ;~.._-_..- "--.,-~. .._ E-mail: 'cobo~ rg@tsh.ca www.tsh.ca
-..,...,
.
VH
~--~.- --
"d'..
.......j--
November 12, 2007
. _n',.." .. _~___~~__ .~_.H'~"
<-!'::.
_~ '" ._T____ ~ ~
C <;t..- .-jo~~~-t..
FAX: 905-623-9282
Mr. A. S. Cannella, CET
Director Engineering Services
The Mnnicipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario LlC 3A6
Dear Sir:
Re: 2007 Street Lighting Improvements, Various Locations
Contract No. CL2007-4I, Municipality of Clarington
Tenders for the above project were opened at the Municipal Offices on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, at
2:00:00 p.m. local time. The bids received, exclusive of GST, are summarized as follows:
BIDDER
TOTAL BID AMOUNT
$65,322.77
Guild Electric Limited
Toronto, ON
Ron Robinson Limited
Bowmanville, ON
Black & MacDonald Limited
Scarborough, ON
Langley Utilities Contracting Limited
Bowmanville, ON
AGI Traffic Technology
Scarborough, ON
* Bids submitted without proper Addendum acknowledgement
** No Bid Bond provided
$136,179.38
Rejected - Improper *
Rej ected - Improper *
Rej ected **
TSH has reviewed all bids accepted by the Clarington Purchasing Department and have confirmed the bid
values noted above. The low bidder's submitted tender has been reviewed and is in order. References
provided by the Contractor which include the City of Barrie and Gazzolla Paving Limited for the City of
Toronto, have been contacted and comments received are very favourable. Guild also completed
Q2006-10, 2006 Street Lighting Improvements, for the Municipality of Clarington and completed the work
satisfactorily. Referenced Contracts completed satisfactorily range in value from $20,000.00 to
$500,000.00.
The total project costs, excluding GST, are summarized on the attached Cost Apportionment. As shown
on the Cost Apportionment, the costs related to Parts A, Band C (Account No. 110-32-330-83221-7401)
are $4,875.83 over budget. While the costs related to the Mearns Avenue Street Lighting (Account No.
110-32-330-83208) are $10,000.00 under budget.
ATTACHMENT ,::l TO
REPORT # C 0])'1- 2iPo S'" - 07
Mr. A. S. Cannella, C.E.T.
November 12, 2007
2.
Based on past performance and additional budget availability for Parts A, B and C, we recommend that
Guild Electric Limited be awarded Contract CL2007-4l in the total amount of $65,322.77 (excluding
GST).
Should you require any additional information, please contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
~~
Ron Albright, P.Eng.
Project Engineer
RAlym
P:\Dept 12\ 12-29658\Corresp\22481.doc
Enc!.
pc: Mr. N. Clark, C.E. T., Manager of Construction, Municipality of Clarington
Mr. B. Bianco, P. Eng., Design Engineer, Municipality of Clarington
1m
...
o
o
N
I/)
-
..
'"
c:.=
om
-
Cll/)
c: :0
"I: 0
co 'i::
-co
0>
"'c:
00
.?:':;::
:= fa
co=
.e-~
U I/)
'c .5
:Ocl
:Ec:
:;::
.s::
.~
;:;
'"
'"
~
-
rn
...'"
0<;>
0",
"'0
.'"
~~
~ ,
"'"
.c ~
EiO
"'"
>'"
00>
Z'"
N
~
u
tJ
"
ill
:E
'5
C9
>-
.c
'"0
j!l
'E
.c
~
'"
"0
i'ii
~
--'
C
o
'"0
"
'"
~
.c
1:~
"...
Eo
Co
,Q~
60
0._
c..,
4:l!!
- -
,"c
00
00
t
"
'e-
0..
I
ui
,...:
~ cl
c:~
"'.s::
~.~
I/)..J
EO)
co '"
.,.=
:Ern
cl
c: .
+:i 5 Ul ~
'5; ~ 0
.- ns 0 '.;
..J= 'C co
a;Scuu
., 1Il>..J0
~ c:
- -
rn
c;;
-
o
~
c:
o
a
'1:
U
III
.,
C
.l!l
c:
.,
E
E
o
o
..
o
N
...
..
o~
...0
......
"'....
...
o
~
~
~
N
'"
...
..
<> ~
...~
:::....
...
o
~
~
!2
1>
"
'0
D:
1::
"
.c
E
~
z
-
"
~
o
.,
.,
4:
"
o
a.
"
't:
..
o
~ .... M
.,. N ~
l"'"i V'i r.-i
_ N N
~ '" 0
..0 ~ r--~
... ... ...
N N
~ or.
o d
'<> '<>
~ or.
N M
.,. .,.
... '"
lr\ r-- 1""1 N r-
-.:r. N on <t"l r--
r'l ..,.; r<"'i 0 M
_ N N 1.0 N
00 0'1 0 on l"'"l
..c O(l~ r-: N lti
.,. '"
'04 fi,oI'j ..,. llA E.I"I
~
....
o
o
'"
..J
"
-
U
I!
-
"
o
"
J!J
"
o
o
"
o
'"
.,
:0
.I:>
"
c:
o
"
CJ
z
i=
J:
"
::;
to
::!
....
'"
N
,.
<
'"
J:
"
:t
:>
<
2
::>
o
"
z
i=
J:
5
....
OJ
OJ
'"
....
'"
z
?2
0..
:>
<
J:
,..:
~
o
<
o
'"
N ci
,. OJ
< '"
'" 0
:t Z
" <
:t '"
o 0
Z <
< :i1
" Z
< 0
o 0;
'" '"
'" OJ
'" u
:> Z
< 0
...l U
OJ
...l
...l
;;
Z
<
:>
"
o
'"
" "
Z Z
i:: i=
J: J:
" "
:3 ::i
Z Z
o 0
E= 1=
U U
w OJ
'" '"
'" '"
w OJ
.... ....
~ 2:
:<
Z
o
i=
U
w
'"
?tl ~
Z Z
o 0
1= i=
U U
w w
'" '"
CJ
Z
i=
:t
~
....
OJ
OJ
'"
....
'"
OJ
::>
z
OJ
>
<
'"
z
'"
<
OJ
:>
~
z
o
i=
U
w
'"
or.
....
....
'"
....
....
....
""
"
.2
1>
~
~
;;
"
o
"
S
o
..
J:.
~
U)
....
'"
'<>
'"
~
....
QO
or.
'"
'"
~
....
~
..
'"
E
:0
Z
-
U
'"
'0'
~
0..
:I:
'"
..
'0 '0
~ ~
.~ .~
'" '"
"' "'
N
'"
....
o
o
~
o
...
QO
M
.,;
...
...
N
'"
....
o
=:
""
s
;:::0
0:;;
l'lN
N
,.:~
N
~
'"
'"
o
8
o
'"
"
Oi
>
o
~
<(
'C
"
2
c:
't:
..
'C
"
{!!.
.~
"
~
'C
..!
~
~
..
:I:
III
!::.
cl
c:
'"
"
..
~
"
Oi
."
S
..
::Ii
'"
"
o
'"
..
~
OJ...
:5 g
E "'.
'C....
<(N
c: ~
.2 ~ _
1:;.s en
:0 U 0
bO 0
~ E t
00""
o~5
~
..;
'"
"'
'0
.!l
~
.~
'"
"'
0<=0'00':'
r---r--o::rooc
~~~gg~
~:~~~d'
.... ~-
W'7~~~iAl.;F.I
~
~
,.;
N
...
QO
or.
,.;
:::
....
...
~g~
.,.,ovi
....0....
~~;:
N N-
....... ""
~
o
...
~
M
.,;
OOOQOO\MOr--
~r-~o:::tOOO_
r....~_oo<riO...;.
_o:::t\oCNt-ON
;:;~;}~~~d:~
'" 0
...
~~~lio'!Ifoo':t~E.I"I
J!!
II>
o
"
~
..
" ""
<Sea
o .~ "C
~ "C G.l tn
"'0';:: - G)
>-<IJca'U
:I:>Ec:
';ill!!
Wi;:
-'"
.l! c:
00
~"
-
U
en 'ii
OJ c
o U;
~ ~
l'~ :s
o III
n. a;
'Ct;.8
S:o "
.. 0 al
E E 'C
;:;: oc( CD
ant;1V
- cl E
J!-g:;;
~r:nW
1207
::
'"
fo'
...
c
c
S
i3
c
o
"0
'"
,=
0:
'"
x
.,;
j;
.
-"
"
"
E
c
c
'-2
o
~
~
~
'"
o
u
.,.
"
<>
<>
<"j
[j
-;;;
u
.
~
'!J
~
~
'"
'"
"i
N
~
~
"
~
0..
~~~iRgron
REPORT
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Meeting:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date:
DECEMBER 3, 2007
Resolution #:
Report #: FND-024-07
File#:
By-law #:
Subject:
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW: INTERIM REVIEW AND AMENDMENT
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report FND-024-07 be received;
2. THAT Council endorse an interim update to the 2005 Development Charges
Background Study and By-Law;
3. THAT Purchasing By-Law #2006-127, paragraph 15.14 be waived for this project; and
4. THAT the proposal from Hemson Consulting Ltd. be approved in the amount of
$49,600, to be funded 90% from the General Government Development Charges
Reserve Fund and 10% from the Municipal Capital Works Reserve Fund.
SUbmittedfoY~~ .hJ~
Nancy Taylor, B.BA, CA,
0\.. Director of FinancefTreasurer
Reviewed by: O~~
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer.
//
~(ttl~ '
arie Marano, H.B.Sc., CMO,
Director of Corporate Services.
NT/hjl
1301
REPORT NO.: FND-024-07
PAGE 2
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
1.0 Clarington's current Development Charges Background Study and By-Law were
approved and passed in 2005. This By-Law does not expire until June 2010.
The costs included at that time were based on sound projections and market
comparisons. However, since that time, there has been a rapid increase in the
cost of providing services and infrastructure. Examples include the Newcastle
Aquatic Facility, the Newcastle Branch of the Clarington Library, as well as many
roads projects.
1.1 In June 2007, Council authorized a Fiscal Impact Study of New Development in
Clarington through report PSD-078-07.
1.2 The Fiscal Impact Study, still underway, has highlighted this issue even more and
has provided clear preliminary indicators that the existing By-Law needs to be
updated to prevent further loss of necessary development charges collections.
1.3 Hemson Consulting assisted with the 2005 Background Study and By-Law, as
well as the ongoing Fiscal Impact Study. As we are proposing an interim update
to the existing background study, they are uniquely positioned to assist us with
this update.
1.4 The full complete study will still have to be undertaken, including growth
projections prior to the expiry in 2010. This interim update will not extend the
timeframe for the existing By-Law, but rather allow us to correct problems due to
the existing unanticipated inflationary impacts in the interim.
1302
REPORT NO.: FND-024-D7
PAGE 3
RECOMMENDATIONS:
2.0 Since timing is of the essence in updating the existing study in order to collect
appropriate funds that more accurately reflect the cost of providing services, it is
recommended that the interim study update proceed. It is also recommended that
the Purchasing By-Law #2006-127 section 15.14 be waived and that Hemson
Consulting Ltd. undertake this work in conjunction with municipal staff, at an
estimated value of $49,600 (net of GST), due to their detailed knowledge and
involvement in the 2005 Development Charges Background Study and By-Law. A
copy of their full proposal is attached (Schedule "A"). The study cost will be
funded 90% from Development Charges and 10% from the Municipal Capital
Works Reserve Fund, where the non-growth share of growth-related projects are
typically funded.
Attachments:
Schedule "A" - Hemson Consulting Ltd. proposal
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OFCLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1 C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-4169
1303
Schedule "A"
HEMSON
Con sui tin g Ltd.
30 S1. Patrick Street, Suite 1000, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 3A3
Facsimile (416) 595-7144 Telephone (416) 593-5090
e-mail: hemson@hemson.com
Via e-mait
November 15, 2007
Ms. Nancy Taylor
Director of Finance
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON, LlC 3A6
Dear Ms. Taylor:
Re: Municipality of Clarington 2008 Development Charges By-law Review and
Amendment
Further to our discussion, I am pleased to submit this proposal letter to provide consulting
services to the Municipality of Clarington to undertake a Development Charges Review
and related By-law Amendment process to reflect revised growth-related capital costs and
timing of capital works.
1. BACKGROUND & STUDY OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the assignment is to calculate revised development charges for the
Municipality of Clarington in compliance with the provisions of thDevelopment Charges
Act, 1997 and its related regulation (Ontario Regulation 82/98), and to provide the
Municipality with a Development Charges Amendment Background. Study and
associated by-law(s) amendments.
In addition, the assignment is to undertake the process for amending the Municipality's
current development charges by-law. This will include taking the background study and
associated by-law amendment through the legislated public process.
1304
2
We understand that the need for the study is being driven by rapid increases in the cost
of providing services and infrastructure for new development in recent years. We also
understand that the study is being conducted in the context of a review of a Fiscal Impact
of New Development in Clarington which we have completed on the Municipality's
behalf. With this in mind, we propose to review the Municipality's 2005 Background
Study and current by-laws and policies in their entirety with a particular emphasis on the
following:
1.1 Review of Roads and Related Service
The main focus of the study and anticipated amendments to the Municipality's
development charges rates is for the provision of the roads and related service. We
proposed to:
. Review the 2005 DC Study roads project list. We anticipate the need to
modify the list by way of substitutions, additions and changes in response
to development currently anticipated by the Municipality;
. Examine the adequacy of the existing road charge in light of required
changes to the reflect project list changes;
. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of area specific roads charges.
1.2 Review of Capital Costs for all Services
As part of the DC review, we will examine the cost estimates used to determine
historic service levels and growth-related capital programs for each of the service to
which a development charge applies. Recent tenders for capital projects completed
or underway in Clarington will be examined. A benchmarking review of cost
estimates used in other jurisdictions will be undertaken.
1.3 Review of Growth-Related Capital Programs for all Services
We will review the existing growth-related capital programs for all the general
services for which a development charge applies and provide comments and
recommendations on areas for continued monitoring or which require updating at
the time of the Municipality's full DC review prior to the June, 2010 expiry date of
the current by-law. This component will be undertaken in the context of any master
servicing or other studies completed by the Municipality since 2005.
1.4 Growth Forecasts
We understand that a revision of the growth forecasts used to establish the
development charges rates will not be necessary under this study. A review of the
HEMSON
1305
3
growth forecasts used in the 2005 Background Study will however be completed to
determine whether there is a need to update the forecasts.
1.4 By-law Implementation and Policy Issues
The study will examine the Municipality's current DC by-law policies and charges
practices in general, including a specific review of the following:
A. Definition of Local Service
. The DCA prohibits municipalities from recovering through development
charges the cost of providing local services. Under this assignment a review of
how the Municipality defines tocal service will be undertaken. Particular
attention will be given to the definition of parkland local services. An
examination of local service policies in other municipalities will be made.
B. Separation of DC By-laws
. The study will examine the advantages and disadvantages to the Municipality
of instituting a separate by-law for the roads and related service.
C. Other Policy Issues
. The review will include an examination of the entire by-law to determine if any
other refinements or modifications are worthwhile. This will include an
appraisal of the appropriateness of area specific by-laws in Clarington.
2. STUDY APPROACH & TASKS
The study approach being proposed is consistent with that utilized in 2005 to enact the
Municipality's current development charges by-law. We propose that a draft study be
completed by the end of March to allow time for consultation with Council and staff
prior to holding a public meeting in May. Specific work steps, meetings and the public
consultation process to accomplish the study objectives are displayed in Exhibit 1 and
outlined below. The proposed schedule is flexible and we would be happy to amend it to
suit the needs of the Municipality.
We understand that the study process will be led by the Director of Finance and will
involve a Steering Committee made up of staff from all key departments. The workplan
provides fot five formal meetings of the Steeting Committee. However, it is anticipated
that further informal meetings, perhaps by teleconference, may be required.
REMSON
1306
4
The workplan and budget also provides for one formal public meeting and one
informarion session or workshop with Council. We anticipate that the best timing for
this meeting is upon the completion of the draft report. However, the Steering
Committee may decide to hold rhis meeting at a different point.
The study approach is divided into the following tasks.
2.1 Project Initiation
· Collect and review readily available background information;
· Hold initial meeting with the Steering Committee
To initiate the project, it is recommended that a meeting with the Steering
Committee is held to finalize the study timelines, review available material and
identify any outstanding data and information needs.
Prior to this meeting, the readily available background documentation will have
been reviewed and work towards updating projects cost will have been initiated
based on cost comparisons with other municipalities.
2.2 Background Data Gathering & Assumptions
. Review growth forecasts;
· Review and update project costs;
· Calculate historic service levels.
Immediately following the project initiation meeting, the data analysis component
of the study will be commenced. The initial step in the analysis will be to
incorporate the revised growth-related costs into the development charges
calculation. This will lead to a recalculation of historic service levels and maximum
allowable development charges. We will also review the 2005 growth forecasts to
establish whether an update to these forecasts is warranted.
2.3 Preliminary Analysis
. Review growth-related capital programs;
. Review growth and non-growth shares;
· Review allocation of growth-related costs to residential/non-residential sectors;
. Calculate revised development charge rates;
· Identify capital induced operating costs.
REMSON
1307
5
As part of the examination of the entire growth-related capital program we will
review the allocation of costs and benefits between growth and non-growth-related
project components and to residential and non-residential development. Having
established the capital costs and the associated benefitting growth, we will be in a
position to calculate the revised development charges rates. Calculated rates will be
adjusted to account for unallocated development charge reserve fund balances and
a forecast cash flow by service and by development sector. As per the DCA the
impact of the revised growth-related capital program on the Municipality's operating
budget will be assessed.
2.4 Draft Development Charges Amendment Background Study
. Preparation of draft background study document;
. Presentation of draft study to staff.
The background research and preliminaty analysis will be compiled in a draft
background study document. The draft study will be presented at a meeting with the
Steering Committee. Discussions at this meeting will focus on the analysis and the
resulting calculated development charges rates. The meeting will also be used to
identify areas of the analysis that require further clarification and review.
2.5 Development Charge By-law and Policy Review
. Undertake by-law policy review;
. Draft development charges by-law;
. Presentation of draft by-law to staff and Council.
Following the meeting to discuss the preliminary findings, review of specific policies
in the current development charges by-law will be undertaken. This will include, but
will not necessarily be restricted to an evaluation of the advantages and
disadvantages of area-specific by-laws, of a separate by-law for the roads and related
service, and of the definitions of local service. A proposed draft amending by-law
will be developed and will be presented to the Steering Committee.
Following input from the Steering Committee the draft Background Study and by-
law will be presented to Council at an information session/workshop.
2.6 Prepare Final Report and Hold Public Meeting
. Prepare final Amendment Background Study and draft by-law;
. Prepare notification of and hold public meeting.
REMSON
1308
6
Following the meeting to discuss the preliminary findings, a final Amendment
Development Charges Background Study will be completed. It will incorporate
comments received from staff and Council.
As required by the DCA, the notification of the required public meeting will be
prepared. The notice needs to be circulated 20 days prior to the public meeting. The
Amendment Background Report and proposed by-law amendment must be available
a minimum of two weeks prior to the public meeting.
The DCA requires Council to hold a public meeting when passing an amendment
to a development charges by-law. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the
proposed amendment and the supporting background study. The appropriate
materials for the meeting will be prepared and presented by Hemson.
As shown in Exhibit 1, we are proposing to have the public meeting at the end of
June. This will allow for a detailed review of all written submissions received at the
meeting, including comments from Council, after which any necessary revisions and
refinements to the study and proposed amending by-laws will be made.
2.7 By-law Consideration & Passage
· Finalization of by-law;
. By-law passage.
Following the public meeting, the proposed by-law will be modified to reflect any
necessary changes resulting from the public consultation and Council's
consideration. We will be available to attend the Council meeting to pass the by-
law, although it is not anticipated that this will be necessary.
3. CONSULTING RESOURCES
The assignment will be undertaken by Craig Binning, Partner, author of the
Municipality's 2005 Development Charges Background Study. Craig has extensive
experience with development charges and has a long history of working with the
Municipality on development charges matters and other municipal fiscal issues.
Stefan Krzeczunowicz, Consultant, will assist Craig with the project. Stefan assisted with
the Municipality of Clarington's Development Charges Background Study in 2005 and
with the Municipality's recent Fiscal Impact Analysis of New Development. Stefan and
Craig have worked together on numerous municipal finance assignments.
HEMSON
1309
7
Mr. Russell Marhew, Parrner, will undertake a review of the Municipality's 2005 DC
Study growth forecasts which he prepared.
4. BUDGETARY REQUIREMENT AND BILLING ARRANGEMENT
The budgetary requirement of the tasks identified in Section 2 is estimated at $49,600,
inclusive of expenses (net of GST). This upset limit reflects the need to determine the
full extent of services to be reviewed. Invoices will be forwarded on a monthly basis
detailing the time spent on the assignment. Expenses incurred on your behalf will be
billed at cost and are included in the upset budget.
I trust this letter is sufficient for your needs. Should you require additional information
or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me.
I look forward to the opportunity of continuing to work with you and other Municipal
staff.
Yours truly,
HEMSON CONSULTING LTD.
~
Craig S. Binning
Associate Parmer
HEMSON
1310
W
N
~
~
.
::;
~
'"
W
N
;;
'"
~
='
...
;;;
.,.
N
~...
.... .-
Z ::;
W
'" ~
0
Z
w I
'" '"
0( ~
0
ZZ
00( '"
t;~z N
1;:;::1
"'wOo ",W
:1"'>< .-
.... O~~ 2
.c
iii :q~ 1f;:
~ 1:>0
lOw .~
w _ fIl
-'fIlO .,. .8i
o(wo.
!!:C)O Il!i
<J"''''
-0(.. w
zr
:><J N
"'....
Z
W "';;
'" .
o. ~ ~
0
-' ~:I
w
~
0
~"
C .
,g ~
n
~ 0
sc;,
~ C
~ ~
~~
~ ~
o E go
~ .~ i
:,;:Ill:::!;
~!~
. . ~
2'8~
o.
.
o
.2
a.
E
,
.
:1
""
; iJ..
! 8]
0$ .j, ~
~ ij .f'~
e ~ ~ ~
C'I ~ X"g
ti ~ =' i
~ c'5 i ~
:t ~ ~ -5
~ "S: "S: .!.!
i; ~ ~ ~
'"
N
.
.
~
.
B
R
~
.!! ~
~~
. ,
.i .~
~~
:l! !!
i ~
!~
o.
..,
.
~
.
~
.
. ~
.~ g
,d
::i: ~
.e ;
E 8 .. ~ !l
~u~Q ~
!lr.?~ 1;
~~1~.28.t!
Si~8.~j~
II ,~ 0 0 11l ..:!: ..
vZ8B~11
~ Q '0 :0 ~ lP ~
0;: g Ii ~ E 01) .:
.<: ~ - g.'; '5
~geij.!!~
C)<<!)c:J~gi
iLI~";~
os: . l::I C .e
~~~~~:o
'Zij
lei
Ii
.~.!. I:
I
.
~
E
E
~8
.a g'
Cf.l i
. R
. ~
=~
GUS
~g
. ~
E .
g-~
Qj~
~ ~
o.
~ ~
o 0
. ~
E ~
""~
o .
~ Q
iJ
o
.,.
.
. m
1: !:!'
'" ~
~u
,g ~
tt. K
"" ~
o ~
. <
! ~ ~
-' . 0
..::"J:! :.::
s: ~
= Iii ~
l!'.~ 3
. C "<
G~JJ
=~1
I ~ ~
.. . .
-S~~
> 0 .
. u ~
o
"'
I
Ii
C
o
":1
.
~
)l .8
~ .
"" E
.11
u=
Q ..
'i 5
C 8
~t;;~
~7'<"
I
D
.6
.
o .
,2 ::E
~ ..
All ~
, ~
. ..
II E
<J 0
~ ~
::c t: ..
G. ~ .1
"" =
~ g ~
0l!I 6 CI)
1:: g' ~ ~
8. 1:: i 1;; ~.
& i ~ ~
'iiQ::!i~1
.E].r~B
u. Ll. ODLl. "I:l
~il~!
~~~~~
o.
~
I
I
"0
o
,
o
<J
~
.c
.
..
.
=
.
o.
..
o
,g
e
.
""
..
o
o
<J
.
.
-'
~
..
..
"jj)
~
.
R
o
z
i
~
o
U
D
C
'C
.
<ll
~~
3 :,;:;
~ Z
;l! Cl
EO";;; .&i
~ 5: ii
~8 :!i
li~~
~:Ii 5 ~
21 " 8 -
fi~S~
.. c.
Cl~,g ~
~3~~
~ i Ii
I Q .. ..
Q> 5i ~ ~
00 l:: C
Q. .
o~ 0
Y-'~p~
~
~
D
c
"
,
.
c
o
u
z
Q
"'
..
W
%
1311
. .
EXHIBIT 2
MUNICIPAUTY OF CLARINGTON
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY -LAW REVIEW AND AMENDMENT
PROPOSED BUDGET
1. BREADOWN OF COSTS BY TASK AND TIME
Professional Time I Fees
ProiectDirector Consultant Growth Forecast
Craig Binning Stefan Krzeczunowicz Russell Mathew
Total Total
Oa)'s Fee'
Days Fees De Fees De' Fees
Dall" Fee Rate (based on 7.5 hour day) $1,875 $825 $1,875
1 Project Initiation 1.0 $1,875 1.5 $1,238 0.0 10 2.5 $3,113
2 Review Background Data and Assumptions 2.0 13.750 3.0 $2,475 1.0 $1,875 6.0 $8.100
3 Preliminary Analysis 3.0 15.625 6.0 14.950 0.0 10 9.0 $10,575
4 Draft Amendment Development Charges Study 2.0 13.750 4.0 $3,300 0.5 1938 6.5 $7,988
5 Development Charges By.Law and Policy Review 2.5 $4,688 5.0 $4,125 0.0 10 7.5 $8,813
6 Prepare Final Report & Hold Public Consultation 1.5 $2,813 3.0 $2,475 0.5 $938 5.0 $6,225
7 By-Law Consideration & Passage by Council 1.0 $1,875 0.5 1413 0.0 10 1.5 $2,288
Subtotal Consultina Davs/Fees 13.0 $24,375 23.0 $18,975 2.0 $3,750 38.0 $47,100
Disbursements & Expenses (I.e. mileage, communication, printing, etc) $2,500
TOTAL FEES & DISBURSEMENTS (net of GST) $49,600
REMSON
1312
HANDOUTS 1 CIRCULATIONS
FOR GP&A
Cl!J!ilJglOn
MEMO
TO: Mayor, Member of Council
FROM: Anne Greentree, Deputy Clerk
DATE: November 29, 2007
RE: CORRESPONDENCE
Please find attached correspondence with respect to Public Meeting item (b) Report
PSD-137-07.
/
~.'" / /
. ~J /
/.;....(~ ~,/\--:-;L
"./;>/. '\ /?i/-;/'-----...
A~e Gr~entree' -,; V
CAG*mea
cc: P. Barrie
T. Cannella
J. Caruana
F. Horvath
M. Marie
G. Weir
N. Taylor
D. Creme
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ClARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1 C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-6506
Nov 29, 2007 - General Purpose & Administration Committee Meeting
Submitted by: Grant & Catharine Martin
Re: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan - January 2007
Planning Department: Reports PSD 058-07 and PSD 059-07
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor, Members of Council and Planning Committee:
I am addressing you to-day on behalf of the directly impacted residents of Rebecca Court listed
below and others:
Dave & Jane Passant
Rick & Donna McCreary
Mike & Caroline Dodds
Peter & Heather Abramczuk
Gord & Rosemary Baker
George & Cheryl Strilchuk
As long time residents of Clarington and homeowners on Rebecca Court, which is adjacent to the
proposed Northglen Neighbourhood, we do not stand in opposition to the development, but do
have concerns regarding the applications for amendments to the official plan (as per PSD 058-07
and PSD 059-07.
We feel our concerns dated and presented on May 22, 2007 OP A meeting have still not been
addressed. The concerns documented we believe are still valid and need to be acknowledged, ie:
fencing, transition area, larger lots and architectural control (ie: housing with no siding adjacent
to Rebecca Crt).
We also are concerned as residents of Bowmanville on the impact to the infrastructure (roads,
congested access points and services) with the proposed additional housing and population
targets.
I would ask the Major, Members of Council and Planning Committee acknowledge our
outstanding concerns and that these concerns be reviewed through this amendment process.
We have attached the document submitted and presented May 22, 2007 as reference.
May 22, 2007 - General Purpose & Administration Committee Meeting
Submitted by: Grant & Catharine Martin
Re: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan - January 2007
Planning Department: Reports PSD 058-07 and PSD 059-07
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor and Members of Council:
I am addressing you to-day on behalf of the residents of Rebecca Court listed below:
Dave & Jane Passant Peter & Heather Abramczuk
Rick & Donna McCreary Gord & Rosemary Baker
Mike & Caroline Dodds George & Cheryl Strilchuk
As long time residents of Clarington and homeowners on Rebecca Court, which is adjacent to
the proposed Northglen Neighbourhood, we do not stand in opposition to the development, but
do have concerns regarding the applications for amendments to the official plan (as per PSD
058-07 and PSD 059-07. While understanding that the owners and developers of the property
wish to get as much yield as possible, it is also our understanding that the role of our elected
officials is ensure the key principles of sustainable development, healthy communities and
growth management continue to be the priorities on which decisions are made.
The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan dated January 2007 includes the following objectives
and policies:
Section 5.3.6 - The Municipality shall seek to ensure increased density for new neighbourhoods
having regard for proposed measures to integrate existing residential areas with such
neighbourhoods.
Section 6.2.4 - To provide opportunities for residential intensification, which are physically
compatible with and sensitive to the physical character of existing neighbourhoods.
Section 9.5.5 - Natural features will be a key design consideration. . . Residential
neighbourhoods will be "designed with nature" to minimize grade changes, preserve mature
trees and enhance open space linkages.
- Cultural heritage features will provide context for new development in existing
neighbourhoods, new development will be compatible with and complementary to its context
with regard to siting, height, scale and design.
We understand that prior proposed Northglen Neighbourhood plans have included parkland and
a school adjacent to Rebecca Court. In both of these cases, a distinct transition area from our
existing community and the proposed development would have existed. Additionally, an
appropriate barrier (fence) would have been installed to control the egress or exit from the
proposed development and the existing residential lots.
In Report PSD 058-07, Rebecca Court is identified as an "Estate Subdivision known as the Rills
of Liberty". The lot sizes on Rebecca Court vary from 1.5 to 3 acres and most are generously
treed. We believe the owner/developer will benefit from the fact that these lots will adjoin estate
lots and the purchasers will benefit due to the approximately 350 feet of green space between
their home and ours.
In reference to the above points and, we ask that you, Mayor and Members of Council give
sincere consideration to the requests outlined below.
>> Size of the proposed development lots which are adjacent to Rebecca Court properties be
changed from the primarily proposed 15 m lot size to a minimum of 18 m front and back.
>> Retention and upgrading of the existing wire/post fence. While noise reduction will not be
an issue, the fact that thousands of residents will be looking for a shortcut to Liberty Street
will be.
>> The existing homes on Rebecca Court are all constructed from natural materials (ie, brick,
stucco). Under Bill 51 and under The Places to Grow Plan, the municipality has the power
of exterior design. We request you exercise that power and ensure the houses which will
back onto the existing homes be all-brick, not more than 2 storeys high.
>> We would also request that any structure higher than 2 storeys be placed no closer than 500
metres from the existing properties on Rebecca Court.
Additionally, we have concerns regarding the requested increase in housing and population for
the proposed Northglen development. We understand the process for requesting an
amendment, but we find it difficult to understand how the housing and growth forecasts of the
Official Plan approved in January 2007 can accommodate an adjustment of this magnitude.
The concern is how Northglen is obtaining their increase in numbers? Is it their rational to
include 'Rills of Liberty' to obtain their density numbers? With these increases are they still
obtaining their 70%, 20% and 10% density requirements, if Rills of Liberty was removed?
Also, the proposed increase in number of units in the Official Plan was to have a projected
growth to 110,000 persons by 2011, 130,000 by 2016,24,300 units for 20 years between
1991- 2011 or an average of 1,200 units/yr. This amendment proposes significant increases
above the approved projection.
Does this the amendment support these planned projections and approved density
requirements?
Section 6.3.5 of the Official Plan states that proposals for residential intensification will be
permitted where the following criteria are met:
a) there are adequate municipal services to accommodate increased demands including
water supply, sanitary and storm sewers, schools and parkland;
b) the site is accessible to community facilities, shopping and public transit;
c) there is capacity in the road systems to accommodate additional traffic;
d) the proposal is physically compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood in terms of
scale, massing, height, siting and shadowing; and
e) there is adequate on-site parking.
>> As homeowners on Rebecca Court, our water pressure in 1994 was 65 psi; it currently sits
at 50 psi. What impact will the request for increased density have in this regard?
>> Traffic on the main roads within Bowmanville at peak hours is already a problem. How do
you plan on accommodating the additional vehicles that will be on our roads as a result of
the ongoing development in Bowmanville, and specifically the thousands of vehicles that will
result if the current Northglen proposal becomes reality? ie, Backups on the 401 currently
exist at Liberty St. and Waverly/Hwy. 57 eastbound exits, due in large part to the volume
and single lane feeder roads within Bowmanville (ie, Liberty St., Hwy. 57). Concession Rd. 3
and Highway 57 interchange will see a considerable increase in congestion and, in its
current design, already poses a significant risk for motorists.
As concerned citizens, we would appreciate your feedback on how the proposed amendments
support the Municipality's development objectives as stated in Section 7.2 of the Official Plan.
1. Job Retention: Attain 1 job for every 3 residents in Clarington?
2. Balanced Growth: attain non -residential to residential assessment ratio
of 25:75?
Cl!Jlpn
MEMO
CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor Abernethy and Members of Council
Anne Greentree, Deputy Clerk
November 30,2007
GENERAL PURPOSE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA - November 30, 2007 - UPDATE
Please be advised of the following amendments to the GPA agenda for the meeting held on
Monday, December 3, 2007:
4 (b ) DELEGATIONS
Additions
(ix) Libby Racansky, Durham/York Energy from Waste, Report
PSD-141-07
(x) Linda Gasser, Procedural By-law, Report CLD-041-07
Deletions
(Hi) Dennis Ebbs, Report EGD-028-07 (March 5/07)
6 (e) Report PSD-141-08
Please see attached revised Attachment #4 for Report PSD-141-07.
cc: F. Wu, Chief Administrative Officer
Department Heads
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-6506
Revised Attachment 4
To Report PSD-141-07
T~b" U Summll'y of Shott-llst Sites AdYantagu aad Dls.1cMntaQft
~~~i@~IM"
Air Quafity 1mpae1s
'N.... Q~1lty ItnpllC1s
(Surf.1ce Wa.r and
G~dw.t...)
Enviror'ltMntaUy s.nsitMt
Antas and S~H
Impacts
Aq~tic .and T errestri.l
Ecology Imp.cts
ADVANTAGE
NEUTRAl
NEUTRAL NEUTRAL.
NEUTRAL NEUTRAl DISADVANTAGE
ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE
DISADVANTAGE MAJOR DISAOVANT AGE
DISADVANTAGE
NEUTRAL MAJOR DISADVANTAGE
DISADVANTAGE
ADVANTAGE
OVERALL:
ADVANTAGE
Comp.tibllity with ExlRng MAJOR
and/or Proposltd Land ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL
UM'
Residltntlal A/'HS ADVANTAGE MAJOR NEUTRAL DISADVANTAGE
DISADVANTAGE
P.rks and R~..tiooal NEUTRAL ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE
Ant...
Institutional FacUitMls or ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE
Antn
Areh.leologleal and DISADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE MAJOR NEUTRAL
CuJ~ral RuourC>e1 DISADVANTAGE
POMntial Trafllo Impacts NEUTRAl. DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL DISADVANTAGE
OVERALL: ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL
Caplul COlts NEUTRAL DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE
_r~~9II;'JII~iIW~jjrl{>4 ;~:}'c&mifim'ii';;' 'i," 'C~O$,r' tJ, 'EBti~~
.i9),VRl~~~r,::~j\"~~:~:y:'t;t. ~C<~ "* : i~#7<{ ~ t :: '"~~~ ~ ,; "~1(. :v< ~'i~ .} ~x<~<"> OJ, t :/,
~li~.Jt&l.ifb:Yo.m'~>.!I."",..<<4"~"'~4 {J", s: _ @~.<<<~ ,,"^ u ~ Vi'",<< \"'~.. "" < 't. ,,~^ ~'"' ~ v~.' oI''L..<< ~ """"'0_ill """~"_~,, t.<< ;X'" "" , ~~~t;:,.
Operation and ADVANTAGE NEUTRAL ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE
Maintenance Costs
OVERALL: ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL NEUTRAL
Tecl1flical.COl'lIId8ratfori.
Compatibility with existing
Infrastructure
DesignlOperatklnaJ
Flexibility Provided by Site
OVERALL:
Legal COllslderatlon.
Complexity of Required OISADV ANT AGE DISADVANTAGE DISADV ANT AGE DISADVANTAGE
Approvals
Complexity of Required ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE ADVANTAGE
Agreements
OVERALL: NEUTRAL DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE NEUTRAL
YorkRegitm
Durham/York
Residual Waste
Study
Executive Summary
Thermal Facility Site Selection Process
Results of Step 7: Evaluation of Short-List
of Sites and Identification of Preferred Site
September, 2007
.~ GENNAR
JtL
Executive Summary
Thermal Facility Site Selection Process
Results of Step 7: Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and
Identification of Consultant's Preferred Site
Executive Summary
The Minister of the Environment approved the Terms of Reference for the DurhamNork
Residual Waste Environmental Assessment Planning Study (the Study) on March 31, 2006. In
Accordance with the approved EA Terms of Reference, potential siting locations for the
preferred technology would be determined and evaluated. Based on the evaluation of these
potential locations (Alternatives Methods) it is concluded that the preferred long-term site for a
thermal treatment facility for managing the residual waste remaining after achieving 60% to 75%
diversion is the site referred to as Clarington 0 I which is owned by the Region of Durham,
located south of Highway 401, west ofOsboume Road and north ofa CN Rail corridor, in the
Municipality of Clarington.
\r""'"r'" 1
1:.'.).
P f . I ..... '.... J I P '...'
, q:. 0"1''''0 """'9. ,~.'"',.,.., ''(~~'{'Ll' 'J. . r;"'H""r.'~<:.'(.,'l .""y'. ~;.-:."'"
l w...l;OS t; _Vi, !C! ~,' I ~"",\V1f~ ~ """ ,,#.......~...,~,..;:J~...... v....',~~lit
The preferred long-term residuals processing system identified to manage the post-diversion or
residual wastes is System 2(a) - Thermal Treatment ofMSW and Recovery of Energy followed
by Recovery of Materials from the Ash/Char. More specifically, System 2(a) entails the
establishment of thermal treatment capacity to process the residual waste stream and recover
energy, followed by the removal of materials that may be sold to market from the ash/char
residue, and finally the landfilling of all process residues (non-combustible materials removed
prior to treatment and from the ash/char).
Although System 2(a) has been has been approved as the Preferred Long Term Residual
Processing System, it is important to note that new technologies categorized in System 2(b) -
Thermal Treatment of Solid Recovered Fuel were recognized as offering important benefits. As a
result it was approved that the competitive process used during the evaluation of Alternative
Methods will allow for the submission of proposals to implement both System 2(a) and System
2(b), with the final decision on the technologies used to implement the preferred residuals
processing system being based on the results of this competitive process.
. ') ,,,: ,,,.t.;';:, ~"'~; ~ n " .~.;.., L-:l.~ r... ~\ 'f j ; .~t Af '~i.l.~,~
~: ~.::... ,~... . ,,," ~::a ~ t. i i ~,~,::: :.~,..1: J.... r -.\..:: r-.; .:oJ; ~:J' ~'~ _~~ "." ':"h ~t..-.:)
Following the identification of a preferred technology, a seven-step facility site selection process
was initiated to identify a Preferred site for development of the Preferred DurhamN ork residual
waste processing system (i.e. a new thermal treatment facility).
Steps 1-5 of the site selection process were completed and issued for public and agency review in
March 2007. Through the completion of these steps a Long-list of potential locations were
evaluated resulting in the identification ofa Short-List of five (5) sites to be carried forward into
the Short-List evaluation process. The Short-List of sites are referred to as follows:
. Clarington 01/02
. Clarington 03
. Clarington 04
. Clarington 05
. East Gwillimbury 0 I
~ GENlVAR
ES-1
.J~
Executive Summary
Thermal Facility Site Selection Process
Results of Step 7: Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and
Identification of Consultant's Preferred Site
A detailed account of the steps taken to identify the Short-List of sites is provided in the report
entitled Draft Report - Thermal Facility Site Selection Process Results of Steps 1-5 Identification
of the Short-List of Alternative Sites, March 20073 available at www.durhamvorkwaste.ca.
After issuing the draft report identifying the Short-List of sites, two of the six sites were removed
from consideration. Site Clarington 02 was removed from the Short-List as the land use
designation for the property changed in late March 2007 such that the site no longer met Step 2
evaluation criteria. Site Clarington 03 was removed from the Short-List as the site was
withdrawn from consideration by the private owner of the property, such that this site could no
longer be considered a 'willing seller' property.
,.......... ,"",
l'::;;. j
.... i" '\ j' t . f ..... 0 ',",
~tep 0: }~Jignmen 0 :::>1t!ng; roC<~S5 an,1 C
::~
",,,,,,.,
;. ~~-,"::;;
It was originally envisioned in the EA Terms of Reference (Step 6) that potential technology
vendors would be provided the opportunity to submit a site along with their technology during
the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. Under the advisement of procurement and legal
counsel, it was determined that these two processes (submission of a site, and submission of
technology qualifications) should be completed as two entirely separate processes. Completing
these processes as part of the same competitive process could represent an unfair advantage to
those vendors offering both a site and a technology versus only those vendors providing a
technology and thereby jeopardize the success of the competitive process.
By "uncoupling" the RFQ and Request for Proposals (RFP) process from the siting process, it
allowed for a more "fair" process to those involved and also allowed for the completion of siting
activities in advance of the completion of the formal RFQ/RFP process for technology(ies). The
siting component of Step 6 was addressed through the development of a Request for Expressions
of Interest (REOI) which included distribution to potential technology vendors to provide the
opportunity for this group to potentially offer up a site through a formal competitive process as
described in the approved EA Terms of Reference.
~~: :3 ~ ,i~
:Z~f'~~'~:r") '7 ~ ~:~:\;';'..1' f ; ~"d ;",. ;') ."";.f ;:).' ,";J..,._ l~.. .:,;T.,.,f., . ~::r. .;:~; $.., '~','"
~.... -"--f'" .. , ........, -. - .~........ -.. - ~ .- ..
Following consultation on the Short-List of potential sites, a detailed comparative evaluation of
the sites was initiated. This assessment considered a broad range of potential impacts from the
potential development ofthe sites as well as impacts related to the haul routes, transfer
requirements and requirements for additional infrastructure to develop the sites.
Step 7 utilized criteria and indicators to measure potential effects. Identification of siting
preferences considered relative advantages and disadvantages based on net effects after the
consideration of mitigative measures reasonably available to address the potential of an effect
being realized.
The evaluation criteria applied at this Step were assembled under 5 categories:
· Public Health and Safety and Natural Environment;
· Social and Cultural;
· Economic / Financial;
· Technical Suitability; and
~ GENIVAR
E5-2
"Ii
ExeQJtive Summary
Thermal Facility Site Selection Process
Results of Step 7: Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and
Identification of Consultant's Preferred Site
. Legal.
Table 3.1 in the Draft Report entitled Thermal Facility Site Selection Process, Results of Step 7:
Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and Identification of Consultants Recommended Preferred Site,
September 2007 provides a detailed explanation of the evaluation categories, criteria, and
indicators as well as the rationale for considering and applying each indicator
.,~iternative Site Impact ,Assessmeflts
For the purpose of applying the evaluation criteria and indicators, determining potential effects
and the availability of mitigative measures, and the net effects associated with each Short-List
site, detailed impact assessments were completed by experts in the disciplines associated with
each criterion. The results of the impact assessments are detailed in separate reports as follows:
. Report on Potential Air Quality Impacts
. Report on Potential Water Quality Impacts (Surface Water and Groundwater)
. Report on Potential Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Species Impacts and Potential
Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology Impacts
. Report on Compatibility with Existing and/or Proposed Land Uses
. Report on Archaeological and Cultural Resources
. Report on Potential Traffic Impacts
. Report on Capital Costs, Operation and Maintenance Costs
. Report on Compatibility with Existing Infrastructure and Design/Operational Flexibility
. Report on Complexity of Required Approvals and Agreements
!Sr:;::-lJ:.L~st 2ites /~,d\"z~t:t;;;.~s and :::sadV2;vt:ges
The following table summarizes the advantages and disadvantages associated with each of the
Short-List sites based on net effects associated with the evaluation criteria categories:
Table ES-4.1 Summary of Short-Llst Sites Advantages and Disadvantages
~.
."~~~;,,~\i.w~~::.';
>~..~,~",..rj.t~.~'I>,::1I:t ""-4<I"~~':!~j
. ,~,,,:"'~:r-tJ ~,,,,;.~~.,,t,.,.,, ;.......~.~",.,'
PRIORITY: HIGH
Public Health and
Safety and Natural
Environment
Considerations
PRIORITY: MEDIUM
Social and Cultural
Considerations
Economic/Financial
Considerations
Technical
Considerations- -
PRIORITY: LOW
Legal Considerations
ADVANTAGE
NEUTRAL
MAJOR
DISADVANTAGE
DISADVANTAGE
ADVANTAGE
DISADVANTAGE
DISADVANTAGE
NEUTRAL
ADVANTAGE
DISADVANTAGE
NEUTRAL
NEUTRAL
ADVANTAGE
NEUTRAL
ADVANTAGE
ADVANTAGE
NEUTRAL
DISADVANTAGE
DISADVANTAGE
NEUTRAL
:1 GENIVAR
ES-3
4
"
Executive Summary
Thermal Facility Site Selection Process
Results of Step 7: Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and
Identiflcation of Consultant's Preferred Site
Table E5-4.1 Summary of Short-List Sites Advantages and Disadvantages
Overall:
ADVANTAGE
DISADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE
NEUTRAL
Based on the consideration of the advantages and disadvantages, the Recommended Preferred
site to manage the post-diversion or residual wastes from the proposed thermal treatment facility
is Clarington 01. This site is considered to represent the preferred balance of advantages and
disadvantages based on the priorities associated with each of the environmental considerations
noted in the above table.
ES.5
r~ .. f ..... .1 "0 f j' <,,' .,.. ' " .
t tc..:c n ptI.O""'1 "\ :'ot,PoCt', r",; ,",,;:,,'''. ..:1.... . r::. C)'rr,,>c ........~.e. (:' .~I.. ....,,-, 1;'c (': "';~
~V'" ..1....' V, I...v v~~~~,,~~'Jy_...,.U;.;. ... ..,.1.... ""...~\.....,., .""".........~!,,:;:)........,,~L ~I:.
Site Clarington 01, illustrated in the following Figure ES-5.1, is undeveloped land owned by the
Region of Durham, south of Highway 401 in the Municipality ofClarington. The site is located
on the west side of Osbourne Road north ofa CN Rail corridor. There are commercial properties
north of the site. The lands east and west of the site are undeveloped and are currently used for
agricultural purposes. The Courtice Water Pollution Control Plant, which is scheduled to be
completed in 2007, is being built just south of the site, The Darlington Nuclear Generating
Station is located approximately 0.5 kilometres to the east. The nearest major intersection is
Highway 401 and Courtice Road, which is approximately 1.7 kilometres from the site. The site is
approximately 12.1 hectares in area and is located in the Clarington Energy Park.
!I GENIVAR
ES-4
"Ii
Executive Summary
Thermal Facility Site Selection Process
Results of Step 7: Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and
Identification of Consultant's Preferred Site
Figure ES-5.1
Recommended Preferred Site Location
Legelld
CJ -.....
c::> .'P.."....."-rf.~.
-
'-
-_.........,.......~
..... ....... 4.i __
_a.ae.'I.....1IIUI
.-
. ......
. ..........~
.. ~'''".:aH.....c..,.,I..~.
I GENl\i\Il ,iff!
~
5QIon!_ mI
a ':!II JS! D;.
/-.~ .r.s
'llIm
Durnam i YOlk
Re$ldual Wa5le S"tly
ClllI'lng1cn 01
'~:H3 Next Steps
The following provides an outline of the next steps in the completion of the Durham/Y ork
Residual Waste Study.
Puc[1c and ,agency Consu!taticn
On September 25, 2007 the Joint Waste Management Group will receive the Consultants
Recommendation on the Preferred Site and will be requested to authorize the release of the Draft
Report entitled Thermal Facility Site Selection Process, Results of Step 7: Evaluation ofShort-
List of Sites and Identification of Consultants Recommended Preferred Site, September 2007
including all supporting documentation for public and agency consultation. With authorization,
the public and agency consultation will be completed as follows:
I. The consultant tews draft report and supporting documentation will be released to the
public and government review agencies for a period of30 days starting on September 26,
2007 and ending on October 13,2007.
2. Notification will be issued of the availability of the draft report by way of direct contact
with the established public and government review agency list and by way of the website
and local media for the general public.
3. Copies of the draft documentation will be forwarded to the public and government
agencies in the established contact lists and copies placed in the local libraries, municipal
offices and on the study website for public review.
~ GENIVAR
ES-5
"4
}
ExeQJtive Summary
Thermal Facility Site Selection Process
Results of Step 7: Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and
Identification of Consultant's Preferred Site
4. Public Information Sessions will be held in both Durham and York during October, 2007.
These sessions will be held to allow the public an opportunity to ask questions of the
consultants and Regional staff.
5. A telephone poll will be conducted during late October or early November, 2007,
reaching individuals in Durham and York Regions to determine their support for the
Recommended Preferred site.
6. Comments received during the draft report review period will be documented and
included in the final report on the Preferred site to be submitted to both Regional
Councils for approval. Comments will be considered and addressed, as appropriate,
during finalization of this report.
:f :.n L,t;zr!.n EA PI:Lirl frg Qc.Cd{~;,grt
Following the approval ofthe Preferred site by Durham and York Regional Councils, an Interim
EA Planning document will be prepared. This document will outline the EA process followed to
date, including:
1. Development and approval of the EA Terms of Reference;
2. Evaluation of Alternatives to and the identification of thermal treatment as the Preferred
system; and,
3. Evaluation of Alternative Methods and the identification of the Preferred site.
This document will form the basis of the draft EA document that will be submitted to the
Minister of the Environment in late 2008/early 2009. Over the course of2008, the Interim EA
Planning document will be updated as additional studies are completed and the preferred
technology vendor is identified. At that time the formal EA submission (including a draft and
final EA document) will be prepared.
:~:.;:....,:~s ~:) ::c~
.' :""r," ,\
",'.~ ,>;" ~,.. :~2~;:'~T,::..~
:: ,'~ ":: (: (
The engagement of the private sector to Design, Build and Operate the proposed thermal
treatment facility is being undertaken in two (2) stages as follows:
Stage 1: Request for Qualifications
On July 12,2007, Durham Region's Finance Department, co-ordinated and issued a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) for the Thermal Treatment of Residual Waste. This RFQ along with the
Request for Proposals (scheduled to be issued in early 2008) form part of the evaluation of
Alternative Methods and will be documented in a separate summary report.
The release of the RFQ is the first step in the process of the Regions of Durham and York
identifying, assessing the qualifications of, and ultimately selecting a vendor and a specific form
of thermal treatment technology that meets the aforementioned principles. Those proponents
who respond to this RFQ, and satisfy its requirements, will be qualified to submit a detailed
proposal.
!I GENIVAR
ES-6
"Ii
Executive Summary
Thermal Facility Site Selection Process
Results of Slep 7: Evaluation of Short-Ust of Sites and
Identification of Consultant's Preferred Site
Stage 2: The Request for Proposal Process
Following completion of the RFQ stage, Qualified Respondents will be invited to provide
detailed proposals in response to an RFP that will include the design, construction and operating
contract (collectively the "RFP"). The RFP will describe the Regions' requirements and
performance expectations for design, construction and operation of the thermal treatment facility.
The Regions will evaluate the detailed proposals received from the Qualified Respondents. The
Regions will also seek any necessary clarifications, and then determine whether the Regions'
objectives can be met. After reviewing the RFP submissions, the successful Qualified
Respondent (the "Preferred Vendor") will be selected for the purposes of concluding a contract.
The above timing is tentative and subject to change at the sole discretion ofthe Regions.
~ GENIVAR
ES-7
JIi
Nov. 30, 2007
Town of Clarington
Clerk's Dept. and
Planning Dept. (att T Webster)
, 07NOlJ30 At'111: 59: 38
RE:--ZBA 2007 - 0031
COPA 2007 - 0010
SC 2007 - 0007
..'...------
~. Ot:;;.fRt3UTl6t-r-,
f CtU:~. .. .___.~,.~... f
I ,
i .1 'I. ::.. I
FROM :--- Hugh and Carol Ann Neill
2111 Prestonvale Rd
Courtice Ont
L 1 e2s2
. 0(<+ "2BA" ~~ro.~r-'-~
Please reVIew our comments below fh9 CDPA. ~CYJ7 -ci::J,',S-
Dr?;). S.c Q.CC57 - crx) -(:
I. We would suggest that LESS medium density homes be planned and a resulting . '._ ...__
More low density homes planned and built. We would suggest that the medium density'" . .. __
area south oflot # 84 be replaced by low density. ." ,_, ,. .._".
As you know, there is a higher than nonnal volume of medium and high density homes
built and planned to be built in this area of Courtice as can be readily seen from Bloor
street and Meadowglade today and will be seen at the comer of Prestonvale and Bloor
streets and along Meadowglade st in the future. Unless your plan is to turn this area into
a "PROJECT" type of affordable home area like Toronto has, changes are required.
2. The homes located on Prestonvale, should be similar to the existing homes there now.
They should all have driveway turnarounds to eliminate backing on to Prestonvale.
3. Traffic calming should be continued on Prestonvale.
4. Street "A" should W ~ alimed with the existing street to the west (partner st.) to
slow down drive through traffic.
5. Street "A" should only have access to Meadowglade to reduce traffic volume on
Prestonvale. Pedestrian access only, should be allowed.
6. Traffic stop lights should be added to the comers of Prestonvale and Meadowglade
streets and at Meadowglade and Bloor (site of one traffic death).
Please keep us infonned.
1~
/"
December 3,2007
Good Morning
1'm Shirley Crago and I live on the east side of Osbourne Rd. opposite the proposed site
for the incinerator.
Our property has 1 field, Y4 mile wide separating it from the site. The new sewage plant
is directly south of the incinerator with Lake Ontario within the outer rim of the circle
designating the critical fall-out area from the incinerator. By the way, people from
Newcastle, Oshawa & Bowmanville obtain their drinking water from Lake Ontario.
We own lake frontage. The lake causes very dense fog at times which extends to 401.
There the present traffic from St Marys, OPG, the new sewage plant, the proposed
incinerator, local traffic, Courtice traffic, the Provincial Park and the new link from 407
will all converge at this central area. The final result will be a thick smog due to fuel
emIssIons.
My ~oid prescription has been increased in strength. Cancer is also of grave concern.
This is the 2nd largest location in Ontario for asthma, constructing an incinerator here
would be a major disaster waiting to happen. No regard for the health of the incinerator
employees, truckers or their families has been considered.
70% of the material incinerated will go up the 213' stack. What goes up must come
down. Instead of putting this in a central landfill the wind will deposit it on the ground
for a very long distance or in the lake.
This GARBAGE will be on your lawn as well as mine. YES I said garbage because
nothing changes except the size of the deposit. It is not sterile steam coming out of the
stack. Garbage doesn't vanish into thin air.
The high risk circle infringes on approximately 9 soccer fields on our other side. The
rain will drive the toxic waste down many inches by 2036. In the meantime the youth of
many communities will be playing in the ash concealed in the grass.
An incinerator will forever ban any type of agriculture from this area. All animals will be
involved as well as their products. All crops will be unsafe for feed. All fruit & veggies
will be subject to the toxins.
Strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, apples, com, tomatoes, cucumbers, eggs and all
other agricultural products will no longer be available for a safe eatable meal. At least 8
major local growers will be driven out of business.
Clarington had a total of 13,500 tonnes of garbage in 2006. Why do we need an
"
incinerator requiring 400,000 tonnes of garbage every year? Ifwe must have one, erect
it for the needs of Durham only. Other regions refused to have it, why can't we?
Clarington tax payers cannot afford such a luxUl)'.
You are defeating the purpose of recycling and composting by suggesting your
willingness to welcome anyone's unwanted trash. No only that, but you are encouraging
them to send as much as they desire because you have to feed the monster 7/24/365 at a
constant grocery supply. The cupboard is bare so you'll have to go begging. Remember
nothing is free.
Halton has cancelled all plans to build so I'm told. If they can keep their junk so can
York. Northumberland seems to be self sufficient.
By cutting out trespassers we can lower pollution, taxes, traffic and the cost of a huge
mistake we don't have to make. Not only that but maybe our Industrial Energy Park
could become a reality. OPG recently purchased about 62 acres for future use although
they only desired 20 acres.
Here is a copy of a recently released secret document from the US military archives. It is
titled" A 1935 US Plan for Invasion of Canada". But the context was approved in May
1930 by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy.
In it the take-over of Canada is described in detail. It is possible that WW2 is the only
reason it was not put into action. If all supply lines were cut there would have been no
need to invade.
Not only that but our small population would have made resistance futile. Americans
have the reputation of being fighters, while Canada has made her mark as peace keepers.
We are no longer self sustaining. Weare selling our land, businesses, factories and rare
materials to foreign countries. Weare also allowing them to construct neighbourhoods
where no English is spoken or written word displayed. Wal-Mart is driving many smaller
businesses out of existence.
If incineration is the way to go, why has the US banned all new incinerators and
dismantled approximately 100 of the factories manufacturing new ones? Only 3 are left
and they can only produce for export. When the present incinerators are condemned they
cannot be replaced.
Why are you planning on buying an incinerator that is banned in its own country?
Durham Works was recently delivered to us. It stated that plastic bags could be recycled
to make other plastic items such as patio furniture, decking and waste receptacles. This is
not so. When plastic is heated it releases deadly dioxins. Do not place any plastic in a
micro oven. The dioxins seep into the food.
Why doesn't Clarington have recycle every week & garbage every other week? I have
little garbage but the recycle box is well used. Change the 3 bags of garbage every week
to 4 bags every 2nd week. Northumberland has to buy a tag for every bag. If recycling
and composting is done properly 6 bags of garbage is far too much in 2 weeks.
We need to do something to get out of 6th place out of 8. Whitby has come 1 st 2 yrs in a
row. What's wrong with us?
Mayor Abernethy promised he would not sign anything that would be detrimental to
Clarington.
. .
II GI ,\S~OST
- archiv
quellen
Geschichte
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 11:35:53 EST
From: FLOYD RUDMIN
Newsgroups: soc. culture. canada
A 1935 US Plan for Invasion of Canada
Submitted by F.W. Rudmin
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario Canada
Email: rudminf@qucdn.queensu.ca
FAX: (613) 545-6611
The following is a full-text reproduction of the 1935
plan for a US invasion of Canada prepared at the US Army
War College, G-2 intelligence division, and submitted on
December 18, 1935. This is the most recent declassified
invasion plan available from the US archival sources.
Centered pagination is that of the original document. The
spelling and punctuation of the original document are
reproduced as in the original document, even when in error
by present-day norms.
This document was first identified by Richard Preston
in his 1977 book, "The Defence of the Undefended Border:
Planning for War in North America 1867-1939" (Montreal:
McGill-Queen's University Press.) Preston's reference
citation (p. 277) identified this to be archived at the US
Military History Collection, Carlisle Barracks, Pa., coded
AWC 2-1936-8, G2, no. 19A. It was located by the US
National Archives and supplied on microfilm.
The military planning context of this document is War
Plan Red, which was approved in May 1930 by the Secretary
of War and the Secretary of Navy. War Plan Red and
supporting documents are available from the US National
Archives on microfilm, in the Records of the Joint Board,
1903-1947, Roll 10, J.B. 325, Serial 435 through Serial
641. In War Plan Red, the US Army's theatre of operations
is defined to be: "All CRIMSON territory" (p.80), and the
US Army's mission, in bold type: ULTIMATELY, TO GAIN
COMPLETE CONTROL OF CRIMSON (p. 84). CRIMSON is the
colour code for Canada. In 1934, War Plan Red was amended
to authorize the immediate first use of poison gas against
Canadians and to use strategic bombing to destroy Halifax
if it could not be captured.
In February 1935, the War Department arranged a
Congressional appropriation of $57 million dollars to
build three border air bases for the purposes of
pre-emptive surprise attacks on Canadian air fields. The
base in the Great Lakes region was to be camouflaged as a
civilian airport and was to "be capable of dominating the
industrial heart of Canada, the Ontario Peninsula" from p.
61 of the February 11-13, 1935, hearings of the Committee
on Military Affairs, House of Representatives, on Air
Defense Bases (H.R. 6621 and H.R. 4130). This testimony
was to have been secret but was published by mistake. See
the New York Times, May 1, 1935, p. 1.
In August 1935, the US held its largest peacetime
military manoeuvres in history, with 36,000 troops
converging at the Canadian border south of Ottawa, and
another 15,000 held in reserve in Pennsylvania. The war
game scenario was a US motorized invasion of Canada, with
the defending forces initially repulsing the invading Blue
forces, but eventually to lose "outnumbered and outgunned"
when Blue reinforcements arrive. This according to the
Army's pamphlet "Souvenir of of the First Army Maneuvers:
The Greatest Peace Time Event in US History" (p.2).
The following document is a declassified public
domain document and may be freely reproduced. This should
be of particular interest to people in the Halifx and
Quebec City regions, then considered to be the most
strategic cities in Canada.
-40-
SUPPLEMENT NO. 3
TO
REPORT OF COMMITTEE NO. 8
SUBJECT:
CRITICAL AREAS OF CANADA AND APPROACHES THERETO
Prepared by:
SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 3
Major Charles H. Jones, Infantry, Chairman.
Lt. Col. H.W. Crawford, Engineers.
I. Papers Accompanying.
1. Bibliography.
2. List of Slides.
3. Appendices (1 and 2) .
4. Annexes. (Incl. A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,K,
(Omitted, filed in Rec.Sec.)
"
"
and L)
"
II. The Study Presented.
Determine under the geographical factor, the critical areas in
Crimson (Canada) and the best approaches thereto for Blue. A critical
area is assumed to be any area of such strategic importance to either
belligerent that control thereof may have a material bearing on the out-
come of the war.
III. Facts bearing on the study.
1. General Considerations:
An area in Crimson territory may be of strategic importance from
the viewpoint of tactical, economic, or political considerations. In the
final analysis, however, critical areas must be largely determined in the
light of Red's probable line of action and Crimson's contribution to that
effort.
2. Geographical Features of Canada.
a. Location and extent. The location and extent of the Dominion of
Canada is shown on the Map herewith (see Exhibit A). It comprises the
entire northern half of the the North American continent, excepting only
Alaska and the coast of Labrador, a dependency of the colony of New-
foundland.
The principal political subdivisions are those located along the
border of the United States. These from east to west are:
(1) The Maritime Provinces:
Prince Edward Island.
Nova Scotia.
New Brunswick.
(2) Quebec.
(3) Ontario.
(4) The Prairie Provinces:
Manitoba.
Saskatchewan.
Alberta.
-41-
(5) British Columbia.
Newfoundland, while not a part of the Dominion of Canada, would
undoubtedly collaborate in any Crimson effort.
b. Topography. (Slide 14852)
The great area in eastern Canada underlain by rocks of Precambrian
age is known as the Canadian Shield. Its northern boundary crosses the
Arctic archipelago; the eastern boundary lies beyond Baffin Island and
Labrador, and reaches the depressed area occupied by the St. Lawrence, a
short spur crossing this valley east of Lake Ontario to join the Adirondack
Mountains of New York. The southern boundary runs from this spur west to
Georgian Bay thence along the north shore of Lake Huron and Lake Superior,
thence northwest from the Lake of the Woods to the western end of Lake
Athabaska. Its average elevation does not exceed 1500 feet. The greatest
known elevations are in the eastern part of Baffin Island and along the
coast of northern Labrador. Peaks of the Torngat Mountains of Labrador
have elevations of between 4000 and 5000 feet. The coast is one of the
boldest and most rugged in the world, with many vertical cliffs rising
1000 to 2000 feet high. Occasional exceptions occur in which there are
reliefs of several hundred feet, as in the hills along the north shore of
Lake Huron and Lake Superior. The area is dotted with lakes, large and
small, and of irregular outline. A lowland of considerable extent
stretches for some distance into Ontario and Manitoba from Hudson Bay.
Extending south and west form the Canadian Shield, between the Ap-
palachian Mountains on the east and the Cordilleras on the west, lies the
Great North American plain. The northeastern portion of this plain called
the St. Lawrence lowlands occupies southern Ontario, south of a line ex-
tending from Georgian Bay to the east end of Lake Ontario; eastern Ontario
lying between the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, and that part of Quebec
lying adjacent to the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec.
The plain west of the Canadian Shield, known as the Interior Plains,
stretches northward to the Arctic Ocean between a line approximately join-
ing Lake Winnipeg and Lake Athabasca, Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake
on the east, and the foothills of the Rocky Mountains on the west.
That part of the St. Lawrence Lowlands lying in the eastern angle of
Ontario, and in Quebec south of Montreal and extending down the St. Law-
rence is comparatively flat and lies less than 500 feet above sea level.
On the lower St. Lawrence it is greatly narrowed by the near approach of
the Appalachian system to the Canadian Shield. The part lying adjacent to
Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron is of less even surface, has its greatest
elevation of over 1700 feet south of Georgian Bay and slopes gently to
the Great Lakes.
The Interior Plains region is in general rolling country with broad
undulations and a slope eastward and northward of a few feet per mile,
. .
descending from an elevation of 3000 to 5000 feet near the mountains on the
west to less than 1000 feet at the eastern border. The rolling character
of the area is relieved by several flat topped hills, by flat areas that
formed the beds of extensive lakes, and by deep river valleys.
The Appalachain and Arcadian regions occupy practically all that part
of Canada lying east of the St. Lawrence, with the exception of the lowlands
west of a line joining Quebec City and Lake Champlain. The Applachain
region is a continuation into Quebec of three chains of the Applachain
system of mountains. The most westerly of these ranges, the Green Mountains
of Vermont, stretches northeast into the Gaspe peninsula, where it forms
flat topped hills some 3000 feet high. The Acadian region, which includes
-42-
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island is an alternation of
upland with hills and ridges rising 2500 feet and higher. Adjacent to the
Bay of Fundy is a series of ridges rising in places to 1200 feet. Between
these two New Brunswick uplands, which converge toward the southwest is a
lowland forming the whole eastern part of the province. This lowland ex-
tends east to include Prince Edward Island, the western fringe of Cape
Breton Island and the mainland of Nova Scotia north of the Cobequid moun-
tains, which have an elevation of 800 to 1000 feet. South of the Cobequid
Mountains lies a long narrow lowland stretching from Chedabucto Bay to
Minas Basin, and along the Cornwallis Annapolis valley between North and
South Mountains. South of this lowland is a highland sloping to the Atlantic
Coast. The northern part of Cape Breton Island is a tableland 1200 feet
high with its central part rising to an elevation of over 1700 feet.
The Cordelleran region, a mountainous area bordering the Pacific
extends from the United States through Canada into Alaska and embraces
nearly all of British Columbia and Yukon and the western edge of Alberta
and the Northwest Territories. The eastern part of the Cordillera is occu-
pied by the Rocky Mountains, with peaks rising to 10,000 feet and 12,000
feet. They extend northwest and fall away towards the Liard River. The
western part of the Cordillera is occupied by the Coast Range and the
mountains of Vancouver and Queen Charlotte Islands. The Coast Range rises
to heights of 7000 to 9000 feet. Between the Rocky Mountains and the Coast
Range lies a vast plateau 3000 to 4000 feet high and cut by deep river
valleys.
3. Population.
According to the census of 1931, the total population on June I, 1931
was 10,376,786, of whom 5,374,541 were males. The inhabited areas of the
Dominion are essentially confined to a narrow strip alolo the United States
boundary, generally south of the 56th parallel of latitude west of the Lake
Winnipeg, and south of the 49th parallel of latitude east of Lake Superior.
Approximately 10% of the total population are found in the Maritime provinces,
61% in Quebec and Ontario, 23% in the Prairie Provinces and 6% in British
Columbia.
Of the present population, 51.86% are of British descent, 28.22%
French, and the remainder of widely scattered nativity.
4. Climate.
The climate of southern Canada is comparable to that of the northern
tier of the states of the United States. The west coast of British Columbia
tempered by the Pacific Ocean is mild and humid. The prairie provinces
generally experience extreme cold weather from November to March, with heavy
snow fall. The climate of southern Ontario, the St. Lawrence Valley and the
Maritime Provinces is much milder that that of the prairie provinces, but
freezing temperatures are general between the end of November and the first
of April, and the ground is usually covered with between one and three
feet of snow. Any extensive military operations in Canada between November
1st and April 15th would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
5. Communications.
a. Railways.
There are only two railway systems in Canada, both crossing Canada
east and west from the Atlantic to the Pacific. These lines generally
parallel the United States border, in some instances crossing through the
United States.
-43-
(1) The Canadian national Railways system (See inclosure B) belonging
to and operated by the government, has eastern terminals at Halifax, N.S.,
Portland, Maine (Grand Trunk), and through the Central Vermont, at Boston,
New London and New York. Western terminals are Vancouver and Prince Rupert
B.C. An extension from Cochrane, Ontario, to Moosonee, Ontario on James
Bay, was completed by the Province of Ontario in July 1932, to connect with
water routes to Churchill, Hudson Bay and with the northern route to Europe.
(2) The Canadian Pacific system (see inclosure C) has its eastern
terminus at Saint John, N.B. and it western terminus at Vancouver, B.C.
As indicated by the systems maps, there are numerous branch lines serving
the industrial and farming areas of the Dominion, and connecting lines ty-
ing in with various railroads of the United States.
From a military viewpoint, these railroads provide excellent trans-
portation facilities for Blue, if invasion of Crimson is decided upon, and
being located in close proximity to the border are, from the Crimson view-
point, very liable to interruption. This is particularly true at Winnipeg
some 60 miles north of Blues border, through which both transcontinental
systems now pass. This fact probably encouraged Canada to construct the
railroad from The Pass, Manitoba and develop the port at Churchill.
Complete details concerning all railroads of Canada are contained in
Appendix No.1.
b. Highways.
In recent years Canada has greatly increased and improved her road con-
struction and while there are enormous stretches of country, particularly
in the northern portion of the Dominion, with few or no roads, the southern
portion is well served with improved roads. A number of transcontinental
motor roads are under construction or projected, the most important being
the "Kings International Highway" from Montreal to Vancouver, via Ottawa,
North Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie, Winnipeg, MacLeod, Crow's Nest Pass,
Fernia and Cranbrook. Another highway is being constructed from
Calgary to Vancouver.
The principal roads in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces
are shown on Inclosure D, herewith. Roads in the Prairie Provinces and
British Columbia are shown on inclosure E.
The majority of improved roads are classified as gravel; macadam and
concrete construction amounting to only 7870 miles out of a total of some
95,000 miles improved. Gravel roads will require extensive maintenance
under heavy motor traffic, especially during the spring.
c. Water Transportation.
(1) Inland Waterways.
The Great Lakes, with the St. Lawrence River, is the most im-
portant fresh water transportation system in the world. At the present
time it affords a draft of 21.0 feet over all the Great Lakes and through
the WeIland Canal into the St. Lawrence. From the Atlantic Ocean to Mon-
treal, the present head of ocean navigation on the St. Lawrence, a draft
of 30.0 feet is available, adequate for the great majority of ocean shipping.
For some distance above Montreal the present channel has an available depth
of only 14.0 feet.
The inland waterway is of prime importance to the economic life
of both the United States and Canada for the transportation of bulk com-
modities, especially for the movement of wheat from the western plains to
shipping centers on the eastern seaboard; of iron ore from the mines in
Minnesota to foundaries along Lake Ontario; and for coal from the mines of
Pennsylvania and West Virginia to Ontario, Quebec and the northwest.
-44-
The locks at Sault Ste. Marie, the boundary channels between Port
Huron and Detroit and to a lesser degree the Welland Canal are the critical
points on this waterway and effective control of such areas is vital to
Blue.
Navigation on the Great Lakes is generally closed by ice from
about the end of November to the first of April.
The St. Lawrence River is ordinarily ice bound for a similar period,
but somewhat later about early in December to the latter part of April.
While there are a number of Canadian lake ports of importance, Montreal is
the only one which would not be automatically closed by Blue control of the
Lakes. Montreal is also an important ocean port and will be considered
along with other deep sea ports.
(2) Ocean Shipping.
The Dominion of Canada owns and operates a cargo and passenger
carrying fleet consisting of some 57 cargo vessels and 11 passenger ships.
The principal ocean ports and the magnitude of Canadian ocean
traffic is indicated by the following tabulation:
A. Number and tonnage of sea-going vessels entered and cleared at the
principal ports of Canada. (For year ending March 31, 1934.)
PORT
SEA-GOING VESSELS
arrived departed TOTAL TONS (REGISTERED)
Halifax, N.S. *
Yarmouth, N.S.
St. John, N.B. *
Montreal, Quebec *
Quebec, Que. *
Prince Rupert, B.C.
Vancouver, B.C. *
Victoria, B.C.
New Westminster, B.C.
1259
535
684
1078
397
1141
2332
1927
678
1484
519
688
907
308
1155
2137
1938
700
7,540,990
1,102,191
2,924,822
7,266,569
3,388,829
251,881
11,705,775
8,874,481
3,123,606
IMPORTANT SECONDARY PORTS.
Churchill, Man. *
Three Rivers, Que
Windsor, N.S.
15
79
56
15
79
69
132,000
424,560
201,032
Note: The above figures do not indicate amount of commerce; Register tons
are gross tons. (Namely cubical contents in cubic feet divided by 100)
less deductions for crews space, stores, etc.
A brief description of the above ports to indicate size, avail-
able depths and important terminal facilities is included in Appendix No.
2.
While the above tabulation lists the principal ports, it should be
realized that there are a large number of less desirable ports having
available depths at low water of from 20 to 30 feet and provided with satis-
factory terminal facilities, which can be used in an emergency for landing
troops or supplies. Examples of this class of harbors are:
Pictou, N.S.
Sydney, N.S.
Canso, N.S.
Gaspe', Quebec
Sorel, Quebec
-45-
The port of Montreal, favorably located at the head of ocean naviga-
tion on the St. Lawrence and the foot of inland navigation of the Great
Lakes, is a natural shipping and railroad center. The port of Quebec is
less favorable situated economically being more than 100 miles northeast
of Montreal. Strategically, however, Quebec controls the commerce of Canada
moving to or from the Atlantic seaboard. Its possession by Blue would
interrupt eastern rail and water communication between England and the Mari-
time Provinces and the rest of Canada.
The port of Halifax is one of the best harbors on the Atlantic Coast
and the principal winter port of Eastern Canada. The harbor has been ex-
tensively developed by the Dominion government as a modern ocean terminal
and naval base. It is fortified, though much of the armament is obsoles-
cent. In case of war with Red, Halifax would become of prime importance
to Red as a naval base and as a debarkation point for overseas expeditions
in case Blue controlled the St. Lawrence. However, the routes available
for a Red advance from Halifax into northeastern United States or towards
Quebec and Montreal are quite difficult.
The port of Saint John, New Brunswick is similar in many respects to
the port of Halifax. It is open throughout the year and equipped with the
most modern terminal facilities, including one of the largest drydocks in
the world. It is an important shipping center for grain and dairy products.
Due to the proximity of the port to the United States border and the fact
that the principal rail connections (C.P. Ry.) passes through the state of
Maine, the port would be of little use to Crimson or Red, at least in the
early stages of war, provided Blue made any effort to control this area.
The port of Vancouver, B.C. came into prominence with the opening of
the Panama Canal, providing an alternate route to that of the transcontinental
railroads for grain, dairy, lumber and the other products of western Canada
to Europe.
The port of Victoria, on Vancouver Island, is similarly situated,
but due to the absence of rail connection with the mainland is more concerned
with passenger and mail traffic than with bulk commodities. Esquimalt, two
miles west of Victoria, and the only Canadian naval base on the west coast,
is equipped with a large modern drydock, and affords good anchorage for the
largest vessels. Consequently this area is of prime importance to Crimson.
With the closing of the Panama Canal to Red traffic and the presence of
Blue naval forces based on Honolulu, its commercial value is largely des-
troyed. Assuming that Blue controls the St. Lawrence and cuts Crimson's
eastern communication with Red, the areas importance is enhanced, although
it remains a decidedly unsatisfactory outlet. If Red should win control of
the Pacific steamship lanes, the area becomes of first importance to Red.
All factors considered, it must be controlled by Blue.
The port of Prince Rupert is a first class harbor with modern terminal
facilities and excellent and extensive anchorages. It becomes of extreme
importance to Crimson, if and when they are denied the use of the southwest
British Columbia ports, although, as in the case of Vancouver, it affords
a most unsatisfactory and hazardous route to Europe. Physical occupation
of Prince Rupert harbor by Blue is not vital, but closing the port to ocean
traffic should be effected.
The port of Churchill, Manitoba now offers a good harbor and limited
but modern terminal facilities, affording a back door to the Prairie Provin-
ces and, by way of Moosonee, Ontario, and the Temiskaming and Northern
Ontario Railroad, with central and western Ontario. Hudson Bay and James
Bay are open to navigation only about 4 months of the year, but this condition
is partially offset by the fact that the distance from the Prairie Provinces
-46-
to Europe, via Churchill is from 500 to 1000 miles shorter than the rail-
water route via Montreal. In case Red is denied the use of the Atlantic
or Pacific ports, or both, Churchill will afford an outlet for grain and
meat products from Ontario, Manitoba and Sasketchewan and an inlet for mili-
tary supplies and troops from Europe unless the northern trade route through
Hudson Strait is controlled by the Blue fleet, and this is improbable.
d. Air Transportation (Civil).
During 1933 there were 90 commercial aircraft operators in Canada.
Their activities included forest file patrols, timber cruising, air photo-
graphy, transportation of passengers, express and mail, etc.
To encourage a more widespread interest and knowledge of aviation
the Department of National Defense, since 1928, has issued two light air-
planes and made certain grants to each of 23 flying clubs and a large air
terminal has been built at St. Hubert, seven miles south of Montreal and
a terminal airdrome at Rimouski, Quebec for the reception of trans-atlantic
mails.
At the close of 1934 there were 101 air fields of all types, 368
civil aircraft and 684 licensed pilots in Canada. Some details of airports
in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are given in a letter from the Office of
the Chief of Air Corps, herewith. (See inclosure F)
e. Telephone and Telegraph.
(1) Cables.
Six transoceanic cables have termini in Canada, five on the Atlantic
and one on the Pacific. The Atlantic cables are landed at Halifax, though
several of them are routed through Newfoundland. The Pacific cable lands
at Vancouver from whence a cable also leads to the United States.
(2) Radio.
A transoceanic commercial radio beam service is carried on by a
station at Drummondville, Quebec, with Australia, Great Britain and the
United States. In 1932 a direct radio telephone circuit with Great Britain
was opened through the medium of this beam station.
(3) General.
Canada is well supplied with local telephone, telegraph and radio
service.
Interruption of Canada's trans-oceanic telegraph and radio service
will seriously handicap Red-Crimson cooperation.
6. Other Economic Factors.
a. Agriculture.
Agriculture, including stock raising and horticulture, is the chief
single industry of the Canadian people. Canada is not only self-sustaining,
as far as food is concerned, but has a large excess for export. Food pro-
duction is varied and so distributed throughout the dominion that each
section is practically self-sustaining and cutting her off from the outside
would would mere serve to deny her people certain luxuries, such as
coffee, tea, sugar, spices and tropical fruit.
The Maritime Provinces are noted for their fruit and vegetable crop,
particularly for the oat and potato crops of Prince Edward Island and New
Brunswick and apples in Nova Scotia. Quebec and Ontario are mixed farming
communities with the Niagara peninsula specializing in fruit. Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta are the principal wheat producing centers, with
other grains and stock raising of increasing importance. The rich valleys
of British Columbia produce apples, other fruit and vegetables.
-47-
b. Forests.
The principal forests are in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario,
Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The manufacture of lumber, lath,
shingles and other products such as paper pulp, is the second most important
Canadian industry.
c. Mineral Resources.
Canada is one of the greatest mineral producing countries of the world.
Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the Yukon Ter-
ritory contain the chief mining districts. The following summary notes
pertinent facts concerning minerals of primary military importance.
Aluminum. Aluminum was the 16th ranking Canadian export in 1934.
Large quantities of bauxite, the principal source of supply were imported
from the United States.
Coal.
There are enormous deposits of coal in Canada, largely in Nova
Soctia and New Brunswick, in the east and in Alberta, Saskatchewan and
British Columbia in the west. Due mainly to the distance of the fields from
the manufacturing and industrial centers, about 50% of the coal consumed
is imported from the United States, via the Great Lakes. Statistics for
the calendar year 1933 show:
Produced:
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia
Yukon Territory
Imported:
From United
From United
Total - - - -
(see slide 14855)
In case of war with the United States, Canadas coal imports from
this country would be cut off and her railroads and industrial activities
seriously handicapped. If Blue controlled the Quebec area and Winnipeg,
Canada's railroads and industries dependent upon "steam power" would be
crippled.
Copper.
The world production of
Canada 149,992
Rhodesia 144,954
Belgian Congo 73,409
Chile 179,200
Japan 75,459
Canada's production was
Province
6,340,790
314,681
3,036
903,776
4,748,074
1,484,653
638
tons
"
"
"
"
"
"
States 8,865,935 tons
Kingdom 1,942,875"
- - ............................22,265,235 tons.
copper in 1933 was
Mexico
Peru
Spain and
Portugal) 34,720
United States 196,190
distributed approximately as
Tons
(in short tons):
43,900
28,000
follows:
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
British Columbia
35,000 Eastern Townships
72,700 Sudbury area
19,000 Flin Flon
1,600
21,600 Western Manitoba
-48-
Iron and Steel.
Canada ranks seventh among the nations as a producer of iron and
steel but only a small percentage of her production is derived from domestic
ores, in view of the abundant supply of higher grade ores in Newfoundland
and Minnesota. The Wabana section of Newfoundland contains the largest
known single deposit of iron ore in the world. There are large iron ore
deposits in Quebec, northern Ontario and British Columbia but for various
reasons they are handicapped for blast furnace treatment. Iron and steel
are produced in Nova Scotia (Sydney) and in Ontario. Iron ore is obtained
from the Mesabi Range in Minnesota, via the Great Lakes and from Newfound-
land. (See slide 14856) The bulk of iron and steel products, however, are
imported, principally from the United States and the United Kingdom.
Lead.
Lead is obtained in Canada largely from deposits in British Columbia,
the largest porting being exported to England.
Nickel.
The world production of nickel in 1933 was about 50,736 tons, of
which about 82% originated in the Sudbury district, north of Georgian Bay
in Ontario. The remainder came chiefly from New Caledonia (Fr.). A new
deposit of nickel was recently discovered in northern Saskatchewan but has
not yet been worked.
Nickel is necessary to industry and indispensable in war. Control
of the Sudbury mines, in case of war, is therefor of vital importance.
Petroleum.
The production of crude oil or petroleum in Canada during 1934
amounted to 1,417,368 barrels, principally from the Turner Valley field in
Alberta. A small amount is also obtained from wells near Monkton, New
Brunswick and in southwest Ontario, between Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
Considerable quantities are also imported from the United States.
Zinc.
Canada ranks fourth among the worlds producers of zinc. Her out-
put in 1934 totaled 298,579,531 pounds. The principal producing mines are
located in the Kootenay district of British Columbia and near Flin-Flon
in northwest Manitoba. Approximately 2/3 of the zinc exported goes to Great
Britain.
d. Manufacturing.
(1) General.
Canada is the second largest manufacturing country in the British
Empire, with Ontario and Quebec the most important industrial centers. The
relative standing of the various provinces during 1933, based on the value
of products manufactured, was approximately as follows:
Ontario $1,000,000,000.
Quebec 650,000,000.
British Columbia * 146,500,000.
Manitoba 91,000,000.
Alberta 55,000,000.
Nova Scotia 53,000,000.
New Brunswick 45,000,000.
Saskatchewan 36,000,000.
Prince Edward Island 3,000,000.
*Includes Yukon Territory
-49-
The principal industries ranked according to gross value of
products (1932) are:
Pulp and Paper $123,415,492.
Central Electrical Stations 117,532,081.
Non-ferrous metal smelting 100,561,297.
Slaughtering and meat packing 92,366,137.
Flour and food mills 83,322,099.
Butter and Cheese 80,395,887.
Petroleum Products 70,268,265.
Bread and other bakery product 51,244,162.
Cotton yarn and cloth 51,197,628.
Printing and publishing 50,811,968.
Clothing factory, women's 44,535,823.
Automobiles. 42,885,643.
Rubber goods. 41,511,556.
Hosiery and knitted goods 40,997,210.
Sawmills. 39,438,057.
(2) Munitions.
(a) Aircraft.
There are at present six firms manufacturing aircraft as
follows:
Canadian-Vickers...............Montreal, Que.
De Haviland............ ........Toronto, Onto
Curtis Reid....................Cartierville, Que.
Fairchild. ........... ...... ....Longueuil, Que.
Boeing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vancouver, B. C.
Ottawa Car Mfg. Co.. ...........Ottawa, Que.
Aero engine factories have been established by:
Armstrong-Siddeley Motors Co. at Ottawa, Que.
Aero Engines of Canada at Montreal, Que.
Canadian Pratt-Whitney Aircraft Co. at Longueuil, Que.
(b) Miscellaneous.
During the World War Canada demonstrated her ability to
divert her peace time industries to the production of munitions, when she
manufactured and exported large quantities of shells, fuses, cartridge
cases, explosives, gun forgings, machine guns and small arms ammunition.
This production could not be obtained in case of war with Blue but some
munitions could be produced if her factories were free to operate and raw
materials were available. The government arsenal at Lindsey, Ont., is
equipped to produce small arms ammunition and the arsenal at Quebec manu-
factures some small arms and artillery ammunition.
e. Commerce.
Analysis of Canada's industry and resources indicate that she has a
sufficiency or surplus of certain raw materials but a deficiency of others.
The more important of these materials are as follows:
(1) Sufficiency or surplus;
Arsenic, asbestos, cadmium, cobalt, copper, feldspar, fish oil,
fluospar, foodstuffs, furs, gold, graphite, gypsum, lead, leather, magnesium,
mica, nickel, silver, talc, wood and zinc.
(2) Deficiency;
Aluminium, antimony, bauxite, barytes, camphor, chromite, coal,
cotton, flax, hemp, iron, jute, kaolin, manganese, mercury, nitrates,
phosphate, petroleum, opium, quinine, rubber, silk, sugar, sulphur, tea,
tin, tobacco and wool.
-50-
7. Combat Estimate.
a. All matters pertaining to the defense of Canada are under a Department
of National Defense (Act of Jan. 9, 1923) with a minister of National De-
fense at the head. A Defense Council has been constituted to advise the
Minister.
b. The Navy has an authorized complement of 104 officers and 812 men, a
large majority serving under 7 year enlistments.
ialists are loaned from the British Royal Navy.
from 70 to 113 officers and from 430 to 1026 men
personnel.
The ships of the Royal Canadian Navy are:
In addition certain spec-
The Reserve consists of
recruited from sea-faring
Built Class Displacement Name Location Status Armament
1931 Destroyer 1337 tons Saguenay Halifax, N.S. In comm. 4-4.7"
1931 " 1337 " Skenna Esquimalt,B.C. " " 4-4.7"
1919 " 905 " Champlain Halifax, N.S. " " 3-4"
1919 " 905 " Vancouver Esquimalt,B.C. " " 3-4"
1918 Mine Sweeper 360 " Armentieres Esquimalt,B.C. " "
1918 " " 360 " Festubert Halifax, N.S. " reserve
1918 " " 360 " Ypres Halifax, N.S. " "
c. Army.
(1) Personnel: Estimated Strength (by G-2) :
Organized Forces.
Active
Reserve
Total
Permanent Active Militia
Officers
Men
Non Permanent Active Militia
Officers
Men
403
403
3300
403
403
3,300
6,911
44,962
6,911
44,962
Reserves, Non-active
Officers
Men
10,000
30,000
10,000
30,000
Total Organized
3,703
91,873
95,576 *
. .
Note: The Canada Year Book, 1935, pp 1114, gives permanent and non-permanent
active militia 1934:
Permanent Officers and men--------- 3,760
Non-permanent officers and men----- 135,184
Total 138,941
The latest information concerning the distribution of the active militia
is shown on the accompanying map. (Incl. G)
(2) It is probable that the Non-permanent Active Militia can be brought
to a strength of 60,000 at M plus 15 and to full strength of 126,000 in M
plus 30 days. (Note: This estimate is approximately twice that of G-2,
First Army.) New troops will begin to appear in 180 days at the rate of
50,000 monthly.
d. Air Service.
The Royal Canadian Air Force operates under a directorate in the office
of the Chief of Staff of the Army.
Strength (Dec. 1, 1934)
Active:
Officers 117
Men 664
Reserve:
Officers 38
Men 236
Total
1,055
-51-
The equipment consists of some 84 combat planes with probably 20 on
order. (G-2 estimate) The Armaments Year Book, League of Nations, gives
a total of 166 planes of all kinds and the Statesman Year Book, 1935 gives
189 planes of all kinds. It is probable that about one squadron of pursuit
and one squadron of observation could be organized for immediate service.
e. Comment.
The location of Canada's industry and population along a narrow extent
front facing the northern United States border and her relatively weak
military and naval forces, widely dispersed, will necessitate a defensive
role until Red forces are landed. The promptness and effectiveness of
British aid must depend upon suitable debarkation points on Canada's east
coast. The West Coast does not favor overseas operations unless Red controls
the Pacific, and even then is too remote from critical Blue areas.
f. Red Reinforcements.
Various estimates have been made
placing Red reinforcements in Canada.
is of prime importance but depends on
of strained relations."
The following estimate is considered conservative:
Probable Enemy Forces in Canada
of the size, composition, and time of
In any such estimate, the time factor
an unknown quantity, viz, "the period
Empire
Days after Crimson (Less Crimson) Total
M Day men Div. Men Div. Men Divisions
15 25,000 5 25,000 5
30 50,000 5 50,000 5
60 50,000 5 126,000* 8 176,000 13
90 50,000 5 203,000 13 253,000 13
120 50,000 5 238,000 16 288,000 21
150 50,000 5 255,000 16 305,000 21
180 90,000 6 255,000 16 345,000 22
*Under certain conditions this force might be landed in Canada by 30 M.
Air Forces.
Red has available at once 48 squadrons of 10 to 12 planes each. The
following forces can probably be landed in Canada as indicated.
10 M 13 squadrons.
30 M 30 squadrons.
60 M 41 squadrons.
90 M 56 squadrons.
120 M 74 squadrons.
f. Conclusion.
Crimson cannot successfully defend her territory against the United
States (Blue). She will probably concentrate on the defense of Halifax
and the Montreal-Quebec line in order to hold bases of operation for Red.
Important secondary efforts will be made to defend her industrial area and
critical points on her transcontinental railroad lines.
8. Areas of Strategic Importance.
Analysis of the above data and discussion indicates certain areas which
would become of considerable military importance in the event of war with
Red; namely,
a. The Halifax Monkton St. John area, sometimes called the Martime
Province area.
b. The Montreal Quebec area, sometimes called the St. Lawrence Area.
-52-
c. The Great Lakes Area.
(1) Niagara River Area.
(2) Sarnia-Windsor Area.
(3) Sault Ste. Marie Area.
(4) Sudbury Area.
d. Winnipeg Area.
(1) Winnipeg City and vicinity.
(2) Churchill, Manitoba Area.
e. Vancouver-Victoria Area.
(1) Ports of Vancouver and Victoria, area.
(2) Prince Rupert area.
f. The reasons why these various areas are strategically important may be
briefly summarized as follows:
(1) Halifax Monkton St. John Area. (Maritime Province)
The port of Halifax is the key point in the area, for while the
port of St. John affords excellent facilities for an overseas expedition,
it is so close to the United States border that uninterrupted use by Red
cannot be expected. At Monkton, the peninsula connecting Nova Scotia and
the mainland narrows to 14 miles. With Halifax in possession of Crimson,
this area affords the best defensive position to prevent any advance west-
ward by Red.
(a). Control of Halifax by Blue would:
1. Deny Red the only ice free port on the east coast and the
only ports, other than the St. Lawrence River ports, suitable as an overseas
base.
2. Deny Red a prepared naval base on the east coast, from which
to operate against Blue naval forces or commercial shipping.
3. Disrupt transoceanic submarine cable service between Crimson
and Red (except from Newfoundland) and between Crimson and the West Indies.
4. Deny Red the use of certain air bases from which to operate
against northeastern United States.
(b) The control of Halifax by Blue, renders the Port of St. John
and the Monkton area of secondary importance. Failing to secure Halifax
control of the Monkton area by Blue would:
1. Deny Red the use of St. John Harbor.
2. Cut the lines of communication between the port of Halifax
and St. John and the remainder of Canada.
3. Place Blue directly across the only line of advance (by
Red) from Halifax, on the shortest possible defensive line.
4. Deny Red the use of certain air bases from which to operate
against northeastern United States.
5. Give Blue the use of various small air fields at Monkton
and St. John.
(2) Montreal - Quebec Area (St. Lawrence River Area).
The ports of Montreal and Quebec, while ice bound about four months
of the year, still afford the best overseas base both as to facilities and
location. In addition the area is of great commercial importance in that
it controls all lines of communication, by land, sea and wire between in-
dustrial and agricultural centers of Canada and the eastern seaboard. While
Montreal has the larger and more commodius harbor and terminal facilities,
Quebec, due to its physical location, is the key point of the area.
Control of this area by Blue would:
(a) Deny the use of all good St. Lawrence River ports to Red.
(b) Cut all Canada, west of Quebec, viz. industrial, and agricult-
ural centers from the eastern seaboard.
-53-
(c) Deny Red and Crimson and make available to Blue, the principal
air bases in eastern Canada.
(d) Deny Crimson coal and iron from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland as
well as all imports via the Atlantic.
(3) The Great Lakes Area.
This area comprises several critical points:
(a) Niagara River crossings and WeIland Canal.
(b) The waters connecting Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
(c) The great industrial area of Canada - that part of Ontario lying
between Lake Huron and Lakes Erie and Ontario.
(d) The waters connecting Lake Superior and Lake Huron, including
the Soo Locks.
(e) The Sudbury nickel-copper mines.
Control of the Great Lakes waterway is vital to Blue, for the transporta-
tion of iron ore, coal and grain and such control will necessitate occupation
of a bridgehead covering the narrow boundary waters at and near the Soo
Locks and in the Detroit Area. The bridges over the Niagara River and the
WeIland Canal, connecting Lake Erie and Lake Ontario are of importance to
Blue for occupation of the Important industrial area of the Niagara-Ontario
peninsula. The WeIland Canal would become of importance as a line of communi-
cation if Blue seized the peninsula. While control of that area is of
importance in crippling Crimson industry, it is probably of greater importance
in denying the enemy Crimson and Red, a most convenient base for operations
against highly industrialized areas in the United States.
(4) Winnipeg Area.
Winnipeg is the nerve center of the transcontinental railroad
system. Control by Blue will effectively separate eastern and western
Canada and block transportation on men, grain, coal, meat and oil to the
east. The completion of the Canadian National Railroad to Churchill
Manitoba on Hudson Bay and the development of the port at Churchill provide
an alternate route to Europe via Moosonee, Ont., and the Tem. and Onto
Ry. to northeast Ontario. While the water route through Hudson Bay is only
open about four months of the year, and the ports are supplied by single
track railroads, a considerable amount of traffic could be developed in an
emergency.
(5) Vancouver - Victoria Area.
As pointed out above, the ports in this area are of secondary im-
portance only under the conditions, which may reasonable be assumed. How-
ever, the area has certain military importance, due to the naval base at
Esquimalt, and is a possible outlet for the Canadian plan provinces and
western Canada. Its control by Blue would deny the enemy any base or outlet
on the West Coast; simplify the problem of protecting our shipping in the
Puget Sound area; and interrupt cable communication with the far east.
While Prince Rupert, B.C. has an excellent harbor and terminal
facilities with good rail connections leading east, naval blockade of this
port would be readily possible, once the Vancouver - Victoria area was in
Blue control.
9. Routes of Approach to the Areas of Strategic Importance.
a. Halifax - Monkton - St. John Area (Maritime Provinces) (Incls. D & H).
Three possible routes of approach are considered, viz:
(1) Via water from Boston or New York to Halifax or vicinity.
(2) Via water from Boston or New York to ports in Western Nova Scotia
and thence overland to Halifax.
-54-
(3) From Eastern Maine, via St. John and/or Fredericton to Monkton -
Amherst - Truro to Halifax.
b. Discussion of Routes of Approach to the Halifax - Monkton - St. John
(Maritime Province) Area.
(1) The distance by water from Boston to Halifax is 370 miles and from
New York 600 miles, or in time about 30 or 50 hours respectively. The
Port of Halifax is fortified and would undoubtedly be mined. A frontal
attack would require a large force and would involve undesirable delays.
Other developed ports of Nova Scotia on the Atlantic are too distant from
Halifax and involve a long advance after a landing is effected and this
advance would be over difficult terrain.
A number of undeveloped bays along the east shore offer favorable
conditions for landing operations and of these, St. Margarets Bay, the near-
est, being some 16 miles by road west of Halifax, appears satisfactory.
Deep water, with a minimum depth of 7 fathoms extends nearly to the head of
the Bay, not far from Hubley and French Village, which are on an improved
road and on the railroad from Yarmouth to Halifax. The bay is protected
from all winds and seas, except those from the south and is of sufficient
size to harbor any fleet required for the expedition. Tidal range is the
same as at Halifax, 6 to 6 1/2 feet. There are numerous small but adequate
boat and barge landings on the west, north and east shore of the bay, from
whence improved roads lead to the main highway.
The highway Hubbard - French Village - Hubley - Halifax is 18
feet wide, of macadam, with east grades and with concrete bridges capable
of carrying heavy artillery and tanks. The railroad is single track,
standard gauge and parallels the road. It has rather heavy grades and is
of light construction.
Rocky wooded hills rise rather steeply to a height of 200 to 400
feet all around St. Margarets Bay, but the roads are within the 50 foot
contour and the terrain between the roads and the water is greatly rolling.
The main highway French Village - Halifax, runs through low rocky hills
and movement off the roads by wheeled vehicles would be practically im-
possible.
(2) The ports on the western shore of Nova Scotia off the Bay of Fundy
are subjected to extremely high tides - 20 to 25 feet, and generally afford
only limited terminal facilities and have depths generally inadequate for
docking transports. Tidal currents are strong. From Windsor, on the Avon
River, to Halifax, there is one improved road and a branch of the Canadian
Northern Railroad. The distance is about 50 miles, with high ground and good
defensive positions in the center of the island. As a route of approach to
Halifax it is considered inferior to the route from St. Margarets Bay.
(3) The All Land Route via Eastern Maine.
This route involves an advance from the Maine border of approximately
320 miles over difficult terrain. The St. Johns River, rising near the border
of northern Maine, flows south just east of the Maine - New Brunswick border
to Woodstock, thence generally southeast through Fredericton to St. John. It
is navigable from the mouth to the falls some distance above Woodstock, N.B.
The average tidal range at St. John is 20 1/2 feet, decreasing up stream. The
river is crossed by a highway and a railroad bridge at Fredericton, each
nearly 1/2 mile long. Two other bridges, a cantilever railroad bridge and a
suspension bridge span the river about one mile above the city of St. John.
There are numerous ferries operating alone the river. It is apparent that
the St. John River is a serious obstacle to any advance overland from
Maine. While the St. John could be bridged, such operations would
result in considerable delay.
-55-
The railroad and road nets available are shown on Inclosures B,
They are reasonably adequate for a force of the size probably
for this operation.
Conclusion.
If Halifax is to be captured without the use of large forces and
expenditure of considerable time and effort, it must be accomplished promptly
before Red reinforcements can be landed or Crimson organize for its defense.
Any advance overland from Maine would eliminate all elements of surprise and
make the capture extremely difficult - a major operation.
An overseas expedition is one of the most uncertain of military
operations, and with the Red fleet on guard in the North Atlantic, with
Red's immediate military objective the retention of a base in eastern
Canada for future operations against Blue, a joint operation against Halifax
must be promptly and perfectly executed to assure any hope of success. This
route is considered the best but existing conditions at the time, may make
this route impracticable, and the all land route necessary.
c. The St. Lawrence Area. (Quebec - Montreal)
C and D.
required
(4 )
The only practicable routes of advance for Blue, into this area, are
from northern New York, New Hampshire and Vermont and from northwest Maine.
(See map) (Incl. K)
(1) Rivers.
(a) The St. Lawrence River flanks the left side of all routes of
approach to Quebec. From Montreal to Three Rivers it flows through an
alluvial plain, with the south bank 25 to 75 feet above the river. Below
Three Rivers the banks increase steadily in height to Quebec, where they are
140 to 175 feet high. The normal rise and fall of the river above the tidewater
is 10 feet but this maybe doubled by ice jams. Tidal range reaches a
maximum of 18 feet at Quebec, and practically disappears at Richelieu Rapids
40 miles above Quebec. The river above Quebec is obstructed by ice from
November to April but ice breakers can get through. The river from Quebec
to Montreal, generally about 1/2 to 2 miles wide (except at Lake St. Peter)
is navigable on a 30' draft to Montreal. The distance from Quebec to Mon-
treal is 160 miles.
In the area south of the St. Lawrence, between Quebec and Mon-
treal, are several rivers of importance which will naturally influence any
plans for an advance on Quebec, viz:
Richelieu River
St. Francis River
Nicolet River
Becancour River
Chaudiere River
Etchemin River
Other streams will create obstacles of lesser importance.
(b) The Richelieu River flows north from Lake Champlain to enter
the St. Lawrence about 35 miles north of Montreal. It is navigable on a
6 1/2 foot draft throughout its length.
(c) The St. Francis River rises in St. Francis Lake some 50 miles
northwest of Jackman, Maine. It flows southwest to Lennoxville, Quebec,
where it turns sharply northwest to flow into the St. Lawrence (Lake St.
Peter). Headwaters are controlled. The regulated flow is some 3000 feet
per second or more, with an average fall of 6.6 feet per mile. It is not
fordable below Sherbrooke.
-56-
(d) The Nicolet River rises in Nicolet Lake, 8 miles west of Lake
Alymer, and flows generally northwest to empty into the St. Lawrence at the
east end of Lake St. Peter. The average low water flow is about 2000 feet
per second. Banks in the upper reaches - hilly wooded terrain - are steep
and from 200 to 500 feet higher. The average fall is about 21 feet per mile
but there are a number of dams. From Arthabaska to Lake St. Peter the stream
flows through a flat open country, with banks 25 feet high or less, except
for a gorge starting about 4 miles north of St. Clothilda and ending 3 miles
from Lake St. Peter. The river is not a serious obstacle but there are many
swampy areas between it and the Becancour River.
(e) The Becancour River rises about 5 miles northwest of Lake St.
Francis and flows north, then southwest, then northwest to enter the St.
Lawrence a few miles below Three Rivers, Que. The lower reaches of the
river, below the vicinity of Lyster, Que, flows through generally flat country
of gentle slope. The stream averages 300 to 400 feet wide and is fordable
at few places. From Maddington Falls to within 3 miles of the St. Lawrence
the river flows through a narrow gorge 100 to 250 feet below the surrounding
flat country. The river is not a serious obstacle to an advance on Quebec,
by reason of the general direction of flow in its lower reaches and the
characteristics of the country.
(f) The Chaudierre River rises in Lake Megantic, about 45 miles
west of Jackman, Maine and flows generally north into the St. Lawrence, op-
posite Quebec. From Lake Megantic to Hersey Mills, it flows swiftly between
steep banks in a narrow valley. The adjacent terrain is rugged and heavily
timbered. From St. George to Valley Junction the valley widens materially
and the country is less rugged. Below Valley Junction the river flows through
gentle undulating country between relatively low banks. The Chaudiere is a
strong swift stream with an average discharge of over 4000 feet per second.
The width varies from 200 feet at St. George to 400 feet or more in the lower
reaches. From St. Maxine to the St. Lawrence it is 600 to 1500 feet wide.
This river must be considered a serious obstacle.
(g) The Etchemin River rises in Lake Atchemin and flows northwest
into the Chaudiere. It is 200 to 300 feet wide in the lower reaches, with
banks generally high and steep. It forms a considerable obstacle.
(2) Terrain.
The southerly portion of the area bordering on the United States,
east of the Richelieu River, is hilly verging on mountainous (up to 3000').
The Notre Dame Mountains extend the Green Mountains of Vermont in the form
of a series of ridges, gradually decreasing in elevation from Lake Champlain
northeast to the meridian of Quebec, thence northeast parallel to the St.
Lawrence. From the St. Lawrence the terrain rises smoothly and gradually
toward the southeast to the foothills of the Notre Dame Mountains. On the
line Montreal Sherbrooke a serious of eight hills (wooded) rise sharply
to heights varying from 800 to 1500 feet or more above the surrounding
country.
In general the hills of the Quebec theatre are wooded, those below
the 500 foot contour and east of the Becancour River sparsely, while west
of the river there are densely forested areas at intervals.
(3) Roads.
The main roads to Montreal lead north from Plattsburgh, New York and
Burlington, Vermont. Quebec may be reached via routes No.1 and 5, through
Sherbrooke, Que; via route No. 3 along the south bank of the St. Lawrence;
or via Montreal and the north bank of the St. Lawrence. The latter is the
longest route and undoubtedly the most difficult. Another route is available
from Jackman, Maine, via route No. 23 through Valley Junction. The road
net available is shown on inclosure No. "0" and "K."
-57-
(4) Railroads.
The railroads available are shown on inclosures "B" and "C." They
are entirely adequate for any probable movement against this area.
(5) Discussion of routes.
(a) Northern New York - Vermont to Montreal
Roads: No. 9 from Plattsburgh to St. Lambert and South Mon-
treal. Distance 69.2 miles, all paved.
No.7 from Burlington, Vt., via St. John, Que. to
St. Lambert or South Montreal. Distance 94.2 miles, all paved. There is
a bridge across the Richelieu River at St. Johns. There are two highway
bridges across the St. Lawrence at Montreal.
Railroads: Delaware and Hudson - Albany to Montreal.
New York Central - Malone to Montreal.
Rutland and C.P. - Burlington to Montreal.
Central Vermont and C.N. Montpelier to Montreal.
Comments: The terrain is favorable and no physical barrier
to the advance as far as the St. Lawrence, except the crossing of the Rich-
elieu River, for a force moving from Vermont. An advance on Quebec from
Montreal is possible, but offers the longest route, with many rivers per-
pendicular to the line of advance (down the St. Lawrence) which offer
excellent defensive positions.
(b) Northern Vermont and New Hampshire to Quebec.
Physical features: The Richelieu River on the west and the
Chaudiere and Etchemin Rivers on the east tend to delimit the zone of advance.
Roads:
No. 5 - Newport, Vt. to Sherbrook then No. 7 to Valley
Junction to the highway bridge on the St. Lawrence and to Quebec, or via
No. 23 from Scott Junction to Levis, Que and the ferry to Quebec. Distance
212.5 miles from Newport, Vt. All improved road, mostly gravel. Some of
the road through the hilly country is paved. No. 5 from Sherbrooke via
Victoriaville is an alternate route.
No. 23, Jackman, Maine - Valley Junction - Levis. This dis-
tance is 109 miles. The road is improved and about 50% paved. It is the
shortest route. It crosses the Chauderie and Etchemin Rivers. There are
numerous alternate routes and connecting roads.
Railroads:
Canadian Pacific - Newport to Quebec.
Canadian Pacific - Jackman via Megantic to Quebec.
Canadian National - Portland, Me., via Sherbrooke to Quebec.
Comments:
While the terrain in this sector is hilly verging on the
mountainous, with several defiles and river crossings, it offers the short-
est and best route of advance on Quebec.
d. The Great Lakes Area.
This area must be considered under the following subdivisions, as the
routes of approach vary, and approach must be made from all of these direc-
tions.
The Buffalo - Niagara River Area.
The Port Huron - Detroit Area.
The Sault St. Marie or Soo Locks - Sudbury Area.
(1) The Buffalo - Niagara River Area.
Bridges cross the Niagara River at Buffalo (Peace Bridge);
at Niagara Falls (suspension Bridge) and the (lower Arch Bridge) and at
Lewiston, New York. " ""
i
-58-
Roads: The road net approaching the Niagara River from the
United States and leading across the river into southern Ontario and through
Hamilton to Toronto and Montreal, is one of the best along the inter-
national boundary and is entirely adequate for any probably movement.
Railroads: The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National rail-
roads have a network of railways connecting Buffalo with Toronto and points
east. Branch lines lead to all important parts of the Niagara peninsula.
Comment: The crossings over the Niagara River should be promptly
secured to assure a line of advance into the Niagara Peninsula of Ontario.
(2) The Detroit - Port Huron Area.
This area has much the same characteristics as the Buffalo
Niagara River Area but beyond securing the crossings over the boundary
waters, sufficient area to cover the Great Lakes water routes against
Crimson interference is essential.
Crossings:
Ambassador Bridge - Detroit - Windsor.
Two tunnels (one railroad) Detroit - Windsor.
Numerous ferries.
Railroads and roads: There is an excellent railroad and road net
available for any advance eastward from Detroit and Port Huron.
Comment: The Ontario Peninsula is of great industrial importance
to Canada and a military area of great strategic value, as a base for air
or land operations against the industrialized areas between Chicago and
Buffalo. Any Blue operations should advance via Buffalo - Niagara Falls and
Port Huron - Detroit simultaneously.
(3) Sault Ste. Marie - Sudbury Area.
The best route of approach to the Sudbury area, about 200 miles
east of the Soo, is obviously via Sault St. Marie, along the north shore
of North Channel. An operation along this route, automatically covers the
Soo. The Canadian Pacific railroad and one good gravel road leads east
from the Soo. These provide ample facilities for supply of the probable
force required. The southern flank of this line is protected by North
Sound and the north flank by rough heavily wooded terrain entirely devoid
of roads or other communications suitable for the movement of armed forces.
(4) Winnipeg Area.
The main route from the United States to Winnipeg is north
from Grand Forks and Crookston through Emerson. A main road follows the
west bank of the Red River, from Emerson into Winnipeg. A good hard sur-
face road from Grand Forks and one from Crookston furnishes a suitable
road net south of the border. There are several secondary roads on both
sides of the border to supplement the hard surface roads.
The Canadian Pacific has two main lines extending north from
the border, one leading from Fargo through Gretna along the west bank of
the Red River, and one from Thief River Falls, through Emerson along the
east bank of the Red River. The Canadian Northern has a line from Grand
Forks through Emerson Junction to Winnipeg on the west bank of the Red
River and another line connecting with Duluth and extending through
Warroad to Winnipeg.
The best and only practicable route of approach is obviously
north from Grand Forks and Crookston. The terrain is flat and open and
offers no natural obstacles to an advance.
-59-
Churchill, on Hudson Bay, has rail connection by the Canadian
National system at Hudson Bay Junction about 325 miles northwest of Winni-
peg. The best and only route of approach to cut this line is along the
railroad from Winnipeg.
(5) The Vancouver Area (Vancouver - Victoria) (See Incl. E & L) (Omitted)
The best practicable route to Vancouver is via Route 99 through
Bellingham, a distance of 55 miles and over a paved highway, through wooded
and farming country. A secondary and longer route lies about 15 miles fur-
ther to the east running through Sumas to strike the highways running east
from Vancouver at the meridian of Mission City.
The Grand Trunk Railroad extending from Vancouver to Seattle fur-
nishes a satisfactory rail service.
Victoria and Esquimalt, on the island of Vancouver can be reached
by water only. Ferry service is maintained between Vancouver and Nanaimo on
the east shore of the island, some 50 miles north of Victoria and between
Vancouver, Burlingham and Port Angeles and Victoria. The best route of ap-
proach is by water from Port Angeles, Washington.
IV. Conclusions:
a That the critical areas of Canada are:
(1) The Halifax-Monkton-St.John Area (The Maritime Provinces).
(2) The St.Lawrence Area (Quebec and Montreal) .
(3) The Great Lakes Area.
(4) The Winnipeg Area.
(5) The Vancouver Area (Vancouver and Victoria) .
b. That the best routes of approach to these areas are:
To
(1)
(2 )
(3)
By joint operations by sea from Boston.
From Northern New Hampshire-Vermont area.
(a) From Sault St. Marie and the Soo Locks Area.
(b) From Port Huron - Detroit Area.
(c) From the Buffalo-Niagara Falls Area.
From Grand Forks-Crookston through Emerson.
Along Puget Sound through Everett and Bellingham,
by an attack by water in Puget Sound.
supported
and
(4 )
(5)
V. Recommendations.
None.
VI. Concurrences.
The committee concurs in the foregoing conclusions.
CHARLES H. JONES
Major, Infantry,
Subcommittee Chairman.
[BACK I TOP I START I SUCHE I INDEX I KONTAKT]
@ GLASNOST, Berlin 1992 - 2007
Delegation to Clarington GP A Committee, Dec. 3,2007.
Re: Report PSD-141-07 - Peer Review. DurhamNork Residual Waste EA
Good Morning Mr. Mayor, Members of Committee, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I would like to thank the four local councillors who supported commissioning peer reviewers to
review the EA Project Team reports, on behalf of Clarington. Staff are to be commended for
their report, and the peer reviewers work has been invaluable.
Staff and Clarington's Peer Reviewers have identified a large number of significant concerns
about the lack of detailed analysis, an inconsistent and flawed site selection and evaluation
process and that many study conclusions arrived are not supported by the data.
First, I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to adopt the staff recommendations in today's
report and to ensure that these issues are brought to the attention of the two Regional Councils.
Our regional representatives must speak in support of these recommendations at Regional
Council and raise these issues at every opportunity.
In Section 1.4, staff note that 62 of the 127 items requiring explanation will only be dealt with
later in the EA. It is not clear to me if these issues arise because the Project Team consultants
are not capable of identifying and assessing these issues appropriately, perhaps because the
proponents are causing the study to be rushed? This undermines the confidence of stakeholders,
including Clarington, in the EA and makes us unable to trace and replicate the study conclusions
drawn so as to be certain the site recommendation is based on a proper assessment. It is
particularly important that Clarington Council, as a possible host community, be dead certain
that the study identifies the full range of issues appropriately - all the way from health and
natural environment impacts, through to financial viability of this project. As a potential host,
we could be bearing the brunt of the fall-out disproportionately and literally, for decades.
I believe Clarington must seriously consider that the EA study approach appears to reflect the
approach the Regions are taking with Clarington as a potential host community. Council's
resolutions requesting information from Durham Region appear to be blown off the same way
those responses to many staff and peer reviewer concerns are deferred by the Project Team. An
example of this is Council's resolution requesting information from Durham Region about the
possible benefits of being a willing host community. The Works Department Commissioner
took 6 weeks to tell you that the benefits are being negotiated at a staff level and that it was
difficult to produce a definitive list. He didn't bother to produce a tentative or preliminary list.
In fact, he writes that an agreement will be negotiated and presented to you concurrent with, or
shortly after, the Regional deliberations on the preferred site. In my view, he either misses the
point, or, he is dismissing the concerns of the potential host community that would require this
information to assess a range of issues.
Second, I believe we are at the stage where we can assess, based on actions taken by the Project
Team and the Regions to date, that they appear not to be committed to carrying out the EA
studies in a transparent manner, and at a level of detail that would assure us that Clarington' s
Lind!:LGC:!sser
.;'
concerns about public health and safety around this project would be fully addressed. Indeed,
Council must finally recognize that the best way you could protect the interests of the Municipal
Corporation, and Clarington and Durham residents, is to say that we would not be a willing host
community. The peer reviewers have flagged substantive study flaws that provide evidence
now, that even when given an opportunity to respond, the Project Team simply defers these
issues until later in the process, perhaps too late in the process to ensure study conclusions to
date would be appropriate.
Declaring yourselves an unwilling host, along with East Gwillimbury, would allow Council to
negotiate from a position of strength because there would be a very large incentive for the
Regions - both politically and practically - to negotiate and act in better faith than they have to
date. Indeed, I believe the compliant attitude shown by our regional representatives has
emboldened Durham Region to the point where they may no longer consider Clarington issues
seriously, because they might assume we would be a willing host community at the political
level anyway.
While the Regions may have no formal obligation to negotiate with either a willing or unwilling
host, surely you must recognize that if we were an unwilling host, we would have more leverage
politically and practically. The first rule of negotiating is to negotiate from a position of
informed strength. Giving away the store -as has already occurred in part with our Mayor's
motion to reimburse the Region for Clarington study costs out of future royalties- and then
wishing and hoping that the Region throws some crumbs our way in the future- is ridiculous.
Indeed if the Region were not to negotiate in good faith with an unwilling host, the public
backlash and media scrutiny would provide a very powerful incentive to do so. An unwilling
host scenario could encourage the Minister and Ministry of Environment to give this EA study
the level of scrutiny that is warranted. As with the Greenbelt issue, even regional councillors
initially supportive of a facility would likely be highly motivated to ensure that the Region would
address Clarington's concerns as they would not want to be caught up in a political and media
firestorm that might shine too bright a light on this very messy EA. They've been there before,
and they didn't like it.
Acting as if we were a willing host or declaring us a willing host will ensure that Clarington
would become even more isolated and irrelevant politically at Regional Council. Other regional
councillors have their own priorities and since this mess would not be in their back yard, they
may not go out of their way to support expensive project enhancements for a willing host
community, whose politicians may have made that decision primarily because of political
considerations. The money issues around this project are significant, and the level of support you
will need at Regional Council will be very much dependent on incentives that would exist to
support Clarington's and the public interest.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Linda Gasser
Cc: F. Langmaid and D. Crome, Clarington Planning
Linda Ga~ser
2
.... '. II:
Atkinson, Ellen
Cc:
Linda Gasser [Iagasser@netrover.com]
Monday, December 03,20077:19 PM
Abernethy, Jim; Trim, Charlie; Novak, Mary; Robinson, Gord; Foster, Adrian; Woo, Willie;
Hooper, Ron
Atkinson, Ellen; Jennifer Stone; oronotimes@rogers.com; Crome, David; Langmaid, Faye;
Barrie, Patti
RE: REVISED (as read out) Dec. 3.07 delegation comments re PSD-141-07
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
i!J
GPA Committee.
Dec.3.07 PSD-14...
Hello:
Attached are my delegation comments as read out - these replace the comments sent earlier
today.
Also, since I had to leave the meeting prior to GPA Cttee recommendations being developed,
could I please ask Ellen or Patti to provide excerpts of GPA committee recommendations re
reports PSD-141-07, CLD-041-07 and CLD-042-07 when available?
Thanks and Regards.
Linda
-----Original Message-----
From: Linda Gasser [mailto:lagasser@netrover.com]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 9:18 AM
To: satkinson@clarington.net; pbarrie@clarington.net; council@clarington.net
Cc: Jennifer Stone; oronotimes@rogers.com; dcrome@clarington.net; flangmaid@clarington.net
Subject: Copy of Dec. 3.07 delegation comments re PSD-141-07
Good Morning:
In the event road conditions prevent me from appearing before GPA today, I provide the
attached comments and ask they be considered by Committee.
Thank you.
Linda Gasser
1
Atkinson, Ellen
From: Jacqueline Muccio [teachmesomething@rogers.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 22,200710:55 AM
To: Atkinson, Ellen
Subject: Please print for upcoming meeting
Hello there,
I was informed that I could send some documentation to you for the upcoming meeting to be printed and put
into the agenda. If you would, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks in advance, Jacqueline B. Muccio
11/22/2007
Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste
Impact on Global Warming
Fact Sheet 1
Municipalities across North America are struggling with complex decisions around long term
waste disposal planning. Decades of experience with various disposal options offers a sound set
of data from which to measure their environmental impacts. Traditionallandfilling for example,
releases methane gas which has a significant impact on climate change. Recently, incineration of
municipal solid waste has been receiving alot of attention, with new and improved technologies
with claims of a significantly reduced pollution profile.
This fact sheet aims to clarify questions relating to traditional and newer disposal methods for
municipal solid waste and their impact on climate change in terms of the release of greenhouse
gases (GHGs).
How does incineration as an electricity producer rate against other sources of electricity in
terms of their impact on climate change?
When we compare energy
producing technologies used in
Ontario, incineration contributes the
greatest amount of greenhouse gas
emissions (see chart on right1).
Compared to coal fired technology,
combustion or "mass-bum"
technology contributes about 33%
more GHGs, and gasification emits
90% more GHG emissions per kwh
of electricity produced. This is
especially relevant in the context of
Ontario's energy policy. In 2005,
the Provincial government
announced an aggressive plan to
replace coal-fired generation with
cleaner sources of energy and
conservation. The Minister of
Energy at the time stated,
"We are leading the way as the first jurisdiction in North America to put the environment and
health of our citizens first by saying 'no' to coal.. .It's a prudent and responsible path that will
ensure cleaner air for the province."
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
in grams per Kwh of electricity produced
i
i
-1:
1
I
I
I
! i
1
2000
1800
1600
1400
"i 1 200
'>.:
~ 1000
D
ii> 800
600
400
200
i
I
I
Natural Gas I
(Steam I
Turbine) I
~
o
Combus~on
(Mass-Bum)
Gaslflca~on
Coal Fired
Natural Gas
(Combined
Cycle)
Doesn't the electricity from incineration mean avoiding having to use electricity from another
sources like coal, which results in an overall greater reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?
This may be accurate in many countries, but in Ontario, very little of our electricity is generated
using high greenhouse gas emission technologies like coal or oil fired generation. More
specifically, today only 21 % of our electricity production is dirty production in terms of GHGs.
~~
David
Suzuki
Faund81ion
,...... ~1l'RM,' l,tG"I~
: PEMBINA;
_' 11 . 1 , I 1I I t
_ ~l~..U~
.
~!
,........._"{..,,.~._..... 'N' >".M"''''<,""
.",a .,~ .'" .,,_ N ~'.' '~~_'"''
By 2025, this amount will be reduced to 14%, and it is anticipated that even these remaining
producers will be using cleaner burning technologies.
Isn't incineration the most climate friendly method of waste management?
Reduction, reuse and recycling of materials have the
smallest impact on climate change compared to any form of
disposal. Recycling actually avoids the release of
greenhouse gas emissions, because using recycled feedstock
as a raw material to manufacturer new goods avoids the use
of a lot of energy and related emissions associated with raw
material extraction processes. (See chart at righr)
Avoidod Net GHG.
Materiol GHG,"om from
recycling Incineration
(oC02/lonno) (oC02/lonno)
Newsprint (0.30) (0.05)
Fine Paper (0.36) (0.04)
Cardboard (0.21) (0.04)
Other Paper (0.25) (0.04)
HOPE (2.27) 2.85
PEr (3.63) 2.13
Other Plastic (1.80) 2.63
Isn't incineration the most climate friendly method of disposal?
Comparisons3 of disposal
options in terms of their
contribution to climate
change generally includes
an "offset" which assumes
that for every kwh of
electricity generated from .~
that option, a kwh of j
electricity from traditional ~ " $50.00
sources (like coal or natural c> 2
:€ 2
gas) is not required. The .~ ~ $40.00
results show that traditional ! ~
landfill with a 75% methane 'g J! $30.00
::: '0
recovery rate has a similar " ..,
impact to traditional ~ 6 $20.00
incineration that produces &
electricity. In terms of ~
o
energy efficiency, an I $_
electricity-only thermal I CombJstion LandfilllMth LandfilllMth LandfillMth Aerobic Aerobic
plant is also about 60% less I -Mass-bum 75% 50''10 25% mechanical mecha1ical
I electricity methane methane methane treatment. treatment,
efficient than a thermal I recovelY recovelY recovery stabilization RDF to
plant generating heat in I cement kiln JI
terms of energy output. L~__ ~-
Newer, non-thermal technologies have a smaller impact on climate change, which include up-
front material extraction, followed by a stabilized landfill.
Comparing GHG Emissions
from Disposal Options
$70.00
$60.00
$10.00
What is a 'stabilized' landfill?
The stabilized landfill provides initial screening of waste to be landfilled to remove materials that
should not be landfilled like recyclables, compostables, household special wastes, electronics etc.
This significantly reduces quantity requiring landfill disposal. With a cleaner stream of waste
going to landfill, vector problems like vermin and birds are reduced, along with methane gas and
,-<~~-
Ohid
Suzuki
foundation
~SIt:RR"'II:L-'\l.
: PEMBINA
.. I :1 ~ Ii' " I t
e ~.~~
.
!ia
~;
..',....,_1'.,...._.....";,......',,>'.<,,..
,....v ...",........".."", .",~."<,,.......~
leachate. The waste is then composted through anaerobic digestion and its biogas is recovered
and used for energy.
In summary
As we move forward and plan for the next 20 years, reducing our impact on climate change is the
essential. Irrespective of how you analyze the data, we know that incineration technologies are
bad for climate change. We must focus our efforts and spending on improving diversion and
maximizing recycling of those materials that required significant amounts of energy to be
produced in the first place. By recycling these materials instead of burning them, we can
maximize our efforts to conserve energy and reduce our impact on climate change at the same
time.
The latest scheme masquerading as a rational and responsible alternative to
landfills is a nationwide - and worldwide - move to drastically increase the use
of incineration... The principal consequence of incineration is thus the
transporting of the community's garbage - in gaseous form, through the air - to
neighbouring communities, across state lines, and indeed, to the atmosphere of
the entire globe, where it will linger for many years to come. In effect, we have
discovered yet another group of powerless people upon whom we can dump the
consequences of our own waste; those who live in the future and cannot hold us
accountable. Then US Senator Al Gore, 1992
ENDNOTES
1 Data sources:
Coal: Ontario MOE - OnAIR Annual Report 2002;
Natural Gas: US EPA - Fifth edition Compilation of Air Emission Factors Volume 1.
Mass-burn and gasification data from Niagara Region/City of Hamilton's EA - Wasteplan -
Appendix C - Air Emissions from Thermal Technologies.
2 Determination of the Impact of Waste Management Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2005 Update Final Report,
ICF Consulting
October 31, 2005, submitted to Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada
JA Changing Climate for Energy from Waste?, Final report for Friends of the Earth, Eunomla 03/05/2006
.,....:::-
Ohld
Suzuki
Foundation
-.~\It:'NK'\ll:('<\t,
;PEM6INA
_I II t I ' ! " 1 t
- ~~~.
.
~!.
~~
"...,--,:.......,"-"'...;.""""..~""'.,'"
,_' <~ ,_'.,,,",,,,.....,.. ,"'_.-v",'"
Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste
An Update on Pollution
Fact Sheet 2
Lately, the news media has been inundated with claims that incineration and other combustion-
based waste treatment technologies are cleaner now than in the past and that they should be
considered for both waste disposal and the generation of electricity.
The objective of this fact sheet is to provide decision makers and the public with information
about direct and indirect pollution releases from waste combustion technologies, including
modem mass-bum incinerators as well as gasification and pyrolysis systems.
Aren't new technologies like "gasification ", "pyrolysis" and "plasma arc" much cleaner than
traditional mass burn incineration technologies?
Many who promote these technologies claim that they are less polluting than traditional mass
bum technologies, but have not provided verifiable evidence to support these claims. As a
consequence, proposals are often withdrawn 1.
Only a very few full-scale gasification, pyrolysis or plasma arc plants currently operating. Most
proponent companies are promoting the concept or extrapolating from very small facilities to the
large-scale plants that they are proposing to build. In this regard, the promise of gasification has
not been matched by the reality of the operations of the technology. For example, Thermoselect's
MSW gasification plant in Karlsruhe, Germany, began trials in 1999 and full-scale operation in
2002. This plant was permanently closed at the end of 2004 due to technical and financial
difficulties. By the time it closed in 2004 it had lost over US$500 million.?
What kind of pollution profile for these technologies?
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has collected data describing the
concentrations of selected pollutants in the stack gas of gasification plants and traditional mass-
bum facilities. These data indicate that gasification units emit more nitrogen oxides and dioxins
than traditional incineration facilities, and equal amounts ofmercury.3
Aren't mass burn incineration technologies much cleaner than in the past?
No doubt, municipal waste incineration has improved in facility design, construction and
operation over the years. Nonetheless, even the most modem, state-of-the-art MSW incinerator
releases toxic pollutants in its stack gases and residues. Some of the pollutants, such as dioxins
and similar chemicals, are not only highly toxic but also persistent and bioaccumulative. Those
released in stack gases are available for inhalation. They travel through the air and deposit on
soils, surface waters and vegetation, entering the food web, where they bioaccumulate and
biomagnify so that food, especially fish and animal products, become the primary route of human
exposure. Dioxins and similar pollutants as well as volatile metals are concentrated in fly ash and
residues of air pollution control residues while less volatile metals are concentrated in the bottom
ash. Fly ash and bottom ash, which represent about 25 percent of the original weight of the waste
combusted, are commonly sent to special landfills, hazardous waste landfills and/or conventional
landfills. Scrubber water also requires treatment, and fugitive emissions will also find their way
into the natural environment. 4
,<::..-,
D.\oid
Suzuki
foundlllJOn
..~"'WIH;AI ~~,~ _ !fJaI~U~
~~
,.......'_I......"_...',."'_....A",~,,..,.,,....
"-" ',~ ~...,',........ ~"., ".',,--..,
*-
;",
~a
In general, there are a handful of toxins including dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD - the most dangerous
toxin know to man - that are widely known as the residual pollution from incinerating municipal
solid waste. These include: dioxins, particulate matter, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium,
lead, mercury, acidic gases, and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. 5
The most serious environmental and human health concern is from burning plastics such as vinyl
(PVC - #3), which contain significant amounts of chlorine. This results in the production of
hydrochloric acid and chlorinated chemicals such as chlorinated benzenes and polychlorinated
dioxins and furans. 6 This is especially relevant in the Canadian context, because in 200 I, our
Federal government signed onto the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants,
which clearly states that authorities are obligated to give priority consideration to waste
management methods that "avoid the formation and release" of dioxins.7
In addition to the six metals previously listed, 19 other metals have been identified in the wastes
sent to incineration facilities or in their stack gas and/or ash.s In addition, scientists have detected
innumerable organic chemicals in incineration outputs. Among these so-called products of
incomplete combustion (PICs) are hundreds of semi-volatile chemicals of which only 10-14
percent have been completely identified9. Semi-volatile PICs are likely to be persistent in the
environment and lipophilic (fat-loving).
More recently, fine and ultra fine particulate matter from combustion technologies, which are a
known contributor to cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and cancer have become the
focus of research related to the incineration technologies. 10
In general, how well is the pollution from incineration facilities monitored?
Pollution monitoring varies depending how much money has been spent on the various
monitoring technologies. Most incineration facilities continuous monitor for NOx, SOx, CO,
HCL, PM, 02, opacity, temperature and amonia. Other pollutants are monitored through stack
tests, usually done once annually (as per Ontario A-7 guidelines). Municipalities may request
more frequent testing. Tests are always scheduled, so facility engineers can plan for tests to be
run during optimum conditions. Technology to continuously monitor heavy metals and dioxin do
exist, but can be prohibitively expensive.
Have there ever been studies to measure the health impacts of people living near by, or
working in these facilities?
There have been many studies which show a correlation between the toxins released from
incineration and their impact on people living near these facilities. For example, a newly
published study of adolescent children who lived near two incinerators found: elevated blood
levels of PCBs, dioxins and metabolites of volatile organic compounds were in the children's
blood; delayed sexual maturation; delayed breast development in girls was positively correlated
with serum concentrations of dioxins; delayed genital development in boys was correlated with
serum concentrations of PCBs; reduced testicular volume was found among the boys. I I
Another study showed that mercury levels in the hair of people living near a waste incinerator
increased by 44-56% over 10 years and with greater proximity to the facility .12 Clusters of two
cancers associated with dioxin exposure -- soft-tissue sarcomas and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas --
were found in one intricate study.13 Increased rates of deaths from childhood cancer, all cancers
combined, cancer of the larynx, liver, stomach, rectum, and lung were found in a series of
studies. 14
......::.:.-
Dovitt
Suzuki
foundalion
lti,AlIIlIIIf "IHUlA UGAt
; PEMBINA
_' a ~ I , ! a I f,
_ geat~U~
.
~a
~:
.....,-,,..,...,--..,....,,."",>'"'~.......
,~ ~"""",".,. .~".". .v.._".....
~'Y,,, 1.,1'. ~ .~.. .... ,"'~ .. .."....
In terms of the health impacts on workers, here too, many studies also exists, among them,
several studies showed increased death rates from cancer of the stomach, lungs and oesophagus,
IS and increased death rates from ischemic heart disease. 16
In Summary
New incineration technologies are un-proven, and while traditional technologies have improved,
they too are still very dangerous in terms of the known pollutants, as well as the unknown and
unmonitored pollutants.
As we plan for the next 20-years, we must make decisions about waste management which have
the lowest possible impact on the environment and human health. This is especially relevant
today, as we are learning more about how heavy metals and other toxies are compromising our
health.
Recently for example, Environmental Defense Canada released its findings of blood sample tests
from random Canadian families. They tested 11 adults from across the country for 88 chemicals
and in their latest study, they tested children, parents and grandparents from five families for 68
chemicals. The findings of both studies demonstrate that toxic chemicals contaminate people no
matter where they live, how old they are or what they do for a living.
Late in 2006, Dr. Philippe Grandjean, a leading health researcher and Professor of Environmental
Health from the Harvard School of Public Health published a study which characterizes the
loading of chemicals both known (201) and unknown (over 1,000) as "a silent pandemic that has
caused impaired brain development in millions of children worldwide". Grandjean urges
governments worldwide to begin to strictly control these chemicals.
"Even if substantial documentation on their toxicity is available, most
chemicals are not regulated to protect the developing brain... Only afew
substances, such as lead and mercury, are controlled with the purpose of
protecting children. The 200 other chemicals that are known to be toxic
to the human brain are not regulated to prevent adverse effects on the
fetus or a small child." - Dr. Phillipe Granjean, November, 2006
"..---::.:...-.
David
Suzuki
foundl1Jon
~ ill'lIMA IH~At
;PEMBlNA,
_. II 1. i ' I '" t ~
e ~l~~
.
!i~
~:~
"",_,,,",r~,..,_.....,,........,,,.,'...,,..
"" ,', -, v ,,,,,-,_,,, -'" ." ,_.. ,~._"...._
ENDNOTES
I Examples of false claims include, but ore not limited to:
1) North American Power Company's Pyrolysis proposal claimed there would be no hazardous emissions. After the city of
Chowchilla, CA requested proof of their claims, the company withdrew their proposal because they could not bock-up heir
claims.
2) Neoteric Environmental Technologies and International Environmental Solution built 0 plasma arc/pyrolisis facility in
Romoland, CA. While company tests using MSW in 2005 were declared 0 success, the South Coot Air Quality Management
District determined that the facility emits more dioxins, NOx, VOCs and particulate molter than two existing moss-burn
facilities located in the LA area. 31 Plastic energy LLC received permits for catalytic crocking in Hanford, CA. They claimed
that the technology would generate electricity without any emissions. In 2004 company officials admitted that their
technology would hove toxic emissions and temporarily stopped the prolect.
4) Global Energy Resources began to site 0 plasma arc facility in Sierra Vista, Arizona. The company claimed that the
prolect would hove no emissions. When challenged however, their consultants admitted that there would be emissions. The
company has since dropped its proposal.
These and additional case studies con be found in the report: Incinerators in Disguise, Case Studies of Gasification, Pyrolysis ond Plasma
in Europe, Asia and the United States. GreenAction for Health and Envi,onmental Justice, April 2006.
2 Incinerators in Disguise, Case Studies of Gasification, Pyrolysis, and Plasma in Europe, Asia, and the United States, Greenaction for
Health and environmental Juslice, April 2006.
3 Incineration And Gasification: AToxic Comparison, April 1 2, 2002, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. Data from: US
Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pol/utant Emission Factors, Volume 1, Fifth Edition, AP-42
, Incineration & Health - power point presentation, GAIA Conference, Penang, Malaysia, 17-21 Morch 2002, Pot Costner, Senior
Scientist, Greenpeoce Inlernational
· Ibid.,
· Lindo. S. Birnbaum, PhD, DABT, US EPA's lead expert on dioxin effects.
7 Stockholm Convention On Persistent Organic Pollutants, Article 5 and Annex C of the treaty desc,ibe the obligations with respect 10
dioxins and other unintentionally produced POPs
B Source: Pot Costner, Senior Scientist G,eenpeace International
.Ibid.,
10 Origin And Health Impacts of Emissions Of Toxic By.Product And Fine Particles from Combustion and Incineration of Hazardous Wastes
and Materials, Cormie" Lomnicki, Backed, Dellinger, Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 1 14, Number 6, June 2006.
II Staessen et 01., 2001. Lancet 357: 1660-1669
12 Ku,ttio et 01. (1998)
13 Viel el 01. (2000)
" Elliot el 01. (2000); Knox (2000); Knox and Gilman (1998); Michelozzl et 01. (1998); Elliot et 01. (1996); Biggeri et 01. (1996);
Babone et 01. (1994); Elliot el 01. (1992); Diggle el 01. (1990)
"Rapiti el 01. (1997); Gustavsson et 01. (1993); Gustavsson et 01. (1989)
,. Gustavsson (1 989)
,',....=:~-
Da.id
Suzuki
Found81Jon
~ .'t If R itA. IfG:\l.
; PEMBINA;; ~
~. I ~ . I , r :.> I t
-
geat.~U~
.
teet
~C:
Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste
A reasonable energy option?
Fact Sheet 3
Recently, a significant amount of attention has been paid to incineration of municipal solid waste
(also know as energy-from-waste or thermal treatment) not only as a disposal option, but as an
energy producer as well. As municipalities develop their waste management plans for the next
20-30 years, it is imperative that they be armed with accurate information to better inform their
process.
The following fact sheet is intended assist municipal decision makers better comprehend the
issues related to municipal solid waste incineration facilities like the energy output; its relation to
waste; the relationship to the sale of energy; and selling energy from waste in Ontario.
How efficient is it to burn waste/or energy?
Materials that are found in our waste stream, like plastics, paper, tires, woods waste etc. contain
carbon, which when combusted produce heat which can be used to create energy (electricity
and/or heat). The amount of energy is dependent on a number of variables, including how much
non-combustible material is in the stream, how much moisture is in the waste; how efficient the
conversion technologies are; and finally if both
electricity and heat are being generated.
Recycling these same wastes results in a much greater
energy gain, simply by not having to undergo all the
energy intensive steps required to extract primary
resources used to manufacture the same products.
Recent extensive life cycle inventories for Canada
compare the energy gained from recycling versus
combustion (see chart at rightl). The results show
recycling paper materials saves 2.4 to 7 times the
energy gained from combustion, and recycling
plastics saves 10 to 26 times the energy gained from
combustion alone.
Energy gained
(glgaloule. per tame)
12
10
j 8
l 6
i 4
-.----.-----1-----1.......:...
_muu_____ ___
- -----
2
o
Recydlng
Thermal
T....rmal
n'.rmal
treatment. tr.atment. treatment
elec:trldtyonly heat only combined
eledrldty /heat
~~
OIYid
SUluki
fO<lndl1Jon
I
; PEMBINA,
_' " " i , I " I t
"':- ~lrKN:A 11:(~At
Material Energy Energy Energy
lavingl output from savings
from Incineration from
Recycling (GJ/tonne) recycling
(GJ/tonne) versus
Incineration
Newsprint (6.33) (2.62) 2.4
Fine Paper (15.87) (2.23) 7.1
Cardboard (8.56) (2.31) 3.7
Other (9.49) (2.25) 4.2
Paper
HOPE (64.27) (6.30) 10.2
PET (85.16) (3.22) 26.4
Other (52.09) (4.76) 10.9
Plastic
When we look at thermally treating a tonne of
mixed waste in a modern incineration
electricity facility (in this case data is from the
most efficient facilities currently operating in
Europe), recycling that same waste would
result in about 5.4, 1.6 and 2.6 times the
energy savings than incinerating with
electricity recovery; heat recovery; or
combined electricity and heat recovery
respectively. (See graph on lefe).
e ~~~
.
!i~
."',. .-1 ~,,,".__ .... "",.." "~' ,.<,,,,
, ',,' ."" ._ ..._.,~., ..". ,-' . "~'_'M ~"
How does energy from waste compare with other energy sources in terms of their impact on
global warming?
When we compare energy producing
technology used in Ontario,
incineration contributes the greatest
amount of greenhouse gas emissions.3
Compared to coal fired technology,
mass-bum incineration contributes
about 33%, and gasification about
90% more GHG emissions per Kwh
of electricity produced.4 This is
especially relevant in the context of
Ontario's energy policy. In 2005, the
Provincial government announced an
aggressive plan to replace coal-fired
generation with cleaner sources of
energy and conservation. The Minister
of Energy at the time stated, "We are
leading the way as the first
jurisdiction in North America to put
the environment and health of our citizens first by saying 'no' to coal...Jt's a prudent and
responsible path that will ensure cleaner air for the province."
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
in grams per Kwh of eledricity produced
2000
1800
1600
1400
i 1200
""
11000
!!
D> 800
600
400
200
o
Combusflon
(Moss-Bum)
Gasiflcaflon
Coal Fired
Natural Gas
(Combined
Cycle)
Natural Gos
(Steam
Turbine)
How easy is it to sell energy from waste in Ontario?
Today the Ontario Power AuthorityS (OPA) has developed a short and long term plan for
electricity which does include recovery of energy (methane) from landfills, but no energy from
thermally treating municipal waste. Further, the OP A defines "renewable biomass" for energy
production as organic matter that "is not municipal solid waste,,6. Instead, OPA will monitor the
feasibility of greater electricity generation from waste, as well as other emerging technologies,
going forward and will update future integrated power system plan (IPSP) accordingly. OPA
writes, "Incineration or other forms of thermal treatment can be controversial public issues, due to
perceptions regarding air emissions, ash, odors.." "Some of these concerns could be alleviated
through proactive municipal ordinances and waste diversion programs that remove packaging
wastes, household hazardous wastes and other problematic components of municipal solid waste
stream". 7 Currently in Ontario, the diversion rate for:
· household packaging waste is only 44% with over 465,000 tonnes of highly recyclable
packaging still going to wasteS;
· household hazardous waste is only 36% with over 54,000 tonnes of waste paint,
antifreeze, single cell batteries, and solvents going to waste9; and
· Information technology, telecom and audio visual equipment waste is only 1 % with
nearly 70,000 tonnes of obsolete electronics going to wastelO.
Given the above statistics, it is highly improbable that the OP A would consider incineration of
municipal solid waste which not only has recyclables, but more important, still contains many
toxic substances suitable for combustion.
, -<:..-
OaYid
Suzuki
foundation
&4 ~lfNRA If GAt
~~
;PEMBINA;'~ ffI'lh GrlH1t la~lI~ Unitllrl
_"I~I'!~lt ' "I;t' ~~~
.
~!..
..-"......'_i....,'.."-'~.~, ;......."'....,:'"
'.v... '<. ,..._ ".___...u.,."
Without OPA including energy from incineration facilities in the IPSP, municipalities or their
operators will be required to initiate energy sales through the Independent Electricity System
Operator (IESO) Administered System, which is subject to fluctuating prices (spot market
pricing). Otherwise, facility owners must negotiate with the private sector to purchase Kwh
and/or heat with short-term or long term contracts.
Does maximizing recycling compromise energy production?
While thermal facilities for waste disposal do exist around the world with varying levels of
efficiency, in terms of energy outputs, one thing is certain; gaining efficiencies necessitates that
incinerators operate continuously, which demands a steady stream of combustible waste.
Disturbing the flow of waste will disrupt the system and its energy output. As Ontario residents
continue to strive for diversion beyond 60%, our success will impact the economic viability and
efficiency of the thermal facility.
This irony is illustrated in a recent study which analyzed how recycling programs affect
incineration. The study showed that increased recycling "leads to a decrease of energy recovery
so that it is necessary to use additional boilers to meet the initial energy demand. The related
impacts tend to offset the environmental benefits derived by the waste recycling itself. "
"The main drawback of the selective collection (curbside recycling) of household waste is that it
involves a decrease of the energy produced by waste incineration mainly caused by the recovery
of paper/cardboard and plastics. ,,11
In summary
As we move forward with waste management planning, our efforts and tax dollars should focus
on the lowest risk option - improving diversion and maximizing recycling. Recycling instead of
burning resources achieves the greatest efficiencies in terms of energy conservation, reduced
overall pollution and promotion of renewable and sustainable energy planning in Ontario.
ENDNOTES
1 Determination of the Impact of Waste Management Activities on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2005 Update Final Report, ICF Consulting
October 31, 2005, submitted to Environment Canada and Natural Resou,ces Canada
, Energy savings from recycling; Source: Comparative LCAs for Curbside Recycling Versus Either Landfil/ing or Incineration with Energy
Recovery, Morris, Jeff, Sound Resource Management
Energy output from European Countries. CEWEP Energy Repart (Status 200 I - 2004)Results of Specific Data for Energy, Efficiency Rates
and Coefficients, Plant Efficiency factors and NCV of 97 European W-t-E Plants andDetermination of the Main Energy Results CEWEP:
Confederation of Eu,opean Waste-to-Energy Plants, hUe'/ /www.ceweo.com/
'Data sources. Coal. Ontario MOE - OnAlR Annual Report 2002; Natural Gas. US EPA - Fifth edition Compilation of Air Emission
Factors Volume 1; Mass-burn incineration. data provided for Niagara/Hamilton's Environmental Assessment - Waste plan. Final draft
Report on Comparative Emissions Study, June 2005. The data was provided by 5 potential vendors of incineration technologies.
4 Ibid.,
SOntario Power Authority or "OP A' has no commercial Interest in any specific projects; its sole objective is to plan a system that delivers
the best outcome for Ontario consumers based on the policy guidelines it has been given. The OPA's mandate is to undertake a long-
term planning function to develop an integrated power system plans to meet Ontario's electricity requirements.
.Standard Offer Program - Renewable Energy Program Rules- page 30, jl'ww.powerall!h2.rm,9..Q,s;S!i
7 Discussion Paper 4- Supply Resources, www.oowerouthoritv.on.co/
8 Based on data for 2004, Table 1. Gene,ation and Recovery (full-year obligation), Stewardship Ontario.
9 Draft for Discussion - Handout #2 Municipal Hazardous or Special Waste Plan Development Workshop #2, Stewa,dship Ontario
10 Waste Electronic and Elect,ical Equipment Study, Waste Diversion Ontario, CSR, RIS International Ltd., MacViro Consultants Ine. &
Jack Mintz & Associates Inc., 8 July, 2005
11 Wenisch, Rousseaux, Metivier-Pignon, Analysis of technical and environmental parameters for waste-to-energy and recycling: household
waste case study, October 2003, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, ELSEVIER
...-:-':'-
"'~
OIvid
Suzuki
foundation
-.""'" "fR." I "'At
;PEMBINA\
_; II i I < ! \I I t
e ~l~U~
.
tea.
',_. _, ..""__~.~, c,......".. ...',,,,,
w .....,..~~', .~'. ,". ...._~..~,
Incineration of Municipal Solid Waste
Understanding the Costs and Financial Risks
Fact Sheet 4
Across Canada municipalities are faced with the challenges associated with financing waste
diversion and disposal. As we look to the future, municipalities should be cautious when entering
into long-term commitments for their waste, especially if they require substantial investments.
The following fact sheet is intended assist municipal decision makers better comprehend the
costs, terms and risks associated with incineration for municipal solid waste.
What does incineration of municipal solid waste actually cost?
Incineration facilities for municipal solid waste come in many different sizes and varieties, from
low-tech mass-bum plants, to newer technologies like gasification, plasma arc and pyrolysis,
which are still unproven in terms of their success.
Given the range of technologies, costs can vary dramatically. Variables such as capacity, the
amount of up-front sorting required, emission testing and monitoring technologies, operator
training, ash management, and the incineration process (technology) all impact the project costs.
Today, most new projects will range in price from about $102 to over $168 per tonne (net costs)
including ash management, amortized capital and energy revenue. 1 The W orId Bank estimates
that the cost of incineration is "an order of magnitude greater than" landfilling.2
Don't energy revenues off-set the operating costs substantially?
The revival of incineration as a disposal option in Canada is very much linked to the promise of
substantial revenues from the sale of energy. In fact, budgeting for incineration facilities always
incorporates revenues from the sale of electricity (kwh) or heat (GJ), or combined electricity of
heat.3 These revenues usually off-set per tonne operating costs by as much as 30%-45%. In spite
of these large revenue projections, the net costs range from about $102 - $168 per tonne.
However, several very real changes can occur over a 20-year period4 which will impact the
energy output and electricity revenue. For example, if the net calorific5 value of a tonne of waste
is reduced, due to increased recycling, less energy will be produced. This may necessitate
additional import of energy (usually natural gas) to maintain thermal heat within the combustion
chamber, which will increase fuel costs. Finally, given the instability of electricity buyers for
energy from incineration of municipal solid waste, there are no guarantees that energy revenues
will continue to flow throughout the life of the facility. 6
What are the financing options for municipalities?
In general, there are two financing models for incineration facilities. Privately owned and
operated projects require a guaranteed flow of waste and set tip fee. The owner is guaranteed
revenue to cover capital and operating costs and profits, with a fixed amount of waste or a cash
penalty. "Put or pay" contracts involve communities supplying waste or paying a penalty for the
life of the thermal facility - about 20 years or more.
-,.....::~
~~
O....id
Suzuki
foundltJDn
.AIr ~II..A 1.''''1. ~r~,'~' _ ~~.U.E.i1tW
__.,...n..",-._....", _~.....",~.~,."..
k. .., '.~ ...".,".......~> .'.. ,~_.^..."'...
~....'"
"
!i~
Public ownership is when a municipality or a group of municipalities raise the funds to finance
the capital investment. Governments may issue bonds for low-cost financing, or can increase
taxes to generate project financing. Public ownership does not involve put-or-pay commitments,
but it still requires that the facility receive waste with reasonable energy content on a consistent
basis for a 20-year term. The municipality is also accountable for financing on-going operations,
imported natural gas for start-up and shut-downs, as well as annual capital costs and paying off
debt on up front capital costs.
What are the risks to municipalities?
For "optimal" operations, incineration facilities must combust waste around the clock to maintain
consistent electricity output, and reduced pollution. In contrast to landfills, these facilities require
a steady stream of mixed waste with the right composition of burnables like plastics and paper-
based products for the entire life span of the facility. Put-or-pay provisions for incineration
projects can be risky agreements for communities, as it requires the community to guess the
amount of waste generation in their community for the next 5, 10, 15 and 20 years from now.
Most forecasting factors in a degree of higher diversion, along with population growth and status
quo waste generation.
But this approach is short-cited, because it does not take into account the impact of new and less
expensive diversion technologies, alternative cheaper disposal options, new regulatory
requirements, changes in the composition of the waste, and the impact the state of the economy
has on waste generation7.
There are countless case studies8 of communities around the world whose incineration projects
have landed them into significant debt, as a result of insufficient waste generation, insufficient
calorific content in the waste, surpassing allowable emission limits, and unplanned mechanical
failures, which required additional cost investments from the community.
Are there other costs associated with incineration of municipal solid waste?
As municipalities determine the costs associated with their disposal options, it is important that
they consider the social costs associated with the pollution from incineration facilities. More
specifically, these costs would include the cost of global warming, acidification, and
eutrophication associated with emissions of certain pollutants to the atmosphere and to
waterways. The increased likelihood of adverse impacts on human health associated with air
pollution emissions and the release of toxic substances to the environment also carry a cost.
Several studies9 have calculated the total social cost of incineration and landfill, and their findings
show that most of the time incineration costs are much higher than landfill. One independent
study writeslO:
"The net private cost ofWTE (waste-to-energy) plants is so much higher than for
landfilling that it is hard to understand the rational behind the current hierarchical
approach towards final waste disposal methods in the EU (European Union). Landfilling
with energy recovery is much cheaper, even though its energy efficiency is considerable
lower than that of a WTE plant. "
....~~
David
Slllukl
foundll'Dn
"'__ \'fKIlA I lit~^t.
; PEMBINA, ~ fA Grp.lIt la~p~ UnitPrl
_'II.I'lal~.. "lit" ~~ ~
'-~
'._'.-1..."',_......, _,_...,.'~.,,,','"
'..,,' ....~' ....."......,...." ... ,~,",..."'.~,
.
j:ea
In Summary
As we plan for the future - where energy conservation and environmental protection are crucial _
we must be aware that this future is unsure about what new diversion technologies will emerge,
the amount of waste available for disposal and the composition (i.e., calorific value) of waste.
This is why plans for waste disposal require flexibility - the kind of flexibility that the economics
of incineration will not bear.
Instead, municipal finances should support the 3Rs and composting, with the remaining residual
waste managed in a manner which has the lowest risk, lowest environmental impact, and allows
for diminished quantities over time.
ENDNOTES
I This price range is based on several Canadion on-going and planned prolects: Specifically, Algonquin Power in Peel Region, and the
cost range provided in the Environmental Assessment done for Region of Niagara and City of Hamilton. In addition, similar price ranges
were attained from John Chandle" AJ. Chondler and Associates presentation at AMRC Feb 2007 workshop.
http://www.amrc.ca/proceedings/page9.html
2 Georgieva, 2000; and Colntreau-levine, 1 996.
3 Most facilities in North America produce and sell electricity only
· 20-yealS is usually the estimated life-span of a incineration facility. Capital costs are generally amortized over 20-years.
s "Calorific" refelS to the amount of heat rei eo sed when all of the combustible material is burnt. Plastic and paper materials have the
highest calorific content of the waste stream respectively.
· Currently the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) will not procure biomass energy from municipal solid waste. As per Startdard Offer
Program rules - page 30. However, a incineration project can negotiate with private company to purchase Kwh and/or heot over
short-term or long term. Responsibility of the Incineration owner/operator, and may be sublect to fluctuating prices/unstable revenues.
7 Generally, the state of the economy has a direct relationship to waste generation - the healthier the economy the greoter the
generation of waste per capita.
8 Case Studies can be found at:
1) Waste Incineration - A Dying Technology, July 2003, Global Anti-Inclne,ator Alliance;
2) Waste-to-energy and recycling: Tango or tangle', Apotheker, Steve, Resource Recycling, September 1994, p72.;
3) Competition Between Recycling and Incineration, Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D. - Economics Sound Resource Management Sept 1996;
4) Incinerators in Disguise, Case Studies of Gasification, Pyrolysis, and Plasma in Europe, Asia and the United States., April 2006,
Greenoction for Health and Environmental Justice
· These studies Include:
1) Eunomia, A Changing Climate for Energy f,om Wastef, Final report for Friends of the Earth, 03/05/2006. Page 24, table 4.
2) HM Customs & Excise (2004) Combining the Gavernment's Two Health and Environmental Studies to Calculate Estimates for the
External Costs of Landfill and Incineration, December 2004.
3) Presentation of research findings, r. Jeffery Morris, Sound Resource Management - Recycling Council of Ontario, Energy from
Waste Policy Forum, November 3, 2006.www.rco.on.ca
10 Burn or bury' A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods, E. Dilkgraaf, H. Vollebergh, Feb 2003.
-:::.-.
~~
!mid
Suzuki
foundltJon
"'.-. s,lrilKA tfG/\l
; PEMBINA. "W
_' " . Ii' ~ I ~
-
~.~.u~
"
~a
-~ "..,..!~, ~- -~,~.
,.".<. ,., ...._H...' ..
DurhamlY ork Waste Study
Presentation to Clarington GPA Committee - December 3, 2007
By Barry Bracken
First of all, I would like to thank: the Clarington staff and Clarington peer review consultants for
all their excellent work and analysis of the Step 7 - Evaluation of Short-List of Sites and
Identification of Preferred Site report prepared by the region consultants. The Clarington staff
and peer review consultants have brought to our attention a large number of omissions, errors,
and deficiencies in that report. There is no doubt that the money spent for this independent
review was well worth it. On the other hand, I'm afraid that there has been a lot of money wasted
as reflected in the quality of work performed by the region's consultants. When reviewing the
independent peer review analysis one must recognize that the language they use is guarded and
professional. However, I will take some liberty with my language. In describing the work done
by ~e region's consultants I would use word~ such as shoddy, mi~lead~g, biased, unscientific,
and m-accurate. J:vew'\. -tk~ G.;".......-.... ( Go v)...f ~m m.-tf~p ,., J}J~7' It#'(~ t'~rri?h<"c/
-1-"""..- to CI1 ~ '" ^~.
The Clarington Team has pointed out that, for 62 of the 127 issues they raised, the region's
project team consultants have responded that the issues would be addressed at a later date and/or
prior to the submission of the EA document in late 2008. For me that's not good enough. In my
opinion the report is so flawed that I would suggest there is a need to go back to the very
beginning and start all over. By going back to the beginning I mean including a review of what
we feel is a more viable option.
That more viable option is, as we have previously made you aware, putting in place a strategy of
aggressive waste diversion. The practices we suggest include reduction, reuse, recycling,
extended producer responsibility, compo sting, and a reduction in the use of toxins in the products
we use. Why does this alternative make sense?
1. In my lifetime the population of this planet has gone from 2 billion to 6.5 billion people. We
don't have another planet to go to and we are using up our finite resources at a rate that can
not be sustained. Incineration does not encourage waste diversion especially when it comes
to harmful plastics. Aggressive diversion practices are essential in order to sustain our planet
far future generations.
2. The thermal treatment of waste would mean a huge $250 million up front capital cost locking
the region into a long term 25-30 year term of feeding the monster 2417.
3. Do we really need an incinerator to deal with our waste after diversion? Th!: region's website
I
discloses that for the 2006 calendar year there was a total of 230,574 tonnes of waste before
diversion. After diversion that waste amounted to 133,845 tonnes - a diversion rate of 42%.
With very few changes and a bit more effort we could achieve 70% diversion in a very short
period of time. Ifwe had achieved 70% in 2006 we would have had to deal with only 69,172
tonnes of waste after diversion. So why is the region considering a 150,000 -400,000 tonne
incinerator? We would recommend dealing with that waste by using a state-of-the-art
stabilized landfill. Currently there is only 1 stabilized landfill in North America. It is located
in the Municipality of Halifax. There are approximately 200 around the world. In Europe,
Italy processes 12 million tonnes, Germany 6 million, and Austria .5 million tonnes per year.
There is an opportunity here for Durham Region to be a leader. With the strategy we
recommend, "what you see is what you get" and you know what is in your garbage and where it
is. Your garbage doesn't end up as toxins in the air you breathe, in the food you eat, or the milk
you drink.
Finally, to the members of this council, I respectively submit that the time for procrastination is
over. Given all the uncertainty with regard to health issues we have talked about in detail in the
past, the doubt raised by the quality of work on the EA to date etc., it is time to declare
Clarington an unwilling host. I know some of you think you would lose bargaining power with
the region. What are they going to offer to you that WOtrltt~ffset the harm to the health and
welfare of your community? You would be lucky ififtheYe'ould allow y~u to determine where
the flower beds could be placed around the incinerator. c.: C>v lc~ r t:>~:S' b J;
I believe there are at least 4 people in this room who would support a motion to declare
Clarington an unwilling host. Who has the resolve to make that motion? Do the right thing _
listen to the doctors and SCientistsr.an d make Clarington a safe place to live, work and play.
I +),-(1 f"ec::c:~v+,'on..ry pr;/1c.,'blf'
-.c;fl' '1 I J
Barry Bracken
Port Perry, Ontario
905-985-2186
l'
Delegation Presentation To Clarington GPA - Monday, December 3, 2007
By Wendy Bracken
Good morning Mr. Mayor, Councillors, Staff and Members of the Public.
I will start off my presentation by saying well done to the staff and peer review
consultants who have contributed to this report PSD-141-07. It is a quality report. It is
understandable, logical and professional. This report has strength. Strength because all
of the peer review consultants agree together that there are major flaws in the Site
Selection report - major flaws which include criticisms regarding how the criteria have
not been weighted to reflect the public's concerns, and errors in calculations and
omissions which once corrected and included could well have resulted in the selection of
a different site. The Regions' consultants' site selection report was extremely subjective
and its conclusions were not supported. So many flaws, some very obvious, and yet
when it was presented to the Joint Waste Management Group, even though some of the
"holes" were evident even in the presentation, not a question was asked by the JWMG
members, nor from other Regional councillors who were present.
Alarm bells should ring when a team of peer review consultants of an environmental
assessment make the statement that the site evaluation has "reduced the importance
of public health and safety". Especially when we have been told that was the number
one priority to protect. Leading the concerns on public health and safety are concerns
about the impact on our air shed. Many delegations and letters from the public, the
doctors, and now the peer consultants (as said by Mr. Vander V ooren from AMEC
today) have identified air quality impact as a key concern in this environmental
assessment. The AMEC report says there are "serious concerns related to the overall
process and the current availability of key data and information necessary to make a final
determination of the preferred site". We know there are problems with our air shed and
that assertion is supported by National Pollutant Release Inventory data which one can
find in Annex A of the Regions' Site Selection Report. Industries report their emissions
to Environment Canada who keep this National Pollutant Release Inventory. Tables 3.7
and 3.9 of Annex A summarize the industrial criteria air pollutant emissions (in metric
tonnes per year) within 20 km of the Clarington 01 and East Gwilliambury sites
respectively. When one looks at the data for Clarington 01, it is very concerning to see
what a huge polluter St. Mary's Cement is. And when comparing the totals for the two
air sheds one is struck by the great magnitude of the differences between Clarington and
East Gwilliambury for the various emissions. In the case of oxides of nitrogen (NOx),
the total of those emissions for Clarington is 6089 metric tonnes. Can you guess what the
total NOx emissions is for East Gwilliambury? It is only 5 tonnes! What an incredible
difference. And NOx emissions have well known health impacts. Dr. David Pengelly
said the following in his peer review of the Halton Business Case:
We have already demonstrated to Halton Public Health that NOz is responsible for a
substantial burden of premature mortality in the Region. The introduction of another
major source of fine particles and oxides of nitrogen by virtue of siting a large EFW
facility where it is proposed may not be and acceptable choice for the health of the
population living within this airshed.
One more point about oxides of nitrogen. I know the Mayor has made reference many
times that the methane produced by conventional ( old style) landfill has 21 times more
global warming potential than carbon dioxide. But did you know that nitrous oxide has a
global warming potential 310 times greater than that of carbon dioxide?
It is not only the oxides of nitrogen totals between the two sites that show incredible
differences. Across the board there are huge differences in the emissions totals for
carbon monoxide, particulate matter of all sizes, sulfur dioxide and volatile organic
compounds. Those tables only take into account criteria industrial emissions. Once
highway emissions are taken into account, the gap could only widen with Clarington 01
having the 400 series and 35/115 highways so close. When you look at the emissions
totals and the high values for Clarington it is clear we should not be ADDING to an
already over burdened airshed nor should we be siting it virtually next door to the most
major polluter, St. Mary's Cement. It should be incredible to everyone that, despite all
of this information, on Impact on Air Quality, the Regions' consultants gave Clarington
Oland East Gwilliambury the same overall rating - NEUTRAL. Part of what
contributed to this overall rating was Clarington 01 being identified as ADVANTAGED
when it came to truck hauling emissions, however, the peer review consultants for Traffic
Impact Analysis, TSH, have found significant errors in the way the traffic calculations
were done and waste values were assumed which once corrected could very well change
the ranking and have East Gwilliambury identified as the ADV ANT AGED site under
truck haulage emissions criteria. As we have heard this morning, this could well have
changed the site selection.
One major consideration that is missing and that I addressed the last time I spoke as a
delegation is the complete omission of impact on Lake Ontario when considering impact
on water quality. This must be addressed and would also influence the determination of
the Water Quality impact criteria. Atmospheric deposition is a key pathway for heavy
metal and dioxin/furan contamination of the Great Lakes. There are many scientific
studies such as "Dioxin Fallout in the Great Lakes" (by Dr. Barry Commoner et al.) that
specifically address this issue. We also already know that contamination of Lake
Ontario fish by heavy metals such as mercury and other toxins is well established and
siting another source of heavy metal and other toxic emissions such as dioxins and furans
on its lake shore will only add to the problem. This issue should have been addressed in
the Site Selection report. Issues that are not discussed in this report and that are critical in
considering risk to human health are the fact that there will be significant emissions of
nanoparticles to which various toxins will adhere and there will be emissions of complex
mixtures with more than 200 unidentified (and thus unmonitored) chemical compounds
coming out of the stack. Dioxin was once one of these unidentified compounds coming
out of incinerator stacks. We now know that dioxins are extremely toxic - some of the
most hazardous substances known to man.
In conclusion, I hope you endorse this report PSD 141-07. I believe it is absolutely
imperative that no decision on site selection is made without the the technology and
vendor known, and the site specific studies completed. I hope this is the case, but if it
is not, and perhaps it is decided to recommend two sites move forward, I believe it could
v ,
not be two Clarington sites for reasons already outlined on the air shed differences
between here and East Gwilliambury. I believe you should do more. Be precautionary.
Declare Clarington an unwilling host. Be protective of your residents. Your peer
reviews show there are flaws which have treated your residents unfairly. Incorrect
methodology, calculations and subjective judgements that have unjustly arrived at
Clarington as the site make the Site Selection report an offence against us. Be prudent.
Safe answers for handling our residual waste will not be found in an environmental
assessment that has been flawed. Please stand up - you have the strength of the peer
reviews to support you - and declare Clarington an unwilling host for the proposed
facility. Incineration is bad for health and environment, it is very expensive and it is a
road we do not have to go down. Much better, safer and less expensive ways are
available to deal with our residual waste.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
s
OJ
--
>
OJ
~
o
........
..c
u
CO
o
L-
a.
a.
<(
......
>- ('.. QJ
UC:::( U U)u
c; UJ:P e ::::J
OJ .~ .Q -0
1:;) OJ ro +-' OJ .~
"Vi :6 ~ co g- 1... -0
C~ ~01.8 2
o 0 co e ('.. U
U 1- QJ.- U) U) QJ
>- I P ..c ~ >- +-' ij::
~......... ........ +-JU)COUQJ
'-' .- e +-J QJ ~ ~ ~
~ :c oQ ~ -E OJ 't ~
~ Wco 1U ij:: '+- -0 - ::J
-'-' QJo::JCO-
OJU E 1- u~co
..c!O 1- e II e QJ >
~ ~ ~ 0 u.- >-
..- e U)QJ U)E ~
..c ~ .- .- ~ QJ C e
'-' 1- \.I- >
~ C ..c co QJ .- e ::J
> co 01 0.. +-J._ E
> ::J Em co>
IJ) >- 0 ('.. 0 ~ EffiE ('..
ro~ ffi6uOJ2--.85
OJ OJ QJ.~ QJ E m QJ QJ U)
-0 1... .. 1- 1- ..c e +-' 1-. i::
co IJ) QJ co +-J 0 QJ co co co
~,...,.IJ) 0..U)1-..c01 0..
o V) OJ -E E OJ os> +-' ESE
Q..C u U)O oOe oE 00
OJcoel--lU QJo~:r:u
~.bo.... · · ·
QJ
..c
+-'
('..
QJ
-
..Q
co
-0
e
co
+-'
U)
1-
QJ
-0
e
::J
e
o
U)
.-
1-
co
0..
E
o
U
QJ
..c
+-'
U)
1--1
.
en
en
OJ
u
o
~
a..
c
o
--
~
u
OJ
-
OJ
(f)
OJ
~
--
(f)
""0
OJ
.-
\.l-
.-
.......,
c c
OJ 0
""0 QJ
.- QJ
V) +-'
+-'
OJ .-
~ E
V) E
\.I- 0
o U
t) .~
._ ..c
....J +-'
""0
OJ
.......,
CO
:J
-
......., 0 CO
o +-' '" >
OJ ..c 1:J 0 OJ
QJO
~ (/) +-' (/)
lV C N Q)
""0 ""0 CJ) ......j...J
o c ~. ~ .U)
......., CO 1- QJ ""0
C ...j...J a. ..c Q)
~ .~ sEt)
~ ....J QJ OJ .-
CO .- +-' -
...j...J Cj) > a. ...j...J
Q:j 6~~ 0
""0 --I ...c
c.(/)
:::>
""0
OJ
.-
\.l-
.-
.......,
c
OJ
""0
.-
OJ
.......,
. .......
V)
""0
OJ
l....
l....
~
OJ
l....
c.. ~
""0 QJ
OJ ~
""O(f)
C C
OJ 0
E~
E .~
o 1-
u.i2
OJU
~
.
i i E
~ >-
1J
- - ! :J
i E E ;3 ~U5 III
- '" ~ I:i CD
.! ~ii~ o CD L-
, ~ il ! f lii3 ~ ~- N <(
i~!~ 88f ~~ ~ -(I) CD
~~ ~ -
~ ~ i i i j i i i i j J I I{f :J en
Ol
~ -EiU Ii: CD
:J :J :c
0 D'Uot 0:2 III
.~ 5l (I)
" (I) ::::>
CD
0 0::
Q)
..........
--
If)
-0
c~
:P L-
C Q)
Q)~
-oQ)
........ L-
oa..
..........-0
If) Q)
If)-o
Q) C
U Q)
e E
a... E
o
U
Q)
~
::: 0
Ul -I-J
- Q) Q)
ro Ul en~>
-I-J -I-J ro O. _
a3 I~ CO t: Q) iU
E '1::.C ro U Qj
Q) OJ > C 1-
C -I-J "'0 CO (J) (J)
e iiJ.c CO CO Q) en
.> c U .~ ..c en.~
c(]) I ~o C 0 "'0 19 -E
I ==._ "'0 Q) C ro
-I-J -I-J C t: ro 1-
C C co co Q)>"'O
:.p ~.2 (J) 't "'0 C
C .- co Q) 1- rn co
Q) 0 > en 0...- (J)
:Q -I-J Q) CO ..c "'0 Q)
C -I-J -I-J "'0 .-
"'0 0 Ul C ~C~
C c ro > 1-
ro :.p.- > > ro 0
CO CO ~ "'0 Q) (J).C
-I-J . Ql ro <C ~ Q) 0..
ro -I-J ::: Ul en ""'--
. - OJ "",-...
"'0 E -I-J C C 19 0
-I-J (J) CO .- .- C en
~t)~.2 t: t: CO Q)
= OJ 0.. ro Q) Q) > -I-J
otto.. > "'0 "'0 "'0 ro
U OJ <C UJ ....... ....... ro U
OJ
-1-1
.-
.. , ^
OJ VI'
L..-c
(J) OJ
C L..
L.. L..
OJ~
U OJ
C L..
oa..
U'+-
,+-0
o c
~ .Q
OJ-I-I
.- CO
> U
L.. .-
OJ~
>-1-1
offi
-c
1--1
e
~
o
e
~
e
::J
>-
en
o
-
o
e
..c
u
OJ
........,
~
o
-0
c:
OJ
>
OJ
........,
--
(/')
een
CO e
..c~
........, - -
(/')
1-
OJe
..c --
........, ........,
CO e
1- OJ
.......-0
e --
o 0
- - ........,
........,
CO-o
E OJ
1- (/')
o ::J
~ .......
e
__ CO
>- iO (/')
1-""T""'t"""'"
CO \..J_~
-ouco
-- 1-
c: \.I-
o -0 1;)
UOJC:
OJ 0.. 0
(f)(/')U
-0
OJ (/')
OJ1--o
........,OJ
-- -0 c:
(/') -- CO
en(/')-
c c
__ 0
........, U
CO 1-
.20
CO-o
> OJ
OJ --
\.I-
c~
-- C
C OJ
0-0
.- .-
........,
co>-
enl::
~co
-- OJ
Eu
QJ"""'"
-0
..cc
CO
c: (/')
~ 6
CO --
OJ"""'"
0:::8-
-0
OJ
C
~
o
>-
-
u
--
-
..c
::J
0..
\.I-
o
........,
(/')
0-0
U OJ
>-1-
........,OJ
-- -0
C --
::J (/')
........,c
1- 0
o U
0..........,
0..0
Oc:
I
(])
.. ~
(]) .-
L.. (f) co
........
.-
(/) "'C a.
C (]) ro
L.. L.. U
(]) L.. If)
U ~ ~
c ~
O (])~ Q)
L.. -0 >
U a... @ co
\.I-~C
\.I- OC 0
o 0 .-
u........
> c'--' ~
:> 0 0)
(])._ a.
._ ~ 0
> CO ~
L.. U ~
(])._ 0
>~ 0'1
O ~ C
C .- Ul
(]) "'0........
coUl
"'C ~o
1--1 ~U
0)
1-
co.s
..... ~
.....-0 """,--
aJ ~ ~
0'1 Q) co
co -0 Ul
........ . -
C (f) -0
co C C
> 0 CO
-oU
ro -0 ...c
"~C ~
-oro ro
0)
-0 -0 ..c
CQ) U
CO ........ C · -
If)roO::O
OJ ~"~ ~
0'1 1... 1... a.
CO 0'1 CO ~
........ 0'1 a. 0
~ ro E OJ
> ,0 U
-o-ou C
. Q) -
-;ro ti= ~ 19-00)
. _........ 1...
S 1::"Vi 0 u
o Q) 0) a. E-@
:c :-Q p 0)
~ 1...
co
QJ1-
CJ)::J
co........
_co
::JC
CO-o
..cc
"'0 CO
C
co~
>-~
~co
:-=(f)
U
~cXS(f)
cpt)
QJ-CO
QJcoo..
s~ E
........ a _
QJ"'O........
.DCC
(f)coQJ
tt:: .....E
o II C
QJUO
-0 CO 1-
CO 0.. as;
1-EC
r- a_ QJ
.
>-
Cl
o
-
o
c
..c
u
OJ
I-
~
o
-C
C
OJ
>
C
S
o
c
~
c
::>
co
1....\.1--
OJ 0
..c (f)
......, ......,
CO U
1.... OJ
(f)ij::
e OJ
o .
.- -0
......, e
0.. CO
E (f)
:J U
(f) .-
(f)t)
CO .C
e OJ
ot)
-0 CO
OJ 1....
(f)~
rou~
..0 .-
--
c ~'O
. Q ......, ~
......, U
cocoe
~e3:
co coO
> ..c e
LU......,~
......
>-
en
o
-
o
e
..c -
U CO
OJ 6
......, . -
>-......,
..0(3
>-.2
1....
co-o
> e
(f) CO
......, ......
U e
~o
\.I- .-
OJrt}
(O.Ql
......,~
a3 E
Eb
e ........,
et:~
. - OJ ......,
> ........, e
e >< 0
LUOJU
c
o
.-
-1-1
CO
E
~
~
C
1--1
>-
~
CO
-0
C
o
u
OJ
CJ)
'-I-
o
OJ
U')
=>
0)
-1----1
.-
C (J)
o C
-0 CO
O)..c
CJ)-I----I
CO 1-
..cO)
..c
0)-1----1
OJ ~
~
CJ)
-1----1
C
.-
CO
1-
-1----1
CJ)
C
o
u
0)
-1----1
.-
CJ)
0)
E
o
(f)
.......
C
o
.-
-1----1
CO
E
1-
J2
c CO
. - -1----1
>-CO
1--0
CO
-0 .~
c~
o u
u 0)
0) 0.. .
CJ)' CJ)
QJ
1-
co E
+-J QJ
v>~ :6
QJ+-J+-J+-J
la-cOU
:p1-CQJ
cQJv>tt::
QJ UQJ co
-o6o~
U-o-
c -
o '+- +-J CO
.- 0 ~ :J
+-J ~ +-J
CO V> U
:J QJ QJ CO
-.- (5
~~..c-o
QJo..>:J
V> ::> 0
~cro~
coov>~
+-J CO +-J
.- -0
1- QJ CO .-
QJ V> QJ U
..cco1-~
-ro..ccoQJ
1-::::: QJ..c
:Jv>..c+-J
+-JQJ+-J+-J
CO en 1- CO
zcoo..c
+-J'+-+-J
.. C-o
QJcoQJ..c
0.. > .- V>
'+- .-
E-o:p:Q
rn c CO
COx .- QJ +-J
-0-0 v>
w::: ._ QJ
QJ QJ
+-,..0
.-
Ul-c
-
~ :::J
o 0
c....c QJ
QJ Ul !-.
+-'Ulro
Ul+-'UlQJ
U+-,-
~ ~~~
~Ett=Ul
.- QJ 0
c..
QJ
..c !-. ~
+-,o-+-,
'"-'" ~ ro C
Ul - QJ QJ
.- ro !-. +-'
Ul .-:: X
.c t: >- QJ
roQJCQJ
C+-'O..c
roO +-'
o..+-,
bQJ~E
_ ..c +-' "
QJ+-' -c
>~oQJ
QJ C Ul !-.
o -c QJ
.~ :P QJ -c
..c U ~ .Vi
+-' QJ.- C
- !-.
+-'QJQJO
<(Ul>U
(f)
'+- 2
o 19
(f)
C (f) b
o ~ (f)
.- U QJ
-a...J 0-
CO 0. E
1- C QJ "0 co
OJ o'..c QJ x
-C .- +-' Qj QJ
· - -a...J '"'-0 "0 0
U) CO .Vi c
C 0155 (/)
O:.p~u~
U .- .9- (f) ..c
~:E~~~
CO QJc::c
OJ ~:819
- "l.."co
U c Ol
CO:p
o :s "E
Z (f)+-,
c co
O..c
U+-'
c c
.Q 0
+-' .-
co+-'
::J co
_ Ol
CO:P
> .-
wE
(f)
0)
1....
::J
+-J
ro
O)~
0) ..c 0)
1....+-J
IT"'f +-J (f)
'v ::J 0)
+-J..o..c
ro +-J
+-J .....,^
. - l..t") \J J
~O)s
..c~~
u (f) (f)
:Pee
ro 0 ro
::J+-J-
0- CJ'l 0..
roe+-J
. i:: 0..
-OroO)
e - u
ro U e
-01....0
e ~ u
ro... e
Uv,s-o
00)00)
o CJ'l... -0.
> ro (f) .-.
>+-J+-JO
.. e e ~
0) ro ro 'v
->~O)
0.. -0 ::J..o
E ro (f)
IT"'f (f) e e
x'- 0 ro
w"?uu
.
>-
(f) +-'
QJ .-
==
~ U
::J CO
(f)~
CO QJ
QJ..c
E+-'
c'"'-
o 0
.- c
tOOl
Ol .Vi
:pQJ
.- "0
E-o
QJ c
E CO
0>-
(f)0l
c.Q
.- 0
+-'c
C..c
~uc
.- QJ ~
o +-' 0
+-,QJc
+-,..c~
-+-'c
a c ::J
tE~QJ
O~~
I
I
I
~
~lJ)
02
--
t)U)
0-0
UQJ
>.C
~s
co
B>.
1.... _
o _~
0..-
0....0
o~
Q) ~
~ Q) U
(f)tO==
>- > -g ......., ""0
1.... . _ "" (/) Q)
:J 1.... L..L. 0 1...........,
..co..UlU..!!!~
E~ tOo ~U
== CU Q) 1.... ""0 C
- 1.... Q) ._
"~ ~ ......., N Ul""O
(.9Q) CQ) CUQ)
.......,..c g > S""O
(/) """"'0 " - CU L/) ~
CU 1.... ..c U
LU I co"- Q)e
0.. CiJ ~ "_
-Oe""OQ) E..c (f) =
0........, e P
CUc u~ OUl
.,...-IS......., .......,.......,
Q)O ~~ Ol:J
........, >- u . ~ ..c e
.- - (/) 1....--..
(f) "~ - Q) cu OJ 0
- cu......., -_ Ul
eo..c ~"(j) U..c"C
~ 0.. 1.1- cu cu
~ 0.. CU""O 0 Ul 0..
CQ) UQ) .......,:JE
"- 1.... Q) C 1.... C 0
~cu..cs CU:Ju
'v L- 0 a.. ~
u,...-t .-
CJ)
Q)
en
co
.......,
c
co
>
-0
co
CJ)
.-
o
-0
C
co
CJ)
Q)
en
co
.......,
c
co
>
-0
<(
Q)
...0
o
-I-J
-I-J
C
~Q)
cE
roc
(J)O
Q)-=:
en>
roc
-I-JQ)
c
roQ)
>..c
~-I-J
roo
(J)-I-J
Q)(J)
1....0)
-::i' en
crro
Q)-I-J~
1....cQ)
-I-J ro__
U>~
~. -I-J
<(roC
<( "~ ~
L.U ~ __
~
Q)
~
..c ~ ro
-g~~ .bOJ
roQ)~ ~ro
(J) 11) ~ ro >-
Q) c ..... C (J) Q)
en -- -I-J 0 Q)
ro C -- ..c
ro -I-J en -I-J (J)
-I-J en Q) ro ro \.I- ......,
C ro E en -I-J -- U
ro(J)cP c(J)~
> c -- ro ro ~
~oeE > Q)
CO P 'S; r-n ~ Qj OJ
>- c.. C '-II ro..c >
~ 0 c -~ -I-J --
P 4- OJ"C "'0 0 ~
C 0 Q) Q) "T""'t..c en
Q) ..c ~ '-J Q)
~ (J) -I-J -- C U0__ Q) ~ ro ro c
(J) enB 0 (J) Q) ~
i::19......,uQ)1I)c
roco>-encro
~ ro c p 19 -;;:; Q)
::J > ..... -- c IV >
"T""'t 1.... U en --
(J) '-J Q) - - ro ro -I-J
c ro..c c.. > -Vi
o _~ -I-J >< ~ tt:: 0
U-oOQ)<(Oc..
CJ)
OJ
en
co
.......,
c
co
>
-0
co
CJ)
.- ~
O~
:J
C
-O:p
C 6
co~
CJ)
OJ
en
co
.......,
c
co
>
-0
<(
"1:J ..c ~
c UQ)
co (f) co en (f)
Q) Q) CO.-
t: 'C 4- t: ~ OJ
Q) 0 0 co.- +-J
E ~ OJ > 0 'Vi
en+-J "1:J"1:J en +-J
"1:J(g .arnOJ 0
::J .- .- +-J +-J
· r---"\ co C C"1:J co (f)
-.C 0 ~ ~ :.c
co Q):P CO"1:J co Q)
6~ ro E C'C:O ~
· - !..... ::J co Q) co .
(f) U CO Q).... +-J!..... U
~ 1...- > ..c OJ · C co ..c
~ 0 Q) +-J enu Cl. U
o '-I- !..... Q) E co
!..... (f) 0 Q) 19 ..c 0
Cl. Q) t: ..c C +-J 0 !.....
> :P . _ +-JQ) co '-I- U Cl.
> · C > o!..... c..
o o"1:J ..c"1:J 0 co
.!: 'C 2 ~ ro -5 +-J C 6
!..... Cl. co !.....::: co C 0 (f)
co !..... co Q) Q) .-.-
Q) CJ) 0 Q) '-I- - +-J !.....
- U Cl. - 0 !..... co co co
u.-!..... U _ Q) > ::J Cl.
+-J:O 0 +-' Q)"1:J.:J CO E
O::JU O>CCT>O
z c...~ Z ~ ::J Q) UJ U
CJ)
Q)
en
co
.......,
c
co
>
-0
co
CJ)
.-
o
-0
C
co
CJ)
Q)
en
co
.......,
c
co
>
-0
<(
OJ
U u
C +-' .-
c-
eo Q) .0
1:: E~
o CQ)
Cl. e..c
E .- +-'
.- > >-
1:J &].0
OJ - Q)
U roU
~ !.-c
1:J ::J ro
OJ "}O~
~ ~ z 0
'"O(J) (J)o..
Q)(J) roE
::J OJ"""""-- .-
.~ u C ~ +-'
+-' f'I , (J)
C o~ 0 Q)
8 a.fO ~~
'--"" (J) +-' . -
C 1:J [g..c
.Q C Q) C
+.oJeoE~
eo .-
~..c ro 01
- +.oJ (J)
eo- >-
> eo .~ 0
W~'"OOl
.. Q) Q)
OJ U .~ "}O
Q..:'=: .0 U
E -g E .~
o..c
eoo...UI-
><~
w 0 · ·
~C
..cO
.:="l=:, c if: c
~ '-J' 0 C .-
'\.I C ~ .t'n m
OJ.C '-J' ,"" '\.I
r- t'n C ~ l'"'T\::J
:; 0 'c t: CU' c-
._ ~ Q) H-.==
_!.- UEoro
..0 .9
::J - 1- C 1-
0.. ~ .2 e "2.2
~ ro Q).S; '"0 01
O +-' OlC ~.c
~ C ro Q) +-'-0
f'I ,ro > +-' Q) C
'-L.I C C !.-.-
+.oJ '"0 ro 0 Q) ~
eo ro >+-' >~
r""T\ (J) '"0 U :>-
'\J' .- ro Q) (J) ~
~~ I~Q)+-'
_ Q) 0l::J
~(J) Q)Q)19~
(J) C 01> c~
~ 0 ro.- ro
C E "S"}O > CO..-l
o "'0 co 0'1"'0 OJ 0
._ C ..c Q) ro U C
+-J 0 EC (J)::JO
eo U .-'"0
..=! >- 0"'0"'0 0 en
+-' !.- ro '"0 !.- C
eo.- ~..c C 0...;-
>ro --
L.U:::l ~ ..c co o..!!!
OOl(J)+-'U
>- 0- ._::J Q)!.-
+-J . == (J)(J) 0 01 ~ O!.-
:.=: ro ._..c ro tJ ~
eo _ E:= t: 0=
::J (g OJ.e ~..c ~
a 0 T"""'I . == T"""'I '"0 U Q)
.= ---l 0 <( 0 <( ~ >
<C . 0
. .
CJ)
Q)
Ol
co
-1-1
C
co
>
-0
co
CJ)
-- ~
O~
:::J
c
-0:0
C 5
co~
CJ)
Q)
Ol
co
-1-1
C
co
>
-0
<C
-0
C
co
...c
+-J
-
(/) co
+-JQ)
U...c
Q)
~u
Q):'=
Q)..c
> ::J
._ 0..
+-J+-J
co (/)
c:nc
Q) .-
c co
Q)~
OJE~
01 ~ 0 Vl
19 -0 -O~
.- co Q)::J
OJ1- ...c -0 (/)
COQ)
..c (/) 1- 1-
OJ +-J ..........
- +-J ",,-.
co .- Q) +-J
1- (/) 1- Q)
:::J = Q) ~
+.J c:::( :5: (/)
co .. .
z
1-
o..c
~ +.J
-
,......co
oOJ
OJI
~u
(f) ==
..0
C::J
Oc...
+.J
cn-o
Cc
.C co
CO+.J
Oc
1-OJ
oE
~c
010
1-
c.-
:p>" Q)
COc>-c:n
C!: UJ to 19
-~ c
=roCOco
co 1- (f) >
1-::J -0
OJ +.J""O c:::(
> co C .
ozco
(]J
V)
c
o
c..
V)
(]J
~
V)
.......,
c
CO
.......,
-
::J
V)
C
o
U
......
V)
c
o
--
en
(]J
~
co
o
........,
"'0
(]J
"'0
C
o
0..
(J)
(]J
1-
(]J
>
CO
..c
(J) (J)
........, c
C 1-
CO (]J
~u
:=) C
(J) 0
C U
o~
u 0
....
(J) 1-
C OJ
0..0
.01 E
(]J :=)
O:::c
(J)
1.... (]J
Q) ..0
~ ~o
C (J)........,
co :=) (]J
Q) 0 1-
..c .S: ro (]J
~ ~ E rtJ
o 0.. ro "'0
Q) (J) (]J 1-
E (]J"""'" (]J
~ :=) $ rtJ
(J)(]J-
.p .~ .S: "'0
.~ N (]J (]J
M 1-.~
~M1-E
li=~(]J1-
. ~ 00.. Q) (]J
......, ........,
co ~ (]J (]J
~\.O..c"'O
- 1-......., C
co 0 '- :=)
+-J ~ "'-.......,
B (J)..o CO
0' ~ "'0 "'0
C c.~ (]J
0~"'O
:= 0.........,. -
......, (J) C >
CJ) (]J Q) e
· 0::::Q 0..
(]J
........,
CO
"'0
1- 1-
2 .w
CO ..c
........,
........, C
CO ._
C ........,
o C
.- (]J
""""''''0
.9- lC
1- C
~ 0
Q) U M
"'0 ~ (]J
(J)
(J) CO ~
Q) >- (/)
U Q) C
o ..c 0
1- ........,........,
0..........,0)
~ ~.~
1- ........, CO
CO ........,_
U LU
Q)~
= ~ 0
$ CO (]J
>- >-.~
Q) OJ 0
..c ..c..c
~~u
fJ)
c
o
--
fJ)
:::J
-
U
C
o
U
1....
Q)
2 U) ..c
· - ""tJ +-'
U) C 1....
+-' Q) 2
~ E 1....
tt:: E ~
ro 0 ""tJ
""tJ U Q)
- ~c
::s ._
8 E19
"- ro Q)
,,-. Q)1....
g J-Q)
(5 s..c
C Q)2
-5 .S; .(j)
Q) Q) Q)
+-' ~C
~ 1....0
o Q)
""tJ Q) C
C a..roc
OJ ..co
> C ....U) +-' .-
CQ)+-'
""tJ 0 0 1.... ~
Q):p +-' 0 Q)
t: ro CJ) E ""tJ
Q)::S C .-
~- .C +-' U)
Q)ro roroC
a:~D:58
~
..cQ) E""tJ 0 U
+-,1....Q) +-Jro
· - 1.... U) ..c
C \.i- 1.... +-J
.- C Q) vi 1.... -e
>-OdJQ) roo
+-'U1....CJ) 0..0..
· Coo.. ro ~ 1.... Q)
ro +-' +-' 0 2 1....
UQ)Q)C :>C=
..c ro >::S.-
o:!5+-J>oos
co U)""tJ +-J U
~c+-Jro ""tJ
U::SCU) OJ-roc
co Q) =a ::s C ro
-Q)ID co'
""tJ ~ 1.... ""tJ :p. - U)
C 0... C C CJ) OJ
ro Q) Q) ro 0 Q) ::s
U)s1....U) U~~ ·
Q) M Q) = U).-""tJ
, r-T\ .- +-J Q)
.0 U) Q) \oJ' :>.- Q) 1....
C U) ro > > .-
Q) Q) ~ +-J E..c (5 ::s
~ glll ~ ro~ (/) g-
· - 1.... C > Q) > Q) 1....
~ 0... 0""tJ +-J >- 1.... U)
O c:::( ~ ro U) Qj 0 co
\.i-.... >+-J
U LU C 0 c._ U) =-=
C .....c 0 +-J U
.- U) ro Q) +-J ro >- C
o C - U CJ) 1.... ro ::s
+-' .Q U C .~ ~ s 0
Q) CJ)+-' ~ 1.... 0""tJ U
::SQ)roro~oc
o~:5..c U u~B
~
......,
co
::3
a
eL
..~r
.J..,
t:
a>
.-
.0
E
<(
"'0
C
co
en
......,
(,)
co
c..
E
~
......,
co
::3
a
L-
~
en
c
o
L-
a>
......,
L-
(,)
~~
L-O)
co c
Et)
L- a>
a.. I-
.
a>
c..>
L-
::J
o
en
-en C
C co
o E
:e a>
"'O..c
C --
o E
c..> 0
co ~
c..> "'0
0) a>
o
o a>
L- >
o co
en a> L-
L.. __ --
o a> a>
rn E g
U co jg
"'C c..> en
C 0 "'0
>-
Q)
~
.
-a>
~
en
a>
..c
--
o
--
C
o
--
co
L-
a>
C
a>
0)
a>
--
en
co
~
-
o
..-
en
--
.
en
a>
::3
en
en
a>
.0
.-
en
en
o
a..
C
o
+-'
CO..c
to>
o ;:,
a.0L..
en L.. Q)
c..c..c
co+-'+-'
L.. "'C 0
+-'Q)"'C
L..cc
.Q.'E co
coL..>-
EQ)~
+-' -
. Q) co
~o ;:,
Q) c-
---enL..
en .-
Q) ~ co
U co .
L..L..0>
;:, .
0Q)Q)
en ~---
+-,enen
C Q).Q)
co 0> "'C
U C ;:,
t+=coCi)
c..c_
o>Uco
.- +-'
en "'C C
Q) ;:, Q)
L..oE
2uc
;:'-0
"I- en.!::
"'CQ)>
C'C C
coci) Q)_
+-';:,Q)CO
C c'-
Q) "'C . _ "'C
L..C-Q)
L...- Q) E
;:, L.. en
UOCO_
'-'..c co
>-co_+-,
..cE"'CC
L.. C Q)
~ui;:'E
C 0 e C
L.. "'C 0> e
Q) 'C ~ .-
..cL..U>
o8~~
co
U
0>
o
o en
L.. C
~.o
+-' +-'
Q)a.
E 0
Q)>-
uo>
C 0
o 0
C
ui..c
o>U
C Q)
.- +-'
~"'C
C C
~ co
Q)"'C
~c
en ;:,
Q) e
0>0>
C~
co U
..cCO
u..c
>- ..c
co~
E ~
en"'C
C Q)
o C
;.-.:.0
"'CE
C 0
8 u
- "'C
co C
u co
O>"'C
o Q)
o+-'
L.. U
o~
Q)-
+-'0
Q) U
E.~
co co
u+-'
o co
_ "'C
"'C
Q)
C
.-
EE
L..
L.. Q)
co+-'
Q) Q)
>-"'C
->-
en_
Q) co
C.-
c~
o.~
+-'
oen
oCO
O+-'
_ C
OCO
LOU
N~
"'CC
C .0>
co en
oen
oco
o +-'
- 0
Oc
LO
~Q)
L..
L.. Q)
~~
Q) en
CQ)en
oUQ)
"'CC~
>-~en
-Q)"I-
C~ 0
0._ 0>
Q) "'C C
L.. _'-
co~~
"'CQ)C
Q)'_ co
> L..
=Q)+-'
Q) L.. U
> "'C Q)
COQ)~
l:i:=co
en co+-'
Q)+-'..c
U ~ .0>
ffi Q) E
+-'L.."'C
en 0 C
oEco
u~
c
Wc3
c
~.~
~
" [
........1 ~/ \
Z ,-'
l--y'
~ ~
0) co 0
0 ....... ~
- CO
0 en
"'C .-
C ~
..c c u
u 0 ~
.-.0) .- .-
o)+-' en u
en 0)
- ~ .-
.cO E 0..
CO --- en
~.u 0) 0) .
O~ "'C +-'0) I
0) .- .......
"'C =u en.-
COO) U 0) en ,
c r
---0.. 0) en"'C ~
..c 0) en 0.. coO) I
- .
0) .cO) >< u t:
:::J .- +-' 0) cJE
0 en.-
~ en en ..c .- 0)
..c 01- +-' - ~
.- en 0..
+-' 0..0 ~
+-' 0)
:::J Ez 0) :t:0)
en..c
.c :::J - C .......
- E.~ 0 00)
0) .- ~ "'C ~.......
C >< 0) 0) .......co
0 CO c - c
.c~ -
"'C E 0) 0).-
~ 0) <(0) cE
~ 0:::.2 -- --
- ~-
+-' O)~ ~ 0)
U "'Cc WO ~
0) c 0 IC CO en
~ c UO)
"'C :::J....... I-5 ... :::J
0 ... (.)~
+-' 0) :::J .- u2 "'Cen
c.c .......
0 CO en
~ c._ c:
C o - "'C .- C O)~ WJ
~ "'Cen c uo) E:::: c:
c .-. 0) 0) en ~.~
+-' <(ou 0..0 Eco
c E
0) 0::: . en ~ en..c o :::J
~ W .en ~ E 0) u uC"' ~
~ 0 O)~
:::J IE 0.. ....... ~
U .- 0 0::: . CO
0 I 0) en 0) en,+-
. . 0::: . .
'2~' r
, /
/.,/
~
o
en
+oJ .
Q) C 0)
CO .
a3 C~
I '~~.. ~ ~ ~ ~
% . .- \V C C ::J
C..-.. ::J 0 0
oE~ 0.00..
51 ~ en ~ E
0) Q) Q) 0
wco ~o~o
o~ ~~ cQ)
~ .en ..c 0 Q) en
en -en"OQ)
0). - co ::J ..c
C~ c..c~-+oJ
.- 0
(;)"0 .o~ Co
.- c..-.. 0) co .- ~
x co Q) Q) Q) +oJ ~
Q) +oJ ~c o~
ccoco -0 cQ)
o 3:::J ~i.i= 0 E
co 0 Q).- "0 ::J
"0 ..c.- C 0 en ..-..
Q)ent Q)Q) enen~
~o ~ O)g. Q; co ~
+oJ~O
..c - - coo.. Q)~~
~Q)N Q)::J E S Q)
;+-' .- 0 "0 ~ co 0 E
co ~ en .- 0 ~ ~
~ >.- co 0) -
::J ::J X- 0 0.. o..~ en
0"0 ~+oJ 0 C
~ +oJ 0 0.. 0 "0 co co
.coenz 0 C ~..c ~
~ "'-" +oJ - 0 ~
"0 Q) en Q) == +oJ 0 "0
c~~ (63: .czc
::J ~ Q) ._,^ 0 . I"I"'C
o co +oJ ~ VI C \V
~ E Q) 0..0 E ~ en
~3: E e~ w ~.c
oQ)co o..C ocx
~ 0..0 0
~~~ <( E ~ 8~
.
.
.
..-..
.-c"-"~
~ 0 ~ .!!2
en~ > ~
~coco ~
o~..c Q)
Oen
"0 0..0 ~
C en "'-" =
::J C en co
ococo ~
~.::; Q) 0
~ . ~ "0
o ~co C
co Q) c ::J
..c "'-" co 0
- en..c 0,
co Q) ~ ~
::J o::J "
+oJ ~ ~
o ::J "0 co
cooC ..c
~ en co ~
Q) +oJ"-" Q)
~~~ ~
en 0(9 en
c._ c
O~()- 0
o c 0
o .Q>~ 0
+oJ en en +oJ
en ~ "'-" en
co Q) en co
..c..c Q) ..c
+oJ ._
<( 0'::; <(
0::: - en 0:::
w~ ::J W
IO-gI
I E.- I
~ en
OOQ) O+oJ
.- +oJ ~ .- C
~ .-.. ~
.- .- CO
0"0 - 0 C
Q) Q) ~ Q).-
0.. Q) 0 0.. E
en c "0 en CO
Q) ~.C Q) +oJc
+oJ CO ~ +oJ
U5E8 en8
c
o
+oJ
CO
"0
C
Q)
E
E
o
o
Q)
0::: .
u~
c
WJ
c
~.~
~
.
~
00
+-'
00
o
U
C~
c
"' '" C
m~ \,U
~ i!IlIq= .0
O)+-'
+-,ro
CO)
.- --
ro:!::
E E
"'CU
cl;::
ro.U
c 0)
0Cl.
00
+-'
ro 0)
"'- +-'
0)'-
Cl.OO
o ro
~ c
00 0
+-' .-
oo:!::
O"'C
u"'C-ci
-roO)
ro~
:!::0"'C
Cl. 0)
roCO)
U 0 c
-c .00 ~
O 00 -
:J 00
'C U +-'
O)OOC
+-,,- 0)
. - "'C
oooE
"'-._ 0)
"'-
0) 0).-
"'C",-:J
cO)O"
~..c0)
.....I +-' "'-
.
+-' "'-
~O)"'C
~ 0)
~ 0.-
-~
0) :.;::::6
o ro c
00)0)
C"'-"'C
0).-
..c..c0)
~S..c
1-- -
- -
0) 00 ~
0)
.0+-'00
ro ro.-
- +-' ..c
.- 00 +-'
ro
> "'C ..-.
<(Ca
+-,rooo
oo..-.ro
0) U 0)
OJUJ"'-
- C
-0) UJ .-
..czE
+-' I- .-
"'- <( ~
o '-'
~fe,0)
0) - .0
C:.,...,
.- 00 ro
~o:":
o U ro
o >
-O)ro
~ .~ .00 ~
= 00 c .
.- 0) 0 .
~U:.;::::6"'C
C >< Cl.~
o UJ 0 "'-
.0) 0) c ~
0) coO)
. - "'-
0:: : = 00 Cl.
0) 19 . 00 "'C
..ccEc
I-UJO)ro
.
~
.-
..-.
0<(
~o::
CUJ
oI
uI
"'C '-'
0)00
00 C
roo
0).-
"'- +-'
U.-
c"'C
._ C
"'- 0
OU
~"'C
O)C
O:J
-0
0",-
CO)
.c ~
uu
O)ro
+-'.0
0) "'-
-roO
"'-0)
Cl.c
0:.;::::6
C. . 00
Cl.><
roO)
~
000
c:=
o :J
.- 00
000)
00",-
:J
uro
00
.- 00
"'Cro
"'-"'C
0)0)
E"'C
00)
cO)
C
.
~
o c
0).-
+-'00
ro 0)
u u
ro'+=C
ct~
0) 0) O):!::
EU~E
c .= "'C CD
e~"'-Cl.
. - :::-- 0)
> "'Coo
C - .- +-'
UJ ro 00 0)
> c 0)
O)eoE
..c Cl. u +-'
+-' Cl. +-' .-
O)<(g~
c "'-
.C 0') = 0)
~ c .~ ~
\oJ 0 00
.- ..-. c
~t520
"'- 0) ro u
O)Cf.)CD~
~ 0) Cl.C
00 "'- 0 0
C :J
0+-'0-
U:J+-':":
O)u...:!::~
..ccnE~
00000)0)
.- 0) Cl. 0
..c" -
+-' \oJ "'- 0
0.- C
+-'",-1"I"l
ro Cl. \U ..c
..c .U
+-'c~O)
+-' .- +-'
C 0) ~ "'- en
~Eroo"E
~~~o~
lo.."-oO)"'-"'-\oJ
E 00 Cl.c ~
00 Cl. 0 +-'
oo<(<(uoo
+-'
u~
W~
c
~.~
Ii
, r.
) _~ I
., ;1
I~/
.
...-
e I
0) 0)
E ~
0) 0
0> '+-
"O~
G..'DO
'.1"
; ~rn rn
@ t: ...-
o 0
.- e
cn
cn cn
JEO)rn
o O.C
s.... "0 0)
c.. +-' +-'
.- .C
e ~ 0
O~"O
"Ocne
0) rn rn
cn 0 rn
rn ~...-
.cern
cnrn"O
.~ E"O
cne2
0).- rn
(0)"0
o +-' c..
s.... rn ::J
c.. ._
s....
O>c..s....
eo~
. - s....
~ c.."'-
e c.. e
rn rn 0)
s.... E
"'-..ccn
e 0> cn
0) ::J 0)
t: 0 cn
::J..c cn
Ol-rn
.
co
+-'
C
0)
E
c
o
l-
'>
C
0)
'U
C
co
..c
+-'
co
0)
..c
"-'"
co
.-
'U
0)
E
I-
0)
..c
+-'
o
'U
C
co
>.
+-'
.-
co
::J
0-
en I-
0)
0>
C
co
..c
u
u
b=
co
l-
I-
I
.-
co
'U
C
::J
o
I-
0>
+-'
..c
0>
'C
-
en
+-'
c
0)
E
en
en
0)
en
en
co
en
.-
co
+-'
0)
'U .
02
+-' . en
..c..c
O>u
::J co
e 0)
..cl-
+-'0
en'+-
0)>.
~'U
en ::J
+-'
:: en
~<(
.. t:o::
~w
O)I
Q.I
:: 0
O+-,
3:..c
+-'0>
~~
co I-
()~
I
I
I
I
I
e
o
~
rn
"0
e
0)
E
E
o
o
0)
0::
u~
W~
.-
~~
~
.
, \'
I -, /1
1 "vi