Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-08Clar*wn General Government Committee Post -Meeting Agenda Date: March 8, 2021 Time: 9:30 a.m. Location: Council Members (in Chambers or MS Teams) I Members of the Public (MS Teams) Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Lindsey Patenaude, Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at Iatenaude@clarington.net. Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. AudioNideo Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio and/or video record of General Government Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a General Government Committee meeting, the Municipality will be recording you and will make the recording public by on the Municipality's website, www.clarington.net/calendar Noon Recess: Please be advised that, as per the Municipality of Clarington's Procedural By-law, this meeting will recess at 12:00 noon, for a one hour lunch break, unless otherwise determined by the Committee. Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or placed on non -audible mode during the meeting. Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net/archive The Revised Agenda will be published on Friday after 4:15 p.m. Late items added or a change to an item will appear with a * beside them. Pages 1. Call to Order 2. Land Acknowledgement Statement 3. New Business — Introduction As outlined in Corporate Policy F-11 Transparency and Accountability, 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. Accordingly, Members of Council will endeavour to provide New Business resolutions in advance of the meeting. 4. Adopt the Agenda 5. Declaration of Interest 6. Announcements 7. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting 7.1. Minutes of a Regular Meeting of February 16, 2021 5 8. Delegations 8.1. Bob Clark, Clark Consulting, Regarding Report LGS-012-21 Regulation of On -Farm Special Events *8.2. Stacey Jibb, Manager, Agriculture & Rural Economic Development, Region of Durham, Regarding Report LGS-012-21 Regulation of On -farm Special Events *8.3. Ian Soutter, Regarding Report PWD-017-21 Farewell Creek Trail Phase 25 2B Status Update 9. Communications — Receive for Information 9.1. Minutes of the Newcastle Business Improvement Area dated February 32 11, 2021 9.2. Minutes of the Orono Business Improvement Area dated February 11, 35 2021 Page 2 9.3. Minutes of the Bowmanville Business Improvement Area dated February 37 9, 2021 9.4. Minutes of the Newcastle Community Hall Board dated February 16, 42 2021 10. Communications — Direction 10.1. Memo from Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works, Regarding 45 Bowmanville Boat Launch Restoration (Motion for Direction) 11. Presentations 11.1. Kevin Yaraskavitch, Account Manager and Natasha Dawood, Regional 49 Manager, MPAC, Regarding MPAC's 2020 Municipal Partnership Report Link to MPAC's 2020 Municipal Partnership Report 12. Public Works Department Reports 12.1. PWD-015-21 Rudell Rd. Subdivision, Plan 40M-2575 By -Law 69 Assumption 12.2. PWD-016-21 Highway 2 and Stapleton Road Land Exchange 73 12.3. PWD-017-21 Farewell Creek Trail Phase 213 Status Update 79 13. Emergency and Fire Services Department Reports 13.1. ESD-001-21 Emergency Services Activity Report — Q4 2020 203 14. Community Services Department Reports 15. Legislative Services Department Reports 15.1. LGS-012-21 Regulation of On -Farm Special Events 211 15.2. LGS-013-21 Appointment to the Clarington Active Transportation and 239 Safe Roads Advisory Committee and the Clarington Heritage Committee (Confidential Attachment Distributed Under Separate Cover) 16. Financial Services Reports Page 3 17 18 19 20 21 16.1. FSD-010-21 2020 Council Remuneration 243 16.2. FSD-011-21 2020 Annual Statement for Cash -in -Lieu of Parkland 247 16.3. FSD-012-21 High Float Resurfacing 251 16.4. FSD-013-21 Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2A 254 CAO Office Reports New Business — Consideration *18.1. Downtown Bowmanville Parking Unfinished Business Confidential Reports Adjournment Page 4 Clarington If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131 General Government Committee Minutes Date: February 16, 2021 Time: 9:30 a.m. Location: Council Members (in Chambers or MS Teams) I Members of the Public (MS Teams) Present Were: Mayor A. Foster, Councillor G. Anderson, Councillor R. Hooper, Councillor J. Jones, Councillor J. Neal, Councillor C. Traill, Councillor M. Zwart Staff Present: J. Gallagher, L. Patenaude Staff Present Via A. Allison, G. Acorn, R. Maciver, S. Brake, F. Langmaid, M. Pick, Electronic Means: G. Weir 1. Call to Order Mayor Foster called the meeting to order at 9:31 a.m. 2. Land Acknowledgement Statement Councillor Anderson led the meeting in the Land Acknowledgement Statement. 3. New Business — Introduction Councillor Neal asked that a new business item, regarding Councillors' Offices and Former Edna Thompson Building, Cost to Improve Courtice Shores Road and Parking at Courtice Waterfront, and Lands South to Uplands, be added to the New Business — Consideration section of the agenda. Councillor Traill asked that a new business item, regarding Cost for Snow Clearing on Trails and Wilmot Creek, be added to the New Business — Consideration section of the agenda. 4. Adopt the Agenda Resolution # GG-158-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the Agenda for the General Government Committee meeting of February 16, 2021, be adopted with the following additions: New Business Item regarding Councillors' Offices and Former Edna Thompson Building Page 5 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 • New Business Item regarding Cost to Improve Courtice Shores Road and Parking for Courtice Waterfront • New Business Item regarding Lands South of Uplands • New Business Item regarding Cost for Snow Clearing on Trails • New Business Item regarding Wilmot Creek Carried 5. Declaration of Interest There were no disclosures of interest stated at this meeting. 6. Announcements Members of Committee announced upcoming community events and matters of community interest. 7. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting Resolution # GG-159-21 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Zwart That items 7.1 to 7.3, be received on consent with the exception of 7.3. Carried 7.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of January 25, 2021 Resolution # GG-160-21 That the minutes of the regular meeting of the General Government Committee meeting held on January 25, 2021, be adopted. 7.2 Minutes of a Special Meeting of January 29, 2021 Resolution # GG-161-21 That the minutes of the special meeting of the General Government Committee meeting held on January 29, 2021, be adopted. 7.3 Minutes of a Special Meeting of February 1-2, 2021 Resolution # GG-162-21 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Anderson That the minutes of the special meeting of the General Government Committee meeting held on February 1-2, 2021, be adopted. Carried 2 Page 6 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 8. Delegations 8.1 Tenzin Shomar and Hannah Oegema, Clarington Youth Council, Regarding Youth Engagement in Clarington Tenzin Shomar, Executive Director, and Hannah Oegema, Ward 1 Youth Councillor, Clarington Youth Council, were present via electronic means regarding Youth Engagement in Clarington. They made a verbal presentation to accompany an electronic participation. Ms. Oegema provided a brief overview of the agenda. She outlined the youth population in Clarington and explained that the Youth Council bridges the gap between youth and their municipal government, acts as a shadow to Clarington Municipal Council, and promotes civic engagement amongst young people. Mr. Shomar explained the composition of the Youth Council, stating that Wards 3 and 4 do not have representation at this time. He explained the relationship between Clarington Council and Youth Council and outlined the Youth Strategic Plan, noting the goal is to establish framework that highlights youth priorities. Mr. Shomar and Ms. Oegema answered questions from Members of Committee. Resolution # GG-163-21 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Anderson That the Delegation of Tenzin Shomar and Hannah Oegema be referred to the Community Services to determine whether they can assist the Youth Council; and That the Delegation of Tenzin Shomar and Hannah Oegema, regarding Youth Engagement in Clarington, be received with thanks. Carried 9. Communications — Receive for Information Resolution # GG-164-21 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Neal That Communication Items 9.1 to 9.8, be received on consent with the exception of items 9.7 and 9.8. Carried 3 Page 7 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 9.1 Minutes of the Bowmanville Business Improvement Area dated January 22, 2021 Resolution # GG-165-21 That the Minutes of the Bowmanville Business Improvement Area dated January 22, 2021, be received for information. 9.2 Minutes of the Newcastle Community Hall Board dated January 19, 2021 Resolution # GG-166-21 That the Minutes of the Newcastle Community Hall Board dated January 29, 2021, be received for information. 9.3 Minutes of the Newcastle Business Improvement Area dated January 26, 2021 Resolution # GG-167-21 That the Minutes of the Newcastle Business Improvement Area dated January 26, 2021, be received for information. 9.4 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, Region of Durham, Regarding Regional Broadband Network, Applications for Provincial and Federal Funding Resolution # GG-168-21 That Communication Item 9.4 from Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, Region of Durham, Regarding Regional Broadband Network, Applications for Provincial and Federal Funding, be received for information. 9.5 Mark Majchrowski, CAO, Kawartha Conservation, Regarding 2020 Year in Review and 2021 Preliminary Budget Resolution # GG-169-21 That Communication Item 9.5 from Mark Majchrowski, CAO, Kawartha Conservation, Regarding 2020 Year in Review and 2021 Preliminary Budget, be received for information. 9.6 Gary F. Cole, President of the West Beach Association, Regarding The West Beach Association Annual Progress Report Resolution # GG-170-21 That Communication Item 9.6 from Gary F. Cole, President of the West Beach Association, Regarding the West Beach Association Annual Progress Report, be received for information. 0 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 9.7 Patrick McNeil, Chair, Board of Directors, Elexicon Corporation, Regarding Elexicon's 2019 Financial Performance Resolution #GG-171-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Zwart That Communication Item 9.8 from Patrick McNeil, Chair, Board of Directors, Elexicon Corporation, Regarding Elexicon's 2019 Financial Performance, be received for information. Carried 9.8 Annette Simonian, Clerk, Township of Augusta, Regarding Ontario Fire College Closure Resolution # GG-172-21 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the following resolution from Annette Simonian, Clerk, Town of Augusta, regarding Ontario Fire College Closure, be endorsed by the Municipality of Clarington and request that the Province of Ontario be engaged for more dialogue on the closure of the Ontario Fire College: Whereas the Ontario Fire College has been in existence since 1949; and Whereas the Ontario Fire College is one of the primary sources of certified training for Ontario Firefighters; and Whereas the Ontario Fire College has built a reputation of integrity, credibility, and reliability in providing some of the best training to our Fire Services within the Province of Ontario; and Whereas the Ontario Fire College has been used to train and certify both Volunteer, Part -Time and Career firefighters throughout Ontario; and Whereas the Ontario Fire College gives Ontario Firefighters another option other than Regional Training Centers to obtain National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) certifications; and Whereas the Ontario Fire College is the most cost-effective method to certify Firefighters to NFPA Standards in Ontario; and Whereas the Ontario Government enacted and revoked 0. Reg. 379/18: Firefighter Certification in 2018; and Whereas when the Ontario Government revoked 0. Reg. 379/18: Firefighter Certification, it was made known by the Office of the Solicitor General that the act would be amended and brought back in the future; and 5 Page 9 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 Therefore Be It Resolved That the Township of Augusta requests that the Province of Ontario reverse their decision to close the Ontario Fire College as the OFC is one of the best and most cost-effective methods for municipalities to train their firefighters which assists us in protecting our residents; and Be It Further Resolved That this Resolution is forwarded to the Honourable Doug Ford Premier of Ontario, the Honourable Sylvia Jones; Ontario Solicitor General, the Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Jon Pegg Ontario Fire Marshal; and AMO. Carried 10. Communications — Direction 10.1 Henry and Annette Zekveld, Regarding a Request to End the Lockdown Resolution # GG-173-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Hooper That Communication Item 10.1 from Henry and Annette Zekveld, regarding a Request to End the Lockdown, be received for information. Carried 10.2 Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works, Regarding Proposed Closure of Highway 401 Westbound On -ramp at Duke Street Resolution # GG-174-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Traill That Staff be directed to install a traffic light at the Baseline Road, Duke Street and Highway 401 intersection. Motion Withdrawn Resolution # GG-175-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Anderson That Communication Item 10.2 be referred to Staff to investigate the possibility of installing traffic lights at the Baseline Road, Duke Street, and Highway 401 intersection. Carried Later in the Meeting, see following motion Page 10 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 Resolution # GG-176-21 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Jones That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to speak to the foregoing Resolution #GG-175-21 for a second time. Carried The foregoing Resolution #GG-175-21 was then put to a vote and carried. 10.3 Wendy Bracken and Linda Gasser, Regarding Durham Region's Plan to Potentially Use Bottom Ash from the Durham/York Incinerator in a Road Reconstruction Pilot Project in Clarington Resolution # GG-177-21 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Hooper That Communication Item 10.3 from Wendy Bracken, Regarding Durham Region's Plan to Potentially Use Bottom Ash from the Durham/York Incinerator in a Road Reconstruction Pilot Project, be referred to the Region of Durham for an explanation for the testing of any recycling materials proposed for this project. Carried Recess Resolution # GG-178-21 Moved by Councillor Traill Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the Committee recess for 10 minutes. Carried The meeting reconvened at 10:54 a.m. with Mayor Foster in the Chair. 10.4 Matthew Allott, Owner/President, Manantler Craft Brewing Company Inc., Regarding Manufacturer's Limited Liquor Sales Licence Resolution # GG-179-21 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Jones That Council supports the issuance of the Manantler's Limited Liquor Sales Licence Application to Manantler Craft Brewing Company Inc., to be located at 160 Baseline Rd. E., Bowmanville. Carried 7 Page 11 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 10.5 Chair Mayor Foxton, Top Aggregate Producing Municipalities of Ontario (TAPMO), Regarding Aggregate Properties Assessment Resolution #GG-180-21 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Hooper That Communication Item 10.5 from Chair Mayor Foxton, Top Aggregate Producing Municipalities of Ontario (TAPMO), regarding Aggregate Properties Assessment, be received for information. Carried 10.6 Erica Mittag, Staff Liaison to the Diversity Advisory Committee, Regarding Resolution #GG-469-20 - Prohibition of Hate Symbols Resolution # GG-181-21 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Anderson Whereas the Municipality of Clarington engages with its Diversity Advisory Committee on matters surrounding diversity in the community; Whereas on December 14, 2020, the Municipality of Clarington passed a resolution that the Mayor and Members of Council of the Municipality of Clarington, in partnership with Clarington's Diversity Advisory Committee, release an Official Statement condemning the display of symbols of hate in our community; Whereas on December 14, 2020, the Municipality of Clarington also passed a resolution that the Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee's request to prohibit public display of hate symbols be forwarded to the newly formed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Group at the Region of Durham, for their comments; Whereas the Diversity Advisory Committee supports a joint message condemning symbols of hate in our community and is recommending that the joint statement include action items to support the message; Now therefore be it resolved that the Diversity Advisory Committee be directed to provide recommended action items that support the message of condemning symbols of hate in our community that could be implemented while we await comments from the Region of Durham. Yes (7): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Jones, Councillor Neal, Councillor Traill, and Councillor Zwart Carried Later in the Meeting on a Recorded Vote (7 to 0) 8 Page 12 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 Resolution # GG-182-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to speak to the foregoing Resolution #GG-181-21 for a second time. Carried The foregoing Resolution #GG-181-21 was then carried on a recorded vote. 11. Presentations 12. Public Works Department Reports Councillor Hooper chaired this portion of the meeting. 12.1 PWD-012-21 Road Rationalization Resolution # GG-183-21 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Neal That Report PWD-012-21 be received; and That all interested parties listed in Report PWD-012-21 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried 12.2 PWD-013-21 Speed Limit Reduction to 40 km/h on Neighborhood Collector B Roads Resolution # GG-184-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Anderson That Report PWD-013-21 be received; That speed limits not be lowered to 40 km/h on all Collector roads; That staff continue ongoing monitoring of the municipal road network and researching alternate traffic management options and their suitability on individual basis; and That all interested parties listed in Resolution # C-462-20 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried 9 Page 13 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 12.3 PWD-014-21 Newcastle Community Garden Resolution # GG-185-21 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Anderson That Report PWD-014-21 be received; That Staff be directed to proceed with the establishment of a Community Garden in Newcastle; That the Director of Public Works be authorized to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the community garden association, in a form satisfactory to the Municipal Solicitor; and That all interested parties listed in Report PWD-014-21 be advised of Council's decision. Carried 13. Emergency and Fire Services Department Reports Councillor Zwart chaired this portion of the meeting. 14. Community Services Department Reports Councillor Traill chaired this portion of the meeting. 15. Legislative Services Department Reports Councillor Jones chaired this portion of the meeting. Resolution # GG-186-21 Moved by Mayor Foster Seconded by Councillor Hooper That Reports 15.1, 15.3, and 15.4, be received on consent with the exception of 15.2. Motion Withdrawn 15.1 LGS-008-21 Assumption of Road Widenings Resolution #GG-187-21 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Zwart That Report LGS-008-21 be received; That the By-law attached to Report LGS-008-21, as attachment 1, be approved. Carried 10 Page 14 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 15.2 LGS-009-21 Appointments to the Ganaraska Forest Recreational User Committee and Property Standards Committee Resolution # GG-188-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Traill That Report LGS-009-21 be received; That the resignation of Anthony Wood, from the Ganaraska Forest Recreational User Committee and Property Standards Committee, be received and that Mr. Wood be thanked for his volunteer efforts; That the Committee consider the applications for appointments to the Ganaraska Forest Recreational User Committee and Property Standards Committee, and that the vote be conducted to appoint the citizen representatives, in accordance with the Appointment to Boards and Committees Policy; and That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-009-21 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried Ganaraska Forest Recreational User Committee That Marven Whidden be appointed to the Ganaraska Forest Recreational User Committee for a term ending December 31, 2022 or until a successor is appointed. Resolution # GG-189-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Anderson That the consideration of the applications for the Property Standards Committee be referred to the end of the Agenda. Motion Withdrawn Property Standards Committee That Robert Genosko be appointed to the Property Standards Committee for a term ending December 31, 2022 or until a successor is appointed. 15.3 LGS-010-21 Board and Committees By-law Update to Allow Electronic Participation Resolution # GG-190-21 Moved by Mayor Foster Seconded by Councillor Anderson That Report LGS-010-21 be received; 11 Page 15 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 That the By-laws attached to Report LGS-010-21, as Attachments 1-8, updated to allow for electronic participation at various Boards and Committees, be approved; That Terms of Reference for the various Boards and Committees, attached to Report LGS-010-21, as Attachments 9-16, updated to allow for electronic participation, be approved; and That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-010-21 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried 15.4 LGS-011-21 Courtesy Pass — 3 Hour Parking Resolution # GG-191-21 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Zwart That Report LGS-011-21 be received; That the annual permitted uses for courtesy passes be increased to 14 uses per vehicle; and That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-011-21 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried Suspend the Rules Resolution # GG-192-21 Moved by Mayor Foster Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the meeting for an additional 5 minutes until 12:05 p.m. Carried Suspend the Rules Resolution # GG-193-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the meeting for an additional 2 minutes until 12.10 p.m. Carried The Committee recessed for their scheduled break as per the Procedural By-law. The meeting reconvened at 1:00 p.m. with Mayor Foster in the Chair. 12 Page 16 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 16. Financial Services Reports Councillor Neal chaired this portion of the meeting. 16.1 FSD-007-21 Annual Leasing Report - 2020 Resolution # GG-194-21 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Hooper That Report FSD-007-21 be received for information. Carried 16.2 FSD-008-21 2020 Annual Commodity Hedging Resolution # GG-195-21 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Anderson That Report FSD-008-21 be received for information. Carried 16.3 FSD-009-21 Newcastle BIA Wreath Request Resolution # GG-196-21 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Mayor Foster That Report FSD-009-21 be received; That the request from the Newcastle BIA for $25,000 from the Newcastle BIA Reserve Fund (the "West End Money") for the purposes of replacing the current wreaths, as attachment 1, be approved; and That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-009-21 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried 17. CAO Office Reports 18. New Business — Consideration 18.1 Civil Marriage Ceremonies (Councillor Neal) Councillor Neal withdrew the motion. 13 Page 17 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 18.2 Mileage for Council Members (Councillor Neal) Resolution # GG-197-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Traill That Staff be directed to report back on a suggested policy to change the current travel/mileage policy for Members of Council to a per kilometer charge at the standard municipal rate. Yes (3): Councillor Jones, Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill No (4): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, and Councillor Zwa rt Motion Lost on a recorded vote (3 to 4) Resolution # GG-198-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Traill That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to speak to the foregoing Resolution #GG-197-21 for a second time. Yes (3): Councillor Jones, Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill No (4): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, and Councillor Zwart Motion Lost on a recorded vote (3 to 4) The foregoing Resolution #GG-197-21 was then lost on a recorded vote. 18.3 Darlington Boulevard Design (Councillor Neal) Resolution # GG-199-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That Staff be directed to report back to Council on the design for Darlington Blvd. prior to proceeding with that work. Yes (3): Councillor Jones, Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill No (4): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, and Councillor Zwa rt Motion Lost on a recorded vote (3 to 4) 14 Page 18 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 18.4 Adelaide Avenue Extension (Councillor Jones) Resolution # GG-200-21 Moved by Councillor Traill Seconded by Councillor Hooper That New Business Item 18.4 be referred to the end of the meeting, in closed session. Carried 18.5 Snowmobile Trails (Councillor Neal) Councillor Neal withdrew the motion. 18.6 Retiree Health Benefits (Councillor Neal) Resolution # GG-201-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Traill That Staff be directed to report back on the increased cost and coverage including out of country travel coverage, for retiree health benefits. Carried 18.7 Councillor's Offices and Former Edna Thompson Building Resolution # GG-202-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Traill That Staff be directed to report back on: • eliminating councillor offices and what will be done regarding improving the councillor conference room, or eliminating and replacing with staff offices; and • designating the former Shaw Building (the former Edna Thomson Daycare building located on 156 Church Street) as a performance space. Motion Withdrawn 18.8 Cost to Improve Courtice Shores Road and Parking for Courtice Waterfront Resolution # GG-203-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That Staff be directed to report back on the cost to improve Courtice Shores Road and provide parking for the Courtice waterfront. Carried 15 Page 19 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 18.9 Lands South of Uplands Moved by Councillor Neal That Staff be directed to report back at the next Planning Committee meeting on whether the land south of Uplands can be retained by the Municipality for future parkland, rather than transferred to developers. Mayor Foster ruled the matter out of order. Councillor Neal challenged the Mayor's ruling. Mayor Foster stated that the matter is a land use issue, which should be considered at a Planning and Development Committee meeting. Resolution # GG-204-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Traill Will the ruling of the Chair be sustained? Yes (5): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Jones, and Councillor Zwart No (2): Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill Carried on a recorded vote (5 to 2) 18.10 Cost for Snow Clearing on Trails Resolution # GG-205-21 Moved by Councillor Traill Seconded by Councillor Anderson That Staff be directed to report back with costing on clearing all 20 km of trails in Clarington for next year, where possible (i.e. some of the really hilly sections of the Waterfront Traill will not be doable). Carried 18.11 Wilmot Creek Resolution # GG-206-21 Moved by Councillor Traill Seconded by Councillor Anderson Whereas there are 1600 older adults residing in Wilmot Creek Older Adult Lifestyle Cthommunity and a significant portion are over eighty years old, are immunocompromised and/or have health conditions; Whereas there are approximately three hundred older adult lifestyle communities across Ontario where older adults live independently but in aggregate, in small homes, trailers or apartment -style buildings; Whereas many older adult lifestyle community residents rely on daily visits by outside workers such as personal support workers and house cleaners, putting them at a greater risk contracting COVID-19; 16 Page 20 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 Whereas fifty-two per cent of old adult lifestyle community residents in Ontario are individuals age seventy years old and older; Whereas older adults aged sixty-five to eighty-four years old account of the majority of COVID-19 related deaths in Canada, and those aged forty-five years old and older are 89% to 93% more likely to die with COVID if they have pre- existing conditions; Whereas the Province of Ontario plans to vaccinate 1.2 million seniors and caregivers as part of Phase 1 in March, 2021; and Whereas the Provincial government announced that Phase 1 included "seniors living in congregate" but this does not include seniors living older adult lifestyle communities; Now Therefore Be It Resolved: That the Province acknowledges that older adult lifestyle communities are in fact, "congregations" of seniors as per the criterion for Phase 1 administration of the COVID-19 vaccine and such, older adult lifestyle community residents should be vaccinated as part of Phase 1; That the Municipality of Clarington supports the Wilmot Creek Homeowner's Association request that the Wilmot Creek Wheelhouse be used for administration of the vaccine as part of Phase 1 in Clarington; and That this Motion be circulated to the Durham Region Health and Social Services Committee, MPP for Durham Lindsay Park, Durham area Municipalities, AMO, and the Canadian Association for Retired Persons. Referred Resolution # GG-207-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to speak to the foregoing Resolution #GG-206-21 for a second time. Carried 17 Page 21 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 Resolution # GG-208-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the foregoing Resolution #GG-206-21 regarding Wilmot Creek, be referred to the March 1, 2021 Council meeting. Carried 19. Unfinished Business 19.1 Resolution #GG-113-20, Regarding, Report EGD-006-20 - Cedar Crest Beach Rd and West Beach Rd Berm Review and Estimates (Referred from the January 4, 2021 General Government Committee Meeting) Resolution # GG-209-21 Moved by Councillor Traill Seconded by Councillor Neal That Unfinished Business Item 19.1, Regarding Report EGD-006-20 Cedar Crest Beach Rd and West Beach Rd Berm Review and Estimates, be referred to the April 6, 2021 Planning and Development Committee meeting. Carried 20. Confidential Reports Closed Session Resolution # GG-210-21 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Neal That, in accordance with Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the meeting be closed for the purpose of discussing matters that deal with: • a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board; • litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; and • advice that is subject to solicitor -client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. Carried 18 Page 22 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 Recess Resolution # GG-211-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Anderson That the Committee recess for 15 minutes. Carried The meeting reconvened at 2:55 p.m. in closed session with Mayor Foster in the Chair. Rise and Report The meeting resumed in open session at 3:36 p.m. Mayor Foster advised that four items were discussed in "closed" session in accordance with Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 and no resolutions were passed. 20.1 Verbal Update from Rob Maciver, Director of Legislative Services/Municipal Solicitor, Regarding the Acquisition of the Bowmanville Zoo Property Resolution # GG-212-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Zwart That the Confidential Verbal Update from Rob Maciver, Director of Legislative Services/Municipal Solicitor, Regarding the Acquisition of the Bowmanville Zoo Property, be received for information. Carried 20.2 Question for Director - Anaerobic Digestor This matter was considered in closed session. 20.3 Adelaide Avenue Extension Resolution # GG-213-21 Moved by Councillor Jones Seconded by Councillor Neal Whereas the residents living in the vicinity of Townline Road North have seen traffic increase due to new housing in Oshawa and Clarington; Whereas the traffic studies for new development, such as 3 Lawson Road recognized that the existing intersection at Adelaide Avenue and Townline Road will continue to operate poorly and the current design is not optimal based on the projected traffic levels; Whereas the extension of Adelaide Avenue easterly to Trulls Road is within the Region's forecasted budget for 2025; 19 Page 23 General Government Committee Minutes February 16, 2021 Whereas as part of the Adelaide extension, Lawson Road will be closed at Townline Road with a cul-de-sac, and a new north -south connection will be constructed between Lawson Road and Adelaide Avenue; and Whereas Clarington Public Works Department while having no objections to the approval of the proposed development at 3 Lawson Road voiced concern regarding the vehicle access and egress onto Townline Road given the existing conditions; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That Clarington Council is requesting the Region of Durham advance the timing of the Adelaide Avenue East Extension land acquisition, design and construction from Townline Road easterly to Trull's Road as set out in the Environmental Assessment dated November 2005, to ensure it is in place by or before 2025; and That this motion be circulated to the City of Oshawa and Durham Region. Carried 21. Adjournment Resolution # GG-214-21 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the meeting adjourn at 3:42 p.m. Carried 20 Page 24 Farewell Creek Phase 2B Path Routing -Impacted Resident Concern - Ian Soutter Property Owner - 47 Pinedale Crescent 25 Year Courtice Resident /Taxpayer Clarington Resident 50+ years Director of Manufacturing Engineering — GM Oshawa Page 25 Pinedale Crescent property owners are profoundly impacted by your decision today, but don't know this committee meeting is happening! • Request: • Share the report with the residents ASAP • Defer today's decision for a reasonable period • Allow residents to discuss and present their concerns to council before decision made Page 26 Problem Statement Challenge — Clarington Council • What Phase 2B path routing best optimizes: 1. The provision of a true nature walk for area residents 2. The minimum degree of ecological damage to the mature forest 3. Clarington budget impact 4. Protection of the property rights of Pinedale Crescent property owners via the least possible impact on their privacy, security and property value Have we forgotten #4? This is not simple NIMBY-ism - a decision with 50+ year impact — Optimize! Page 27 ail TELU !; 7:16 AM a 89%i�.' Dane 6of9 rz Till property rights in ontario FAR All Images News Videos Maps Shopping 9.1 (1) Every person has a right to own the real and personal property that he or she has acquired in accordance with law and, except to the extent provided by law, to the peaceful enjoyment and free disposition of the property. www_ola.org x bills, session-1 s fail... Bill 190, Property Rights and Responsibilities Act, 2009 - Legislative ... Atg6Zenred snippets IM Feedback _ 1 yy'�y���'2► r ��i �y3L-,ty'1l i / i �' 1� N 1 }I �;7 il 51 1h W- AMW f Y.4 t.`�'.i" i; -��s. �A i�!�e � - ��� �� i. � i � F _ a \ 3:! 1[ +� ! ` Lg ruses . +» _' / �` .q���:. - �, s �-i ���. F: -fir ¢ ,.�� _4 � � IT'� ��'° Y :\- - i:. a�te., ��' ���st�M�• � r,� n�.v - mow. .. � `�, � r 4� � 3• � '" �y '� : • ��• R „w*J'_i:'�. m� . a , �� Y3 c;i�ie i '-�i - -- 'ifi' `�i • i .:� � � }a. '.� ' :� �z �-ti.--•;.� ` - r i 'I, lih, �., la f` ,IS 1MAN. IM � - � < - �„�•t 6 ° eft � i i � �!*r' t ai �AE.� ° -�s:. - a RTC 13iW%0% A -%lei !'re%e'A-^V%f 11i+0-P% %V% fle%e-li of E3w-^w%P%e r%A C-1YA\A/e111 !'re%e%li E3h^e'er 7C Some facts about the residential experience: • COVID has given us a preview of what a paved path will bring • My wife and daughter have been demeaned and insulted by passers by • Dog poop and garbage has been thrown into my hedge and onto my property • Dumping has increased • Security concerns have risen • Town maintenance non-existent • Construction carelessness/damage to property during bore testing • Drug use by path users • Privacy has been MASSIVELY reduced Page 31 Newcastle BIA MINUTES February 11, 2021 www. vi llageof newcastle. ca Attendance: Janeen Calder, Helen Vatandoust, Marni Lewis, Joanna Rolf (Newcastle Physiotherapy) Valentine Lovekin, Jane Black, Councillor Marg Zwart, Theresa Vanhaverbeke, Tracey Yates, Councillor Granville Anderson, Bonnie Wrightman-CBOT Regrets: Donna Wood, Greg Lewis 1. Meeting called to order at 9:05 a.m. 2. Approval of December Minutes: Moved by: Tracey Yates Seconded by: Helen Vatandoust CARRIED Received AGM Minutes Moved by: Janeen Calder Seconded by: Helen Vatandoust CARRIED 3. Business Arising from Minutes: n/a 4. President's Report : n/a 5. Council Report: Council is currently in budget deliberations. Newcastle is getting an additional accessible parking spot, Marg will look into where the spot is going to be. The Go bus service to Newcastle has ended due to lack of ridership. On demand service is available through the Region. Call and schedule when you want to be picked up on an individual basis. This will continue until post covid. Marg will follow up on the status of Newcastle Streetscape plans. Granville will follow up on the planting of trees in our downtown core, after many have been cut down. Inquire about sidewalk repairs to 29 King Ave. W. Suggested to invite Steve Brake, Director of Public Works to our next BIA meeting, Marg will reach out to him. 6. Treasurer's Report: The Audit has been submitted to MOC by Leslie. Sue at Dodd Et Anthony will be doing our bookkeeping, Marni will coordinate with her to get the monthly report for the meeting. A motion to add Marni Lewis and Janeen Calder as signing authorities on behalf of the BIA. Moved by: Theresa Vanhaverbeke Seconded by: Jane Black CARRIED 7. Committee Reports: Page 32 Safety Et Decor: Pat Carmichael has volunteered to order the flower baskets for the Spring. In September, Marni will post the old wreaths on social media to sell for $25.00 We have sent a request to Council requesting to use the west end money for the new Christmas light decor. We will hear their decision by March 1st. Then firm up our order. Advertising: The Municipality is looking at possibly hiring someone to look after the social media for all 3 BIAs (Newcastle, Orono and Bowmanville) we expressed our interest if this happens. Special Events: a) Town Hall Lighting - Janeen has sent a request to the Mayor to get the lighting funded by MOC. Marg advised it is not in the current budget. The cost is around $4500. b) Breakfast with Santa- Potentially November 27th c) Santa Parade - n/a d) Harvest Festival - n/a 8. CBOT - Re -opening of the Economy on February 16th, lots of questions about who can open? Durham Health feels confident about "red" zone opening and asking businesses to be ready. We are looking into a sign template for store capacity. The Digital Main Street contract has been extended to March 26th for 1 team member, Tyler. He will be in Newcastle to offer free services if you are interested. Two questions we have for Newcastle businesses, email me with your answers/ thoughts to bonnieCcbot.ca: Are CBOT efforts valuable? What else can we do to support you? 9. Chamber News: n/a Page 33 10. CIP: The current CIP Covid1 9 Grant from the MOC is being revamped to make it easier for businesses to apply, watch for that to be released. 11. New Business: n/a 12. Next meeting, Thursday, March 11th, 9:OOam at Town Hall 13. Motion to adjourn meeting by Janeen Calder seconded by Jane Black Page 34 Minutes Orono DBIA Meeting February 11, 2021— 8:00 am Zoom Present: Karen Lowery, Julie Cashin-Oster, Frank Maitland, Councillor Margaret Zwart Adam Jeronimo — Business Development Lead CBOT Thank you to Adam for hosting the Zoom Meeting Motion: Approval of minutes from October 8, 2020 meeting Motion: Karen. Second: Frank. Carried Motion: Approval of the Agenda — Motion: Julie. Second: Karen. Carried This is our first meeting for 2021. We will continue to meet the second Thursday of the month at 8 am via Zoom until further notice. Log in ID and password will be sent prior to the meeting along with the agenda. Adam will be hosting the meetings. 2021 Executive Tammy R has resigned as treasurer, Margaret Zwart has volunteered to be treasurer. Nominated by Karen Lowery Second: Frank. Carried. After Tammy has completed the year end filing with the municipality, Margaret will take on the role. We will be looking for another accountant/bookkeeper. Karen Lowery will stay as chair (unless someone else would like the position) only for 2021. Julie Cashin-Oster will stay as secretary (unless someone else would like the position) only for 2021. Adam Jeronimo — CBOT — Adam gave an update on the Digital Service Squad. Applications for funding is closed — however they do have a student available until end of March to assist with questions. Small Business Support Grant — CBOT is available to assist small businesses with applying for this grant. Eligible businesses could receive between $10-20,000. There has been discussion with the other BIAS around hiring a social media person to works with the 3 — Orono, Newcastle, Bowmanville, Adam asked if we thought this would be valuable. Absolutely. As we won't know until Friday what the re -opening will look like — what colour zone we will be in, however all indicators point to the Red Zone meaning some retail will be open at some capacity, Adam suggested a retail roundtable might be an idea. Adam will ask other 2 BIAs about anotherjoint BIA meeting. This could be helpful as the economy starts to reopen there may be the possible to do joint projects. If there are any questions regarding PPE, reopening, what is required by businesses, funding etc — you can reach out to CBOT. Year End Bank Balance: $18,000 2021 Capstone Funding — last year Karen applied to Capstone for 5 new benches for the downtown. The benches were put on the west side. This was the easiest since we were replacing benches that were already approved by the region for placement. Karen and Julie reapplied this year in hopes to get 5 more benches plus 2 recycle bins for each end of Main Street. Karen has started the preliminary work sending requests to the municipality and the region for the east side. Benches need to be ordered by the end of March. One of the benches will be placed at the Orono Horticultural Society's 100t" Anniversary Garden that they are planning at the Mill Street entrance to Orono. If we don't receive the funding again this year, we have the money left over from the Christmas lights. Page 35 Bike Racks — we were expecting these last Spring — however due to COVID they weren't installed. Karen will reach out to the municipality as to ETA. EV charging stations — we are on the list to get an EV charging station; however, nothing has been decided. DBIA Website — it has been up and running since November. A huge thank you to Sandy Yorke who did a tremendous amount of work gathering the information and working with the developer Brian Rutherford. Sandy was also instrumental in getting our brochure done — proof expecting this week or early next. Going forward, businesses are responsible for their own content — updates, revisions etc. As discussed in the beginning stages. Christmas Lights — they need timers for next year. As a reminder without a DBIA we will not receive money - $6000 for 2021, from the municipality. It is important to have quorum at meetings and member participation. Next Meeting: March 11, 20218:00 am — via Zoom Adjourned at 9:30 am Page 36 Historic Downtown Bowmanville Business Centre (BIA) Board of Management Meeting Minutes Tuesday February 9, 2021; 6:30pm Virtual Meeting due to COVID-19 pandemic Present: Edgar Lucas, Chair Laura Holmes, Secretary Gerri Lucas, Treasurer Justin Barry Cathy Holmes Ron Hooper Bonnie Wrightman, CBOT representative Absent: Carrie Hooper Erin Kemp Delegations Present: None The meeting was called to order by the Chair. 1. Presentation by Delegations The Chair recognized that no delegations were present. 2. Adoption of Minutes Moved by G. Lucas, seconded by R. Hooper THAT the minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2021 and minutes of special meeting on January 22, 2021 be approved as circulated. CARRIED 3. Business Arisine from Previous Minutes (a) Annual General Meeting Discussion deferred. (b) Digital Main Street Update Request for update from Zoe Ferguson (Digital Services Squad member) went unanswered. 4. Correspondence Correspondence was received from i. Carrie Hooper regarding resignation from the social media promotions portfolio (via email) Page 37 Historic Downtown Bowmanville 2 February 2021 Business Centre (BIA) ii. Municipal Law Enforcement with notice for distribution to business/property owners regarding street parking (via email) iii. Legislative Services Department with notice to discontinue signatures on minutes (via email) iv. Municipal Clerk regarding draft by-law about electronic participation in meeting for BIAs (via email) V. Municipal Clerk with notice of adoption of a zoning by-law 2021-006 (via email) vi. Municipal Clerk with notice of by-law 2020-046 regarding electronic participation in meetings (via email) vii. Municipal Clerk with notice of Resolution PD-022-21 regarding seasonal sidewalk patio program (via email) viii. Municipal Clerk with notice of Resolution GG-230-20 regarding electronic participation at meetings (via email) ix. Planning Department with notice of public meeting for proposed development on Green Rd (via email) X. Planning Department requesting feedback survey link for COVID-19 CIP grant program be shared with member businesses (via email) Moved by C. Holmes, seconded by J. Barry THAT the correspondence be received for information. THAT item 4.ii. and item 4.x. information be shared with BIA members. CARRIED S. Treasurer's Report The Treasurer presented the following: i. $57 311.72 in current account ii. Finance Department has requested a copy of the 2020 budget Moved by R. Hooper, seconded by J. Barry THAT the Treasurer's Report be adopted as presented. CARRIED 6. Directors' Reports (a) Council Liaison — R. Hooper: Reported that the Director of Traffic Services has expressed that there has been some traffic queuing issues when eastbound vehicles on King St want to make a left turn onto Silver St. OBIAA best practices call from earlier today discussed parking strategies and some regions have moved to license plate scanners. Municipal Council is working on the budget. (b) Events — C. Holmes: Page 38 Historic Downtown Bowmanville 3 February 2021 Business Centre (BIA) Reported that a photo contest was hosted asking people to take photos in front of the BMO window wrap. For Family Day weekend there is an outdoor window scavenger hunt planned where people are asked to walk around downtown and count the number of emoji balls in storefront windows. So far, a total of 37 businesses have committed to participate. Events are an effort to bring walking traffic and awareness of local business during the provincial lockdown. Decisions about future events will be based on regulations in provincial reopening strategy. (c) Membership Relations —J. Barry: Reported that Sushi Holic opened on Division St. Bella Fleur Boutique has closed. A new dog groomer has opened on Temperance St called The Pawlour. There are several locations in downtown up for lease. (d) Streetscape — G. Lucas: No report. (e) Communications— (vacant): L. Holmes reported that new businesses have been added to the mailing list. Regular updates are circulated. (f) Website — L. Holmes: No report. Discussion related to website redevelopment. L. Holmes recommends that a revised quote be requested from the web developer as previous quotes are stale -dated. Recommends that a clear vision for the redesign be in place before asking for a meeting with the web developer. Discussion on the importance of having a project manager to push the project forward as the redesign will require a significant amount of work. (g) Media Relations — C. Hooper: L. Holmes reported that the Instagram account has gained 120 followers in the last month organically. Excellent feedback has been received from both businesses and followers on the daily feature posts and stories highlighting business products. Transition of facebook account administration is underway. In meantime, C. Hooper continues to post essential information. (h) CBOT report—B. Wrightman: Reported that there is money to keep one DSS member until the end of March who will be able to assist businesses throughout Clarington. Asks that this be shared with BIA members. Partnership between Durham Tourism and Whitby BIA has developed SHOP in Durham, an online marketplace. Asks that the information be shared with business owners since this is a free service and there is a team available to assist with on -boarding. Shared some stats related to recent survey: 32% businesses had contact tracing in place. 29% are confident Page 39 Historic Downtown Bowmanville 4 February 2021 Business Centre (BIA) they can weather storm with some impacts. 45% state they have been significantly impacted. 88% are aware of government programs available to them. CBOT is available to assist all businesses. Asked for feedback on how CBOT is doing, what else would be helpful, any assistance needed. CBOT may be looking to host another small business summit, similar to the one held last year prior to the pandemic. Councillor Hooper expressed his appreciation for the staff being a great resource for business and for the willingness of staff to disseminate and share information between the BIAs and businesses. The Chair recognized the value that CBOT brings. 7. New Business (a) Thefts in Downtown On Saturday February 6, there was a theft of product and a tip jar at The Toasted Walnut. The business owner shared images captured on security camera with the BIA which were then shared with BIA members by email. Several businesses responded indicating that they believed the image may represent the same woman who allegedly shoplifted at their business in previous months. Businesses have been encouraged to share incidents of theft or vandalism with the BIA so that the information can be passed along to fellow business owners. (b) Social Media Hacking A business owner in downtown Bowmanville had their social media account hacked. The hacker was asking followers to send $1000 to be entered in a contest. The business owner was alerted to the fraudulent activity by some savvy customers/followers who didn't believe that the business owner would ever ask for money. There are methods to increase security on social media accounts, including two -factor authentication which requires a code to be entered on any unrecognized device. Tips for social media security should be shared with BIA members. (c) Update from Mayor's COVID task force meeting Dr. Kyle, the medical officer of health for Durham, attended to provide an update on current status. The Chair shared information about the social media hacking incident. Councillor Hooper shared OBIAA updates, particularly related to summer patio programs. (d) Date of Next Meetine The next meeting of the Board of Management is scheduled to be held on Tuesday March 9, 2021 commencing at 6:30pm in Clarington Meeting Room 1-C, unless COVID restrictions are still in place in which case the meeting will be held virtually. Page 40 Historic Downtown Bowmanville 5 February 2021 Business Centre (BIA) (e) Adjournment Moved by J. Barry, seconded by G. Lucas THAT the meeting adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:27pm. CARRIED Page 41 NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY HALL BOARD February 16 2021 Zoom 7 pm Present Were: Barry Carmichael, Chair Crystal Yaki Janeen Calder Henry Corvers Granville Anderson — Regional Councilor Marg Zwart — Local Councilor Regrets From: Sierd DeJong Also Present: Gabrielle Bell, Secretary 1. Board members introduced themselves and new member Henry Corvers was welcomed. 2. Election of Chair M. Zwart nominated B Carmichael, seconded by G. Anderson Barry was elected to chair for 2021 by acclamation. 3. MINUTES Moved by J. Calder, seconded by G. Anderson That minutes of December 2020 and January 2021 are accepted as presented. "Carried" 4. BUSINESS ARISING a) Security System update: no additional information from Municipality. b) Hotel California event — we have not received a new contract with our request for covering refund if we cancel by May 2021. c) Restoration Project update: At this time some points are being reinstalled. Most work is happening off site at this time. The question was asked if they were on schedule with project. Board does not have that information. d) Newcastle Lions Club request for a fee to rent kitchen only for Chicken BBQ Motion by H. Corvers, seconded by M. Zwart That a fee of $400.00 is set for kitchen use only, with a $50.00 cleaning fee added on "Carried" e) Auction Items: B. Carmichael reported on the items that had been sent to auction in the course of cleaning out areas of the building. List of items sold attached. Items brought in $617.75 after expenses. The old cabinet doors from the library have been brought down from the attic space. There are 20 sets of doors without the cabinets which it is felt will never be used within the hall again. Newcastle Historical Society is presently Page 42 looking at the doors for restoration. It has also been brought to Board Chair's attention that member/s of Historical Society would like to take over the East Wing. As the East Wing is occupied by Early On and has been for a number of years this is not an option. A letter will be sent to Historical Society President Tom Wallace giving them 1ST right of refusal on cabinet doors. 5. FINANCIAL REPORT Moved by J Calder, seconded by M Zwart That financial report Jan 12021 to Feb 15 2021 is accepted as presented. "Carried" For further refunds we will contact Municipality to see what their policy is and consider following their lead. Councilors informed Board that Budget request has been approved. The Board is very appreciative of the support of the Council. 6. INVOICES a) J. Calder will submit invoice for $80.00 for staff Christmas gift. b) G. Bell has offered to only submit 50% rather than 100% of cell phone invoice for 2020 to assist with finances. S. Fogg has offered to not submit invoice for 50% of cell phone for 2020 to assist with finances. The Board discussed the employees offer and felt that these are tools they need and the invoice should be paid in full. G. Bell met with Owner Debbie Miller of Newcastle Home Decor for a consult of paint colors for the main hall washrooms. Debbie has also generously donated the paint for this project. Motion by H. Corvers, seconded by G. Anderson That invoices are paid as presented. "Carried" 7. CORRESPONDENCE a) Chamber of Commerce Membership $169.50 b) Clarington Board of Trade Membership $271.20 Board discussed memberships for 2021; it was felt that due to our lack of revenue for 2020 and going into 2021 that we will not be able to renew membership for 2021. Motion by H. Corvers, seconded by C. Yaki That for 2021 the board will not renew membership with CBOT or Newcastle Chamber of Commerce due to our lack of revenue as a result of CoVid19. "Carried" c) Orono Times article on hall restoration circulated for information. There will be a follow up article as the project completes. Chair also noted we should be thinking about our 100Th Anniversary in 2023. d) Motion to go in camera M. Zwart, seconded by J. Calder Page 43 e) Municipality has sent out notice that Electronic Participation at Meetings has now been adopted as of July 2020 going forward. Received for information f) Ontario Volunteer Service Award — Secretary submitted Sierd DeJong as a candidate in January 2020 for this award. Award was sent out via mail due to CoVid19 this past month. Thank you Sierd for your many years of service on Newcastle Community Hall Board. Sierd is not sure when he became a member but knows it is over 35 years. g) Municipality has sent out notice that we no longer need to have minutes signed. Received for information. h) Employee benefits through Chamber Plan are offering additional coverage i.e. Personal Life and Personal Retiree Plan. These are offered at a cost to employees at their discretion. Employee/s has been informed of this information. 8. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORT Not submitted — this has not been submitted for the past 2 months. Chair will check in with custodian on this item. 9. CUSTODIAL a) Pest Control Records need to be kept as per Durham Health Dept. b) Work Schedule for next 8 weeks has been created for custodian to follow. This includes deep cleaning of all rooms and painting in specific areas. c) Custodian has roped off a good portion of the main hall floor as it is not in use. 10. NEW BUSINESS a) Financial Records for 2020 have been submitted to Municipality for audit. b) Re -Opening — Red Zone which allows us to have up to 10 people per meeting with social distancing. c) Gardens — Chair reported on the disappointment of the care of gardens by contractor. Chair will connect with Operations Director S. Brake on this issue. d) Lions — clearing out of their items i.e. piano e) CoVid19 Safety Plan —Janeen Calder will be the contact for ensuring information is shared. Motion by J Calder, seconded by M. Zwart That the CoVid19 Safety Plan is adopted as presented. "Carried" f) Chair is negotiating with Durham Lodge on their 2021 lease. Free rental of main hall has been removed from the lease at this time. Motion to adjourn M. Zwart at 8:30 pm Page 44 Clarftwn MEMO If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works Date: March 8, 2021 Re: Bowmanville Boat Launch Restoration At the Special Council meeting held on Thursday, February 11, 2021, Council passed Resolution #C-066-21. This resolution approved the Municipalities Operating and Capital Budgets for 2021. Included in the amendments from the Draft Budget Book was item cc) regarding the Bowmanville Boat Launch restoration. The approved amendment reads as follows: "That the Bowmanville Boat Launch restoration in the amount of $200,000 be placed into a reserve fund and the issue be further investigated before any work is done." Additional clarity on the budget amendment is required as the current direction provided on the matter can be interpreted in a number of ways. Various options exist for investigation and possible future construction that could include the following: 1. Remove the boat ramp and permanently decommission the launch to prevent its continued use; 2. Restore the existing boat launch to a reasonable standard; 3. Reconstruct the boat launch in another location along Lake Ontario; 4. Consider the need for a boat launch as part of a full waterfront development plan. In 2019, staff of the Public Works Department endeavoured to have the remains of the old boat launch docks and staircases removed. As can be seen in the following photographs, the boat launch was in very poor condition and represented a serious risk of personal injury or property damage to users. The funding that was available to undertake this work, however, was insufficient to remove the existing ramp and replace any of the infrastructure necessary to properly restore the functionality of the existing boat launch. Although staff have permanently closed the boat launch to the public since 2019, it continues to be frequently used by recreational boaters and anglers. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net Page 45 Page 2 Figure 1: Bowmanville Boat Launch Ramp and Dock Figure 2: Bowmanville Boat Launch Dock The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net Page 46 Page 3 Figure 3: Bowmanville Boat Launch Dock Figure 4: Bowmanville Boat Launch Ramp The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net Page 47 Page 4 The Bowmanville Boat Launch has for many decades been an important piece of infrastructure that provides easy access to Lake Ontario for the local boating community and visitors to Clarington. The users of the boat launch in kind provide considerable support to the local economy through the purchase of goods and services. In addition, the existing boat launch also represents an important opportunity for people to improve their mental health during these unusual times of Covid-19 by allowing them to engage with the local environment. It should be noted that the investigation and implementation of either option 3 or 4 listed above will require significantly higher budgets and perhaps should be considered as a much longer -term vision for the Port Darlington area. The selection of option 1 or 2 will require considerable time for staff to acquire the necessary permits for in -water work, tendering of the project and construction of the proposed design. Any significant delay to the current timeline may continue to render the boat launch unavailable for users in 2021. Given the past importance of the Bowmanville Boat Launch and the on -going public interest to have the facility properly restored, Public Works staff are respectfully recommending that direction be provided to proceed with the necessary repairs to the existing facility with funds @ to be drawn from the Parks/Maintenance Reserve Fund (Bowmanville Boat Launch) to a maximum of $200,000. Regards, Stephen Brake Director Public Works The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net Page 48 MPAC Update Municipality of Clarington Kevin Yaraskavitch, Account Manager, Municipal and Stakeholder Relations Natasha Dawood, Regional Manager, Municipal and Stakeholder Relations February 22 2021 MUNICIPAL mpac PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Our Ontario property database is one of the most complex in the world and has data on over As- ROPERTIE 4_4 isj. MILLION • .. _ _ . .. _ _ - ... .. • ^..41.-. Tom.:. - � -- � '-a' f QM PAC a _ l.. f' L ..4 -. TOTAL C VALUE ASSESSMENT $300 TRILL101 *As of December 1, 2020 COMMERCIAL 164,213 PROPERTIES $318.9 B IN VALUE FARM 222,086 PROPERTIES $139.8 B 1N VALUE INDUSTRIAL 79,524 PROPERTIES $115.8 B IN VALUE SPECIAL/EXEMPT 48,320 PROPERTIES $148.1 B 1N VALUE MULTI -RESIDENT 16,905 PROPERTIES $121.2 B 1N VALUE RESIDENTIAL 4,894,786 PROPER- $2.2 T IN VALUE 90% of Ontario's more than 5.4 million properties are classified as residential. Page 51 Municipality of Clarington,- Your Assessment Base Property Class Total (2021 . -. -. Portfoli -. Residential 13,663,604,603 2.0% 83.1% Multi -Residential 144,996,200 -1.9% 0.9% Commercial 559,725,096 -0.5% 3.4% Shopping Centre 75,113,226 1.3% 0.5% Office Building 28,684,500 0.0% 0.2% Parking Lot 3,718,000 0.0% 0.0% Commercial (New Construction) 261,179,251 26.8% 1.6% Shopping Centre (New Construction) 49,206,949 -4.0% 0.3% Office Building (New Construction) 8,113,700 0.0% 0.0% Industrial 90,001,300 -1.3% 0.5% Large Industrial 181,828,412 -0.1% 1.1% Industrial (New Construction) 14,473,400 0.3% 0.1% Pipeline 55,689,000 0.4% 0.3% Farm 553,260,130 0.3% 3.4% Managed Forests 39,223,600 2.6% 0.2% PIL - Residential 30,587,900 1.2% 0.2% PIL - Commercial 60,854,900 4.1% 0.4% PIL - Industrial 23,585,000 -0.3% 0.1% PIL - Farm 4,695,600 -2.1% 0.0% Exempt 586,873,941 4.0%1 3.6% TOTAL 16,435,414,708 100.0% Page 52 .41 r 11 QMPAC We work closely with municipalities and property owners to capture changes by reviewing building permits and plans, conducting property inspections and responding to inquiries from property owners. 11 QMPAC We work closely with municipalities and property owners to capture changes by reviewing building permits and plans, conducting property inspections and responding to inquiries from property owners. A�e We are constantly monitoring real estate market activity, analyzing sales, financial statements and other market data to ensure our records are up to date, 1 ©MPAC A . 40 :1:le1T11itoMVAVA1i AOM L— a —•- _ a r� �" �' PPOPPPTY OSSFSSMFNT UPDAT } 2020 MUNICIPAL PARTN -. . w ow oft w.w" E R H I it . .�� � �' � I'� ` i "_ # • � _ �' `� •~ .. IL MUNICIPAL (m7pa c PR❑PER ASSESSMENT CORPORATION y. a. r' ..�.. �� � _ - � ram! -• -f' _ ._ .� r'r i _ ..!' _A 41 A SHIFTING PRIORITIES TO MEET YOUR NEEDS mpac nss ysMCH} 2020 Munic i pa l Pa rtne rs hi ps Re port Snaretnsrepor rr SHIFTING PRIORITIES TO MEET YOUR NEEDS As th a pandemic hit, our number one priority was to sup port ou r mun icipa l partners and employees. During the first few weeks. we engaged our Municipal Liaison Group (MLG) and municipalities to learn about your challenges, priorities and timelines. r What we heard set our agenda for the rest of 2620: ■ ■ + Keep MPACs business going, with minimal disruption toservices_ • Continue capturing new assessment to support municipal tax bases. ■ + Adjust timelines to allow more processing and Flexibility- • offer deferral ofthe municipal levy payment. • Through collaboration and partnership with municipalities, we have achieved this and so much more. • d. f� r 1lr Fil r or Elm r �► :f 1 s■ r � � r ■ r ! Page 58 WORKING DIFFERENTLY TO SERVE YOU BETTER Page 59 CAPTURING $37.3 BILLION IN NEW ASSESSMENT Page 60 Municipality of Clarington - New Assessment New Assessment: $279 Million Forecasted Assessment: $275 Million Percent of Forecast: 101.5% Page 61 HELPING YOU SEE OVER THE HORIZON mpac 2020 Municipal Partnerships Report snare mis.epot .ti Fa HELPING YOU SEE OVER THE HORIZON: TRANSFORMING HOW WE SHARE DATA WITH MUNICIPALITIES Throughout 2020, we introduced significant user -driven improvements to Municipal Connect to enhanceyour experience and get the data needed to capture new assessment while protecting property owners' information. The next iteration of Municipal Connect is on the horizon. Built in-house, to meet the evolving needs otour municipal partners,we have acceleratedthe project timelines and engaged a group of 18 municipalities to provide regular Feedback as we build it. The new system will create the foundation for a highly collaborative tool that improves the user experience to make information easier to access and expand the ways municipalities can use MPAC's data to plan for the future. Page 62 W- AboutMyProperty i ..,.. ,w.n I4.• u wp smehl, "I wwlw ...w. 1. �1Y1M v+ralW„0. 1 M yis !ah Iuwr ■ I.wha rn S ru •+i nx 8 lltl �14 Yp/91Nwq �MIIIM/r�IN I �M�i0gM111 4�/V„ y�..•„ Hgnl4ain My Iyrolny, yyF SIIn View property info and compare to other assessments in your neighbourhood View details that explain how we assessed the property Review steps to file a Request for Reconsideration online Page 63 RESPONDING TO RFRS THAT CITE COVID-19 Property values continue to be based on the legislated valuation date of January 1, 2016. Any influence the COVID-19 may have on property values was not in effect on that date. 2 HOW WE SUPPORT OUR MUNICIPAL PARTNERS We're committed to understanding and shaping our priorities based on FEEDBACK AND INPUT FROM MUNICIPALITIES. t=i W.:!N C c11%11 PK 1 cilcl A!l ncc M cur QM PAC MUNICIPAL _ ANNUAL !l-7-CONNECTTM ASSESSMENT ROLL Our municipal and stakeholder relations teams live and work in your communities and we're here to help. w 64; V Page 66 Zone 3 Regional Manager Account Manager Account Support Coordinator Local Offices Natasha Dawood Kevin Yaraskavitch Janice Kahler Durham Richmond Hill 1340 Pickering Parkway, Suite 101 100 Via Renzo Drive, Suite 302 Pickering ON L1V OC4 Richmond Hill ON L4S O138 z � 1 i�}'r ✓r ,,� Trenton 17468 Hwy-2 Trenton ON K8V 5P7 51 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I'I I'I I I I © M PAC MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION Clarington Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: March 8, 2021 Report Number: PWD-015-21 Submitted By: Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#: File Number: C.02.31.003 By-law Number: Report Subject: Rudell Rd. Subdivision, Plan 40M-2575 By -Law Assumption Recommendations: 1. That Report PWD-015-21 be received; and 2. That the draft By-law (Attachment 2), assuming certain streets within Plan 40M-2575 (Attachment 1), be approved. Page 69 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-015-21 Report Overview Page 2 This report concerns Rudell Rd. Subdivision. It requests Council's permission to approve a by-law to assume certain streets within Plan 40M-2575 as public highways. 1. Background The Subdivision Agreement 1.1 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington entered into a Subdivision Agreement registered September 29, 2016 with 2103386 Ontario Limited to develop lands by plan of subdivision, located in Newcastle and described as Plan 40M-2575 (Attachment 1). The agreement required the developer to construct sidewalks and street trees. These works were completed and accepted by the Director of Public Works through provisions in the Subdivision Agreement. 2. Proposal 2.1 A by-law is required to permit the Municipality to assume certain streets within plan 40M-2575 as public highways. The proposed by-law may be found as an Attachment 2 to this report. 3. Concurrence Not Applicable. 4. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Council pass the by-law found as Attachment 2 to this report. Following its passage, the Municipal Solicitor will register it in the Land Registry Office. Staff Contact: Tony Ricciardi, Manager of Construction, 905-623-3379 ext. 2322 or tricciardi@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Key Map Attachment 2 — By-law to Report PWD-015-21 Interested Parties: There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. Page 70 Block 8 on Plan 40M-2575 ❑ Q 0 Lu FLOOD AVENUE NEWCASTLE N \ w* E S ))) DRAWN BY: E.L. Z DATE: Highway No. 2 November 12, 2020 REPORT PWD-015-21 ATTACHMENT No. 1 FILE NAME: Pag 71 KEY MAP 40M-2575.mxd J:\Engineering\Attachments\Attachments Post ESRI Upgrade\40M-2575.mxd Attachment 2 to Report PWD-015-21 If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2021-XXX Being a By-law to establish, layout and dedicate certain lands as public highways in the Municipality of Clarington, to assume certain streets within the Municipality of Clarington as public highways in the Municipality of Clarington, and to name them. Now therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: That the block shown on Plan 40M-2575, and listed below in this section, being in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, is hereby accepted by the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington as public highways, and assumed by the said Corporation for public use: Block 8 (Street Widening) Passed in Open Council this XX day of MMMM, 2021. Adrian Foster, Mayor June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Page 72 Clarington Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: March 8, 2021 Report Number: PWD-016-21 Submitted By: Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#: File Number: MT.90.05 - Hwy 2 - Newtonville By-law Number: Report Subject: Highway 2 and Stapleton Road Land Exchange Recommendations: 1. That Report PWD-016-21 be received; 2. That the By-law attached to Report PWD-016-21, as Attachment 3, be approved; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PWD-016-21 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page 73 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-016-21 Report Overview Page 2 The report has been completed to seek approval to transfer a section of unopened right of way to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) and accept two pieces of property from the MTO with an equal area of land that are currently being used by the public. 1. Background 1.1 In 1992, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) performed improvements to Highway 2 west of Newtonville. As part of these works, MTO closed off the west end of Concession Rd 2 where it was connected to Highway 2, approximately 900 m west of Stapleton Rd. MTO upgraded an existing entrance between Highway 2 and Concession Rd 2 east of the termination to provide an alternative access to Concession Rd 2. The entrance was located on a piece of property owned by MTO. 1.2 In 2020, the MTO contacted Municipality of Clarington staff to request the Municipality take over ownership of the entrance as a municipal road. There is an unopened right of way approximately 60 m west of the access over MTO property. MTO proposed that the access on MTO property be given to the Municipality and that the unopened right of way be given to MTO. Clarington staff reviewed the property boundaries in the area and have also requested that a daylighting triangle be provided at the intersection of Stapleton Rd and Highway 2 where MTO property extends into the intersection. Please see Attachment 1. The size of the proposed land areas to be exchanged between the two authorities is the same. 1.3 Attachment 2 to this report is Reference Plan 40R-30980. The unopened right of way which is proposed to be transferred to MTO is Part 4 on the plan. Parts 6 and 11 are the existing access road, which is to be transferred to the Municipality. Parts 14, 15, and 17 are the daylighting at the intersection of Highway 2 and Stapleton Rd, which are to be transferred to the Municipality. 1.4 The alternative access through MTO property has been maintained by the Municipality of Clarington, the road is surface treated and is in good condition, and there are stop signs at Highway 2 and Concession Rd 2. 1.5 The proposed land exchange will allow the alternative access to remain, and will provide Clarington with ownership of the land that extends into the intersection at Stapleton Rd. There will be no exchange of money between the MTO or Clarington as the land area is equal. MTO has paid for the survey and reference plan. Page 74 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-016-21 2. Concurrence Page 3 This report has been reviewed by the Director of Legislative Services who concurs with the recommendations. 3. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the transfer of land and approve the draft By-law. Staff Contact: Sean Bagshaw, Manager of Infrastructure, 905-623-3379 ext. 2320 or sbagshaw@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Map of Land Exchange Attachment 2 — Reference Plan 40R-30980 Attachment 3 — By-law 2021-XX Interested Parties: The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision: Sam Chung, Real Estate Officer, Ministry of Transportation Page 75 CONCESSION ROAD 2 -------------------------------------------------------- HIGHyy AY No. 2 Legend J� Lands to MTO (Plan 40R-30980) - Lands to Municipality (PLAN 40R-30980) CLARKE 11 1 I � ' co LE E No. 2 G a 0 w o UJ J IL a � N _ DRAWN BY: E.L. DATE: March 1, 2021 REPORT PWD-016-21 KEYj6 n ATTACHMENT NO. 1 J:\Engineering\Attachments\Attachments Post ESRI Upgrade\Highway 2 Land Transfer.mxd -- - --------------------------- N �� -^y4 . � 0•.101 I S\Ot,. lop Dryal� "D� Np PAN 0 C,dz " 6 • 1�a , ePQc ,gym - VINO .GOVO �c ,aCi O p,•' (m) I I/ �0j pSO .y66��p�`'� yp'ENK 656 TAB ,u•1 PART 2, PIAN 40R-30302 (P-2001-0128) 6 F° ry 0. �NLO6 PIN 26668 - 0057(LT) I N� � PN� (,6si1 xezox'80"E ]a.]e nuxw xszox'9o"E ,wM m.rui j PART 1, PLAN 40R-30302 (P-2001 -0128) PART 1 I (,o n va li - - Nezoz•w"E m..-.m Ox °) / � I I THE KING'S HIGHWAY No. 2 PIN 26668 - 0046(LT) TRANSFERRED BY ORDER -IN -COUNCIL OC-3442/94, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1 1995 AND REGISTERED AS PLAN D446247 (P-2001-0121) I LOT 15, CONCESSION 1 I I I I _-...____________- ___________ __________ E-EMENT -A" (NOT TO SCALE) -------------------------------------------------- ERERTED 9 OEF6ECT1 E JUNNE32(A �06-�22) I ANDIREGg'll TERED AS p1 NA CONCESSION ROAD x _ - (KNOWN AS) 6C.ryfEN CONGESSOGon(0) 1) 4135 (gun - - I µLOwANOE - OU xouo"'�`opcEss�Arn � (RWD 26668 _ j PIN ,Or58'v2 °1°"� PART 8 I x%•a•65"E II 15o'v'E n,.xuo "dsa,M (KNOWN as EO wcEsslo swN9 1 M'0 %) pp62(LT) O IDlTED exs6 a ANp REG1 (RPAp ALLOW 26668 ,b8„Mypx, pye,]5 m+'+"; pIN x�",5s'ca�"'� �ies» xtrs5'v"E PpRi P 5466 � 2 (,esn x]1"38'uh DART 5 PIN "' 9�. Z6{ 60551V) = Ossx)Jnw^x- PART pIN PAKT 3 C q PLAN 40R-30302 tzewtm...� n� ,n1'S5'v'6 s6^x mw,w � q +€�, 5 1n PARTS PART 2 € s m PIN PART 2 Mn R 6 PIN 26668-0057(LT) zox•wE ,5o.1»n,..w �QQiO xw•arc YN STEREO AS Pv.. 65.40 6 7 ART 6 8- P/64T 64T) I aesn 1 rynn 0 ,q Ig PART 12 PART 6 AI� (P-2001-0126) PART 11 I� 26668 - 1 0059(LT) PART 1 PART 7 PLAIN Lp 0 2001R-0128) t ) (x) = doo�g (sun PART 10 PART n 5 PART 13 bO NBYOR']84 34zf4 xN5T01'� e) N81.O3'b'T nrwc,& 5w.<s nrucw sIrvxu)Ibn 1 low �u i THE KING'S HIGHWAY No. 2 IN 26668 - YY° 0046(LT) rb ;TRANSFERRED BY ORDER -IN -COUNCIL OC-3442/94, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1995 I AND REGISTERED AS PLAN D44624] (F-2001 012t) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- Wxo) xnoE -.I I z I 1 PPRT 11135 - 21 AN PIv,.an I j N 11 1135 1 t0R- I PIA - O, as'IU66x>N ,so � I _ 1 PART 6, PLAN 10R-1532 (P-2704-0102) LOT 15 1 LOT 14 - I I I CONCESSION I 1 1 I 1 I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------> ENARGEMENT -B- (NOT TO S-1 x �lxw% PART 12 PART 6, PLAN 40R-30302 (P-2001-0128) oo� LOT 13 CONCESSION 1 j PIN 26668 0059(LT) /RT 5, PLAN 40 1 PART 13 Attachment 2 to Report PWD-016-21 NCO AN PFCS 2�ixj,�J g��J �� �.qJ,F FOPOPFiD 6 1"'Of 4a, •> ,ash, q, gqw�. , C�J \ PART 75 tAt��nm++,0 411 THE PIN KING'S to HIGHWAY No. 26668 -I3E - 0046(LT) - TRANSFERRED e7. IRR SY ORDER -IN COUNCIL IOC-3442/94, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1995 AND REGISTERED AS PLIIA''N 0446247 (P-2001-0122) PART 1, PUN 40R-20191 (P-2704-0103) (I-) ----_-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ENLARGEMENT "D" (NOT TO SGAL17 I 1Y� IE PART 7 PIN 2 668T0066(Li) I n i;�n .T1g n PART 16 I (u,O at.]R ni•+.w C�st.66 tAwrwq N)6ggyy� ,P,e,nx a PART 6 11.n IN 26668-0067(LT) S �6EE ENLARGEMENT "0" Nlr ' PART 12 @+ro7J CN ROPD 7' DUNE 27, 1949 I( ;� PART 8 PART 16 I. PART 6, PUN 40R-30302 P-2001-0128 1 - - D�41 w1' EFFECTVE g ( ) C' G- c_1022I49p Dp06-0022) 2 s$ Oesn - PART 8 IS n f BY OROER-IN-"'NoA` PLAN 613� Y AND ) wP» - Y6105m.aP 1 q4 � ywso „' 41M Mt,]2II mra J - PIN 26668 - 0059(LT) REVERED AND REGIS eflwEEN Go-,.NY pNCT6` 0062(LT) iTew >°'+, C ` ' A_ 6x �N n ""� :� zA, ' w zee LOT 14 LOT 13 --------------------------------- aDG µowAN 26568 a6.w n�) �('�m °.: I Ain':aenx re 5 g� �z �O�%/O CONCESSION 7 1 P 6 �:,n `� ma6 4p n 4 �� NROgO --_______________________ R:znA6 __ ENLARGEMEM "C" (NOT TO SCALE) I P12 �____ j0'� °°42 ypg.] N 266663I PTPPRT 6, PLAN 40R-30302 (P-2001-0128JoNmp -CF IONS 1 PART 3 PIN 'RE 26668 - 0059(LT) .PLAN 40R-3cP,160 'S.yfli(n� .xw M� ICC e r¢r� xwerto xw'Mw �� a SCHEDULE 0 6) wr 1$ ooSeiLn - °�ehn S12 e ,wo , aea-°osa Rn ' &= or a F I.E e ,m ,. eaa-Dose iLn xG .n-10 xx_oax` an •x.s "xclP< r, o. �Axxcro ®® PLAN OF SURVEY OF PART OF LOTS 13, 14, AND 15 CONCESSION 1 AND PART OF PART OF THE ROAD- ALLOWANCE BETWEEN. LOTS 14 AND 15 (GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE) MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM ( ). "x os4o wwss �0u ar wx ss ro INTEGRATION DATA xrs (uP.)� ,umslcs%.s xolo) (KNOWN PS) EEN OONOESY p062(L() piMrnc ya _ i J4 's ,y. PART 14 owwvOE 26668 'go mNex+t i ('M,0 zo E PART RT 4wk�a�� (ROAD ALLPIN N�,1•.,o'E ,RY„' PARTPIIN 26668 -I 005J(LT) _ PART 11 I PART 13 PART 5 1 PART 17 LEGEND (-1) (oioj sNetl PLAN 40R-30302 (P-2001-012E) PART 2 De%s]) 6s h t5p0amw.0 3 lmm) MM BYOi bE.,v Iu6 TW'ssnYwv soa6M+w+ll ' SEA RP�M.O]mwew C.e{.e6n,xcm _ _ _. - - - y - - uu[rrt ]a28 n,xo,q n.]x mdaw teaeotPrwro _ - - - - - - -� �- - -- xexeR'60'E � x♦2,a nreuq i ® i wo.m ve 1 2xOA6 llwl M ntii xuw iM<1 © ®LNa„ sxa.xa nww xevael up�x wox aw �_ ________-_ - PART 1 1. 0 1 PART 10 ax°m n,68 I' � Monxusw _ - PIN - 26668 - 0046(LT) 3 - w°"" THE KING'S HIGHWAY No. 2 1 PIN z6666 - o1, 199) / soMnu TRANSFERRED fiY ORDER IN -COUNCIL OC-3442 94, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1995 I cM PART 15 ` y/� ,y nx / - - - - TRANSFERRED BY ORDER - IN - COUNCIL OC-3442/94, 11I 1 b EFFECTIVE JANUARY so 1, 1995 AND REGISTERED AS PUN D446247 (P-2001 -0121) / --T-----t- t =cxx°) ----- -� -------L-"�-----------------------.--22) os AND REGISTERED AS PLAN D446247 (P 2001 01 0 ) e) n� Ok`_l(IaNR / / I I PLAN t0R 1 9,, PLAf� R"�P`" i/ I. I _ _ � � - �,„:zn� �;�,'i•e� `Yn s>/ y toxo) o°seo osxo,ss :b I I Ixt ovans sxso Nv mmurn°ry urnm I -z x osNmss rvomx oao E6 1 63/ PART 7 F 1 1 `SEE Ell -EVENT 'e" PART 6, PUN 1OR-1532 (P-2704-0102) 11 PART 1, PUN 40R-20191 (P-2704-0103) �i �Nx,ss tiEsr PLAN 1OR-1532 (P-2704-0102) I _ 1 LOT_ _ - - - 15, CONCESSION 1 I 1 LOT 14, CONCESSION 1 } LOT 13, CONCESSION II 1 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE Rfl- MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION olrt°uo vwo u N 2PIN No P-2001 E0129 Page 77 Attachment 3 to Report PWD-016-21 If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 Ext. 2131 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON y'eW,%VIVI►[*)111111801 PASPZRI Being a by-law to authorize the closure and conveyance of a road allowance; WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington has approved the recommendations of Report PWD-016-21, and deems it desirable to pass this by-law; and NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: That the property described as Part of the road allowance between Lots 14 and 15, Concession 1, being Part 4 on Plan 40R-30980, in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Region of Durham, is hereby closed; and 2. That the Municipal Solicitor be authorized to take all action necessary to effect the transfers of Parts 4, 6, 11, 14, 15, and 17 on Plan 40R-30980. Passed in Open Council this XX day of March, 2021 Adrian Foster, Mayor June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Page 78 Clarington Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: March 8, 2021 Report Number: PWD-017-21 Submitted By: Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#: File Number: PA. FarewelICreekTraiIPhase 2 By-law Number: Report Subject: Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2B Status Update Recommendations: 1. That Report PWD-017-21 be received; 2. That Council provide direction to staff regarding the Farewell Creek Phase 2B trail alignment given the environmental impacts, additional costs, and recommendations that are outlined within the report; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PWD-017-21 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page 79 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PWD-017-21 Report Overview The purpose of this report is to present Council with an update on the status of the Council selected alignment for Farewell Creek Trail — Phase 2B and to seek direction based on current assessments regarding the additional risk, impact, and costing information. 1. Background 1.1 The design of Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2A has been finalized and the project tender closed on March 1, 2021. Once awarded, preparatory works for Phase 2A can begin immediately on site with an estimated trail completion date of August 2021. 1.2 At the direction of Council, Staff have advanced the design of Farewell Creek Trail Phase 213 (Phase 2A limits to Townline Road) by completing a slope stability analysis, review and consultation with CLOCA, updates to the preliminary design of the Council selected alignment, a tree inventory and impact assessment, and have refined the preliminary design cost estimate. This information has revealed a more fulsome understanding of the slope stability hazard risks, environmental impacts, costs, and timeline challenges and constraints associated with the Council selected alignment. 2. Slope Stability Analysis and CLOCA Review & Recommendations 2.1 Staff retained Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) to conduct a slope stability analysis along the Phase 2B Council selected trail alignment which traverses a steep existing embankment along the Farewell Creek valley immediately northeast of Townline Road. A photo of the embankment can be seen in Figure 1. The report, completed in September 2020, carried out analyses on long term slope stability and provided recommendations for retaining wall, trail, and construction methodology design. 2.2 On October 20, 2020 Clarington staff met with the Director of Engineering and Field Operations, Infrastructure Planner/Enforcement Officer and Terrestrial Resource Analyst from CLOCA to review the slope stability analysis, soil conditions, groundwater conditions and potential impacts to the natural environment for the Council selected trail alignment. After considering this information, CLOCA staff have advised that there are significant ecological impacts and geotechnical risks associated with the alignment due to: The significant impact to natural environmental features including mature forest; and Page 80 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-017-21 Page 3 The increased long term risk of slope failure, erosion, and property damage to Pinedale Crescent landowners that could result from disturbance of the valley walls. 2.3 Due to the steep nature of the valley in this area, construction of the trail and the construction methodology along the slope would require extensive clearing of mature forest vegetation along the slope, well in excess of typical trail footprints due to the necessary grading to achieve the accessible grade of the trail as well as establishing a safe construction platform. A typical cross section drawing showing the anticipated limits of impact has been provided in Attachment 1. Note that this cross section does not reflect further disturbances that would be required on the embankment to facilitate construction. These will be determined through detailed design and development of construction methodology. 2.4 CLOCA staff have advised, and the consultant's Tree Inventory and Impact Assessment Report has reconfirmed, that the forest community in this area is well established and mature. For example, of significant note along the slope face is the presence of hemlock trees and yellow birch, approximated to be in the range of 80-100+ years old. The removal of hemlock, birch and other mature trees along the slope face would result in an irreplaceable loss due to the tree's slow growth rates and their significant contribution to a healthy ecosystem. Mature trees provide cooling effects on the watercourse, provide unique wildlife habitats, protect against establishment of invasive species by providing closed canopy conditions, and stabilize the valley wall with their extensive root system, preventing erosion and slope failure that could threaten the trail and nearby houses. 2.5 Mature forest is a unique and important feature and, aside from the plentiful beneficial ecosystem services provided, forests of this quality exist only in limited areas within the Municipality of Clarington and the CLOCA watershed in general. By removing these trees, much of the overall aesthetic and ecological value of the forest would be removed and the long term stability of the steep Farewell Creek valley slopes will be permanently impaired. Page 81 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-017-21 Page 4 Figure 1: Slope face looking northeast along the Council selected trail alignment 2.6 Although engineered slope stabilization systems could be employed, the systems are not permanent and would need to be replaced when the end of their service life has been reached. As the Pinedale Crescent homes are within the erosion hazard of the Farewell Creek valley, the proposed trail and works would increase the risk to the homeowners and require constant and permanent monitoring and maintenance of slope protection works by the Municipality to manage the slope stability, which the Pinedale Crescent homes would rely upon for the long-term safety of their properties. This would require the Municipality to annually monitor the slope for movement, inspect the engineered slope stabilization system for weaknesses, repair any at risk segments of the system, and conduct maintenance of drainage systems in perpetuity. 2.7 CLOCA staff have advised that, despite geotechnical engineering of the disturbed slope to accommodate the trail, the proposed mid -slope trail will likely result in an unacceptable risk as defined by the Conservation Authorities Act. The existing slope is steep and covered in mature forest. The geotechnical report notes presence of curved tree trunks, which are an indicator of gradual slope movement. While the trail and disturbed portion of the slope could be engineered, which would require perpetual monitoring and maintenance as noted above, the removal of mature vegetation and placement of a trail mid slope may have unforeseen consequences on the remaining valley slope. This trail alignment does not meet CLOCA policy for approval. Accordingly, CLOCA staff strongly recommend alternative trail configurations to avoid this risk. 2.8 CLOCA staff have been supportive of trail projects in the Municipality of Clarington and advise that they will continue to work with Clarington staff to find acceptable trail locations. CLOCA staff recognize that most trails require some removal of vegetation Page 82 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PWD-017-21 and other disturbance within natural areas that is generally mitigatable, however, in this instance, the impacts to the natural heritage system and risks of a trail in this location are extensive and should be avoided given the unacceptable level of risk and impact associated with a mid -slope trail and existing potentially vulnerable table land development above the slope. The loss of the natural heritage features and functions in order to provide a trail in this location are irreplaceable due to the existing trees' age, slow growth rates, and ecosystem services including slope stabilization. 2.9 CLOCA has recommended that safer and significantly less intrusive trail alignment alternatives, which are available, should be pursued. Accordingly, CLOCA staff recommend an alternative trail alignment that bypasses this steepest portion of the valley and would eliminate concerns related to significant natural heritage feature/function removal, slope stability, and risk to existing table land residential property. 2.10 Further information and comments from CLOCA regarding CLOCA policy & guidelines, terrestrial ecology, environmental review, and permit requirements, relating to the Council selected alignment, have been provided in Attachment 2. 3. Status of Phase 2B Design 3.1 Detailed construction and mitigation design drawings form part of a CLOCA Permit. Accordingly, it is a requirement to have a 100% complete detailed design for review and consideration in granting a permit. Currently, Public Works has only completed a preliminary design for the Council selected alignment which was used as a basis in conducting the Slope Stability Assessment. All work completed to date has been done to gain a further understanding of the associated impacts caused by the construction of the Council selected trail alignment, analyze construction feasibility, ecological impacts, long term stability impacts, etc. The preliminary design has been updated to reflect the recommendations in the Slope Stability Assessment in order to understand the overall limits of disturbance, establish parameters for the detailed design, and quantify the tree removals and environmental impacts. 3.2 Public Works retained an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist to conduct a survey in early February 2021 of all trees that would be within the limits of grading for both the Council selected route and the original alignment in order to inventory, assess, and appraise a value of the trees that will be impacted / removed. The assessment report prepared by CIMA+ has been provided in Attachment 3 and shows the limits of disturbance considered, identifies prominent species of trees, quantity, and the appraised value using the Trunk Formula Technique of the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraises Guide for Plant Appraisal. A detailed design would need to consider the assessed tree impacts and specific tree inventory and, in consultation with CLOCA, would review the trail alignment to potentially partially mitigate some Page 83 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-017-21 Page 6 impacts. The trail alignment would need to be adjusted slightly to avoid significant or prominent species of trees and hazards where possible, and design appropriate slope stabilization measures around any significant tree species or tree clusters. 3.3 The tree impact assessment quantified the impact to trees on the valley slope for both the Council selected alignment and the original alignment. Table 1 below presents the cost summary from the tree impact assessment showing the appraised values of impacted trees along each alignment. Tree Removal Summary Number of Trees Impacted Appraised Value of Impacted Trees Phase 2B - Council Selected Alignment 217 $393,020 Phase 2B - Original Alignment 123 $208,580 Table 1: Estimated Tree Impact Appraisal Value Summary 3.4 The Trunk formulation for appraising trees presented in the Tree Impact and Inventory Assessment is limited to tree economic value as opposed to the full suite of ecological services that the trees provide. It is important to note that the ecological impacts at hand extend beyond the economic value of the trees. Ecological goods and services take into account the following: air quality, climate regulation in terms of both carbon storage and carbon uptake, water runoff control, filtration, soil formation, waste treatment, pollination, seed dispersal, biological control, recreation and aesthetics. Most importantly in this context, the ecological goods and services include provision of necessary slope stability and erosion control in support of the table land residential community along Pinedale Crescent. These attributes are not monetized in the appraised valuation in Table 1 above. 4. Timeline Considerations 4.1 As the Phase 2B alignment contains a level of impact and risk that likely pose challenges to approval under the Conservation Authorities Act legislated tests for development proposals, obtaining the necessary approval may not be possible. In addition to the issues described above, proceeding with the Council selected alignment at this time includes increased risk to the completion of Phase 2B due to lack of environmental approvals and an increased risk to missing the Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling (OMCC) Program deadline of substantial and functional completion by December 31 of this year. 4.2 Staff have outlined the following key project timeline considerations. March 8, 2021 - Submission of Farewell Creek Trail — Phase 2B update Report to General Government Committee and confirmation of the selected trail alignment. Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-017-21 Page 7 Should Council decide to continue to pursue the Council selected alignment, there is a high likelihood that, following the submission of a permit application and detailed design review, CLOCA staff will not be in a position to recommend approval of the proposal due to the risks associated with slope hazards and environmental impact. o In the likely event of a CLOCA staff recommended refusal, the application would need to be considered by the CLOCA Board -convened Hearing in order to make a decision on the application. o At a hearing, the Municipality of Clarington would need to make representations in support of the application. Due to the risks associated with slope hazards and environmental impact, Municipal staff would not be in a position to make favourable representations, which will necessitate Council seeking and obtaining representation in advance of the hearing event. o The CLOCA Hearing Board may refuse the application or may approve it with conditions that may not be foreseen. o Should the application be refused by the CLOCA Hearing Board, Council may lodge an appeal to the Mining and Lands Tribunal, which would then convene a new hearing likely after a matter of months. Should Council decide to pursue the original alignment, there is a clear route to obtaining the necessary approvals to allow the tendering and construction processes to proceed within the OMCC Program timeline requirements. Dates noted are approximate. o May 3, 2021 - Submission of Infrastructure Permit to CLOCA for review. CLOCA has advised their typical review process would require approximately four weeks. o July 5, 2021 - Upon review of the application, the engineering consultant will likely require additional time (estimated 4 weeks) to revise the design to suit the agreed upon requirements and amend the tender documentation. o August 6, 2021 - It is recommended that the Municipality issue a minimum three week tender due to the complexity and challenges of constructing the trail alignment. o September 13, 2021 - Assuming the tender pricing is favorable, the Staff recommendation report would be submitted to the next General Government Committee Meeting. Page 85 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-017-21 Page 8 o October 15, 2021 - Assuming a favorable vote to proceed with the project, issuance of a Purchase Order to the Contractor, assembly of contract documentation, pre -construction meeting, and time to mobilization could take several weeks. o December 24, 2021 — Deadline for construction completion. 5. Financial Implications 5.1 Staff undertook a refinement of the preliminary trail design along both the Council selected alignment and original alignment to incorporate the recommendations of the slope stability analysis into each design. This in turn was used to calculate a more detailed itemized cost estimate of the works and to provide an update for Council's consideration in advancing this project through detailed design. 5.2 Estimated total costs to build the remainder of Farewell Creek Trail from the Phase 1 terminus to Townline Road have been provided in Table 2 below. The estimated cost for Phase 2B includes design, tendering, contract administration, inspection, material testing, regulatory permits, and a 10% contingency. The costs however do not reflect any tree compensation that would be required and will need to be considered as additional costs to the figures below. Additionally, total approved and allocated funding to date has been provided in Table 3 below. Farewell Creek Trail — Project Item Cost Phase 2A — Construction (Based on tender pricing received) $1,360,100 Slope Stability Analysis $50,400 Land Appraisal — Ecological Gift Lands $3,600 Ecological Gift Lands — Change of Use Tax $16,000 Phase 2B — Preliminary Design $12,200 Total Project Commitments To Date $1,442,300 Phase 2B — Council Selected Alignment* $2,151,000 Phase 2B — Original Alignment* $1,324,000 Total Cost — Phase 2A + Council Selected Alignment $3,593,300 Total Cost — Phase 2A + Original Alignment $2,766,300 *Refer to CIMA Updated Preliminary Design Updated Cost Estimate in Attachment 2 Table 2: Total Estimated Cost of Construction of Phase 2 '� Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-017-21 Page 9 Funding Funding Source Amount Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2 (Townline Rd. to Phase 1 Trail) 2019 (110-32-325-83288-7401) Funding amount includes $195,000 Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling (OMCC) Grant Funding $1,100,000.00 Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2 (Townline Rd. to Phase 1 Trail) 2020 (110-32-325-83288-7401) Funding amount includes $118,900 Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling (OMCC) Grant Funding $450,000.00 Various Erosion Protection Works (Estimated) 2021 (110-32-340-83437-7401) $98,300.00 Total Available Funding $1,648,300.00 Table 3: Allocated Funding Sources 5.3 The disparity between the available allocated funding and the total estimated project cost, for both the Council selected alignment and the original alignment, can be attributed to several factors as outlined below. The project budget was completed at a time when detailed design for Phase 2 had not been initiated and much of the components requiring intensive engineering design had not been identified and known at the time. Several prominent items are as follows: The original trail alignment did not foresee the need for slope stabilization measures to the level that is recommended in the slope stability analysis and, when the Council selected alignment was introduced as an alternative for the project, it was anticipated that more rudimentary stabilization measures e.g. armor stone retaining wall, could be utilized. The slope stability analysis concluded that these measures would not be a viable and safe solution for long term slope stability, and specifically stated an engineered retained soil system wall would be required; • The budget did not factor in the requirement for an access road to be constructed for Phase 2A from Darlington Boulevard to the trail location. This access road is required to facilitate transport of trail building materials, the bridge structures, construction equipment, etc.; The triple culvert crossing required to traverse the Robert Adams stormwater management pond outfall in Phase 2A had seen a substantial erosion event since the Phase 2 trail was initially conceptualized. This elongated the length of the pond outfall channel crossing and required an increase in erosion protection for bank stability at the crossing location; Page 87 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-017-21 Page 10 The bridge locations of Phase 2A were since finalized and had undergone crossing location adjustments in consultation with CLOCA which led to an elongation of one of the bridge spans; • Undertaking of detailed design allows for a much more granular analysis and consideration of existing environmental features. The Farewell Creek valley is a more challenging environment than most of the other recently constructed trails within Clarington and requires more involvement with protection of ecological features, slope stabilization, earthworks management, and erosion protection works; The degree of existing tree impacts / removals and compensation were unforeseen at project conception. Key Items and Financial Factors - Council Selected Alignment 5.4 A substantial portion of the cost for Phase 2B is attributable to the works that are required to ensure long term slope stability of the embankment as detailed in the slope stability analysis. Of particular note is the requirement for a retained/reinforced soil wall system to address areas of significant stability concern. These types of systems are costly due to the amount of earth excavation, installation of drainage systems, and the requirements to construct the retained soil wall system in a strategic layered approach. The total estimated cost (including design, construction, inspection, testing, etc.) associated for this retained soil system on the Council selected alignment is estimated to be upwards of $700,000. This cost is based on unit rates that were received through tenders of similar projects and has been adjusted upwards to reflect the physical constraints of building the reinforced soil wall along the slope face, construction of a stable working platform, utilization of smaller equipment to conduct the installation, increased duration of construction, etc. 5.5 As the trail would be situated atop of the retaining wall, a substantial elevation difference between the trail and the existing ground below is created. As the trail will be utilized by cyclists who are situated higher above the ground while cycling, a `guard' type of handrail is required along the trail alignment that is of sufficient height to protect a cyclist in a fall, is non -climbable, and has vertical slats / pickets that must be closely spaced. The total estimated cost (including design, construction, inspection, etc.) for the handrail is estimated to be approximately $140,000. 5.6 The alignment traversing along the face of the slope requires a larger footprint of disturbance for all components of its construction. This translates into a larger volume of earthworks (soil) that will be required to be exported off site as placing this material as fill within the Farewell Creek valley would not be permitted and filling along the slope face would likely be detrimental to long term slope stability. The total estimated cost Municipality of Clarington Page 11 Report PWD-017-21 (including design, construction, inspection, testing, etc.) associated with earthworks is estimated to be $180,000. 5.7 An itemized cost estimate based on the updated preliminary design has been provided in the Updated Cost Comparison report in Attachment 2. 5.8 The Municipality of Clarington was a successful recipient of funding from the Ontario Municipal Commuter Cycling (OMCC) Program in the amount of $313,899.53, of which the majority was to be utilized for the constriction of Phase 2 of the Farewell Creek Trail. The funding requires that a project be substantially and functionally completed by December 31, 2021. The funding also requires the trail connect to significant trip origins and destinations with commuter cycling infrastructure. The Phase 2A termination limit does not meet the obligations of the OMCC funding Agreement. 5.9 The estimated completion date of the project falls close to the deadlines outlined in the OMCC funding Agreement. There may be a risk that the completion date of the project exceeds the deadlines of the OMCC Agreement, in which case the Municipality would not be eligible to apply the OMCC funds to this project. The Municipality would need to divert OMCC funding previously allocated to Farewell Creek Trail — Phase 2 to other qualifying projects. An updated list of projects needs to be submitted to the OMCC for approval prior to diversion of any funding, and so this decision would need to be made soon to allow time for review by the Province, and for the design, tendering and construction of the alternate project by the December 31, 2021 deadline. 5.10 As detailed design is not complete on this project, and in light of the recommendation of the Slope Stability Assessment, staff are unable to accurately assess any expected cost increases due to late season construction given the existing soil conditions. Several factors may influence construction requirements and sequencing such as wetter weather, elevated groundwater conditions, more robust construction platform requirements, etc. It is likely that costs to construct the Council selected alignment in the Fall will be at a premium to the above provided estimates as tenders later in the year are also subject to contractor availability. As a high level estimate, these factors could further increase the cost of a project of this type by 20%, or approximately $430,000 for the proposed trail alignment. 5.11 Based on the construction cost estimate for the Council selected alignment as noted in section 5.2, there is an anticipated funding shortfall of $1,945,000 which will need to be drawn from a reserve fund for completion of Phase 2B of the project in 2021. At the time of tender and recommendation of award for Phase 2B, funding options will be provided once actual construction costs have been obtained. Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-017-21 6. Alternative Trail Alignment Page 12 6.1 As an alternate option, Staff reviewed a modification to the current trail alignment that that was suggested earlier in the design process by Council and the public. This alignment would see one branch of the trail from the Phase 2A terminus lead toward Townline Road along Farewell Creek, with a future potential connection to Oshawa's trail (green route in Figure 2 below), while the other branch would revert to the original alignment that followed the top of the stormwater management facility berm and continues west to Townline Road (orange route in Figure 2 below). A preliminary high level cost estimate has been prepared for this trail branch, including the bridge crossing, and is estimated to cost approximately $455,000. This alternative trail alignment is not considered as part of the approved funding for Farewell Creek Trail to date and will need to be budgeted for in a future year. 6.2 If this alignment is selected, staff will further review the alternate trail branch alignment suggestion with CLOCA which may achieve the same goals Council sought from the Council selected alignment, namely being within the wooded portion of the valley and to be able to see and hear Farewell Creek. Page 90 Municipality of Clarington Page 13 Report PWD-017-21 Figure 2: Alternative trail alignment 6.3 Staff will also consult with the City of Oshawa and their Active Transportation Committee. The outcomes of the site meeting and discussions with these stakeholders will be submitted to Council as a report for future consideration with an updated estimate of the costs required to complete this modification. 7. Concurrence Not Applicable. 8. Conclusion The preliminary design and background work completed to date demonstrate that the design and construction of the Council selected alignment for Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2B contains increased slope hazard risk, risks to table land private property, increased ecological impact, increased overall project costs, and ultimately risk of project approval. These factors are in excess of what was initially understood at project conception and at costs exceeding the allocated funding for Farewell Creek Trail. It is respectfully requested that Council provide Staff with direction whether the Council selected alignment for Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2B be further pursued in light of the financial, environmental, and timeline challenges and constraints, OR that Council advise Staff to pursue the original alignment along the top of the Pinedale Crescent stormwater management pond berm to Townline Road, with consideration for a secondary future connection along the creek alignment to Clarington's boundary. Staff Contact: Robert Brezina, Capital Works Engineer, 905-623-3379 ext. 2331 or RBrezina@Clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Typical Trail Cross Section - Station 4+540 Attachment 2 — Documentation and comments regarding CLOCA policy & guidelines, terrestrial ecology, environmental review, and permit requirements Attachment 3 — Tree Inventory and Impacts Assessment, Updated Cost Estimate Comparison to Support Farewell Creek Phase 2B Geotechnical Recommendations, Geotechnical Investigation — Slope Stability Assessment Interested Parties: Page 91 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-017-21 The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision: CLOCA CIMA+ Page 14 Page 92 FAREWELL CREEK RECREATIONAL TRAIL - PHASE 2B TYPICAL CROSS SECTION - STATION 4+540 +/- SHOWING BOTH ORIGINAL AND COUNCIL RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENTS FAREWELL CREEK 87.85 m r4-9.10 mt � e rv�wsr r Attachment 2 to Report PWD-017-21 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority March 2, 2021 Robert Brezina Capital Works Engineer Municipality of Clarington, Public Works Department 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Dear Robert: Subject: CLOCA Comments for March 81" Staff Report Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2B Municipality of Clarington, Region of Durham CLOCA IMS File: RCON196 Healthy watersheds for today and tomorrow. Further to our recent discussions and submissions of technical information, we wish to provide you with the following detailed comments with respect to the proposed development activity. Applicable CLOCA Policies Please see the following CLOCA Policy & Procedural Guidelines for Regulation & Plan Review. 5.3.1 Policies for Erosion Hazards - River and Stream Valleys. The following outlines the specific policies for implementing CLOCA's regulation 42106 with respect to erosion hazards associated with a river and stream valleys: 1) Development is prohibited within the erosion hazard of a river or stream valley except where allowed under policies (5.3.1.2 — 5.3.1.12) and subject to the General Policies; 4) Public parks and passive outdoor recreational uses (e.g., passive, or low intensity outdoor recreation and education, trail systems) may be permitted if it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of CLOCA that: • there is no feasible alternative location outside of the erosion hazard; passive outdoor recreational uses generally means, minimal site alteration, infrastructure and structures and provide for low intensive recreational uses such as trail systems. • buildings, structures, and parking facilities are located outside of the erosion hazard; • a geotechnical study demonstrates that there is no impact on existing and future slope stability; and • unacceptable risks to life and property do not result. Policy Analysis In evaluating the revised proposal against the applicable policies captioned above, we observe that: 100 WHITING AVENUE OSHAWA ON L1 H 3T3 I P.9055790411 I F.9055790994 I CLOCA.COM Page 94 Healthy watersheds for today and tomorrow. • There is a feasible alternative location that is either out of the erosion hazard or in a less hazardous location; • The proposal requires extensive site alteration in compared to the alternative alignment; • Structures would be required within the erosion hazard; • The geotechnical study has not demonstrated that there would be no impact on existing and future slope stability; • Risks to table land property are present and may result from construction and/or improper future maintenance of the proposed alignment. Environmental Engineering It is the opinion of CLOCA staff that despite geotechnical engineering of the disturbed slope to accommodate the trail, the proposed mid -slope trail will result in unacceptable risk. The existing slope is steep and covered in mature forest. The geotechnical report notes presence of curved tree trunks, and indicator of gradual slope movement. While the trail and disturbed portion of the slope could be engineered (requiring perpetual monitoring and maintenance), the removal of mature vegetation and placement of a trail mid slope may have unforeseen consequences on the remaining valley slope. This trail alternative does not meet CLOCA policy for approval, and CLOCA staff strongly recommend alternative trail configurations. (See attached Memo from CLOCA's Environmental Engineering Department for further technical detail and analysis.) Terrestrial Ecology With respect to the Farewell Phase 2B trail alignment, compensation, as it applies to natural features, can only be applied when all options for the maintenance of a feature have been exhausted. The hierarchy of mitigation outlines the following steps in order to facilitate the project/development: 1. Avoidance - Prevent impacts from occurring, by changing project location, scope, nature of timing of activities. 2. Minimize - Reduce the duration, intensity and/or extent of impacts that cannot be avoided. 3. Mitigate - Rehabilitate or restore features or functions that have been exposed to impacts that could not be avoided or minimized. 4. Compensate - Create or restore new habitat to compensate for loss that could not be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. Compensation should be a rare activity and should only apply to features that can in fact, be reasonably replicated. (i.e., young successional tree/shrub communities and simple wetland communities). Climax communities such as the significant Farewell Creek Valley, in this location, is a complex ecosystem with many ecosystem services that can not simply be replaced. It has taken several generations for these communities to evolve. The option of compensation is premature as there are more suitable alternatives to the trail location that would minimize the overall disturbance to the ecosystem. With respect to the Trunk formulation for appraising trees, this methodology is based more on tree value as opposed to ecological services. As trees age and reach a point of over maturity their economic value decreases. Conversely their ecological value may well be peaking at this time. In order to provide a complete appraisal of the vegetation proposed for removal in each alignment scenario, the value of the ecological services must be considered. Economic value of the trees is only one applicable factor. Ecological goods and services need to factor in the following: Air Quality, Climate regulation (carbon stored), Climate regulation (carbon uptake), Page12 Page 95 Healthy watersheds for today and tomorrow. Water runoff control, Water filtration, Soil formation, Waste treatment, Pollination (agriculture), Seed dispersal, Biological control & Recreation & Aesthetics. See CLOCA's Action plan for Ecological Goods and Service at the link below: https://03879aO7-372c-443e-997e-ae65078d7559.filesusr.com/ugd/b3995f 06185f605b264622af69c49d5d6eb4a9.pdf Additional Considerations CLOCA staff note that, in addition to the permanent and ongoing monitoring and maintenance that would be required of the proposed engineered solution, the project would entail the municipality assuming responsibility as a result of any failure or adverse effects should the slope be destabilized during construction or as a result of a failure to continually implement the prescribed monitoring program in future years. Permit Requirements With respect to any future applications with respect to this application, in addition to the applicable policies discussed above, the proposal must meet the required statutory tests for approval contained in the Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 42/06. We look forward to continuing to work with you as this project is refined. Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any questions. Yours truly, �] AD Fff�q-- Andrew Fera Infrastructure Planner / Enforcement Officer Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority afera@cloca.com 1 905-244-8774 Attach. Technical Memo from CLOCA's Environmental Engineering Department Cc: Chris Jones, Director of Planning & Regulation (clones@cloca.com) Page 13 Page 96 Ar ,f,&"Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Memo from Environmental Engineering Date: To: From: Materials Reviewed: Healthy watersheds for today and tomorrow. March 1, 2021 File: RCON196 Andrew Fera Cc: Chris Jones Perry Sisson Subject: Farewell Creek Trail — Phase 2B Alignment. Valley Geotechnical Investigation, Slope Stability and Proposed Recreational Trail Design Farewell Creek Valley, Courtice (Golder Assoc ,September 17, 2020) ENVIRONEMNAL ENGINEERING REVIEW Further to on -going conversations regarding the above noted trail proposal, I offer the following concerns and review of the geotechnical report and proposed mid -slope alternative trail construction: The mid -slope trail alternative is located on a steep valley slope of the Farewell Creek that is densely covered in mature forest vegetation. The Golder report notes the slope extends 21m to 28m above the creek elevation, and has steep slopes ranging from 1:1 to 3:1 (horizontal distance: vertical distance). Farewell Creek lies immediately at the toe of the slope. Residential dwellings along Pinedale Crescent are located directly behind the top of slope, and are within the erosion hazard of the Farewell Creek stream and valley. The Golder study notes: "...localised areas of soft soils associated with sloughed soils and flowing groundwater at surface were observed along the face of the slope and located at elevations from about mid -slope to the toe of slope. Signs of erosion and instability, including surface creep, were also observed along the slope face indicated by exposed tree roots and characteristic tree bending." The slope is located in the Iroquois Beach physiographic feature and contains both sandy and till soils. The Golder visual assessment of the slope found "signs of localised and surficial instabilities on the valley slope surface" which includes the following: • Exposed tree roots; • Tree bending (curved trunks) and tilting due to surface creep; • Presence of localised areas of sloughed soils and soft, wet spots; • Toe erosion at the bank of the creek; and • Seeping groundwater at surface." 100 WHITING AVENUE OSHAWA ON L1 H 3T3 I P.9055790411 I F.9055790994 I CLOCA.COM Page 97 Healthy watersheds for today and tomorrow. These findings are further substantiated with observed evidence of: several localized areas of soft soil that probably accumulated due to active erosion of the wet surficial soils. Golder's slope stability analysis concluded the existing slope is stable with respect to deep seated failure mechanisms, but sections of the slope do not meet stable slope criteria with respect to surficial slope failure. CLOCA staff have noted the forest vegetation to be of significant age and structure. These slopes are very sensitive to disturbance. Any activity that removes mature vegetation, alters the health of existing vegetation, changes the hydrology, drainage patterns or groundwater/ seepage conditions, or disturbs surficial soils, is likely to create further instability throughout the slope. With respect to proposed trail construction on the slope, Golder notes the use of gabion, armour stone, or concrete retaining walls would result in a reduction of the safety factor and are not recommended. Golder suggests soils anchor/soil nail construction for the proposed mid slope trail as a concept, but notes: "The proposed regrading of the slopes and construction of retaining walls is anticipated to be difficult due to the existing terrain and heavy vegetation (including mature trees). In addition, site access is expected to be challenging and problematic due to varying slope gradients as well as presence of soft and wet areas. Regrading of the existing slopes will require removal of vegetation (including mature trees) and use of benching and engineered fill to construct the minimum slope stable gradient of 2H:1V under the short-term condition for site access. The reconstruction of the slope will likely require cuts (initially from the upper portion of the slope) in order to maintain the slopes short term stability and then reconstruction of the slope to the desired geometry from the bottom up using benched engineered fill." It is clear that the proposed trail construction would result in severe and extensive disturbance to the valley slope. Details of the full extent of the disturbance would become more evident through the detailed design process, and construction, but is likely to include massive removal of mature trees and regrading of significant portions of the existing slope. Golder further notes "It should be noted that the proposed construction activities noted above will likely result in significant site disturbance and vegetation/tree removal. It is strongly recommended that further discussions between the contractor, Municipality, Golder and CLOCA be held to address issues related to tree removal and slope regrading." Even with this complete reconstruction of major portions of the slope, the remaining undisturbed slope portions are likely to be impacted through: • Changes in hydrology o Less tree canopy leads to reduced rain interception and evapotranspiration and more soil moisture and runoff. 0 3m paved (impervious) trail will create more stormwater runoff and may concentrate runoff to locations on the slope. • Changes in vegetation health o Opening of tree canopy leads to impacted health of remaining trees and reduced surficial soil stability due to decline in root health. Page12 Healthy watersheds for today and tomorrow. These changes create a significant risk of further failure of the remaining valley slope and poses a risk to the existing Pinedale Crescent homes that, in my opinion, are unacceptable. In conclusion, the existing Farewell Creek valley slope is a tall and steep slope with varying sandy and till soils and groundwater seepage, and the Farewell Creek directly at the toe of slope. The existing slope shows signs of surficial creep and minor sloughing, but has been historically stable due to the presence of very mature forest vegetation. Existing homes are perched on the top of slope and are within the erosion hazard. A mid slope trail proposal has been proposed, and Golder Associates has provided a concept for this proposal. They note, however, very difficult conditions for construction, and it can be concluded that a significant portion of the existing slope would be disturbed to complete the work, and the remaining portions of the slope would also be negatively impacted. This would lead to greater concern for slope stability and future slope failures that could impact existing homes and property. While the trail and disturbed portion of the slope could be engineered (requiring perpetual monitoring and maintenance), the removal of mature vegetation and placement of a trail mid slope may have unforeseen consequences on the remaining valley slope. This trail alternative does not meet CLOCA policy for approval, and in my opinion poses an unacceptable risk for future slope failure and impacts to existing property. Alternative trail configurations that avoid this portion of the valley slope should be pursued. Page 13 Page 99 CIM/IV+ Revised February 2611, 2021 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Attention: Mr. Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works RE: Tree Inventory and Impact Assessment, Updated Cost Estimates and Comparison to Support Farewell Creek Phase 2B Geotechnical Recommendations Dear Mr. Brake: As per the outline provided in our proposal dated February 41h , 2021, CIMA Canada Inc. (CIMA+) has completed the necessary topographic survey update to capture the impacted trees within the Council recommended trail alignment as well as the tree inventory and assessment for both the Council preferred alignment and the original trial alignment. A summary of the updated base plan information from the survey and the tree inventory is provided in Attachment 1. We have also revised the preliminary design to incorporate the recommendations of the Golder Associates' (Golder) Slope Stability Assessment dated September 171h, 2020 for construction of the trail to ensure the long-term stability of the valley wall during and after construction of the trail. Cost estimates for the revised preliminary design were updated and also compared with cost estimates for the original alignment along with updating the cost estimates for the balance of the trail connecting to the closest sidewalks at Cherrydown Drive and to the southwest limit of the Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2A. The following sections will outline in more detail the work that was completed. BACKGROUND As part of the design of the Council preferred alignment for the Farewell Creek Trail, CIMA+ and Clarington staff walked the trail alignment and identified concerns with slope steepness and stability as well as water seepage. In order to address these concerns Council approved the commissioning of a geotechnical investigation and slope stability analysis for the area of concern bound by Townline Road to the west and the existing stormwater management pond to the east (STA 4+440 to 4+630 as identified on the attached trail alignment drawings). Golder undertook the geotechnical work in the summer of 2020 and provided their final report in September of 2020. Golder's report identified two areas where long term slope stability was a concern if a trail was constructed on the Council preferred alignment. The report recommended that remedial measures would be required from roughly STA 4+460 to 4+510 and from STA 4+550 to 4+600 to ensure the long-term stability of the slope. Due to the existing slope composition a traditional armor stone or C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 213 Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx MNCENTRIC) 415 Baseline Road West, 2d Floor Bowmanville, ON L1 C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443 Best Employer- - - CANAOA 2019 Page100 February 11, 2021 Page 2 of 11 M precast concrete gravity retaining wall were determined to not be viable options to improve stability and would be detrimental to the slope stability if used. In this regard, requirements for an alternative wall design were identified. KWGSWOW DR J -fARETrfI,L �E1c ` PHASE 26 COUNOL PREFERM TRAIL AUONMENT se6TbInNRR WAN AGDO T 1 moo► Y 1 I � I PfEDALE CAES ALIGLENJ OPTIONS k MATCHR4G POINT 1 SOUTH LIMIT OF - - - �PHA,sE 26 - - r PHASE 2A TRAIL I uk TNS I rIOM pj- I.114GWAY OR �00 i T :.I PHASE 2e ORIpNAL TRAIL ALIGNMENT 5 ' GLENA88EY DR T Y--- T- `YTT -F--\ i—T—T—F-0 Figure 1: Key Plan of Trail Alignment Options C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate RevO5.docx cima.ca Page 101 February 11, 2021 Page 3 of 11 2 UPDATED PROPOSED DESIGN Based on the recommendations from Golder the design of Council preferred alignment has been modified to include a Retained/Reinforced Soil Wall (RSW) or Retained Soil System (RSS) wall to address the areas of stability concern. Additionally, in the interest of minimizing the number of trees impacted by extensive down slope grading, the design has also been modified to include the RSW/RSS treatment within the full length of the treed area of the slope running continuously from roughly 4+450 to 6+630. The complete Golder technical memorandum is provided in Appendix B for reference. An RSW/RSS typically includes a reinforced face that consist of either stone within a steel mesh or concrete panels, the face is then `tied -back' into the soil behind the wall. The `tie -backs' typically consists of geogrid material that also serves to reinforce the soil (backfill) that is placed behind the wall. Figure 1 illustrates a typical cross-section of an RSS wall in a roadway application. =advis units Figure 2: Cross Section of Typical RSS Wall The Municipality of Clarington has used this type of system in the past on their Bond Head active transportation improvement project on Mill Street where it was placed between Graham Creek and Mill Street to provide a stable platform for the pedestrian trail and viewing platform. The photos provided in the below figures show the wall and its components at various stages of construction. C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx cima.ca Page102 February 11, 2021 Page 4 of 11 M Figure 3: Wall Staging with Geogrid Tie Backs Wire Grid Wall r 3 •3� � �` � ,Jrirr � - y t $ Figure 4: RSS Wall - Subdrain, Geogrid, Backfill and Typical Equipment for Construction C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx cima.ca Page103 February 11, 2021 Page 5 of 11 M e it Figure 5: Stone Outside Face of RSS Wall with Geogrid Tie Backs Figure 6: Granular Backfill Placement C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx cima.ca Page 104 February 11, 2021 Page 6 of 11 M Figure 7: Treatment at Pipe Outfall Figure 8: Special Preparation for Railing Footings C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx cima.ca Page 105 February 11, 2021 Page 7 of 11 M Figure 9: Finished Wall Face with Storm Outlet Figure 10: Wall Face with Minimal Disturbance Beyond Wall Base C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx cima.ca Page106 February 11, 2021 Page 8 of 11 M Figure 11: Installed Railing System (guard) With the use of the reinforced soil retention walls at locations that were confirmed to have slope stability concerns, Golder's the long-term (drained) analysis determined that the factor of safety would be 1.5 or greater which is considered acceptable for slope design. The RSS Wall is also proposed for the trail within the existing established wooded area east of the storm pond slope. Across the face of the constructed pond slope grading at 2.5:1 would be used to establish the trail platform with the intent of reducing trail costs. As part of the RSS Wall design a railing meeting the requirements of a `guard' will be required due to the 1.0 m to 3.5 m+ wall heights. The railing will be of sufficient height (1.4 m) to account for use of the trail by cyclists similar to the one shown in Figure 11. In order to address water runoff from the backslope above the trail and to take the runoff from the trail surface in a manner that will not compromise the RSS Wall base a concrete gutter will be constructed on the upslope side of the trail cross-section. Ditch inlets and pipe outlets (through the wall system) at sufficient frequency will also be used to effectively manage the water runoff. The plan and profile drawing for the Council recommended alignment is provided in Appendix C along with the typical RSS Wall details from the Bond Head Active Transportation Improvement project on Mill Street. Note that the plan and profile drawing was used as part of the geotechnical C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx cima.ca Page107 February 11, 2021 Page 9 of 11 lie report and the notes related to armor stone retaining walls are no longer applicable as they are proposed to be replaced with the RSS Wall as recommended by Golder. 3 TREE INVENTORY, ASSESSMENT AND VALUATION In addition to the geotechnical investigation and analysis that was undertaken to support the design and construction of the trail along the Council recommended alignment, Clarington staff requested that a tree inventory, analysis, and valuation be undertaken. Considering the concern raised by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) staff regarding the impact the trail would have on the mature forest on the slope that this trail alignment traverses, Clarington staff wanted to have a full accounting of the area to better inform their design and discussions with CLOCA staff moving forward. The full details of the inventory including a drawing showing the area of influence and impact of both the Council recommended alignment and the original design alignment are provided in Appendix A. Also included in the drawing set is a summary table of all trees impacted including the tree species, size, condition, structural defects, and estimated impact of trail construction on the trees. Based on the inventory and assessment CIMA+ completed a valuation of the trees based on the Trunk Formula Method provided by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal (10th Edition, Second Printing) to quantify, with a dollar value, the loss of trees based on their importance to the local mature forest and to the residential properties that currently benefit from the presence of the trees. The valuation also considers such things as the tree size, health, species importance, defects, and location. 3.1 COUNCIL PREFERRED ALIGNMENT A total of 217 trees are expected to require removal due to conflict with construction zones for Council recommended trail alignment, as per the summary chart below. These trees consist predominantly of Elm, Hemlock, Beech, Birch, Cedar and Poplar that are part of well established and mature forest. The presence of very large Hemlock and Yellow Birch are significant contributors to the overall health and character of the forest and stabilize the valley slopes with their extensive root systems. Table 1 below provides a summary of the number of trees that would be removed and the range in the size of trees removed. C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx cima.ca Page108 February 11, 2021 Page 10 of 11 Table 1: Tree Removals Along Council Preferred Alignment A� DBH of Trees to Be Removed (Diameter at Breast Height) 0-5cm 10-20cm 20-30cm 30-40cm 40cm + Total Individual - - 10 20 13 43 Trees in _ 113 55 6 - 174 Groups 113 65 26 13 217 Total 217 trees to be removed Appraised $393,020 for 217 trees to be removed Value 3.2 ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT A total of 123 trees are expected to require removal due to conflict with construction zones for the trail along the original alignment. The trees that would be removed to construct the trail along the original alignment are predominantly Spruce, Cedar, Maple, Manitoba Maple, and Ash, and 2 very large Yellow Birch trees that are reaching the end of their lifespan. Table 2 below provides a summary of the number of trees that would be removed and the range in the size of trees removed: Table 2: Tree Removals Along Original Alignment DBH of Trees to Be Removed (Diameter at Breast Height) 0-5cm 10-20cm 20-30cm 30-40cm 40cm + Total Individual 2 19 2 7 3 33 Trees in _ 50 40 - - 90 Groups 2 69 42 7 3 123 Total 123 trees to be removed Appraised $208,580 for 123 trees to be removed Value Typically, based on experience, CLOCA may request that all trees removed must be replaced with the same or a greater number of "new" trees as compensation while other jurisdictions require replacement or compensation based on the value of the trees removed. 4 UPDATED COST ESTIMATES Along with the updated design for the trail based on the recommendations of Golder's geotechnical assessment CIMA+ has updated the cost estimate for construction to include the use of RSS walls C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx cima.c� Page109 February 11, 2021 Page 11 of 11 lie where necessary to address slope stability and reduction in impact to the mature tree canopy. The estimate updates also reflect costs changes consistent with similar trail construction over the last couple of years. The following is a summary of the trail construction costs to complete the trail from Cherrydown Drive to the limit of Phase 2A. 4+290 to 4+430 and 4+720 to 5+000(Common Alignment) $479,000 4+430 to 4+720 (Council Recommended Alignment) $1,249,000 Other Costs (design/tendering, Admin., Contingencies, Permits) $423,000 TOTAL $2,151,000 4+290 to 4+430 and 4+720 to 5+000(Common Alignment) $479,000 4+430 to 4+720 (Original Alignment) $585,000 Other Costs (design/tendering, Admin., Contingencies, Permits) $260,000 TOTAL $1,324,000 The biggest factor contributing to the price difference between the two options above is the retained soil system wall and railing which accounts for approximately $665,000 of difference between the two options. A detailed breakdown of the cost estimates is provided in Appendix D. The tree valuation costs are not included in the above cost estimates for the trail. A photo log of the two alternative trail routes between STA 4+430 and 4+720 are provided in Appendix E. We would like to thank the Municipality of Clarington for providing CIMA+ the opportunity to work on this unique trail design. Should you have any questions regarding this technical memorandum or any of the supporting material, we would be glad to assist you. Best regards, CIMA Canada Inc. Ron Albright, P.Eng. Project Director Ron.Albright@cima.ca 070114 \\ Dan Campbell Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner Dan. Campbell@cima.ca C14-0287-Farewell Creek Trail -Phase 2B Tree Impact and Cost Estimate Rev05.docx cima.ca Page110 Appendix A: Tree Inventory cljbVlk+ Page111 CIM/X+ February 11, 2021 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON U C 3A6 Attention: Mr. Stephen Brake Director of Public Works RE: Tree Inventory and Impact Assessment, Appraisal Value Comparison between Trail Alignments 1 (Original) and 2 (Council recommended) Dear Mr. Brake: A tree inventory and assessment were completed to review the trees potentially affected by both trail alignments. An ISA Certified Arborist from CIMA+ conducted site visits on February 5t" and 8t" 2021. Trees were numbered, identified, measured, and assessed for condition. The tree inventory tables containing this information are included on Tree Inventory Plans 1 through 4 (attached). Alignment 1: A total of 62 individual trees and 3 tree groupings were identified within the area impacted by Alignment 1 (magenta hatch) and includes all trees numbered 1 through 62, as well as tree groups A through C (90 trees within groups). A total of 123 trees are expected to require removal due to conflict with the construction zone for trail Alignment 1, as per the summary chart below. Tree Removal Summary - Alignment 1 (magenta) DBH Diameter at Breast Height) 0-5cm 10-20cm 20-30cm 30-40cm 40cm + 2 19 2 7 3 50 40 Total: 33 + 50 + 40 = 123 trees to be removed (Individual Trees) (Tree within Groupings) The trees that would be removed to construct Alignment 1 are predominantly Spruce, Cedar, Maple, Manitoba Maple, and Ash, and 2 very large Yellow Birch trees that are reaching the end of their lifespan. C14-0287-Farewell Creek Tree Summary_R5.docx 415 Baseline Road West, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, ON L1 C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443 KINCENTRI0 Best Employer Page112 CANADA2019 February 11, 2021 Page 2 of 4 A+k Photo Examale of Trail Alianment 1: Alignment 2: A total of 46 individual trees and 12 tree groupings were identified within Alignment 2 (yellow hatch) and includes all trees numbered 63 through 108, as well as tree groups D through O (174 trees within groups). A total of 217 trees are expected to require removal due to conflict with construction zones for trail Alignment 2, as per the summary chart below. Tree Removal Summary - Alignment 2 DBH Diameter at Breast Height 0-5cm 10-20cm 20-30cm 30-40cm 40cm + 10 20 13 113 55 6 Total: 43 + 113 + 55 + 6 = 217 trees to be removed (Individual Trees) (Tree within Groupings) The trees that would be removed to construct Alignment 2 are predominantly Elm, Hemlock, Beech, Birch, Cedar and Poplar that are part of well established and mature forest. Very large Hemlock and Yellow Birch are significant contributors to the overall health of the forest and stabilize the valley with their extensive root system. These species are not predominant in the area, especially at their larger size, and preference should be given to protect these trees. Alignment 2 would require the removal of more large trees (39 trees >30cm) than Alignment 1 (10 trees > 30cm). This is significant because larger trees provide more ecological benefits and take much longer to replace. C14-0287-Farewell Creek Tree Summary_R5.docx cima.ca Page 113 February 11, 2021 Page 3 of 4 A+k Photo Examale of Trail Alianment 2: - y \ 4 ` - .01 ' Removal of these mature trees along the slope face would result in significant impacts and with the slow growth rate of these trees, reestablishment of the existing forest through the area would be unlikely to replicate the existing healthy ecosystem. Forests of this mature nature and advanced age are limited within the Municipality of Clarington. There is also potential for additional tree loss due to slope failure and injury from trail construction and associated grading. Additional maintenance for Alignment 2 should be expected to keep the trail area clear of potentially hazardous branches and trees as nearby trees decline due to root damage. The potential for maintenance issues associated with erosion must also be recognized given the significant slope that would be disturbed to construct the trail. Appraisal Value Comparison: As requested by Clarington, CIMA+ has used the Trunk Formula Technique (Reproduction Method) of the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal (loth Edition, Second Printing) to apply a value to the existing trees. This value is based on the cost of planting nursery trees, proportionally increased to represent the size of the tree being removed. The goal of this approach is to provide a comparison of the total tree value that would be impacted by moving forward with Alignment 1 or Alignment 2. This does not take into account the additional impacts of Alignment 2 on the forest ecosystem. While Alignment 1 would impact primarily trees along the edge of the forest, Alignment 2 would disrupt the core of the forest on all sides of the trail, affecting more trees beyond the edges of disturbance, in a sensitive area that would not be able to recover to its current state. The following total appraised values were calculated for the trees that must be removed for each alignment: Alignment 1: $208,580 (original) Alignment 2: $393,020 (Council recommended) C14-0287-Farewell Creek Tree Summary_R5.docx cima.ca Page114 February 11, 2021 Page 4 of 4 #*�f CIMA+ Arborist staff have also read the feedback provided by CLOCA staff related to the loss of trees, and concur with their comments as they relate to the uniqueness and importance of the mature forest that exists along the proposed trail alignment. Best regards, CIMA Canada Inc. Sean Nailer, ISA Certified Arborist Lisa Cullen, GALA, ISA Certified Arborist Senior Technician Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner Sean.Nailer@cima.ca Lisa. Cullen @cima.ca C14-0287-Farewell Creek Tree Summary_R5.docx cima.ca Page115 This tlrawing M1es been preparetl for me use of --them entl may nol W used. reprotlecetl or reWd upon by MiN pbdi.b. —pt es agreatl by CIMA entl it. client, es re —d by I—, for use by gpvemm-al CLIENT: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: TITLE: wing agencies CIMA eroepls no responsibility, entl tlenies any Ilabiliry wM1elsoever, tp any pefiy IM1et L. MAY S. NAILER FAREWELL CREEK TRAIL motlifies thlstlrewing wilnaN CIMA's express written consem. f I tis ne resppnsiblliry ofna contredor �o Inman themselves of the axedocation oentles—ell Iiabilily A n PHASE LB DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: h r em ell ntl for tlemegNililies services esWdures wemer above groutsl obelow gretle before rommencing EXISTING TREES WITH C 1A tM1e wp*. 6ppM1 information ie net nepessarily aM1mvn pn,he tlrawing. entl ,M1e where eM1awn.pannpti"gMn TREE INVENTORY NUMBER CI R. ALBRIGHT TREE INVENTORY b. gaarameetl. %I\ `� ` ar - S Wits the sole exceplipn M me benchmarks) spec?celly tlescnbetl mrn,ls projad, no elevetlan intlicetetl or SCALE: DATE:2 assumetl M1ereonm I. be... d ase raferenre elevation for any ppmoP.T.-2ntl al tlimensians entl informe�ion Snell be checketl aria vengetl on the lob entl enytllscrepencies must be 01 2021/02/10 RA ISSUED FOR TREE INVENTORY MOMORANDUM Fl--415 Baseline Roatl West, Bow —All., ON L1C 5M Phone: 9066974464 www.clma.ca PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWING NUMBER: CON TRACT NUMBER: reppnetl to ne—idpaliry before rommencing the— At be bbminaa hom—d 1:250 FEBRUARY 2021 C14-0287 1 _ ! tlimensipns, tlrawings are not to be scaled. No. DATE BY ISSUES/REVISIONS aae In AREA OF MPACT IT 1 6 i 9Ali, ■ i bB usetl, by This tlrawing has been.b.g for the use of CIMA's Gienl entl may y I—,gb- or relletl upon by MiN parries. exrept as agreatl by ClMA entl ils client, es re9uiretl by law p a by CLIENT: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: TITLE: N.N. I. b.y .en�el ' wing agencies CIMA eroapls no responsibility, entl tlenies any Ilabiliry wM1elspever, tp any perry Ihet L. MAY S. NAILER FAREWELL CREEK TRAIL matlifies thlstlmwing wilnaN CIMA's express written consem. d Itis ne resppnsiblliry pfna contrenor �o Inman themselves of the exactloc—pfentlassumeallliability A + PHASE LB DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: helaw gretle bemrerommencing for tlamagemall Nil-ti servicesa.Hlyres whemer eb.ing, EXISTING TREES WITHC JAW the wa*. 6pah information ie net neaessanly ahawn an,M1e tlrawing, entl where aM1awn.,M1e aacuraay aannat hd TREE INVENTORY NUMBER ` IV C - R. ALBRGHT TREE INVENTORY b. gaarameetl. %I\ R S WiM the sole excepli-M me benchmarks) spec—lly tlescnbetl far this project, no elevatlan intlicatetl SCALE: DATE: assumetl M1ereon is Io to usetl asa raferenre elevation mr any pumose. Nltlimensibdbhyd—pandas mastbe 01 2021/02/10 RA ISSUED FOR TREE INVENTORY MOMORANDUM 2ntl Floor- 415 Baseline Roatl West, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 5M2 Ph one: 90G6974464 www.clma.ca PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWING NUMBER: CON TRACT NUMBER: reppnetl to ne--paliry before rommencing th.—Al maesu—Ib mast be bbminatl from atetatl ! dimensions, tlrawings are not to W scalatl. I No. DATE BY ISSUES/REVISIONS 1:250 FEBRUARY 2021 C14-0287 2 _ i oft, TREE INVENTORY TABLE: ALIGNMENT 1 I 11 Tree No. Common name Scientific name DBH Wro epp— Overall Condition (D), (P/, (F), (G), a (E) Structural Defects Tree Impacts (gnjure/ (R)ermve Comments GR COD NA INCL CRB MB DPR SMD ADV LN 1 Spruce Piceasp. 20-30 G dead lower branches 2 Spruce Picea sp. 20-30 G dead lower branches 3 Spruce Piceasp. 20-30 G I dead lower branches 4 Spruce Piceasp. 10-20 G R 2stem 5 Ash Fraxinus sp. 10-1 D I I I I R tree is dead, signs of EAB 6 Cedar Thu-aoccidentalis 20-30 G 1 7 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 10-20 F x x x R 8 Cedar Thu-aoccidentalis 30-40 G 1 9 Maple Acers . 10-20 F/G x R 10 Maple Acersp. 30-40 G x R 11 Maple Acers . 30-40 G R 12 Maple Acers . 30-40 G R 13 Maple Acersp. 30-40 G R 14 Cedar Thu -a occidentalis 0-5 G R 15 Cedar Thu -a occidentalis 0-5 F R 16 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 30-40 F/P x x x x x R leaning overtrail, potential hazard 17 Cedar Thu -a occidentalis 10-20 F x R 18 Cedar Thu-aoccidentalis 30-40 G 1 19 Cedar Thu-aoccidentalis 30-40 F 20 Cedar Thu-aoccidentalis 10-20 F 21 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 10-20 F/P x x x x x R exposed roots, cavity at base 22 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 20-30 P x x x x R severe lean overtrail, potential hazard 23 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 10-20 F R 24 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 10-15 F R 25 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 10-15 F R 26 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 10-15 F R 27 Elm Ulmussp. 10-15 F 1 28 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 10-15 F x x R 29 Spruce Piceasp. 10-20 F R suppressed tree, one side lack of needles 30 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 30-40 F x leaning towards trail over neighbouring tree 31 Maple Acers 10-20 F x R deadwood in canopy Tree No. Common name Scientific name DBH a(CM) Coverall (D),(P),(F7, (G), a (E) Structural Defects Imp cts (gnjure/ (R)enove Comments GR COD NA INC CRB MBR DPR SMD ADV LN 32 Cedar Thujaoaidentalis 10-20 F 1 33 Cedar Thujaoaidentalis 10-20 F 1 34 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 10-20 F x x R 35 Cedar Thujaoaidentalis 10-15 G R 36 Cedar Thujaoaidentalis 20-30 G I I I I I 1 1 37 Cedar Thujaoaidentalis 10-15 G I 38 Black Walnut Juglansnigra 35 F/G x x x I leaning overtrail, on slope 39 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 10-15 F x x R 40 Cedar Thujaoaidentalis 10-20 F 1 41 lCedar Thujaoaidentalis 10'20 F R 42 Cedar Thujaoaidentalis 10-20 F 1 43 Maple Acers . 20-30 G x x I 44 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 30-40 F x R leaning ov ertrail, potential hazard 45 Crabapple Malus sp. 10-20 F/P R 46 Cedar Thujaoaidentalis 20-30 F R 47 Cedar Thujaoaidentalis 20-30 P R 48 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 10-15 F R 49 Yellow Birch Betulaalle haniensis 30-40 F x x significant deadwood, broken limbs 50 Dead Deciduous Dead Deciduous 10-15 D R 51 1 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 30-40 1 G x 1 52 Manitoba Maple Acernegundo 30-40 G x R 53 Yellow Birch Betulaalle haniensis 90 F x x x x R significant deadwood 54 Yellow Birch Betulaalle haniensis 90 F x x x x R significant deadwood 55 Dead Deciduous Dead Deciduous 36 D tree is dead 56 ICedar Thujaoaidentalis 20-30 G I clump 57 Yellow Birch Betulaalleghaniensis 45 F x x I deadwood in canopy 58 Ash Fraxinus sp. 43 D tree is dead, signs of EAB 59 Ash Fraxinus sp. 44 D tree is dead, signs of EAB 60 Ash Fraxinus sp. 49 D tree is dead, signs of EAB 61 Cedar Thu -a occidentalis 68 F/P x x x R exposed roots, cavities at base, significant deadwood TREE GROUPING TABLE: ALIGNMENT 1 Group Common name Scientific (within group) DBH ([IameteratBreast Height) Overall Condition (� (E) (� a (E)(R)ertrove Tree Impacts (gnjure/ Comments 10-20cm 20-30cm 30-40cm A Cedar Thuja sp. 100 20stems 20stems Good R B Cedar Thuja sp. 100 10stems 10stems Good R C Cedar Thuja sp. 100 1 20stems 10stems Good R This tlrawing M1es been prep.., for lh....1ClMA's diem entl may nol bB usetl. repmducetl.rrelletl upon CLIENT: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: TITLE: by t, N peaies, exempt —breed by CIMA entl ils client, es re —d by law or for use by g.vemmental wing agencies CIMA eaepls no responsibility, entl tlenies any liability wM1elsoever, t. any pedy Ihet L. MAY S. NAILER FAREWELL CREEK TRAIL atlifie ' ms thlstlmwing wilhaul ClMA's express n consem. wdM It is Me responsibllily of Me contreaor I-- themselves of the exaa loc -.1. nd assume ell liability � • n PHASE LB DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: for tlamege to ell Nililies services entlsWaures whetM1er above grouM.r below gretle before rommencing the-6uahinf.r—I.nisnotneaeseadlyah.w-fttlrawing,entlwhereah. thaa rayann.t C JIW C1-IILJI�� TREE INVENTORY be gueremeetl. ! - R. ALBRIGHT I WiM the sole exceplionMMe benchmarks)spec?cally tlescdb.d. this pr.j... no elevetlan ihdI. ed.r SCALE: DATE: assumetl M1ereonN I. to usetl ass referen�elevetian for any purb.— All 01 2021/02/10 RA ISSUED FOR TREE INVENTORY MOMORANDUM 2nd Fl--415 Baseline Road West, BowmanAlle, ON L1 C 5M2 Phone: 905-6974464 www.clma.ca PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWING NUMBER: CON TRACT NUMBER: reposed to ne muniapaliry before commencing mewant. al measu—Ib must be obtainaa h.m st d ! tlimensions, tlrawinge are not to be scaled. No. DATE BY ISSUES/REVISIONS 1:250 FEBRUARV 2021 C14-0287 3 _ P09 TREE INVENTORY TABLE: ALIGNMENT 2 Tree No. Common name Scientific name UB,H •approx. Overall Condition (D), (P), (F), (G), or (E) Structural Defects Tree Impacts (gnjure/ (R)emove Comments GR COD NA INCL CRB MBR DPR SMD ADV LN 63 Elm Ulmussp. 20 G R 64 Elm Ulmuss . 20 G R 65 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 30,20 G X R 66 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 50 G R 67 Elm Ulmussp. 20-30 G R 68 Elm Ulmussp. 30-40 G R 69 Elm Ulmussp. 20-30 G R 70 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 30-40 G R dead tree leaning on branches 71 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 30-40 F/G R 2 stem, one main leader broken 72 American Beech Fagus americana 30-40 G X X R tree cavity 73 American Beech Fagus americana 30-40 G X X R 74 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 35,35 G X X R exposed roots 75 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 40-50 G R 76 Maple Acers 30-40 F/G X X R decay at base 77 1 Easte rn He ml ock Tsuga canadensis 30-40 G R 78 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 30-40 G 1 79 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 20-30 G R 80 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 30-40 F/G R suppressed tree 81 White Birch Betula papyrifera 30,30 F X X X X R exposed roots, cavities at base, significant deadwood 82 White Birch Betula papyrifera 40-50 F X X R significant deadwood 83 Cedar Thujaoccidentalis 20-30 F X X 1 84 Eastern Hemlock Tsu acanadensis 40-50 F/P R large tree cavity up trunk 85 American Beech Fa us americana 51 F I X X R significant deadwood Tree No. Common name Scientific name UBH • aP ro Overall Condition (Q)• (F), (F), (G), or (E) Structural Defects Tree Impacts (gnjure/ (R)e—e Comments GR COD NA �INCL� CRB NI DPR SMD ADV LN 86 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 50-60 F/G X X X X X R exposed surface roots 87 Cedar Thujaoccidentalis 30-40 F/P X X X R suppressedtree 88 White Birch Betula papyrifera 20-30 F/G X R 89 White Birch Betula papyrifera 20-30 F/G X R 90 White Birch Betula a rifera 40-50 F/G X R 91 Cedar Thu-aoccidentalis 40-50 F/P X X X R significant deadwood, exosed roots 92 American Beech Fagus americana 20-30 F/G X X R exposed roots 93 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 40-50 G X X R 94 White Birch Betula a rifera 30-40 F X R 95 White Birch Betula papyrifera 30-40 F X R 96 American Beech Fagus americana 30-40 G R 97 American Beech Fagus americana 40-50 F X X X R signs of decay, tree showing signs of stress 98 Poplar Po uluss . 40-50 G X X X R dead tree leaning over branches 99 Poplar Po uluss . 30-40 G R 100 Poplar Po uluss . 30-40 G R 101 American Beech Fagus americana 20-30 G X R 102 Poplar Populus sp. 30-40 G R 103 Cedar Thu-aoccidentalis 30-40 G R 104 Manitoba Maple Acerne undo 30.40 F/G X X R vine growing throughout 105 Yellow Birch Betula alleghaniensis 30-40 F X X 1 106 American Beech Fagus americana 20.30 G R 107 Eastern Hemlock Tsuga canadensis 20.30 F R suppressecitree 108 Cedar Thu -a oaidentalis 40.50 F R marked with bullse a in red spraypaint TREE GROUPING TABLE: ALIGNMENT 2 Group Common name Scientific name (within group) DBH (DameteratBreasBreast Height) Overall Condition (D), (P), (F), (6), or (E) Tree Impacts (gnjure/ (R)emove Comments 10-20cm 20.30cm 30-40cm D Cedar Thuja sp. 100 4stems 10stems 3stems Good R E Cedar Thuja sp. 30 2stems 2stems lstem Good R Elm Ulmussp. 30 5stems Good R Hemlock Tsuga sp. 35 6stems Good R Maple Acersp. 5 1stem Good R F Cedar Thuja sp. 75 1stem 5stems Good R Elm Ulmussp. 25 1stem 1stem Good R G Maple Acersp. 50 4stems 2stems Good R Cedar Thujasp. 50 2stems 3stems Fair R H Cedar Thuja sp. 65 7stems 3stems Good R Hemlock Tsuga sp. 15 1stem 1stem Good R Birch Betula sp. 5 lstem Good R Maple Acersp. 15 2stems Good R I Cedar Thuja sp. 85 13stems I 2stems I Good I R Hemlock Tsuga sp. 15 2stems Good R Group Common name Scientific name (within group) DBH (D%i at Breast Height) Overall Condition (�' (H' (H' (�' or (q Tree Impacts (9npre / (rgemwe Comments 10.20cm 2D30cm 30.40cm J Cedar Thu -asp. 65 5stems 1stem Good R Hemlock Tsuga sp. 35 3stems Good R K Beech Fagus sp. 55 7stems Good R Cedar Thu -as . 30 4stems Good R Birch Betula sp. 15 2stems Good R L Cedar Thuja sp. 60 10stems 5stems Good R Maple Acersp. 20 5stems Good R Beech Fagus sp. 20 4stems Good R M Poplar Populussp. 100 5stems 4stems Good R N Cedar Thuja sp. 75 3stems 5stems lstem Good R Beech Fagus s. 25 2stems 1stem Good R 0 Cedar Thuja sp. 85 12stems 6stems 1stem Good R Beech Fagus sp. 10 2stems Good R Hemlock Tsuga sp. 5 1stem Good R V This cawing M1es been preparetl ror me use of C1— diem entl may not ba usetl. repmtlucea or mWd upon Y by t, ,biMgetlies.ex�ptas agreatlbyC entl it. ifity. rdasre9uiretl by law or for use by. b.yp.enlel ' wing agencies CIMA eaepls no responsibility, entl tlenies any Ilabiliry wM1elsoever, I. any peM1y Ihet CLIENT: DRAWN BY: L. MAY CHECKED BY: S. NAILER TITLE: FAREWELL CREEK TRAIL matlifies thlstlmwing wnnaul ClMA's express written consem. It is PHASELB DESIGNED BV: APPROVED BV: b—g`bt` for tlto ell Nililies services end sWdures whetM1er above grouts or below gretle before rommencngC1-I�L��6pah information ie not necessarily ahawn an IM1e tlmwing,entl where ahawn.lhe aacuraay aannat bB gueremeetl. Cor.g. ` J�W I• - R. ALBRIGHT TREE INVENTORY Wits the sole exception a Me benchmarks) spec?catty tlescnbetl farthls project, no elevetlan intlicetetl or assumetl M1ereonN to be usetl ase-r—elevetian for any pumose. I al tlimensians entl information Snell bech-1d entl vengetl on the lob entl any mscrepancies must be reppnee to ne mpnidpaliry before comm -mg lha want. al measuremems must be pbtainaa hom statetl dimensions,@swinge are not to be scaled. 2nd Fl-- 415 Baseline Roatl West, Bow hAlle, ON L1C 5M2 Phone: 90G6974464 www.cima.ca SCALE: 1:250 DATE: FEBRUARV 2021 PROJECT NUMBER: C 14-0287 DRAWING NUMBER: 4 CON TRACT NUMBER: - 01 2021/02/10 RA ISSUED FOR TREE INVENTORY MOMORANDUM No. DATE BY ISSUES/REVISIONS aae Appendix B: Geotechnical Report Page120 ' GOLDER DATE September 17, 2020 TO Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. The Municipality of Clarington FROM Timi Olumuyiwa Andrew Hagner TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project No. 19132686 (1000) EMAIL tolumuyiwa@goider.com ahagner@goider.com GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED RECREATIONAL TRAIL DESIGN FAREWELL CREEK VALLEY, COURTICE, ONTARIO Dear Mr. Brezina, Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has been retained by The Municipality of Clarington (The Municipality) to provide slope stability assessment and geotechnical recommendations for the proposed recreational multi -use trail design along the south slope of the Farewell Creek Valley in Courtice, Ontario (the Site). As part of the overall trail development, this report provides geotechnical recommendations for the trail between Station 4+400 and 4+700 based on the site plan provided by CIMA, entitled "Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2, Borehole Locations and Alternative Alignment 4", dated June 2020. It is understood that the 3.0 m wide multi -use asphalt surfaced trail is to be located along a long-term stable slope. Based on this, two alternatives have been suggested by the Municipality to support the proposed trail alignment which are as follows: ■ Regrading of a portion of the existing slope to form final slopes having a maximum 2H:1 V gradient; or ■ Not regrading the slope but construction of retaining walls located along the north limit (downslope) of the proposed trail alignment. This technical memorandum presents the results of the slope stability analyses carried out for the existing slopes and proposed regraded slopes along the above defined survey station limits. It also provides recommendations for retaining walls and pavement design for the recreational trail. The geotechnical analyses and comments provided in this technical memorandum are based on the existing and proposed cross sectional profiles provided by CIMA and the subsurface site information collected as part of our investigation, as presented in this technical memorandum. This technical memorandum should be read in conjunction with the `Important Information and Limitations of This Report" provided following the text of this technical memorandum, which form an integral part of this document. 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is generally consisting of a steep densely vegetated natural valley slope that dips towards the Farewell Creek. A stormwater management pond (SWMP) is located south of the proposed trail route, and an unpaved pedestrian pathway runs at the slope crest. The dense vegetation consists mostly of trees, but sparse vegetative Golder Associates Ltd. 100, Scotia Court Whitby, Ontario, L1 N 8Y6 Canada T: +1 905 723 2727 +1 905 723 2182 Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation Page 121 golder.com Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. The Municipality of Clarington Project No. 19132686 (1000) September 17, 2020 cover mostly exists along the face of the slope. Localized areas of soft soils associated with sloughed soils and flowing groundwater at surface were observed along the face of the slope and located at elevations from about mid -slope to the toe of existing slope. Signs of erosion and instability, including surface creep, were also observed along the slope face indicated by exposed tree roots and characteristic tree bending. The height of the natural slope ranges from about 21 m to 28 m within the section of the trail alignment being assessed with varying slope gradients ranging between 1 H:1 V and 3H:1 V. 2.0 INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES The geotechnical field investigation for this assignment was carried out between May 12 and 23, 2020, during which time six boreholes which consisted of two deeper boreholes (Boreholes 20-1 and 20-2) and four shallow boreholes (Boreholes 20-3 to 20-6), which were advanced to depths ranging from approximately 1.1 m to 1.6 m (boreholes drilled at the toe of the slope) and from 23.6 m to 26.0 m (at the crest of the slope) below ground surface (mbgs). The boreholes were terminated due to practical refusal to further advancement except for Borehole 20-1 which reached its target depth. The deep boreholes were advanced using track mount drill rigs (CME 55 and CME 75) supplied and operated by Pontil Drilling Services Inc. of Mount Albert, Ontario. Standard penetration testing (SPT) and sampling in the overburden soils were carried out at regular intervals of depth using conventional 50 mm external diameter split spoon sampling equipment driven by an automatic hammer in accordance with ASTM D1586. The shallow boreholes were advanced manually by driving the standard 50 mm external diameter split spoon using a half weight (32 kg) hammer dropped from a 760 mm height. The split -spoon samplers used in the investigation limit the maximum particle size that can be sampled and tested to about 35 mm. Therefore, particles or objects that may exist within the soils that are larger than this dimension would not be sampled or represented in the grain size distributions. The results of the in situ field tests (i.e. SPT `N'-values) as presented on the Record of Borehole Sheets (i.e. borehole records) and in Section 3 of this report are uncorrected. The shallow groundwater conditions were noted in the open boreholes during drilling and after installation of monitoring wells. A total of five monitoring wells were installed within the boreholes advanced as a part of this investigation to allow for subsequent monitoring of the groundwater levels at the site. Three shallow monitoring wells were installed along the mid -slope and downslope. The two deep monitoring wells were installed at the slope crest and were equipped with aboveground steel casing. Borehole 20-6 was backfilled according to regulatory standards upon completion of drilling. The field work was observed by a member of our technical staff, who located the boreholes in the field, arranged for the clearance of underground utility services, observed the drilling, sampling and in situ testing operations, logged the boreholes, examined the recovered soil samples and took custody of the samples. The samples were identified in the field, placed in appropriate containers, labelled, and transported to our Whitby geotechnical laboratory for further examination and selected laboratory testing. Index and classification tests, consisting of water content determinations as well as selective gradation and Atterberg limit testing were carried out on the recovered soil samples. Five boreholes (Boreholes 20-1 to 20-5) were staked prior to the field investigation and the locations of the boreholes along with the corresponding geodetic ground surface elevations were surveyed by CIMA and provided GOLDER Page122 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. The Municipality of Clarington Project No. 19132686 (1000) September 17, 2020 to Golder. Borehole 20-6 was added during the field investigation by Golder. The location of Borehole 20-6 should be considered as approximate and the ground surface elevation was extrapolated from the topographic survey drawing provided by CIMA on June 11, 2020. 3.0 SITE GEOLOGY AND STRATIGRAPHY 3.1 Regional Geology This portion of the Municipality of Clarington lies within the physiographic regions of Southern Ontario known as the Iroquois Plain (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The Iroquois Plain region covers the border of the lake shore extending from the City of Trenton in the east to the city of St. Catharines in the southwest. The Iroquois Plain refers to an area of lowland that borders the present-day Lake Ontario which was formed within the basin of Glacial Lake Iroquois which was a larger and higher version of Lake Ontario. Lake Iroquois sediments consist both of granular soils (silt and sand) and finer -grained silt and clay soils. Apart from the naturally deposited soils within the study area, fills such as engineered fills and landscape fills are to be expected within the study area. The overburden within the Iroquois Plain in the vicinity of the study area is underlain by shale bedrock of the Georgian Bay Formation which contains limestone interlayers. Surface and groundwater flow is predominantly to the south toward Lake Ontario. 3.2 Subsurface Conditions In summary, the subsurface conditions at the borehole locations consist of topsoil and disturbed native soils generally underlain by a sequence of silty sand till, silty sand, silt as well as gravel. Typically, the gravel deposit is underlain by a major deposit of silty sand and glacial till. Groundwater measured on June 2, 2020 in the monitoring wells installed at the boreholes drilled at the top of the slope ranged from 12.7 m and 24.8 m below grade. Groundwater measured on June 2, 2020 in the monitoring wells installed at the boreholes drilled at the bottom of the slope were generally near surface ranging from ground surface to 1.5 m below the grade. SILTY SAND A silty sand deposit, being gravelly to containing trace gravel was encountered in Boreholes 20-1 to 20-4 and 20-6. The silty sand was interlayered within the till in Boreholes 20-1 and 20-2. In Boreholes 20-3, 20-4 and 20-6, the silty sand deposit underlying the topsoil is disturbed, containing rootlets and organic inclusions. The presence of cobbles and/or boulders in the silty sand deposit is inferred from auger grinding during drilling in Borehole 20-1. The SPT `N'-values measured within the silty sand deposit ranged from 65 blows per 0.3 m of penetration to 50 blows per 0.03 m of penetration, indicating a very dense state of compactness. For the disturbed near surface silty sand, the measured SPT `N'-values ranged from 3 to 7 blows per 0.3 m of penetration, indicating a very loose to loose state of compactness. The natural water contents measured on samples of the silty sand deposit ranged from about 7 percent to 22 percent. Grain size distribution curves for four samples of the silty sand deposit is shown on Figure B1 in Appendix B. SILT A silt deposit, being sandy to containing trace sand was encountered in Boreholes 20-1 and 20-2 underlying the silty sand and silty sand till deposits. The presence of cobbles and/or boulders in the silt deposit can be inferred GOLDER Page 123 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. The Municipality of Clarington Project No. 19132686 (1000) September 17, 2020 from the multiple instances of auger grinding during drilling as well as the split -spoon sampler not advancing the full sample depth. The measured SPT "N"-values in the silt deposit ranged from 50 blows per 0.08 m of penetration to 50 blows per 0.1 m of penetration, indicating a very dense state of compactness. The natural water contents measured on four samples of the silt deposit ranged from about 14 percent to 18 percent. GRAVEL A gravel deposit, sandy to trace sand, and containing trace to some fines was encountered in Boreholes 20-1, 20-2, 20-3, 20-5 and 20-6 underlying fill or silt deposits. The measured SPT "N"-values in the gravel deposit ranged from 46 blows per 0.2 m of penetration to 50 blows per 0.1 m of penetration, suggesting a very dense state of compactness. The natural water contents measured on samples of the gravel deposit ranged from about 4 percent to 8 percent. SILTY SAND TILL A silty sand till deposit, gravelly to trace gravel, containing oxidation staining was encountered in all boreholes. Wet sand pockets and silt seams were observed within the silty sand till in Boreholes 20-1 and 20-2. The presence of cobbles and/or boulders were inferred from the multiple instances of auger grinding during drilling as well as the split -spoon sampler not advancing the full sample depth. The measured SPT "N"-values in the silty sand till ranged from 33 blows per 0.3 m of penetration to 50 blows per 0.1 m of penetration, indicating a dense to very dense state of compactness. The natural water contents measured on samples of the silty sand till deposit ranged from about 5 percent to 11 percent. The result of a grain size distribution test carried out on the sample of the silty sand till is shown on Figure B2 in Appendix B. Atterberg limit testing was performed on a single sample of the silty sand till deposit and indicate the material is non -plastic. SANDY SILT, SILT AND SAND TILL Non -cohesive till deposits consisting of sandy silt, to silt and sand, containing trace gravel was encountered in Borehole 20-2. Oxidation staining was observed within the upper non -cohesive till deposit. The presence of cobbles and/or boulders in the till were inferred from the multiple instances of auger grinding during drilling as well as the split -spoon sampler not advancing the full sample depth. The measured SPT "N"-values in the sandy silt, to silt and sand till deposits generally ranged from 25 blows per 0.3 m of penetration to 50 blows per 0.01 m of penetration, suggesting a compact to very dense state of compactness. The natural water contents measured on samples of the sandy silt, to silt and sand till deposits ranged from 3 percent to 8 percent. The results of grain size distribution tests carried out on two samples of the sandy silt, to silt and sand till deposits are shown on Figure B3 in Appendix B. GOLDER Page124 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000) The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was observed during and after completion of drilling. The shallow groundwater conditions and monitoring well installation details are presented on the Record of Borehole sheet in Appendix A. The groundwater level subsequently measured in the monitoring wells in Boreholes 20-1 to 20-5 are provided in the table below: Table 1: Groundwater Level in Monitoring Well Borehole No. 20-1 Groundwater level Depth .. 14.8 in Monitoring Well 109.6 LA June 2, 2020 20-2 12.7 111.7 June 2, 2020 20-3 1.1 98.6 May 22 and June 2, 2020 20-4 0.1 104.2 May 22, 2020 0.0 104.3 June 2, 2020 20-5 0.6 100.3 May 22, 2020 1.5 99.4 June 2, 2020 It should be noted that the groundwater levels at the site are anticipated to fluctuate with seasonal variations. 4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section provides comments on the geotechnical design aspects of the slope regrading, based on our interpretation of the borehole data and on our understanding of the project requirements. The information in this section of the technical memorandum is provided for the guidance of the design engineers and professionals. Where comments are made on construction, they are provided only to highlight aspects of construction which could affect the design of the project. Contractors bidding on or undertaking any work at the site should examine the factual results of the investigations carried out on the site and satisfy themselves as to the adequacy of the information for construction and make their own interpretation of the factual data as it affects their proposed construction techniques, schedule, equipment capabilities, costs, sequencing and the like. It should be noted that construction of the proposed retaining wall and slope regrading is anticipated to be challenging due to the difficult access and site conditions. It is therefore recommended that a contractor specializing in slope reconstruction / stabilization be engaged to carry out this work. Discussions on the anticipated site challenges and geotechnical recommendations are detailed below. 4.1 General Comments It is understood that the site is being proposed to be utilized for a 3.0 m wide multi -use asphalt trail located mid - slope along an existing natural slope. Furthermore, the proposed trail has been suggested to be supported either on a 2H:1V regraded slope or armour stone walls. These options have been provided to facilitate the design process and as such, it is understood that suitable options may be provided based on the site conditions. GOLDER Page 125 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000) The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020 However, based on the existing ground conditions, signs of surface erosion such as exposed tree roots, tree bending and surface creep, presence of sloughed soils and soft, wet spots along the surface of the slope (mid - slope and downslope), groundwater seepage and freeze and thaw conditions etc., the use of armour stone walls or any other form of gravity retaining wall structure is not recommended on this site due to its self -weight imposing additional load on the existing slopes which can further compromise the stability of the slopes. Regrading of the existing slopes within the proposed 2H:1V limits as shown on the provided drawing has been considered as an alternative option. However, this will require tree removals, sub -excavation of soft soils, benching of newly placed engineered fill and properly keyed into competent and undisturbed native soils, installation of subdrains, construction of temporary pits for groundwater control and ensuring a dry subgrade during backfilling etc. Alternatively, earth stabilizing techniques such as the use of helical piers, soil anchors, and reinforced earth walls are considered viable options to improve the long-term stability of the slopes and support the proposed trail. Particularly, use of reinforced earth walls supporting the trail would be a practical solution which would minimize the extent of tree disturbance. The details and geotechnical recommendations on these options have been further discussed in this report. Due to anticipated challenges in construction, it is recommended that full-time monitoring of the multi -use trail construction and slope regrading (if required) be carried out by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer. 4.2 Visual Assessment of Existing Slope Surfaces During the field investigation, visual assessment of the existing slope surface condition was carried out to identify any signs of previous instability such as tension cracks, creep, surface erosion, tree bending and tilting, scarps, and gullies etc. In general, the natural valley slope appeared to be in a stable overall condition. However, there were signs of localized and surficial instabilities on the valley slope surface which includes the following: ■ Exposed tree roots; ■ Tree bending and tilting due to surface creep; ■ Presence of localized areas of sloughed soils and soft, wet spots; ■ Toe erosion at the bank of the creek; and ■ Seeping groundwater at surface. It should be noted that these observations occurred predominantly from about mid -slope to downslope. Although, signs of dumped materials were encountered in few areas at the slope crest, signs of instability or tension cracks were not observed within the upper portion of the valley slopes. Several localized areas of soft soils that appeared wet and spongy were also observed from about Elevation 108 m and downslope. The soft soils appeared to be made up of sloughed soils probably accumulated due to active erosion of the wet surficial soils. The thicknesses of these soft soils were probed using a 13 mm steel rod (pogo stick) under hand force. The 13 mm Steel Rod (pogo stick) penetrations ranging between 0.3 m and 1.2 m were measured and observed to be increasing in depth from west to east. It should be noted that full penetration depths could not be measured east of Borehole 20-5 due to the limited length of the pogo stick. As such, it is recommended that several small test pits be completed within selected areas to confirm the thicknesses GOLDER Page126 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. The Municipality of Clarington Project No. 19132686 (1000) September 17, 2020 and extent of these soft areas during construction and to determine appropriate stabilizing measures (as appropriate). 4.3 Slope Stability Assessment The geotechnical stability of the existing and proposed slopes is governed by the existing surface and subsurface conditions, groundwater levels, and long-term loading conditions. Limit equilibrium slope stability analyses were undertaken to analyse the global factor of safety of the proposed slopes using the commercially available program SLIDE (Version 7.0), produced by Rocscience Inc., employing the Morgenstern -Price method of analysis. The slope stability factor of safety is defined as the ratio of the forces tending to resist failure relative to the driving forces tending to cause failure. A factor of safety near unity suggests instability is imminent, whereas a factor of safety equal to 1.3 or greater is generally considered acceptable for short-term global stability of conventional slopes. Based on Table 4.3 of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Technical Guide, River and Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit, a factor of safety between 1.4 and 1.5 is generally considered acceptable for long-term global stability of conventional slopes. Slope stability analyses were carried out along selected existing and proposed cross sectional profiles using the following drawings as provided by CIMA and the Municipality: ■ Drawing No. 1 entitled "Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2, Borehole Locations and Alternative Alignment 4" dated June 2020, prepared by CIMA. ■ Drawing No. C17 entitled "Storm Sewer Outfall and Detention Pond" from Project No. 76114 dated July 1984, prepared by D.G Biddle and Associates Ltd. The slope cross-section locations along the valley slopes as well as relevant boreholes used in the slope stability analyses are provided in Table 2. Table 2: Cross -sectional Profile and Relevant Boreholes Boreholes Slopen1F Section A 26 m 4+480 Boreholes 20-1, 20-3 and 20-4 Section B 28 m 4+525 Boreholes 20-1 and 20-4 Section C 26 m 4+575 Boreholes 20-2, 20-5 and 20-6 Section D 21 m 4+610 Boreholes 20-2 and 20-5 The soil parameters for the different strata were selected based on the results of the geotechnical investigation and are summarized in Table 3. 4 GOLDER Page127 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. The Municipality of Clarington Table 3: Soil Parameters for Stability Analysis Project No. 19132686 (1000) September 17, 2020 Engineered Fill Unit WeIgMh 20 kN/m3 Effective Friction Angle 300 Existing SWMP Berm 20 kN/m3 300 Granular Fill (Granular B Type II) 20 kN/m3 320 Silty Sand 19-20 kN/m3 32-35 ° Silt 19 kN/m3 320 Gravel 20 kN/m3 340 Glacial Till 20 kN/m3 350 Existing Slope Stability Assessment A long-term slope stability assessment was carried out on the existing valley slopes along three critical cross - sectional profiles (Sections A, B and C) to determine the factor of safety against deep-seated failure. A cross sectional profile along the existing storm water management pond (Section D) was also analysed to determine the long-term stability. Based on the topographic survey drawing provided by CIMA, it is understood that the valley slopes within the limits of the proposed trail alignment have heights varying between 21 m and 28 m. In addition, the slope surfaces have changing slope gradients ranging between about 1 H:1V to 3H:1V in the direction of the creek. Slope stability analysis of the current natural slopes result for cross section A to D are shown in Figures 4 to 7. In general, the analyses against deep-seated failure indicate Factor of Safety (FOS) values to be 1.4 or greater for the unaltered slopes for the long term (drained) analysis, which is generally considered acceptable for slope long term slope stability. Surficial and local slope failures within the soft and / or wet soils are expected to occur if the existing slope conditions are left in place. These localized instabilities have not been shown in the slope stability analyses. The stability of the existing slope surfaces may be increased with adequate erosion protection, soft soil replacement and provision of an effective drainage system. Proposed Regraded Slope Stability Assessment It is understood that the regrading of a portion of the existing valley slope will mostly require fill placement with vertical heights ranging between about 2 m and 4 m. The width of the fill to be placed on the surface of the slope also varied between 15 m and 30 m, increasing from east to west and parallel to the trail alignment. Short-term and long-term slope stability analyses were carried out on critical cross -sectional profile which are described as cross sections A to D and the results are shown in Figure 8 to 12. In general, the analyses indicate Factor of Safety (FOS) values for cross sections B and D to be 1.5 or greater for the proposed slopes for the short-term and long-term (drained) analysis, which is generally considered acceptable for slope design. 4GOLDER Page 128 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000) The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020 For cross section A, the analyses indicated a FOS of 1.2 which does not meet the acceptable safety factor of 1.3 and 1.5 for the short-term and long-term analysis. Based on this, further analyses were carried out to determine a safe and stable slope for cross section A. The analyses show a 2.5H:1 V slope is required to satisfy the safety factor of 1.3 for short-term conditions, and more gentle slopes exceeding 3H:1 V to meet the long-term condition. For cross section C, the analyses indicated a FOS of 1.3 which meets the acceptable safety factor of 1.3 for the short-term analysis. However, in order to achieve a long-term stable slope, a 2.5H:1V slope is required to satisfy the safety factor of 1.5 for long-term condition. Considering the need to regrade a significant portion of the existing valley slope to meet these stable slope gradients for cross sections A and C, it is recommended that retaining/reinforced soil walls be utilized in place of fill placement between Stations 4+460 to 4+510 and Stations 4+550 to 4+600. Details on the recommendations for reinforced soil walls are described in Section 4.4. Sub -excavation of at least 0.6 m must be carried out below the existing ground surface into competent native soil. Further excavation may be required within localized areas where soft soils are encountered, and it is recommended that several test pits be completed to ascertain the extent of these soft, organic soils within the proposed fill limits. Surficial soft, loosened material is to be removed and replaced with suitable fill material and compacted into the existing slope as detailed in Section 4.6. During construction, where flowing groundwater and seepage are encountered within the proposed fill limits, temporary pits should be provided for groundwater control while maintaining a dry subgrade prior to fill placement. In addition, sufficient permanent subdrains should be provided at the top of the approved subgrade prior to fill placement to safely convey the seepage down and away from the slope. The actual locations and spacing of the subdrains should be determined by the geotechnical engineer during construction. Full time monitoring by Golder should be provided during fill placement. A summary of the results of the slope stability analyses carried out on cross sections A to D are shown in Table 4 below: Table 4: Factor of Safety for Existing and Regraded Slopes GOLDER Page 129 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000) The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020 Note: 1. FOS are based on long-term slope stability analyses against deep-seated failure 2. Short term stability analysis 4.4 Retaining/Reinforced Soil Walls Retaining walls (armour stone walls) have been suggested as an alternative option to support the proposed multi -use asphalt trail. Based on the provided drawings, the armour stone wall is to be located downslope of the proposed trail alignment and having a vertical height of about 3.0 m. In general, we do not recommend gravity type retaining walls such as stacked gabions, armour stone retaining walls or concrete walls due to the additional surcharge/loads imposed on the surface of the slopes, and would be expected to result in a reduction of the safety factor. In addition, multiple rows of retaining wall located upslope and downslope may be required to support the multi -use trail and provide adequate resistance against anticipated lateral earth pressures. Based on the existing slope gradient, this will present difficulty in construction and significant disruption of the existing terrain. As such, the use of reinforced soil walls or walls with soil anchors/soil nails is recommended to support the proposed trail in the long-term condition. The reinforced soil walls are anticipated to be constructed where a safety factor of less than 1.5 was obtained based on a 2HA V slope, between Stations 4+460 to 4+510 and Stations 4+550 to 4+600. Slope stability analyses was further carried out on cross sections A and C assuming a reinforced soil wall. The analyses indicate Factor of Safety (FOS) values for cross sections A and C to be 1.5 or greater for the long-term (drained) analysis, which is generally considered acceptable for slope design. It should be noted that the wall supplier is typically responsible for the detailed design. Golder should be requested to monitor the fill placement within the reinforced zone and the external backfill. The levelling pads for the retaining wall should be founded on properly prepared subgrade. The subgrade should be inspected by Golder prior to wall installation to confirm that the exposed soils are undisturbed and competent, and have been adequately cleaned of loosened, softened, organic and/or other deleterious materials. Where localized soft soils are encountered within the footprint of the proposed retaining wall, remedial action (sub -excavation and replacement, installation of subdrains, etc.) will be required and these soils must be sub - excavated and replaced with approved fill as directed by geotechnical personnel from Golder. If the walls are founded above the frost depth, movement due to seasonal freeze and thaw cycles in addition to the movements associated with fill placement and wall loads should be anticipated. The frost depth at this site is anticipated to be 1.2 m below ground surface as per OPSD 3090.101 (Frost Penetration Depths for Southern Ontario), as measured vertically from the final ground surface. GOLDER 10 Page 130 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. The Municipality of Clarington Project No. 19132686 (1000) September 17, 2020 For preliminary design purposes, the appropriate values of parameters for use in preliminary design of the retaining walls/reinforced soil walls are provided in Table 5 below: Table 5: Coefficient of Lateral Earth Pressure Soil Type otal Unit Weight, X MM3) Effective Angle of1 Internal Friction, Coefficient of Lateral Earth PressuKa t Rest, Coefficient of Active ressure, Ka Coefficient of Passive Pressure, Kp Engineered Fill 4)° (degrees) Existing SWIVIP Berm Granular Fill (Granular B Type pper ULower Silty Sand 4.5 Ground Anchors Grouted anchors consist of a stressing tendon (i.e., thread bar, rod or cable) connecting a fixed anchorage point (i.e., the bond zone in the soil or rock mass) to the top surface or head of the anchor. In soils, the bond zone is typically formed by placing cementitious grout by tremie methods with or without pressure grouting techniques. The capacity and performance of the anchor depends on the diameter of the bond zone, the grout injection pressure, the centre -to -centre spacing of the anchors and the methodology/techniques used during construction. For preliminary planning purposes, anchors grouted and bonded within the silty sand and glacial till deposit can be designed using an ultimate load transfer of 40 kN/m. In accordance with CFEM (2006), the anchors should be designed based on: ■ A bond zone length (Lb) less than 8 m; ■ A nominal bond zone diameter of 200 mm; ■ A minimum centre -to -centre spacing between the anchor bond zones that is greater than 4 times the diameter or 20 percent of the bond zone length (whichever is greater). GOLDER 11 Page 131 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000) The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020 A geotechnical resistance factor of 0.3 should be applied to estimate the factored ultimate geotechnical resistance in tension. A higher geotechnical resistance factor could be utilized if load tests are carried out. In addition to the calculated minimum bond length (Lb) required to provide the required design tension load in the anchor, a minimum 3.0 m long unbonded or `free stressing' length is recommended to be included in the design above the bond length per PTI (1996, 2004, 2014) and FHWA (1999). The minimum unbonded length is recommended in order to avoid unacceptable load reduction resulting from seating losses during load transfer and prestress losses due to creep in the prestressing steel or in the soil (FHWA, 1999). Because the anchor capacity (in particular the ground -to -anchor bond for grouted soil anchors) is highly dependent upon the installation technique, the complete temporary anchor design should be the responsibility of the Contractor, who should be held to an anchor performance specification, enforced by proof tests on all anchors. Requirements for temporary anchor design and performance include the following: ■ The sustained working load is not to be greater than 60 percent of the guaranteed ultimate tensile strength of the anchor tendon or bar. ■ Ten percent of all anchors are to be subjected to a performance test in which they are stressed to a sustained load equal to 1.33 times the design (working stress) load. ■ All anchors are to be proof -loaded to 1.33 times the design load and locked off at 1.1 times the design (working stress) load. 4.6 Comments on Retaining Wall Construction The proposed regrading of the slopes and construction of retaining walls is anticipated to be difficult due to the existing terrain and heavy vegetation (including mature trees). In addition, site access is expected to be challenging and problematic due to the varying slope gradients as well as presence of soft and wet areas. Regrading of the existing slopes will require removal of surface vegetation (including mature trees) and use of benching and engineered fill to construct the minimum stable slope gradient of 2H:1 V under the short term condition for site access. The reconstruction of the slope will likely require cuts (initially from the upper portion of the slope) in order to maintain the slopes short term stability and then reconstruction of the slope to the desired geometry from the bottom up using benched engineered fill. The use of heavy construction equipment will initially need to be restricted to the base of the existing slope. Further, the stability of the existing area at the toe of the slope may be problematic as well due to ground water seepage and soft/wet soil conditions, the contractor should inspect the base of the slope and determine whether or not the construction equipment will be stable, otherwise some form of stabilization may need to be prepared at the base. The sequencing of the reconstructive effort and construction of the retaining walls will need to be discussed and agreed upon prior to construction. All construction should be carried out under full-time supervision by a geotechnical engineer. Due to the observed groundwater seepage within the slope surfaces, soft and wet soil conditions, and potential for localized slope failures, soil excavation is not recommended during the spring season. Soil excavation and replacement with engineered fill may be carried out during the dryer summer period to reduce the impact of groundwater and to reduce the need for active dewatering during construction. Once the ground improvements for the new slope geometry is sufficiently advanced, construction of the retaining walls may be carried out in phases as directed by Golder. Any persistent wet conditions encountered during construction will require 4GOLDER 12 Page 132 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. The Municipality of Clarington Project No. 19132686 (1000) September 17, 2020 construction of subdrains or reinforced surface channels designed to carry the seeping water safely down the slope. It should be noted that the proposed construction activities noted above will likely result in significant site disturbance and vegetation / tree removal. It is strongly recommended that further discussions between the contractor, Municipality, Golder and CLOCA be held to address issues related to tree removal and slope regrading. Furthermore, it is recommended that the proposed construction be carried out by an experienced contractor specializing in slope reconstruction and stabilization. The newly regraded slopes will need to be appropriately revegetated for surficial stability and resistance to erosion. 4.7 Additional Considerations Prior to placement of any engineered fill for regrading of the slopes (if required), the surficial vegetation, topsoil, organics and deleterious materials should be completely stripped from the proposed regrading areas. Any soft, wet soils as well as any stockpiled soils must be removed, and the exposed surface should be inspected by Golder, to confirm that the exposed soils are undisturbed/sufficiently compacted, competent, and have been adequately cleaned of loosened, softened, organic and/or other deleterious materials. Engineered fill should be benched into the existing soils, as per Ontario Provincial Standard Drawing (OPSD) 208.010. Approved granular fill materials consisting of OPSS.PROV 1010 (Aggregates) Granular B Type II (or other approved high friction granular materials) must be placed in loose lifts no greater in thickness than 300 mm and uniformly compacted to at least 100 percent of the SPMDD. In general, the granular fill will be placed on the benched slope with total fill vertical heights ranging from about 3 m to 5 m assuming a 1 m subexcavation is required and each bench does not exceed height of approximately 1 m. The placed engineered fill must be overbuilt to allow for sufficient compaction of the whole soil mass. Once compacted, tested, and approved by Golder, the slope should be cut to the proposed design geometry prior to placement of topsoil and planting of the vegetation. The surface of the slope should be completed with bio-engineered slope protection layer consisting of erosion protection blanket and 300 mm of topsoil. Temporary excavation slopes should be carried out in accordance with the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulations (OHSA). To avoid surficial instability of the slopes during and following construction, the slope surfaces must be protected from disturbance and erosion. A 3H:1 V ditch should be constructed behind the proposed asphalt trail, as per OPSD 3121.150 in order to redirect surface runoff away from the newly constructed slope and/or reinforced soil walls. Newly installed subdrains within the regraded slopes are expected to be utilized to control erosion, improve drainage, and direct groundwater seepage into the existing creek. 4.8 Asphalt Trail Construction Based on the subsoil conditions encountered at the site, the following pavement designs are recommended for the proposed 3.0 m wide multi -use asphalt trail. GOLDER 13 Page133 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000) The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020 Table 6: Pavement Design for Pedestrian Trail HL 3 (Surface)' 50 Granular A Base2 250 Subgrade (Granular B Type II) Prepared and Approved Subgrade3 Notes: Asphaltic Material shall be in accordance with OPSS 310, 1150 (November 2010), and 1003 (November 2017) 2 Granular Materials shall be in accordance with OPSS.MUNI 1010 (November 2013) s The subgrade is expected to consist of engineered fill composed of OPSS.MUNI 1010 Granular B The granular base materials should be uniformly compacted to at least 100 percent of their standard Proctor maximum dry densities. The asphalt materials should be compacted to 92 to 96.5 percent of their Marshall Maximum Relative Density according to OPSS 310, as measured in the field using a nuclear density gauge. Where new pavement abuts existing pavement, proper longitudinal lap joints should be constructed to key the new asphalt into the existing surface. The existing asphalt edges should be provided with a proper saw cut edge prior to keying in the new asphalt. Any undermining or broken edges resulting from the construction activities are removed by the saw cut. To help reduce the damage to the pavement due to frost, longitudinal subdrains should be provided along the subgrade and drained to frost free outlets. 5.0 CLOSURE We trust that this memorandum meets your immediate requirements. If the proposed realignment plan of the proposed trail is modified, or if conditions that differ from those assumed in this memorandum are encountered during construction, Golder should be given the opportunity to review the analyses presented herein. If you have any questions regarding the content of this technical memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Yours truly, Golder Associates Ltd. 4OQ�OFESSIONq`\ F J T. A. OLUMUMA n 100523453 September 17, 2020 O ,po�11NCE O F 0N,V� Timi Olumuyiwa, M.Sc., P.Eng., PMP Geotechnical Engineer TO/AJH/DBE/to/mlk Andrew J. Hagner, P.Eng. Associate, Senior Geotechnical Engineer GOLDER 14 Page 134 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. The Municipality of Clarington Attachments: Important Information and Limitations of This Report Figure 1 — Key Plan Figure 2 — Borehole Location Plan Figure 3 — Cross sectional Profile Figure 4 to 14 — Slope Stability Analysis Results Appendix A: Methods of Soil Classification Abbreviations and Terms Used on Record of Boreholes List of Symbols Record of Boreholes (BH2O-1 to BH2O-6) Appendix B: Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Results (Figures B1 to 136) Project No. 19132686 (1000) September 17, 2020 https://golderassociates.sharepoint.com/sites/117405/project files/6 deliverables/reports/19132686 (1000) mem 2020'09'17 slope stability assessment -farewell creek (rev0).docx GOLDER 15 Page 135 ' C O L D E R IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND ?^ LIMITATIONS OF THIS REPORT Standard of Care: Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder) has prepared this report in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the engineering and science professions currently practising under similar conditions in the jurisdiction in which the services are provided, subject to the time limits and physical constraints applicable to this report. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made. Basis and Use of the Report: This report has been prepared for the specific site, design objective, development and purpose described to Golder by the Client. The factual data, interpretations and recommendations pertain to a specific project as described in this report and are not applicable to any other project or site location. Any change of site conditions, purpose, development plans or if the project is not initiated within eighteen months of the date of the report may alter the validity of the report. Golder cannot be responsible for use of this report, or portions thereof, unless Golder is requested to review and, if necessary, revise the report. The information, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are for the sole benefit of the Client. No other party may use or rely on this report or any portion thereof without Golder's express written consent. If the report was prepared to be included for a specific permit application process, then upon the reasonable request of the client, Golder may authorize in writing the use of this report by the regulatory agency as an Approved User for the specific and identified purpose of the applicable permit review process. Any other use of this report by others is prohibited and is without responsibility to Golder. The report, all plans, data, drawings and other documents as well as all electronic media prepared by Golder are considered its professional work product and shall remain the copyright property of Golder, who authorizes only the Client and Approved Users to make copies of the report, but only in such quantities as are reasonably necessary for the use of the report by those parties. The Client and Approved Users may not give, lend, sell, or otherwise make available the report or any portion thereof to any other party without the express written permission of Golder. The Client acknowledges that electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized modification, deterioration and incompatibility and therefore the Client can not rely upon the electronic media versions of Golder's report or other work products. The report is of a summary nature and is not intended to stand alone without reference to the instructions given to Golder by the Client, communications between Golder and the Client, and to any other reports prepared by Golder for the Client relative to the specific site described in the report. In order to properly understand the suggestions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report, reference must be made to the whole of the report. Golder can not be responsible for use of portions of the report without reference to the entire report. Unless otherwise stated, the suggestions, recommendations and opinions given in this report are intended only for the guidance of the Client in the design of the specific project. The extent and detail of investigations, including the number of test holes, necessary to determine all of the relevant conditions which may affect construction costs would normally be greater than has been carried out for design purposes. Contractors bidding on, or undertaking the work, should rely on their own investigations, as well as their own interpretations of the factual data presented in the report, as to how subsurface conditions may affect their work, including but not limited to proposed construction techniques, schedule, safety and equipment capabilities. Soil, Rock and Ground Water Conditions: Classification and identification of soils, rocks, and geologic units have been based on commonly accepted methods employed in the practice of geotechnical engineering and related disciplines. Classification and identification of the type and condition of these materials or units involves judgment, and boundaries between different soil, rock or geologic types or units may be transitional rather than abrupt. Accordingly, Golder does not warrant or guarantee the exactness of the descriptions. Golder Associates Ltd. 6925 Century Avenue, Suite #100 Mississauga, Ontario, 1-5N 71<2 Canada T: +1 905 567 4444 1 F: +1 905 567 6561 Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation Page 136 golder.com 2018 Special risks occur whenever engineering or related disciplines are applied to identify subsurface conditions and even a comprehensive investigation, sampling and testing program may fail to detect all or certain subsurface conditions. The environmental, geologic, geotechnical, geochemical and hydrogeologic conditions that Golder interprets to exist between and beyond sampling points may differ from those that actually exist. In addition to soil variability, fill of variable physical and chemical composition can be present over portions of the site or on adjacent properties. The professional services retained for this project include only the geotechnical aspects of the subsurface conditions at the site, unless otherwise specifically stated and identified in the report. The presence or implication(s) of possible surface and/or subsurface contamination resulting from previous activities or uses of the site and/or resulting from the introduction onto the site of materials from off -site sources are outside the terms of reference for this project and have not been investigated or addressed. Soil and groundwater conditions shown in the factual data and described in the report are the observed conditions at the time of their determination or measurement. Unless otherwise noted, those conditions form the basis of the recommendations in the report. Groundwater conditions may vary between and beyond reported locations and can be affected by annual, seasonal and meteorological conditions. The condition of the soil, rock and groundwater may be significantly altered by construction activities (traffic, excavation, groundwater level lowering, pile driving, blasting, etc.) on the site or on adjacent sites. Excavation may expose the soils to changes due to wetting, drying or frost. Unless otherwise indicated the soil must be protected from these changes during construction. Sample Disposal: Golder will dispose of all uncontaminated soil and/or rock samples 90 days following issue of this report or, upon written request of the Client, will store uncontaminated samples and materials at the Client's expense. In the event that actual contaminated soils, fills or groundwater are encountered or are inferred to be present, all contaminated samples shall remain the property and responsibility of the Client for proper disposal. Follow -Up and Construction Services: All details of the design were not known at the time of submission of Golder's report. Golder should be retained to review the final design, project plans and documents prior to construction, to confirm that they are consistent with the intent of Golder's report. During construction, Golder should be retained to perform sufficient and timely observations of encountered conditions to confirm and document that the subsurface conditions do not materially differ from those interpreted conditions considered in the preparation of Golder's report and to confirm and document that construction activities do not adversely affect the suggestions, recommendations and opinions contained in Golder's report. Adequate field review, observation and testing during construction are necessary for Golder to be able to provide letters of assurance, in accordance with the requirements of many regulatory authorities. In cases where this recommendation is not followed, Golder's responsibility is limited to interpreting accurately the information encountered at the borehole locations, at the time of their initial determination or measurement during the preparation of the Report. 4 GOLDER Page 137 2018 Changed Conditions and Drainage: Where conditions encountered at the site differ significantly from those anticipated in this report, either due to natural variability of subsurface conditions or construction activities, it is a condition of this report that Golder be notified of any changes and be provided with an opportunity to review or revise the recommendations within this report. Recognition of changed soil and rock conditions requires experience and it is recommended that Golder be employed to visit the site with sufficient frequency to detect if conditions have changed significantly. Drainage of subsurface water is commonly required either for temporary or permanent installations for the project. Improper design or construction of drainage or dewatering can have serious consequences. Golder takes no responsibility for the effects of drainage unless specifically involved in the detailed design and construction monitoring of the system. 4 GOLDER Page 138 675000 676000 677000 [A � -= nee co C' Courtice —NAI g, a G { `6C'i C, d 170 T k ZE',Y.lilC, Toe Ld u• 5L p 1L,,, C O Fg e{t3F � re f (p Park N N 96 N J - 33 K,7 1 adcr I)INC ; rVYkrdye `} r. � � `•�:7c:y.; �.dp., dry P,vk � �rl; �,.,:a r` r, vrr D ;1 }3 Q y N� , c �•l ,rk S• 'P 7 G r _ ° tlzc:,., - GIB@�• F1weJl a'�'Dri•re �y� 9 ar,v Grandnew- e 4�"'r - _ _ -~ Pa Ik iHcrthl F ° jaTy. [f r C,C� v F'.][k - Fox c C�'tro [1L\levan P.lrk l .. $t r.Nw _ � aye D""` •- 0 R }vJ J o><Cemefery !i vmsO"P Hmmorpf Creek Gd LCertSle 01vp5'gts°�k.Eas .V Il spa P Yk Cr[P q o HJe^ue w Ad.A e'6'00 G� 401 Cw17r"V t \ yr ` ll:�"'% yC[lr ele�yd y . r � o OLoy,r:L �' CLIENT THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON > CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED _ G O L ^ E R PREPARED �,J REVIEWED APPROVED 2020-06-17 JT JT TO AJH 0 500 1,000 1:20,000 METRES f REFERENCE(S) Iz BASE MAP SOURCES: ESRI, HERE, GARMIN, INTERMAP, INCREMENT P CORP., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, c NPS, NRCAN, GEOBASE, IGN, KADASTER NL, ORDNANCE SURVEY, ESRI JAPAN, METI, ESRI CHINA (HONG KONG), (C) OPENSTREETMAP CONTRIBUTORS, AND THE GIS USER COMMUNITY PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NAD 83 COORDINATE SYSTEM: UTM ZONE 17N PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FAREWELL CREEK VALLEY, COURTICE, ONTARIO TITLE KEY PLAN PROJECT NO. CONTROL 1*3932686 0002 FIGURE A 1 LIMIT OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY O i low z / O0 / / V APPROXIMATE —0-8142O-3 CREEK LOCATION ' EL. = 99.73 /' \ / 91420- 4 i EL. = 104.27 # 49 i 1`���� p��/i ,2f�'3� # 47 ° .O /�FOq # 45 �F Fs LEGEND BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH MONITORING WELL BOREHOLE LOCATION NOTE(S) 1. LOCATION AND ELEVATION FOR BH2O-6 ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS FOR BH2O-1 TO BH2O-5 WERE SURVEYED BY CIMA / BH?0-5 I O EL. = 100.21 ,FL� = 100.88 ,� I 0 LIMIT OF GRADING8` / (WITHOUT RETAINING WALL) ARMOUR STONE RETAINING WALL 1/ 1 6 S 1 (OPTIONAL) ; 1 / 109 _ pp �� I O I a p N Iw O = — I d t115 116 / p(:�117 co 116 = ` 115 # 39 - # 43 # 41 STORMWATER - MANAGEMENT POND REFERENCE(S) BASE MAP TAKEN FROM CLARINGTON, ENTITLED BOREHOLE LOCATIONS AND ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT 4, DATED JUNE 2020, DELIVERED IN FORMAT DWG. 0 25 50 1:1,500 METRES Page140 CLIENT THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON CONSULTANT YYYY-MM-DD DESIGNED GO L D E R PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED 2020-06-16 JL TO AJH PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FAREWELL CREEK VALLEY, COURTICE, ONTARIO TITLE BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN PROJECT NO. CONTROL 19132686 REV. FIGURE ---- 2 1t )UI\ VL I t 0 0 la> 1 = ' i 24.42 00 / .CFA*M- # 49 # 4 / F� 9�F LEGEND BOREHOLE LOCATION WITH MONITORING WELL BOREHOLE LOCATION ® RECOMMENDED RETAINED ZONE NOTE(S) 1. LOCATION AND ELEVATION FOR BH2O-6 ARE APPROXIMATE. 2. LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS FOR BH2O-1 TO BH2O-5 WERE SURVEYED BY CIMA. # 45 # 43 1L A 1 ff izi STORMWATER REFERENCE(S) CLIENT PROJECT m ENTITLED LOCATIONS AND ALTERNATIVE BASEMAPTAKEN FROM CL2020,D THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REDINFORMATBOREHOLE DELIVERED ALIGNMENT 4, DATED JUNE 2020, DELIVERED IN FORMAT DWG. LLE FAREWELL CREEK VALLEY, COURTICE, ONTARIO CONSULTANT YYW-MM-DD 2020-07-07 TITLE CROSS SECTIONAL PROFILE 0 25 50 DESIGNED 1:1,500 METRES (> G O L D E R PREPARED JL REVIEWED TO PROJECT NO. CONTROL REV. FIGURE Page 141 APPROVED AJH 19132686 ---- 3 Safety Factor 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0+ Material Name Color Topsoil Upper Silty Sand ■ Glacial Till ■ Sat Gravel ■ Lower Silty Sand ■ r. -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 19132686 (1000) SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE O L D E R Analysis Description V Figure 4: Existing Slope —Long term — Section A Drawn By Scale 1:578 Company 8.014 Date Me Name Section A_Existing grade_longterm.slmd Page142 Safety Factor 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0+ -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 19132686 (1000) SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE G0 L D E RAnalyslsDescrlption Figure 5: Existing Slope Long term —Section B Drawn By Scale 1:516 Company Date File Name s.oia Section B_Existing grade_longterm.slmd Page143 o Safety Factor Lr- 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 Material Name Color Unit Weight (kN/m3) Strength Type phi (deg) Topsoil IEE 16 Mohr -Coulomb 26 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE G 0 L D E R Analysis Description Figure 6: Existing Slope —Long term —Section C Drawn By Scale 1:445 Company Date File Name s.oia Section C_Existing grade_longterm.slmd Page 144 Safety Factor LA Phi (deg) 26 30 32 32 35 34 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE G 0 L D E R Analysis Description Figure 7: Existing Slope Long term —Section D Drawn By Scale 1:515 Company 8.014 Date File Name Section D_Existing grade_longterm.slmd Page145 Safety Factor 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2 ..8 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0+ Material Name Color Unit (kr Topsoil Upper Silty Sand ■ Glaciall Till ■ Silt ■ Gravel ■ Lower Silty Sand ■ Engineered Fill ■ -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE G0 L D E RAnalysis Descriptlon Figure 8: 2.5H_1H Regraded Slope —Short term —Section A Drawn By Scale 1:559 Company 8.014 Date Me Name Section A_2.5H_1V regraded_shortterm.slmd Page146 Safety Factor 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0+ . Material Name Color (kN/m3) Unit Weight Strength Type Phi (deg) -90 -80 -70 60 -50 -40 30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE G0 L a E RAnalysis Descriptlon Figure 9: 2H:1V Regraded Slope —Long term —Section B Drawn By Scale 1:487 Company 8.014 Date Me Name Section B_2H_1V regrade_longterm.slmd Page147 Safety Factor 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8. 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0+ Material Name Color Unit Weight (kN/m3) Strength Type phi (deg) Topsoil . ®. 16 Mohr -Coulomb 26 Engineered Fill ■ 20 Mohr -Coulomb 30 Glacial Till ■ 20 Mohr -Coulomb 35 Silt ■ 19 Mohr -Coulomb 32 Gravel ■ 20 Mohr -Coulomb 34 Silty Sand 20 Mohr -Coulomb 35 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE G0 L D E R Analysis Descaptlon Figure 10: 2H_1V Regraded Slope —Short term —Section C Drawn By Scale 1:558 Company 8.014 Date File Name Section C_2H_1V regrade_longterm.slmd Page148 Safety Factor 0 ..0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5 ..5 5.8 6.0+ Material Name Color Unit (kr Topsoil B Engineered Fill ■ Glacial Till ■ Silt ■ Gravel ■ Silty Sand -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE G0 L D E RAnalyslsDescrlption Figure 11: 2.5H_1V Regraded Slope_Long term —Section C Drawn By Scale 1:556 Company 8.014 Date File Name Section C_2.5H_1V regrade_longterm.slmd Page149 Safety Factor 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0d Material Name Color Unit Weight (kN/m3) Strength Type Phi (deg) Topsoil ® 16 Mohr -Coulomb 26 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE G0 L D E RAnalysis Descrptlon Figure 12: 2H_1V Regraded Slope —Long term —Section D Drawn By Scale 1: 588 Company 8.014 Date File Name Section D_21-1_1V regrade_longterm.slmd Page150 Safety Factor 0.0 0.1 0.3 0..4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0+ Unit Weight phi Material Name Color (kN/m3) Strength Type (deg) Topsoil 16 Mohr -Coulomb 26 "Upper Silty Sand 19 Mohr -Coulomb 32 Glacial Till 20 Mohr -Coulomb 35 Silt 19 Mohr -Coulomb 32 Gravel " 20 Mohr -Coulomb 32 Lower Silty Sand 20 Mohr -Coulomb 35 "Granular Backfill ■ ' 20 Mohr-Cdulomb ' 32 Reinforced Soil ■ 20 Mohr -Coulomb 1 35 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE G0 L D E RAnalysis Description Figure 13: Reinforced Soil wall —Long term_Section A Drawn By Scale 1:579 Company 8.014 Date Me Name Section A_Reinforced Soil_longterm.slmd Page 151 Safety Factor 0.0 0.3 .0.5 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.8 6.0+ Unit Weight Phi Material Name Color Strength Type (kN/m3) (deg) Topsoil e 16 Mohr -Coulomb 26 Granular Backfill ■ 20 Mohr -Coulomb 32 Glacial Till 20 .Mohr -Coulomb 35 Silt 19 Mohr -Coulomb 32 Gravel 20 Mohr -Coulomb 34 Silty Sand 20 Mohr -Coulomb 35 Reinforced Soil ■ 20 Mohr -Coulomb 35 12.00 kN/m2 Material Friction Tensile Strength Support Name Color Type Force Application Dependent Angle (deg) (kN/m) Geogrid ■ GeoTextile Passive (Method B) No 35 25 E] -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 10 0 10 20 30 Project 19132686 1000 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT - FAREWELL CREEK, COURTICE OLDERAnalysisDescgvtion Figure 14: Reinforced Soil wall —Long term —Section C Drawn By Scale 1:457 1 Company 8.014 Name Section C_Reinforced Soil_longterm.slmd Page152 Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000) The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020 APPENDIX A Methods of Soil Classification Abbreviations and Terms Used List of Symbols Record of Boreholes (131-12O-1 to BH2O-6) GOLDER Page153 METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION The Golder Associates Ltd. Soil Classification System is based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Organic Soil Gradation D60 (Da.)' Organic USCS Group or Group Type of Soil or Plasticity _ Cu Ll � �� - DioxDbo Content Symbol Group Name Inorganic o m E Gravels with Poorly Graded <4 51 or>_3 GP GRAVEL ycE s12% Well Graded >A 1 to 3 GW GRAVEL E uj o fines m£ (by mass) Gravels Below SILTY E �_ o t o ° with Line n/a GM GRAVEL z'co) Lu `m >12% fines Above A CLAYEY Q V Z rn (by mass) Line n/a GC GRAVEL m <30 % E Sands with Poorly <6 51 or z3 SP SAND o z_ o U w y u) E N 512% Graded Well Graded z6 1 to 3 SW SAND O C o E o, U a m Z (by mass) Sands Below n/a SM SILTY SAND e o u) o N v o m with Line ON $ m >12% Above A n/a SC CLAYEY E fines (by mass) Line SAND Organic Field Indicators Tou hness g or Soil Type of Soil Laboratory Organic USCS Group Primary Inorganic Group p Tests Dilatancy Dry Shine Thread (of 3 mm Content Symbol y Name Strength Test Diamete thread N/A (can't _o Rapid None None >6 mm roll 3 mm <5% ML SILT £ ° Liquid Limit thread Slow None to Low Dull 3mm to 6 mm None to low <5% ML CLAYEY SILT E ° d m o w n J Z <50 Slow to Low to Dull to 3mm to Low 5 % to OL ORGANIC E u) o a ¢ m a a U O m N " rn u o a N a ° U very slow medium slight 6 mm 30 % SILT Slow to Low to 3mm to Low to z M 0 O a z a Liquid Limit very slow medium Slight 6 mm medium <5% MH CLAYEY SILT c £ o z 250 Medium Dull to 1mmto Medium to 5%to ORGANIC z U y None to high slight 3 mm high 30 % OH SILT 'c z LL E c Liquid Limit None Low to Slight - 3mm Low to 0% CL SILTY CLAY >, o o m <30 medium to shiny medium O c U .-. to o } J J o 2^ Liquid Limit None Medium Slight 1 mm to Medium 30 % Cl SILTY CLAY 30 to 50 to high to shiny 3 mm nl U m .N a (see a a° m Liquid Limit None High Shiny <1 mm High Note 2) CH CLAY 250 o Peat and mineral soil 30 % SILTY PEAT, } U M y mixtures tO SANDY PEAT JZ� c n N J N 75% 2 Q O 21 E Predominantly PT C� 0 peat, 7t / x O o may contain some PEAT c> mineral soil, fibrous or 100% amorphous peat "° P,„ a ­ty� Hih G Dual Symbol —A dual symbol is two symbols separated by a hyphen, for example, GP -GM, SW -SC and CL-ML. For non -cohesive soils, the dual symbols must be used when the soil has between 5% and 12% fines (i.e. to identify m /ORGA transitional material between "clean" and "dirty" sand or gravel. - sltrY Gar CLAY For cohesive soils, the dual s mbol must be used when the Y liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL-ML area " 4 of the plasticity chart (see Plasticity Chart at left). SILTY ELM a Borderline Symbol — A borderline symbol is two symbols CLAYEY SILT ML separated by a slash, for example, CUCI, GM/SM, CL/ML. ORGANIC 51LT OL A borderline symbol should be used to indicate that the soil 51Lry vVY-cIAvE v T, ci_M has been identified as having properties that are on the AT ML{Sea Nala x} transition between similar materials. In addition, a borderline ID ao w .o - symbol may be used to indicate a range of similar soil types uquld uarlr ILLl within a stratum. Note 1 - Fine grained materials with PI and LL that plot in this area are named (ML) SILT with slight plasticity. Fine-grained materials which are non -plastic (i.e. a PL cannot be measured) are named SILT. Note 2 - For soils with <5% organic content, include the descriptor "trace organics" for soils with between 5 % and 30% organic content include the prefix "organic" before the Primary name. GOLDER June 1/3 Page 154 Revision 5 ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS USED ON RECORDS OF BOREHOLES AND TEST PITS PARTICLE SIZES OF CONSTITUENTS Soil Particle Inches Constituent Size Millimetres (US Std. Sieve Size) Description BOULDERS Not >300 >12 qpp licaCOBBLES gppNot licaGRAVEL 75 to 300 3 to 12 Coarse 19 to 75 0.75 to 3 Fine 4.75 to 19 (4) to 0.75 Coarse 2.00 to 4.75 (10) to (4) SAND Medium 0.425 to 2.00 (40) to (10) Fine 0.075 to (200) to (40) 0.425 SILT/CLAY Classified by <0.075 < (200) plasticity MODIFIERS FOR SECONDARY AND MINOR CONSTITUENTS Percentage Modifier by Mass >35 Use'and'to combine major constituents i.e., SAND and GRAVEL > 12 to 35 Primary soil name prefixed with "gravelly, sandy, SILTY, CLAYEY" as applicable > 5 to 12 some s 5 trace PENETRATION RESISTANCE aienudtu reneuauun fcebisiance (SPT), N: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) required to drive a 50 mm (2 in.) split -spoon sampler for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). Values reported are as recorded in the field and are uncorrected. Cone Penetration Test (CPT) An electronic cone penetrometer with a 60° conical tip and a project end area of 10 cm2 pushed through ground at a penetration rate of 2 cm/s. Measurements of tip resistance (qt), porewater pressure (u) and sleeve frictions are recorded electronically at 25 mm penetration intervals. Dynamic Cone Penetration Resistance (DCPT); Nd: The number of blows by a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer dropped 760 mm (30 in.) to drive uncased a 50 mm (2 in.) diameter, 60° cone attached to "A" size drill rods for a distance of 300 mm (12 in.). PH: Sampler advanced by hydraulic pressure PM: Sampler advanced by manual pressure WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of hammer WR: Sampler advanced by weight of sampler and rod NON -COHESIVE (COHESIONLESS) SOILS Compactness' Term SPT'N' blows/0.3m' Very Loose 0 to 4 Loose 4 to 10 Compact 10 to 30 Dense 30 to 50 Very Dense >50 1. SPT 'N' in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for the effects of overburden pressure. 2. Definifion of compactness terms are based on SPT 'N' ranges as provided in Terzaghi, Peck and Mesd (1996). Many factors affect the recorded SPT 'N' value, including hammer efficiency (which may be greaterthan 60 % in automatic trip hammers), overburden pressure, groundwater conditions, and grainsize. As such, the recorded SPT 'N' value(s) should be considered only an approximate guide to the soil compactness. These factors need to be considered when evaluating the results, and the stated compactness terms should not be relied upon for design or construction. Field Moisture Condition Term Description Dry Soil flows freely through fingers. Moist Soils are darker than in the dry condition and may feel cool. Wet As moist, but with free water forming on hands when handled. SAMPLES AS Auger sample Block sample BS CS Chunk sample DID Diamond Drilling DO or DP Seamless open ended, driven or pushed tube sampler — note size IDS Denison type sample GS Grab Sample MC Modified California Samples MS Modified Shelby (for frozen soil) RC Rock core Sc Soil core SS Split spoon sampler— note size ST Slotted tube TO Thin -walled, open — note size (Shelby tube) TP Thin -walled, piston — note size (Shelby tube) WS Wash sample SOIL TESTS w water content PL, wp plastic limit LL , wL liquid limit C consolidation (oedometer) test CHEM chemical analysis (refer to text) CID consolidated isotropically drained triaxial test' CIU consolidated isotropically undrained triaxial test with porewater pressure measurement' DR relative density (specific gravity, Gs) DS direct shear test GS specific gravity M sieve analysis for particle size MH combined sieve and hydrometer (H) analysis MPC Modified Proctor compaction test SPC Standard Proctor compaction test OC organic content test SO4 concentration of water-soluble sulphates UC unconfined compression test UU unconsolidated undrained triaxial test V (FV) field vane (LV-laboratory vane test) y unit weight 1. Tests anisotropically consolidated prior to shear are shown as CAD, CAU. COHESIVE SOILS Consistency Term Undrained Shear Strength kPa SPT'N11•2 blows/0.3m Very Soft <12 0 to 2 Soft 12 to 25 2 to 4 Firm 25 to 50 4 to 8 Stiff 50 to 100 8 to 15 Very Stiff 100 to 200 15 to 30 Hard >200 >30 1. SPT'N' in accordance with ASTM D1586, uncorrected for overburden pressure effects; approximate only. 2. SPT 'N' values should be considered ONLY an approximate guide to consistency; for sensifive clays (e.g., Champlain Sea clays), the N-value approximation for consistency terms does NOT apply. Rely on direct measurement of undrained shear strength or other manual observations. Water Content Term Description w < PL Material is estimated to be drier than the Plastic Limit. w — PL Material is estimated to be close to the Plastic Limit. w > PL Material is estimated to be wetter than the Plastic Limit. G O L D E R Page 155 June 2018 2/3 Revision 5 LIST OF SYMBOLS Unless otherwise stated, the symbols employed in the report are as follows I. GENERAL (a) Index Properties (continued) w water content 7u 3.1416 wi or LL liquid limit In x natural logarithm of x wp or PL plastic limit Iog10 x or log x, logarithm of x to base 10 Ip or PI plasticity index = (wi — wp) g acceleration due to gravity NP non -plastic t time Ws shrinkage limit IL liquidity index = (w — wp) / Ip IC consistency index = (wi — w) / Ip emax void ratio in loosest state emin void ratio in densest state ID density index = (emax — e) / (emax - emin) II. STRESS AND STRAIN (formerly relative density) y shear strain (b) Hydraulic Properties 4 change in, e.g. in stress: 4 6 h hydraulic head or potential s linear strain q rate of flow Ev volumetric strain v velocity of flow 11 coefficient of viscosity i hydraulic gradient u Poisson's ratio k hydraulic conductivity 6 total stress (coefficient of permeability) 6' effective stress (6' = 6 - u) j seepage force per unit volume 6'vo initial effective overburden stress 61, 62, 63 principal stress (major, intermediate, minor) (c) Consolidation (one-dimensional) Cc compression index 6oct mean stress or octahedral stress (normally consolidated range) = (61 + 62 + 63)/3 Cr recompression index T shear stress (over -consolidated range) u porewater pressure Cs swelling index E modulus of deformation Ca secondary compression index G shear modulus of deformation my coefficient of volume change K bulk modulus of compressibility cv coefficient of consolidation (vertical direction) ch coefficient of consolidation (horizontal direction) Tv time factor (vertical direction) III. SOIL PROPERTIES U degree of consolidation 6'p pre -consolidation stress (a) Index Properties OCR over -consolidation ratio = 6'p / 6'vo P(Y) bulk density (bulk unit weight)* pd(yd) dry density (dry unit weight) (d) Shear Strength p,,(y,,) density (unit weight) of water Tp, Tr peak and residual shear strength ps(ys) density (unit weight) of solid particles t effective angle of internal friction y unit weight of submerged soil angle of interface friction (y' = y - Y.) µ coefficient of friction = tan S DR relative density (specific gravity) of solid c' effective cohesion particles (DR = ps / pW) (formerly Gs) a, so undrained shear strength 0 analysis) e void ratio p mean total stress (61 + 63)/2 n porosity p' mean effective stress ((Y'1 + 6'3)/2 S degree of saturation q (61 - (53)/2 or (6'1 - (5'3)/2 qu compressive strength (61 - (53) St sensitivity Density symbol is p. Unit weight symbol is y Notes: 1 T = c' + 6' tan where y = pg (i.e. mass density multiplied by 2 shear strength = (compressive strength)/2 acceleration due to gravity) GOLDER June 3/3 Page 156 Revision 5 rn PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-1 SHEET 1 OF 3 LOCATION: See Figure 2 BORING DATE: May 13 and 14, 2020 DATUM: Geodetic SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 63kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, W O RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m ` k, cm/s a z PIEZOMETER F O M N rU F W 20 40 60 BO 106 105 10' 10' ZO y OR � W � z DESCRIPTION a ¢ ~ ELEV. w ap j W o. o N F W o m STANDPIPE INSTALLATION SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - • Cu, kPa V. ® U O WATER CONTENT PERCENT w z DEPTH Q rem - WP I 6W I WI a ca gym) z m rn 20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40 GROUND SURFACE 124.42 TOPSOIL ~~ 0.00 1A O 50 mm Diameter (SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel at 0.15 0.8 m; brown, organic inclusion, trace ' 1B SS 3 O PVC Monitoring rootlets; disturbed; non -cohesive, moist, 123.94 Well y , 0.48 1c very loose O (SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel, light brown; organic inclusions, trace rootlets; non -cohesive, moist, very dense 2 SS 65 Auger grinding at a depth of 0.9 m 4. 123.05 (SM) gravelly SILTY SAND, trace gravel; 1.37 slightly plastic; brown, oxidation staining, sand pocket (TILL); non -cohesive, moist, a dense to very dense 3 ss 36 O 2 a - Auger grinding between depths of a ° a ss az MH 1.8mand 2.6m a 3 Q 4, 5 SS 43 O - Auger grinding between depths of a 3.4mand 4.Om a 4 a.. .• rn 4 z - 4 U — 11 6 SS 51 O 5 .d. 0 4 Bentonite = o E H E a E E Auger grinding at a depth of 5.6 m c 6 c a. 7 SS 71 O - Auger grinding between depths of 6.4mand 7.3m q•' d.. 7 d.. q.. 8A SS 59 6 11644 O (ML) SILT, trace sand to sandy; brown; 7.98 non -cohesive, wet to moist, very dense - Auger grinding between depths of 8.2mand 8.5m 9 - Auger grinding at a depth of 10.1 m 9 SS 5 0/ 0.08 10 — — — — — — — — — — — _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — E CONTINUED NEXT PAGE ` DEPTH SCALE C O L D E R LOGGED: TO 1:50 CHECKED: AJH rn PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-1 SHEET 2 OF 3 LOCATION: See Figure 2 BORING DATE: May 13 and 14, 2020 DATUM: Geodetic SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 63kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, W O RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m ` k, cm/s a z PIEZOMETER F O M N rU F W 20 40 60 80 106 105 10' to ZO y OR W � z DESCRIPTION a ¢ ~ ELEV. w 00 j W a o N F W o m STANDPIPE INSTALLATION SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - • Cu, kPa V. ® U O WATER CONTENT PERCENT w z DEPTH Q rem - WP I 6W I WI a ca gym) z m 20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40 -- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE--- 10 (GP) GRAVEL, some sand, trace fines; grey; non -cohesive, moist, very dense 0 SS Q 0/ O 11 112.93 (SM) SILTY SAND, some fines; trace 11.49 gravel to 13.8 m, brown; non -cohesive, moist to wet, very dense 12 SS 50/ 0.08 Bentonile 13 12 SS 500/ O y' 14 a o rn ..y U Sand June 2/20 15 O E 13 SS 50/ O MH E E 0.08 16 14 SS 5 01 O Screen and Sand 17 0.08 18 IV IV 15 SS 5 0.13 O 19 •y Bentonite a' 16 SS 0 O 20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — CONTINUED NEXT PAGE DEPTH SCALE G O L D E R LOGGED: TO %WqCHECKED: 1:50 AJH w U H 0 O U z O z z a J U U PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-1 SHEET 3 OF 3 LOCATION: See Figure 2 BORING DATE: May 13 and 14, 2020 DATUM: Geodetic SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 63kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, W O RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m ` k, cm/s a z PIEZOMETER F O M a m rU F W 20 40 60 BO 106 105 10' 10' ZO y OR W z DESCRIPTION a a ELEV. w 00 w a o m F W o mg STANDPIPE INSTALLATION SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - • Cu, kPa V. ® U O WATER CONTENT PERCENT oo DEPTH z rem - WP I 6W I WI a m N �n1� m 20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40 -- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE -- 20 (SM) SILTY SAND, some fines; trace gravel to 13.8 m, brown; non -cohesive, " moist to wet, very dense •a� 21 •.y' 17 SS 500/ O 22 o rn U A• •y • 18 $$ 50/ O 23 0 0.1 Bentonite O E y' F E E F y E 24 Wet at a depth of 24.4 m $$ o oa O 25 •'y , 96.44 50/ z6 END OF BOREHOLE 25.98 NOTES: 1. Borehole was advanced with 200 mm O.D. hollow stem augers and abandoned at 8.5 mbgs due to auger refusal. 27 2. Relocated borehole was drilled about 1 m southeast of staked borehole using mud rotary technique. 3. Water encountered at a depth of 7.6 m during drilling. 4. Groundwater level was measured in 28 monitoring well at 14.8 mbgs (El.109.6m) on June 2, 2020. 29 30 ` DEPTH SCALE C O L D E R LOGGED: TO E 1:50 CHECKED: AJH U PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-2 SHEET 1 OF 3 LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic BORING DATE: May 22 and 23, 2020 SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 63kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, W O RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m ` k, cm/s a z PIEZOMETER F O M N rU F W 20 40 60 80 106 105 10' 10' ZO y OR � W � z DESCRIPTION a ¢ ~ ELEV. w 00 j w a o N F W o m STANDPIPE INSTALLATION SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - • Cu, kPa V. ® U O WATER CONTENT PERCENT w z DEPTH Q rem - WP I 6W I WI a ca gym) z m N 20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40 GROUND SURFACE 124.36 ° TOPSOIL - (SM) SILTY SAND, dark 0.00 brown; trace rootlet, trace organic; 50 mm Diameter non -cohesive, moist, loose 1 SS 7 O PVC Monitoring Well 123.67 (ML) SILT and SAND, trace gravel, 0.69 slightly plastic, brown; oxidation staining; 1 containing rock fragments; wet silt seam z ss zs O a (TILL); non -cohesive, moist, compact to E 3 very dense Q — 0 = 6 4 3 SS 33 O E 2 4 4. 4 4 SS 66 O 3 Q Q 5 SS 62 O MH a 4 NP 4 s 120.32 (SM) SILTY SAND, brown; 4.04 non -cohesive, wet, very dense ' rn 119.69 6A SS 50/ 0 (ML) SILT, some sand, brown, oxidation 4.67 6B 0.1 O — staining; sand pockets; non -cohesive, 5 N wet, very dense Bentonite E 118.87 (GP) GRAVEL, sandy to trace sand, 5.49 trace to some fines; grey and brown; non -cohesive, moist to wet, very dense 6 2i 7 SS 51 O 7 E Wet at a depth of 7.6 m 8 SS o O 8 116.03 (SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel to 8.33 gravelly, brown; non -cohesive, wet, very dense 9 - Gravelly between depths of 9.1 m and ; ,: 9 SS 50/ O MH 9.2 m 0.03 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — CONTINUED NEXT PAGE T ` DEPTH SCALE C O L D E R LOGGED: TO 1:50 CHECKED: AJH U PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-2 SHEET 2 OF 3 LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic BORING DATE: May 22 and 23, 2020 SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 63kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, W O RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m ` k, cm/s a z PIEZOMETER F O M m rU F W 20 40 60 80 106 105 10' 10' ZO y OR W z DESCRIPTION a ¢ ELEV. w 00 w a o m F W o mg STANDPIPE INSTALLATION SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - • Cu, kPa V. ® U O WATER CONTENT PERCENT oo DEPTH z rem - Wp I 6W I WI a m N (m) m 20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40 -- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE -- 0 (SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel to gravelly, brown; non -cohesive, wet, very ' dense 10 ss 0/ a O 11 12 11 ss 5 0/ O y' June 2/20 13 2 SS 50/ 0.13 14 0 z 15 a U y Bentonite E FE 13SS 50/ o 0.13 E E 16 108.31 (ML) SILT, trace sand; grey; 16.05 non -cohesive, wet, very dense ss 50/ O 17 0.13 106.68 (ML) sandy SILT, trace gravel; grey 17.56 (TILL); non -cohesive, moist, very dense .'4 18 4 SS 50/ O 4 0.08 19 4 4 - Auger grinding between depths of 19.2mand 19.4m a 4 4 Ss 505 O MH Sand 20 — — — — — — — — — _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — . CONTINUED NEXT PAGE ` DEPTH SCALE C O L D E R LOGGED: TO 1:50 Neane 161 CHECKED: AJH W U H 0 O U Z O z z J U U PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-2 SHEET 3 OF 3 LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic BORING DATE: May 22 and 23, 2020 SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 63kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: AUTOMATIC SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, W O RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m ` k, cm/s a z PIEZOMETER F O M ¢ m rU F W 20 40 60 80 106 105 10' 10' ZO y OR W z DESCRIPTION a ¢ ELEV. w 00 w a o m F W o mg STANDPIPE INSTALLATION SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - • Cu, kPa V. ® U O WATER CONTENT PERCENT oo DEPTH z rem - WP l 6W I WI a m N gym) m 20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40 -- CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE -- 20 (ML) sandy SILT, trace gravel; grey Sand (TILL); non -cohesive, moist, very dense a 4 21 m Auger grinding at a depth of 22.9 m Q 4 = 0 4 17 SS 50/ O 0.13 U V Screen and Sand ' N a zz $ o - Auger grinding between depths of s 23.2 m and 23.6 m E 4 4 0 ss 0.1 O 23 Inferred boulders at a depth of 23.5 m 4 r Slough 100.81 50/ END OF BOREHOLE (REFUSAL) 23.55 0.01 NOTES: 24 1. Water encountered at a depth of 4.6 m during drilling. 2. Borehole caved to a depth of 23.2 m upon completion of drilling. 3. Groundwater level was measured in monitoring well at 12.7 mbgs (El.111.7m) 25 on June 2, 2020. 4. NP = Non -plastic 26 27 26 29 30 ` LH SCALE C O L D E R LOGGED: TO CHECKED: AJH rn PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-3 SHEET 1 OF 1 LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic BORING DATE: May 12,2020 SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 32kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: MANUAL SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, W O RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m ` k, cm/s a z PIEZOMETER F O M a m rU F W 20 40 60 BO 106 105 10' to ZO y OR � W z DESCRIPTION a a ELEV. w 00 w a o m F W o mg STANDPIPE INSTALLATION SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - • Cu, kPa V. ® U O WATER CONTENT PERCENT oo DEPTH z rem - WP I 6W I WI a m N (m) m 20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40 GROUND SURFACE 99.73 ° TOPSOIL - (SM) organic SILTY SAND, 0.00 Zb mm lame er dark brown; rootlets; non -cohesive, PVC Monitoring Well moist, loose ss 3 s4. Bentonile p 98.82 2A SS 5 0 Sand 1 = (SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel; light 0.91 98.59 2B O brown, contains rootlets; organic 1.14 nclusions, disturbed; non -cohesive, .rune 2/2a m0lst, compact 3 SS 46/ O Screen and Sand (GP) sandy GRAVEL, some fines; light 9815 0.2 brown; non -cohesive, wet, dense Sa SILTY SAND, trace gravel, grey 1.63 TM) ILL); non -cohesive, moist, very dense END OF BOREHOLE (REFUSAL) 2 NOTES: 1. Water encountered at a depth of 1.2 m during drilling. 2. Borehole advanced with split spoon 3 and hammer blows to refusal. 3. Borehole depths between samples advanced using split spoon and hammer blows. 4. SPT blowcounts recorded were halved ( Field SPT blows/2) to account for standard hammer weight of 63 Kg. 4 5. Groundwater level was measured in monitoring well at 1.1 mbgs (El.98.63m) on May 22 and June 2, 2020. 5 6 7 8 9 10 ` DEPTH SCALE C O L D E R LOGGED: TO 1:50 CHECKED: AJH U PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-4 SHEET 1 OF 1 LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic BORING DATE: May 12,2020 SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 32kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: MANUAL SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, W O RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m ` k, cm/s a z PIEZOMETER F O M a m rU F W 20 40 60 80 106 105 10' lo' ZO y OR � W z DESCRIPTION a a ELEV. w 00 w a o m F W o mg STANDPIPE INSTALLATION SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - • Cu, kPa V. ® U O WATER CONTENT PERCENT oo DEPTH z rem - WP l 6W I WI a m (m� m 20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40 GROUND SURFACE 10427 PVC Monitoring ° TOPSOIL - (SM) organic SILTY SAND, 0.00 Well June 2/2o brown; contains wood fragments and rootlets; non -cohesive, wet, compact 1 ss 7 ~~ 103.74 Bentonite (SM) SILTY SAND, some sand, trace 0.53 ogravel, brown; contains rootlets, T, y� O disturbed; oxidation staining; 103.36 Ss 6 Sand 1 = non -cohesive, moist, loose O 0.91 28 (SM) gravelly SILTY SAND, grey, trace rootlet to 1.1 m (TILL); non -cohesive, moist, very dense 3 SS 0 26 O Screen and Sand 02.75 O N P END OF BOREHOLE (REFUSAL) 1.52 0.2 MH NOTES: 2 1. Water encountered at ground surface during drilling. 2. Borehole advanced with split spoon and hammer blows to refusal. 3. Borehole depths between samples advanced using split spoon and hammer 3 blows. 4. SPT blowcounts recorded were halved ( Field SPT blows/2) to account for standard hammer weight of 63 Kg. 5. Groundwater level was measured in monitoring well at 0.1 m (El.104.2 m) on 4 May 22, 2020. 6. Groundwater level was measured in monitoring well at ground surface (El.104.3 m) on June 2, 2020. 7. NP=Non-plastic 5 6 7 6 9 10 ` DEPTH SCALE C O L D E R LOGGED: TO %iraneCHECKED: 1:50 AJH U PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-5 SHEET 1 OF 1 LOCATION: See Figure 2 BORING DATE: May 12,2020 DATUM: Geodetic SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 32kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: MANUAL SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, W O RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m ` k, cm/s a z PIEZOMETER F O M m rU F W 20 40 60 80 106 105 10' 10' ZO y OR � W z DESCRIPTION a ¢ ELEV. w 00 w a o m F W o mg STANDPIPE INSTALLATION SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - • Cu, kPa V. ® U O WATER CONTENT PERCENT oo DEPTH z rem - WP I 6W I WI a m N (m) m 20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40 GROUND SURFACE 100.88 o TOPSOIL- (SM) organic SILTY SAND, 0.o0 Zb mm lame er dark brown; contains rootlets; ss 4 PVC Monitoring Well non -cohesive, moist, loose 111. Bentonite Sand 2A SS 8 99 ss 66. (GP) GRAVEL, some sand, trace fines; 1.02 2B O Screen and Sand brown; non -cohesive, moist to wet, compact to very dense yy.� 3A SS 50/ O 0.2 50/ O (SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel; grey 1.42 (TILL); non -cohesive, moist, very dense 1.55 0.15 June 2/20 END OF BOREHOLE (REFUSAL) 2 NOTES: 1. Water encountered at a depth of 1.0 m during drilling. 2. Borehole advanced with split spoon and hammer blows to refusal. 3 3. Borehole depths between samples advanced using split spoon and hammer blows. 4. SPT blowcounts recorded were halved ( Field SPT blows/2) to account for standard hammer weight of 63 Kg. 5. Groundwater level was measured in 4 monitoring well at 0.6 mbgs (El.100.3 m) on May 22, 2020. 6. Groundwater level was measured in monitoring well at 1.5 mbgs (EI.99.4 m) on June 2, 2020. 5 6 7 8 9 10 ` DEPTH SCALE C O L D E R LOGGED: TO 1:50 CHECKED: AJH U PROJECT: 19132686 RECORD OF BOREHOLE: BH2O-6 SHEET 1 OF 1 LOCATION: See Figure 2 DATUM: Geodetic BORING DATE: May 12,2020 SPT/DCPT HAMMER: MASS, 32kg; DROP, 760mm HAMMER TYPE: MANUAL SOIL PROFILE SAMPLES DYNAMIC PENETRATION HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY, W O RESISTANCE, BLOWS/0.3m ` k, cm/s a z PIEZOMETER F O M a N rU F W 20 40 60 80 106 105 10' 10' ZO y OR W z DESCRIPTION a a ~ ELEV. w 00 j W a o N F W o m STANDPIPE INSTALLATION SHEAR STRENGTH nat V. + Q - • Cu, kPa V. ® U O WATER CONTENT PERCENT w z DEPTH Q rem - WP l 6W I WI a ca (m) z m N 20 40 60 80 10 20 30 40 GROUND SURFACE 100.21 0 TOPSOIL , ' 0.08 1B Ss 7 O (SM) SILTY SAND, trace gravel; grey; contains rootlets and organic inclusions, disturbed; non -cohesive, wet 99.66 (GP) GRAVEL, trace sand, trace fines; 0.53 brown; non -cohesive, wet, very dense 99.35 2n 47/ O ss 0.25 (SM) SILTY SAND, some gravel; grey 0.88 2B O (TILL); non -cohesive, moist, very dense 99.14 50/ O END OF BOREHOLE (REFUSAL) 1.07 NOTES: 1. Water encountered at a depth of 0.1 m during drilling. 2 2. Borehole advanced with split spoon and hammer blows to refusal. 3. Borehole depths between samples advanced using split spoon and hammer blows. 4. SPT blowcounts recorded were 3 halved ( Field SPT blows/2) to account for standard hammer weight of 63 Kg. 5. Borehole caved to a depth of 0.9 mbgs upon completion of drilling. 6. Groundwater level was measured in open borehole at 0.5 m (El.99.7 m) upon 4 completion of drilling. s 6 7 8 9 10 ` DEPTH SCALE C O L D E R LOGGED: TO 1:50 CHECKED: AJH Mr. Robert Brezina, P.Eng. Project No. 19132686 (1000) The Municipality of Clarington September 17, 2020 APPENDIX B Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Results (Figures 131 to B6) GOLDER Page167 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MTO LS-702 FIGURE 131 (SM) SILTY SAND Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch 6" 41/." 3" 1 %" 1" %" %" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200 100 90 80 70 z 60 w w z LL 50 H z LU 40 w a 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 GRAIN SIZE, mm COBBLE COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY SIZES GRAVEL SIZE SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED LEGEND SYMBOL BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH(m) • 20-1 13 15.0 - 15.2 ■ 20-2 9 9.0 - 9.2 Project Number: 19132686 Checked By: TO Golder Associates Date: 06-Jul-20 Page168 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MTO LS-702 FIGURE B2 (SM) SILTY SAND (TILL) Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch 6" 41/." 3" 1 %" 1" %" %" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200 100 90 80 70 z 1-- 60 LU z LL 50 H z LU X 40ill LU a 30 20 10 0—] 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 GRAIN SIZE, mm COBBLE COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY SIZES GRAVEL SIZE SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED LEGEND SYMBOL BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH(m) • 20-4 3 1.2 - 1. 4 ■ 20-1 4 2.3 - 2.7 Project Number: 19132686 Checked By: TO Golder Associates Date: 06-Jul-20 Page169 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MTO LS-702 FIGURE B3 (ML) SILT and SAND (TILL) Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch 6" 41/." 3" 1 %" 1" %" %" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200 100 90 80 70 z 60 LU z LL 50 H z LU 0 40 LU a 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 GRAIN SIZE, mm COBBLE COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY SIZES GRAVEL SIZE SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED LEGEND SYMBOL BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH(m) • 20-2 5 3.1 - 3.5 Project Number: 19132686 Checked By: TO Golder Associates Date: 06-Jul-20 Page170 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION MTO LS-702 FIGURE B4 (ML) Sandy SILT (TILL) Size of openings, inches U.S.S Sieve size, meshes/inch 6" 41/." 3" 1 %" 1" %" %" 3/8" 3 4 8 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 100 200 100 90 80 70 z 60 IY LU z L 50 H z LU X 40 LU a 30 20 0- 0-]0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 GRAIN SIZE, mm COBBLE COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND CLAY SIZES GRAVEL SIZE SIZE SAND SIZE FINE GRAINED LEGEND SYMBOL BOREHOLE SAMPLE DEPTH(m) • 20-2 16 19.5 - 19.6 Project Number: 19132686 Checked By: TO Golder Associates Date: 06-Jul-20 Page 171 Appendix C: Trail Alignment and Profile Page172 APPROXIMATE A CREEK LOCATION LIMIT OF EL20 99,73 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BH20-4 __ — -- -- - O EL. = 104.271 ,- BH2O-5 EL. = 100.88 I LIMIT OF GRADING / SH2O-1 (WITHOUT RETAINING 8< � O EL. = 124.42 WALL I ARMOUR STONE RETAINING WALL ; I PROPOSED (OPTIONAL) ; O TRAIL 09Ltb o O� -_ O O O / # 51 # 49 # 53 --- B EIH2O-2 — 36 o EL. 124.`� '.•. O #47i _ I # 45 39 # 43 STORMWATER — r� IFS # 41 MANAGEMENT POND a 125 125 24 124 123 123 122 122 121 - 121 DATE BY ISSUES REVISIONS � 119 120 19 9 _uwff 118 118 117 117 PROJECT: 116 116 115 115 FAREWELL CREEK TRAIL 114 - -- - _ _ _-- - 114 2020 WORKS 112 112 DRAWING: 11 111 BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN 110 110 109 _ 109 DRAWN BV: CHECKED BV: PROJECT G. MASK D. CAMPBELL C14-0287 108 108 DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY DRAWING No. � D. CAMPBELL D. CAMPBELL - N It CO 00 O N It c0 OD O N (0 00 O N CHAINAGE + + + + + +) + + +� co w � co � + + CHAINAGE H: 1:500 SCALE: DATE: V: 1:100 JUNE 2020 Page173 126 PROPOSED TRAIL 12 zs E.L. = 119.47 z6 124 ARMO R STONE RETAINING 124 120 WALL (0 TIONA) 120 118 PR POSE 2:1 LOPE 118 Q 116 (W THOU RETA NING ALL) 114 z na 11a O F nz ORIGINAL G OUND - z U 110 110 Lu (p 108 _ _ - 108 106 APPROXIMA E 106 104 104 102 -' 102 100 --- // 100 98 - -_-- 998 9675 -70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 306 128 128 PRCPOSED TRAIL 126 `rE.L. = 116.2--- ___ 126 124 ARMCUR STONE R TAINI G 124 122 WALL (OPTIONAL) 122 zo zo PROPOSED :1 SLOPE 118 (WITHOUT FETAINING WALL) 118 m 116 116 z 114 ORIGINA L GRO JND 114 0112 _ _ '' 112 (-) 110 - - - 110 m 10s APPROXIMATE: oa EDGE F CREEK — — os 108 104 _--�_--- 104 102 -' 102 100 - 100 98 998 9675 -70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 306 128 128 126 PRO OSED RAIL 126 24 � E. = 115.34 24 122 ARMOUR TONE RETAI ING 122 s 20 ALL OPTIO AL 20 116 PROPOSED 2:1 SLOPE 116 U ( ITHO T RET INING WALL) z O 114 114 0 IGINA GROU D --' 110 U o _ — --- W108--A -- ---- 108 PROXI ATE os E GE 0 CREE os 104 104 DATE BY ISSUES REVISIONS £ 102 102 100 -- --- ---- —/ 100 98 98 9675 —70 —65 —60 —55 —50 —45 —40 —35 —30 —25 —20 —15 —10 —5 0 5 10 15 20 25 3�6 122 122 PROJECT: 120 PROPOSED TRAIL_ 120 E. = 115.25 '— SWM POND 11e . 118 FAREWELL CREEK TRAIL 114 ARMOUR STONERETAINING WALL (OPTIONAL) — 114 2020 WORKS z 11z PROPOSED 2:1 LOPE ( ITHOU RETAINING ALL) —'' 112 i O 110 0 IGINA GROUND ___— -- 110 DRAWING: U 108 — —_ 108 Lu U) 106 106 CROSS SECTIONS 04 --' 04 102 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PROJECT 100 1°° 98 gg G. MASK D. CAMPBELL C14-0287 % DESIGNED BY: APPROVED BY: DRAWING No. H 96g 75 -70 -65 -60 -55 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 396 D. CAMPBELL D. CAMPBELL - SCALE: H: AS NOTED DATE: 2V: AS NOTED JUNE 2020 Page 174 lus ma s E1 cD uPOR 6PECInC PRO?ER a of Tp!(a PR0Dms (GEmps, Emwa 1 cowpo RFs NIA ono umN} wNICN 0 P80P VAW To TmVfx 0E0SwMEIM w0. 4M KAMER A4QN£, ]DROMO, �ERARIO, NO 4W4. W 9.leSBWfM OF THE SPECNTED PRODUCES WILL 1W& MTE THIS DES". M W WW IS BANG FWNMED FAR W ON TW SPECIRC PF.SIIED WILY. MY PAW ACCEPIINQ IM DOCiIU,IERT DOES 50 N MNFW CE HIV AWM THAT fT MUU NOT BE flilAf.ICATFD NMOE.E oR IN PANE, NOR n6 wsm TO �MM, 9TMr THE WMSEM of TEPPAFIX CEOCiYN11iEY1PS WC, MlYRIM 2000, MdkFV GE05511ThUM X DESIGN ' HEICHT VARIES Max..Z.Bm l terrafix geasynthe#ics inc. 455 Horner Avenue Toronto, Ontario M8W 4W9 Tel:(416) 674-0363 PROPOSED .HANDRAIL (BY OTHERS) SEE FADINGf in. t3.5rrr DETAIL "A"!� F1HiSHED GRADE /,_(BY OTHERS) WWF CUT OPENING GEOGRID FOR !� Zll'_S0N0 TUBE (BYNCTHERS) r—, UNITFILL REINFORCED BATYPE II) FINISHED GRADE (BY OTHERS) f REFER TO ELEVATION VIEW FOR GEOGRID LI N OF SET BACK f 26mm REIF0RCE13 AT EAeH LIFTf3FTAILS (LENGTH, TYP£ AND ELEVATION) SOIL —150mm PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE WITH FINISHED GRADE SOCK DRAIN TO POSITIVE OUTLETS) -—Win. 1.0 Mir, .4m —36OR GE0TEXTILE .ram--F0UNDATI0N SOIL-,_. GRANULAR_ LEVELING PAD TERRASTEEP 900 TYP. CROSS SECTION NOT TO SCALE Page l�l RETAINED SOIL. "L' REVISIONS tsstll'J Tc 8"0 MILL STREET PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY 07 12 1S ISSOED FOR REVIEW 0T/12/118 TERRAMP-90 RS5 WAIF As IShawn * CLARINGT0N ONTARI❑ W"y" 4 W Sheet dumber omm W T.A. TYPICAL CROSS SECTION 4 OF C A THIN LAYER OF LEVELING COURSE *100mm TO 150mm (19-mm CRUSHED CLEAR STONE OR SIMILAR) GABION STONE AP FOLD BACfmS VjLlDR.TM SET BACK 20mm REINfRCEd SOIL AT EACH LIFT 1 GRANULAR R'TYPE II) WWF FACING 360R UNIT (BASKET) GEOTE?STILE SG GEOGRI,13 REINFORCEMENT' TERRASTEEP 900 FACING DETAIL "A" NOT TO SCALE Tip MIGN IS BIND UPON SPECIFIC PROPEPES OF TE WM PRflCI= [OEti>G M, DEWNAX COkPO M AND EROSION EIEDW, WHO ARE PROPRIETARY lO M. *S PORER AYME. TOR M, ONTARIO, FFN 09. ANY SU9SEnUI%N of THE SAECIn— PRODlM WILE DHAMW THS DESIGN. THIS DRAMANO Is BONO FURNISHED FOR USE ON THIS SPECIFIC PRCUECF ONLY. ANY RM ALCUMNIG THIS DOCUpENT DDES SO IN CONFIOENICE AND AGREES lHAT IF SPAL NO] HE DUPLICATED 1MDLE OR IN PART, MDR DACUM TO OT}FRS. WRH MiF FRE Oww OF iFRRAFi1f fiftLYElEEIE71[5 INf.. COF' Wff M. TERWIX CEWMi= ING. rterrafix geosynthetics Inc. 455 Horner Avenue Toronto, Ontario M8W 4W9 Tel:(416) 674-0363 wl���wll 2" (50mm) (ONE END ONLY) AI (SEE SECTION) �I I� 4" (T 00mm) 9'—B" (2948mm) A EFFECTIVE LENGTH CENTER TO CENTEY OF OUTSIDE WIRES 10' (3048mm) LEVATION VIEW 04 GALVANIZED STEEL WELDED WIRE MESH Page Iw&l 640mm +/— 6.35mm �— (MEASURED INSIDE HOOK — INSIDE HOOK) STEEL WIRE n+ innnnr nrni it SUPPORT STRUT DETAIL SUPPORT STRUT (SEE DETAIL) BUTT VERTICAL WIRE (OVERLAP HORIZONTAL WIRE 2" (50mm) VERTICAL WIRES OF ADJACENT FDRMS SHALL BE TIED TOGETHER AT BUTT LOCATION. PROVIDE SUPPORT STRUT AT ALL BUTT LOCATIONS). SUPPORT STRUT (SEE DETAIL) PLACED ALONG LENGTH OF WIRE FORM AT MAX. 0,5m SPACING. FIELD ADJUST AS REQUIRED. 18" (457mm) �1 87' (NOM,) f 4" [luummy 191, (457mm) 1 SECTION A —A WIRE FORM FACING UNIT DETAIL NOT TO SCALE REVISIONS � ISSUE � a m 07/12 18 As Shown MILL STREET PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY TERRASTEEP-90 RSS WALL CI�ARINGTDN ONTARIG 07 12 18 ISSUED FOR REVIEi4 N UH DETAILS Sheet Pfumt,ar 5 OF 6 ITATYPICAL Appendix D: Works Cost Estimate Page177 Municipality of Clarington Farewell Creek Trail - Phase 2B COUNCIL RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT Cost Apportionment Based on Engineer's Estimate Revised [02-26-2021] CIMA Protect No. C14-0287 Description Estimate _T Comments Construction Costs (Estimated) Part'A' Tree Removal 4+290 to 4+430 and 4+720 to 5+000 $ 10,600.00 CIMA Estimate Part'B' Trail Construction 4+290 to 4+430 $ 59,430.00 CIMA Estimate Part'A1' Tree Removal 4+430 to 4+720 - COUNCIL ALIGNMENT (Tendere $ 41,868.28 CIMA Estimate Part'C1' Trail Construction 4+430 to 4+720 - COUNCIL ALIGNMENT $ 481,670.00 CIMA Estimate Part'D 'Trail Construction 4+720 to 5+000 $ 385,228.00 CIMA Estimate Part'E1': Retained Soil System Wall - COUNCIL ALIGNMENT $ 664,393.00 CIMA Estimate Part'F' General Items $ 55,000.00 CIMA Estimate Sub -Total Construction $ 1,698,189.28 1.76% Net HST $ 29,888.13 $ 1,728,077.41 Total Construction Costs Other Project Costs 4.0% Design and Tendering $ 84,000.00 CIMA Estimate 7.0% Contract Administration and Inspection $ 120,965.42 CIMA Estimate 2.0% Material Testing $ 34,561.55 CIMA Estimate 10% Contingencies $ 172,807.74 Permits and Fees $ 3,500.00 CLOCA Sub -Total Other Costs $ 415,834.71 1.76% Net HST $ 7,318.69 $ 423,153.40 Total Other Costs Total Protect Cost Incl. Net HST $ 2,151,230.81 Available Funding Add Account Details $ - Other Sources $ - Total Funding $ - Funds Remaining / Over -run -$ 2,151,230.81 Tree Compensation $ 394,000.00 Page 178 Municipality of Clarington Farewell Creek Trail - Phase 2B ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT Cost Apportionment Based on Engineer's Estimate Revised [02-26-2021] CIMA Project No. C14-0287 Description Estimate Comments Construction Costs (Estimated) Part'A' Tree Removal 4+290 to 4+430 and 4+720 to 5+000 $ 10,600.00 CIMA Estimate Part'B' Trail Construction 4+290 to 4+430 $ 59,430.00 CIMA Estimate Part'A2' Tree Removal 4+430 to 4+720 - ORIGNIAL ALIGNMENT (Tender $ 24,393.10 CIMA Estimate Part'C2' Trail Construction 4+430 to 4+720 - ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT $ 433,900.00 CIMA Estimate Part'D 'Trail Construction 4+720 to 5+000 $ 385,228.00 CIMA Estimate Part'E2': Retained Soil System Wall- ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT $ 77,175.00 CIMA Estimate Part'F' General Items $ 55,000.00 CIMA Estimate Sub -Total Construction $ 1,045,726.10 1.76% Net HST $ 18,404.78 $ 1,064,130.88 Total Construction Costs Other Project Costs 4.0% Design and Tendering $ 50,000.00 CIMA Estimate 7.0% Contract Administration and Inspection $ 74,489.16 CIMA Estimate 2.0% Material Testing $ 21,282.62 CIMA Estimate 10% Contingencies $ 106,413.09 Permits and Fees $ 3,500.00 CLOCA Sub -Total Other Costs $ 255,684.87 1.76% Net HST $ 4,500.05 $ 260,184.92 Total Other Costs Total Project Cost Incl. Net HST $ 1,324,315.80 Available Funding Add Account Details $ - Other Sources $ - Total Funding $ - Funds Remaining / Over -run -$ 1,324,315.80 Tree Compensation $ 212,000.00 Page 179 The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B In accordance with the first paragraph of this Tender, the Contractor hereby offers to complete the work specified for Contract No. CL20XX-XX for the following unit prices. Spec. - The numbers in this column refer to the applicable issue of OPS Specs SP - Refers to Special Provisions (P) - Plan Quantity Payment Item MOC - Municipality of Clarington Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings Item No. Spec No. Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total Part 'A ' Tree Removal 4+290 to 4+430 and 4+720 to 5+000 (Tendered separately prior to Trail Tender) SP PART B: 4+107.48 to 4+430 LS 100% - - SP PART D: 4+720 to 5+000 LS 100% 10,600.00 10,600.00 Total Part 'A' Carried to Summary 10,600.00 Part 'B' Trail Construction 4+290 to 4+430 MUNI 182, Site Preparation, Misc. Removals, Access and LS 100% 5,000.00 5,000.00 MUNI201, Staging MUNI 510, SP MUNI 201 i) Tree Clearing and Grubbing LS 100% - SP ii) Clear and Grub Stumps, Brush Removal, LS 100% 1,000.00 1,000.00 Relocate/Stockpile and Remove Felled Trees MUNI 805 Light Duty Silt Fence m 150.0 12.00 1,800.00 SP Catch basin Silt Trap ea 150.00 - MUNI 801 Tree Protection Fencing m 75.0 15.00 1,125.00 SP MUNI 805 Straw Bale Flow Check Dams ea 1.0 270.00 270.00 SP SP Layout by Contractor LS 100% 2,000.00 2,000.00 Page 180 The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B Item No. Spec No. Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total MUNI 206 Earth Excavation (incl. Topsoil Stripping) and SP Grading i) Trail Alignment m3 220.0 30.00 6,600.00 (P) MUNI 1860 Woven Geotextile at Subgrade (Terratrack m2 530.0 3.00 1,590.00 SP 200W) MUNI 314 Granular'A' in Trail Compacted to 95% t 400.0 35.00 14,000.00 SP, MOC SPMDD (300mm depth) MUNI501 Provisional Item m3 51.0 30.00 1,530.00 Water For Compaction MUNI 310, Hot Mix HL-3F Asphalt (65mm Depth) t 77.0 150.00 11,550.00 SP, MOC MUNI310, Provisional Item LS 100% 5,000.00 5,000.00 SP, Asphalt Cement Price Adjustment Allowance MOC DET-1 3300mm x 1200mm Concrete Pad c/w ea 2.0 2,500.00 5,000.00 Prefabricated Bench and Pressure Treated Pine Wheelchair Barrier MUNI802, Topsoil m2 185.0 8.00 1,480.00 SP MUNI804, Seed m2 185.0 5.00 925.00 SP, MOC 710 Pavement Markings SP i) 10cm width Yellow Traffic Paint m 140.0 4.00 560.00 Total Part 'B' Carried to Summary 59,430.00 Page 181 The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 213 Item No. Spec No. Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total Part 'D 'Trail Construction 4+720 to 5+000 MUNI 182, Site Preparation, Misc. Removals, Access and LS 100% 15,000.00 15,000.00 MUNI201, Staging MUNI 510, SP MUNI 201 i) Tree Clearing and Grubbing LS 100% 5,000.00 5,000.00 SP ii) Clear and Grub Stumps, Brush Removal, LS 100% 10,000.00 10,000.00 Relocate/Stockpile and Remove Felled Trees MUNI 805 Light Duty Silt Fence m 560.0 12.00 6,720.00 SP MUNI 801 Tree Protection Fencing m 100.0 15.00 1,500.00 SP MUNI 805 Straw Bale Flow Check Dams ea 5.0 270.00 1,350.00 SP SP Layout by Contractor LS 100% 5,000.00 5,000.00 MUNI 206 Earth Excavation (incl. Topsoil Stripping) and SP Grading i) Trail Alignment m3 790.0 50.00 39,500.00 (P) MUNI206 Provisional Item m3 90.0 70.00 6,300.00 SP, MOC Additional Depth Excavation for Trail Construction in Wet Condition MUNI 1860 Woven Geotextile at Subgrade (Terratrack m2 1,180.0 3.00 3,540.00 SP 200W) MUNI 1860 Provisional Item m2 350.0 4.00 1,400.00 SP Non -Woven Geotextile (Terrafix 420R) SP Provisional Item t 220.0 60.00 13,200.00 53mm Minus Clear Stone (300mm Depth) MUNI 314 Import Granular B Fill t 2,024.0 40.00 80,960.00 SP, MOC Page 182 The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B Item No. Spec No. Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total MUNI 314 Granular'A' in Trail Compacted to 95% t 890.0 45.00 40,050.00 SP, MOC SPMDD (300mm depth) MUNI501 Provisional Item m3 116.0 30.00 3,480.00 Water For Compaction MUNI 421 1030x740mm dia. CSPA Culvert (Incl. SP Excavation, Frost Taper, Bedding and Backfill) i) 1030x740mm dia. CSPA Culvert m 30.0 700.00 21,000.00 MUNI 511 Rip -Rap Rock Protection 150-300mm of t 40.0 85.00 3,400.00 SP 450mm depth at Culvert Inlet/Outlets MUNI 310, Hot Mix HL-3F Asphalt (65mm Depth) t 154.0 175.00 26,950.00 SP, MOC MUNI310, Provisional Item LS 100% 5,000.00 5,000.00 SP, Asphalt Cement Price Adjustment Allowance MOC Steel Safety Railing (not a guard) a) Galvanized Steel Safety Railing as per m 280.0 250.00 70,000.00 OPSD 980.101 MOD., incl. Mounting on Base Plates DET-1 3300mm x 1200mm Concrete Pad c/w ea 2.0 2,500.00 5,000.00 Prefabricated Bench and Pressure Treated Pine Wheelchair Barrier SP Plant Material LS 100% 7,500.00 7,500.00 MUNI 802, Topsoil m2 566.0 8.00 4,528.00 SP MUNI804, Seed m2 566.0 5.00 2,830.00 SP, MOC 710 Pavement Markings SP i) 10cm width Yellow Traffic Paint m 280.0 4.00 1,120.00 SP Supply and Install Erosion Control Blanket m2 125.0 20.00 2,500.00 Total Part'D' Carried to Summary 382,828.00 Page 183 The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 213 Item No. Spec No. Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total Part 'F ' General Items SP Bonds, Insurance and Maintenance Security LS 100% 15,000.00 15,000.00 SP Mobilization and Demobilization, incl. Traffic Staging LS 100% 40,000.00 40,000.00 Total Part 'F' Carried to Summary 55,000.00 SUMMARY Part'A' Tree Removal 4+290 to 4+430 and 4+720 to 5+000 (Tendered separately prior to Trail Tender) $ 10,600.00 Part'B' Trail Construction 4+290 to 4+430 $ 109,213.08 Part 'D ' Trail Construction 4+720 to 5+000 $ 382,828.00 Part'FGeneral Items $ 55,000.00 Total (excluding HST) $ 557,641.08 HST (13% of Total) $ 72,493.34 Total Estimate Amount $ 630,134.42 Page 184 The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B In accordance with the first paragraph of this Tender, the Contractor hereby offers to complete the work specified for Contract No. CL20XX-XX for the following unit prices. Spec. - The numbers in this column refer to the applicable issue of OPS Specs SP - Refers to Special Provisions (P) - Plan Quantity Payment Item MOC - Municipality of Clarington Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings Item No. Spec No. Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total Part 'A1' Tree Removal 4+430 to 4+720 - COUNCIL ALIGNMENT (Tendered separately prior to Trail Tender) SP PART Cl: 4+430 to 4+720 LS 100% 41,868.28 41,868.28 Total Part'A' Carried to Summary 41,868.28 Part'C1' Trail Construction 4+430 to 4+720 - COUNCIL ALIGNMENT MUNI 182, Site Preparation, Misc. Removals, Access and LS 100% 25,000.00 25,000.00 MUNI201, Staging MUNI 510, SP MUNI 201 i) Tree Clearing and Grubbing LS 100% 5,000.00 5,000.00 SP ii) Clear and Grub Stumps, Brush Removal, LS 100% 20,000.00 20,000.00 Relocate/Stockpile and Remove Felled Trees MUNI 805 Light Duty Silt Fence m 290.0 12.00 3,480.00 SP MUNI 801 Tree Protection Fencing m 100.0 15.00 1,500.00 SP MUNI 805 Straw Bale Flow Check Dams ea 5.0 270.00 1,350.00 SP SP Layout by Contractor LS 100% 7,500.00 7,500.00 Page185 The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B Item No. Spec No. Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total MUNI 206 Earth Excavation (incl. Topsoil Stripping) and SP Grading i) Trail Alignment m3 2,530.0 55.00 139,150.00 (P) MUNI 1860 Woven Geotextile at Subgrade (Terratrack m2 1,220.0 3.00 3,660.00 SP 200W) MUNI 314 Import Granular'B' Fill t 20.0 45.00 900.00 SP, MOC MUNI 314 Granular'A' in Trail Compacted to 95% t 920.0 45.00 41,400.00 SP, MOC SPMDD (300mm depth) MUNI501 Provisional Item m3 116.0 30.00 3,480.00 Water For Compaction MUNI 407, Precast Catch Basin (C-104 & C-105 c/w ea 4.0 3,500.00 14,000.00 SP, MOC OPSD 400.010) MUNI 421 300mm dia. CSP Culvert m 24.0 500.00 12,000.00 SP MUNI 511 Rip -Rap Rock Protection 150-300mm of t 120.0 85.00 10,200.00 SP 450mm depth at Culvert Inlet/Outlets Rip -Rap Rock Protection 100-200mm of m2 180.0 30.00 5,400.00 300mm depth in Ditch incl. Woven Geotextile base (Terratrack 200W ) MUNI 310, Hot Mix HL-3F Asphalt (65mm Depth) t 160.0 200.00 32,000.00 SP, MOC Concrete Curb and Gutter m 260.0 150.00 39,000.00 MUNI310, Provisional Item LS 100% 5,000.00 5,000.00 SP, Asphalt Cement Price Adjustment Allowance MOC SP Plant Material LS 100% 7,500.00 7,500.00 MUNI802, Topsoil m2 2,180.0 8.00 17,440.00 SP MUNI804, Seed m2 2,180.0 5.00 10,900.00 SP, MOC Page 186 The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 213 Item No. Spec No. Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total 710 Pavement Markings SP i) 10cm width Yellow Traffic Paint m 290.0 4.00 1,160.00 SP Supply and Install Erosion Control Blanket m2 2,180.0 20.00 43,600.00 SP Pond Spillway Erosion Protection Extension m2 270.0 115.00 31,050.00 Total Part'C1' Carried to Summary 481,670.00 Part'E1': Retained Soil System Wall - COUNCIL ALIGNMENT SP Retaining wall system 1860 511 a) TensarTech Retaining Wall System m2 680 750.00 510,000.00 MUNI 1004 Provisional Item: m2 350 7.50 2,625.00 b) Tensar Triax TX160-375 Geo Grid Provisional Item: m2 350 3.48 1,218.00 c) Terrafix 360R Geotextile Provisional Item: t 450 59.00 26,550.00 d) Shotrock Provisional Item: t 200 50.00 10,000.00 e) 25mm to 37mm Clearstone SP Prefabricated Handrail m 240 475.00 114,000.00 MUNI 908 Total Part 'E1' (Carried to Summary) $ 664,393.00 Page 187 The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 213 In accordance with the first paragraph of this Tender, the Contractor hereby offers to complete the work specified for Contract No. CL20XX-XX for the following unit prices. Spec. - The numbers in this column refer to the applicable issue of OPS Specs SP - Refers to Special Provisions (P) - Plan Quantity Payment Item MOC - Municipality of Clarington Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings Item No. Spec No. Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total Part 'A2' Tree Removal 4+430 to 4+720 - ORIGNIAL ALIGNMENT (Tendered separately prior to Trail Tender) SP PART C2: 4+430 to 4+720 LS 100% 24,393.10 24,393.10 Total Part 'A' Carried to Summary 24,393.10 Part'C2' Trail Construction 4+430 to 4+720 - ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT MUNI 182, Site Preparation, Misc. Removals, Access and LS 100% 15,000.00 15,000.00 MUNI201, Staging MUNI 510, SP MUNI 201 i) Tree Clearing and Grubbing LS 100% 5,000.00 5,000.00 SP ii) Clear and Grub Stumps, Brush Removal, LS 100% 10,000.00 10,000.00 Relocate/Stockpile and Remove Felled Trees MUNI 805 Light Duty Silt Fence m 290.0 12.00 3,480.00 SP MUNI 801 Tree Protection Fencing m 200.0 15.00 3,000.00 SP MUNI 805 Straw Bale Flow Check Dams ea 2.0 270.00 540.00 SP SP Layout by Contractor LS 100% 7,500.00 7,500.00 MUNI 206 Earth Excavation (incl. Topsoil Stripping) and SP Grading i) Trail Alignment m3 1,480.0 45.00 66,600.00 (P) MUNI 1860 Woven Geotextile at Subgrade (Terratrack m2 1,220.0 3.00 3,660.00 SP 200W) Page 188 The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B Item No. Spec No. Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total MUNI 314 Granular'A' in Trail Compacted to 95% t 920.0 40.00 36,800.00 SP, MOC SPMDD (300mm depth) MUNI501 Provisional Item m3 116.0 30.00 3,480.00 Water For Compaction Rip -Rap Rock Protection 100-200mm of m2 80.0 30.00 2,400.00 300mm depth in Ditch incl. Woven Geotextile base (Terratrack 200W ) MUNI 310, Hot Mix HL-3F Asphalt (65mm Depth) t 160.0 160.00 25,600.00 SP, MOC MUNI310, Provisional Item LS 100% 5,000.00 5,000.00 SP, Asphalt Cement Price Adjustment Allowance MOC MUNI 511, Armour Stone Retaining Walls (3.5t min.) t 480.0 275.00 132,000.00 SP MUNI 511, G-10 Gabion Stone Filter Stone at Retaining t 190.0 170.00 32,300.00 MUNI 1860 Walls, Incl. Non -woven GeoTextile SP Steel Safety Railing a) Galvanized Steel Safety Railing as per m 90.0 250.00 22,500.00 OPSD 980.101 MOD., incl. Mounting on Base Plates DET-1 3300mm x 1200mm Concrete Pad c/w ea 1.0 2,500.00 2,500.00 Prefabricated Bench and Pressure Treated Pine Wheelchair Barrier SP Plant Material LS 100% 7,500.00 7,500.00 MUNI 802, Topsoil m2 960.0 8.00 7,680.00 SP MUNI804, Seed m2 960.0 5.00 4,800.00 SP, MOC 710 Pavement Markings SP i) 10cm width Yellow Traffic Paint m 290.0 4.00 1,160.00 SP Supply and Install Erosion Control Blanket m2 620.0 20.00 12,400.00 SP Pond Spillway Erosion Protection Extension m2 200.0 115.00 23,000.00 Page 189 The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B Item No. Spec No. Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total Total Part 'C2' Carried to Summary 433,900.00 Part'E2': Retained Soil System Wall- ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT SP Retaining wall system 1860 511 a) TensarTech Retaining Wall System m2 65 750.00 48,750.00 MUNI 1004 Provisional Item: m2 50 15.00 750.00 b) Tensar Triax TV 60-375 Geo Grid Provisional Item: m2 50 6.00 300.00 c) Terrafix 360R Geotextile Provisional Item: t 75 90.00 6,750.00 d) Shotrock Provisional Item: t 75 75.00 5,625.00 e) 25mm to 37mm Clearstone SP Prefabricated Handrail m 30 500.00 15,000.00 MUNI 908 Total Part'E2' (Carried to Summary) $ 77,175.00 Page 190 The Municipality of Clarington - Purchasing Office CL20XX-XX - Farewell Creek Phase 2B Item No. Spec No. Description Unit Qty Unit Price Total SUMMARY Part'A2' Tree Removal 4+430 to 4+720 - ORIGNIAL ALIGNMENT (Tendered separately prior to Trail Tender) $ 24,393.10 Part'C2' Trail Construction 4+430 to 4+720 - ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT $ 433,900.00 Part'E2': Retained Soil System Wall- ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT $ 77,175.00 Total (excluding HST) $ 535,468.10 HST (13% of Total) $ 69,610.85 Total Estimate Amount $ 605,078.95 Page 191 Appendix A: Photo Logs Page192 0-� -j Page 193 Page 194 - �a�;atrfiYyP _ice l.r.:rr .- - �- •hiY4YP .' Ems. �A.�i.a. Page195 Page196 ;.I :�f kit e (, daC `��-?�-ate. :- � �`. i•-�. -IL '�.. 11y:1`,;F� :� I'�' , t':.;•-.a .c- f a�:' - '•ae�''��: '� � ',i:�,."f', .;4 �.' `�� - j� It Ar !• ���rr Z�1 ty •- � �+ :_ -- -�_r i�'z�� i`444' ,,t .���_� _ � _ice. ._ - l -.- '' - a -J ' ,. •y�'� �.� ' �+c aiy -r �, � �.iT� - .t �?L' �+R4Y _ � �4yF- y y �- y�•.�a ti' � - , ■ 1: t �' _ _. -�� � ��••�.i ••' 1 7' � as 41 . v ��..R. �- h x,• . �-- -x �'J ��.- AY•E �. „It s •' 'ir ! � �� � ,. �� r •. `, v. r . 4`:Y. 'r.t .•. �•ff 'r:, iki-.Y ''�,�� ���L'�.ill•��_ - - RJR ,�?�'' 1' 12w � rFj- y�yr •y ]r -���� tee' 1 rCv /�i �i N. mil'. ! {J 4a aka. Sri ~!�� � �� Mi r -4 -=t_. L - .* � '�_d4 �:.- •� _ .=,. - -MIR , rut, VL IL 7; Alt � _ .5� arty :. ._ �.`�.i`$`_ - \. �i. ,r •yr xa - - X � � �;,. al. �, � • - _s,�'�,+�' . �s= i �k's., � '•4 :.� ,Nits• - z. �-� � .. k _ --- - �.- jam' . _ - r�•,p:"r.f: - �!�.. •j - - _ _ '`., iL f — ' _ — - ���+ - , i'!� � � � � - � !`�• •7. ' ..•N _'°ram, h. ._ � ' - � �. - IF - fq� � � ■ I � T { •M � 1 gs J ,� f_"�' � - -. � ' - r. � - � • a '• -• _ _- �A}0 a -'�L?i r f.' Y ws • - �1 .;f 41 WWI Al VjV IA IlV ter_ '.�':. .�r•t � '- } ., c ` -'~�. ,a � - �� .___ - .' w-••�I.-� - .. _... �- ' iR`;- �P �'j 1� fix. .•..'P`s]'.. `.-r ,'-,.`,a-1 �j �=�1-1''�-a�. P� WTI IN , MG, = y� I INx I OF V s J will IF�" �s.' �.'yct.�+ L ••i.. ,,.. :� ,� i.. �.i.y� �' � - . � "�p�' .,. _.'�!'�� - ate. ' ±���__�. 1-r-a.'.- _ -.•_. '�•.. �'�..*..: Sid - � �f� � -•�•". . � ,�. ^:^'" ��',� � :_ter.. .• 'yw+ .ur 1.3� ; 'v�- � ¢. .- ![w. - - :•v- ':•`.�.r�.r-fir �.' _iy. �- -� r.:�';�'"' -.-� �, --• ..- � �Li' - - - OF •�. �- . , •.''� . ♦! .•=_Slur :�:'_ - •.'� - • _ �' 1� .. ., _ . �• r--� rY •.iT ' V_y. - �w._.• - `i N J ram- ��'• - ' - ?a.,�•� J ' ~, '"• NO -M1yi� �.. •rh L �. ' - ...rC •'� •"jam-�'1-� - '-�-_/ � _ ��-• NMY 'IL 071 IL AL 46 p0 �aiv. . - . a�fa r� ...w.y . .A low MEL r3i7 1. �' _ . -r • T " 4y4y4 ' A! K, A- Al INK -4 eo, No .__ _ 'yam ••r v„ r.ti� �. arc'' .� � a; :7�J�i.'•;:�.i._._s� ..Yt �s.:.� - .. ...'�: a . . Zl— IN implqplplplR� 77 ON ! �` f �.,� . Ar,•. is y� .-.. ' :. g•: r -r3i• n v: e AY _ _,�.:s;l J �'1;� y( ; . ��'; �as.�� "�rrS -�'` _ . „�"� ', i `---��� �! r�-� `' '_• �`i 4 r - fir. - _aliT +�,�- •fs'��' .r a� �' ..� --: � - .. lj i be WN Fj INC Joi RorAr 77 y: _ - _ v� 1• _ ..._,fit;. '.4:.'..li:�..� VW NZA ol i ,_. - .,.:•ram—,.� � �.�� ___ � _. s t_,�-w_� �.:!�;� ¢; � '�• :,j��'�j�;' �� Clarington Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: March 8, 2021 Report Number: ESD-001-21 Submitted By: Gord Weir, Director of Emergency Services Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number: File Number: Resolution#: Report Subject: Emergency Services Activity Report — Q4 2020 Recommendation: 1. That Report ESD-001-21 be received for information. Page 203 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report ESD-001-21 Report Overview The Emergency and Fire Services Department is responsible for delivering fire suppression and emergency response, fire prevention and public education programs in accordance with the Fire Protection and Prevention Act (FPPA). This Report provides Council with an overview of the activities associated with the Department's Suppression and Fire Prevention Divisions for Q4 of 2020. 1. Fire Suppression and Emergency Response 1.1 Fire suppression services are delivered in both an offensive and defensive mode, including search and rescue operations, forcible entry, ventilation, protecting exposures, salvage and overhaul as appropriate. Emergency pre -hospital care is provided through medical acts such as defibrillation, standard first aid and cardio pulmonary resuscitation. 1.2 Fire Suppression staff responded to 500 calls in the fourth quarter of 2020. Of the 500 incidents, 22 were property fires with an estimated dollar loss of $3,084,800. 1.3 The following is a summary of emergency incidents by response type (see Attachment 1 for description): Response Type Q4 2019 Q4 2020 % Change % of Total 2020 Property Fires/Explosions 18 22 +22.22% 4.4% Outdoor - No Loss Fires & Burning - Controlled 17 38 +123.53% 7.6% CO False Calls 45 36 -20% 7.2% False Fire Calls 86 77 -10.47% 15.4% *Medical/Resuscitator Calls 608 92 -84.87% 18.4% Other Response 121 69 -42.98% 13.8% Overpressure Rupture/Explosion (No Fire 0 0 0% 0% Pre Fire Conditions/No Fire 22 18 -18.18% 3.6% Public Hazard 39 47 +20.51 % 9.4% Rescue 124 101 -18.55% 20.2% *See Section 3 Page 204 Municipality of Clarington Report ESD-001-21 1.4 Call Volume by Geographical Area (Generated by first vehicle dispatched according to geography) Page 3 Geographical Area Call Volume Call Volume % Bowmanville and surrounding area 237 47.4% Newcastle and surrounding area 87 17.4% Orono and surrounding area 38 7.6% Courtice and surrounding area 109 21.8% Enniskillen and surrounding area 29 5 8% 1.5 Annual Total for Comparison at a Glance Event Type 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Call Volume 3,736 3,675 3,929 4,268 2,628 Civilian Injuries 4 1 1 7 2 Firefighter Injuries 0 0 0 1 0 Fatalities 0 0 0 0 0 Dollar Loss $6,148,757 $4,244,699 $2,738,750 $3,317,011 $12,721,370 2. Response Times 2.1 Fire Suppression staff responded to 22 property fires, 7 of which were for detached dwellings. Below is a summary of the average response times for structural firefighting in Clarington's rural and urban areas for Q4 2020. See Attachment 2 for a map of the 7 calls. Rural Structural Fires — 4 incidents Response Objective per NFPA 1720 Time Average Turnout Time 1:20 (80 sec) 1.41 (first responding truck en route) min. Average Dispatch to On Scene Min. 10.46 min. (first truck on scene) Average Total Personnel On Scene 16 Page 205 Municipality of Clarington Report ESD-001-21 Urban Structural Fires — 3 incidents Page 4 Response Objective per NFPA 1720 Average Time Average Turnout Time 1:20 (80 sec) 1.15 min. (first responding truck en route) Average Dispatch to On Scene Min. 5.06 min. (first truck on scene) Average Total Personnel On Scene 14 3. Medical/Resuscitator Calls 3.1 The following chart lists the medical call volume by geographical area. Emergency Request Call Volume Call o Volume /o % of Q4 Calls Bowmanville and surrounding area 53 57.61 % 10.6% Newcastle and surrounding area 11 11.96% 2.2% Orono and surrounding area 7 7.61 % 1.4% Courtice and surrounding area 19 20.65% 3.8% Enniskillen and surrounding area 2 2.17% 0.4% 3.2 The following chart lists the total medical calls to long-term care (LTC) and medical facilities. Total % of LTC / Medical Facility Address Medical Medical Calls Calls Glen Hill Marnwood 26 Elgin St., 1 1.09% Bowmanville Seasons Clarington Retirement Home 65 Clarington Blvd., 2 2 17% Bowmanville Glen Hill Strathaven 264 King St. E., 0 0% Bowmanville Bowmanville Creek Retirement 105 Queen Street, 0 0% Community Bowmanville Page 206 Municipality of Clarington Report ESD-001-21 Page 5 Total % of LTC / Medical Facility Address Medical Medical Calls Calls Fosterbrooke Long Term Care 330 King Ave. West, 0 0% Newcastle WhiteCliffe Terrace Retirement 1460 Highway 2, 1 1.09% Residence Courtice Bowmanville Clinic 222 King St. E., 0 o 0/o Bowmanville Walmart Clinic 2320 Highway 2, 0 0% Bowmanville Courtice Health Centre 1450 Highway 2, 0 0% Courtice Newcastle Urgent Care Clinic 50 Mill St. N., 0 0% Newcastle 3.3 0.8% of Q4 calls were for LTC/medical facilities. Crews arrived on scene prior to EMS 75% of the time, at an average of 3.03 minutes. The average time on scene was 18.46 minutes. Crews provided services such as checked patient's vitals, assisted EMS, and loading patient on stretcher. 4. Fire Prevention Division 4.1 Fire Prevention staff continue to perform a variety of functions in accordance with the FPPA and policies of the Department focusing on; creating a fire safe community. These functions are implemented through public education programs and fire inspections. The following is a summary of inspection services performed during the fourth quarter. Fire Prevention Activity — Q4 Volume Complaint Inspections 26 Requested Inspections 51 Self -initiated Inspections 64 Retrofit Inspections 0 Burn Permits 40 Fire Safety Plans Reviews 30 General Plans Reviews 41 Site Visits 13 Page 207 Municipality of Clarington Report ESD-001-21 Fire Prevention Activity — Q4 Volume Fire Investigations 0 FPPA Part 3 Charges Laid 0 FPPA Part 1 Charges Laid 0 Page 6 4.2 Due to COVID-19 and the restrictions issued by the Chief Medical Officer, staff did not provide or attend public education activities during the fourth quarter of 2020. Staff were able to conduct fire drills at six vulnerable occupancies in Clarington. 5. Concurrence Not Applicable. 6. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that this Report be received for information. Staff Contact: Gord Weir, Director of Emergency & Fire Services, 905-623-5126 ext. 2802 or gweir@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Response Type Description Attachment 2 — Fire Calls Q4 2020 There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. Page 208 Attachment 1 to Report ESD-001-21 Response Type Description Property Fires / Explosions: Instance or destructive and uncontrolled burning involving structures, vehicles and open area fires, including explosion of combustible solids, liquids or gasses which may or may not have resulted in a dollar loss. Outdoor, No Loss Fires: Uncontrolled fires, outdoors, that did not result in a loss, injury or fatality and is not suspected to be caused by arson, vandalism or children playing. Burning Controlled: Complaint call related to outdoor controlled burning, authorized or unauthorized. Fire Department did not take suppression action. CO (carbon monoxide) False Calls: A call where it is determined that the detection equipment malfunctioned or there was a perceived emergency - no CO present. False Fire Calls: Alarm activation or fire call that when investigated, is determined to be as a result of equipment failure, malicious/prank, perceived emergency, accidental activation of alarm by a person. Medical/Resuscitator Call: Includes a response to a patient(s) suffering from asphyxia, respiratory condition, convulsions, epileptic, diabetic seizure, electric shock, traumatic shock, heart attack, stroke, drug related, cuts, abrasions, fractures, burns, person fainted, nausea and pre -hospital care such as administering oxygen, CPR, defibrillation, or first aid. Other Response: Assistance to other Fire Departments, calls cancelled on route, non -fire incidents where an illegal grow operation or drug operation was discovered. Overpressure Rupture/Explosion (No Fire): Overpressure rupture/explosion with no fire, e.g. steam boilers, hot water, bombs, dynamite and gas pipe. Pre Fire Conditions/No Fire: Incidents with no fire that involve heat or potential pre fire conditions, e.g. pot on stove, cooking - smoke or steam, lightening and fireworks. Public Hazard: Includes a response for spills and leaks of a hazardous product such as natural gas, propane, refrigerant, miscellaneous/unknown, gasoline or fuel, toxic chemical, radio -active material, power lines down or arcing, bomb, explosive removal standby, CO (carbon monoxide) or other public hazard. Rescue: A call for a person in danger due to their proximity to the occurrence and who is unable to self -evacuate and is assisted by Fire Department personnel, e.g. vehicle accident, building collapse, commercial/industrial accident, home/residential accident, persons trapped in elevator, water rescue or water/ice rescue. Page 209 Clarington Emergency Services - Calls Q4 Map 407 U Hampton 407 Q,'p;�11'1i 2 �1114 11418 418 3 401 u U 4 407 115 Location - Time Until Unit on Scene 1 - 4.28 2 - 4.31 3 - 6.19 4 - 9.11 5 - 9.30 6 - 10.18 7 - 14.06 Clarington Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: March 8, 2021 Report Number: LGS-012-21 Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Director of Legislative Services Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number: File Number: L1000-47 Resolution#: C-142-19 Report Subject: Regulation of On -Farm Special Events Recommendations: 1. That Report LGS-012-21 be received for information; and 2. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-012-21 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page 211 Municipality of Clarington Report LGS-012-21 Report Overview Page 2 Extensive public consultation has occurred on the issue of on -farm special events. After considerable debate, several possible approaches to regulation have emerged. The primary method of regulation is through the zoning by-law and site plan approval process. Supplementary methods, including additional regulatory/licensing by-laws or "good neighbour agreements" may be used if Council has concerns that zoning and site plan alone are insufficient to address potential impacts. By-laws of general application tend to obscure the unique features of each individual farm property, and each situation may benefit from a property -specific approach. There are presently no active applications for on -farm special events. For these reasons it may be advisable for Council to await a concrete set of facts associated with a specific property before venturing further into a regulatory response. 1. Introduction 1.1 The subject of the municipal regulation of on -farm special events, specifically on -farm wedding events, within Clarington has become very convoluted. What started out as an application by an individual farm owner for a zoning by-law amendment to permit weddings and other special events has broadened into a much wider discussion involving farm owners, business owners, the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington, and residents from across the rural areas of Clarington. 1.2 At the risk of oversimplification, at the core of the problem is two competing interests: the interests of some farm owners that would like to diversify their farm operations to include special events such as weddings, versus the interests of some of the neighbouring residents in the rural area who oppose these events on the grounds that they will be a source of disturbance that they should not be forced to tolerate. 2. Background Re -zoning Application for 3582 Morgans Road 2.1 Situated at 3582 Morgans Road is a 40-acre farm, known as Graham Creek Farm, that produces grass-fed beef, Iamb, and goat meat. In 2015, the owners of Graham Creek Farm applied to the Municipality for a zoning by-law amendment to permit agri-tourism special events (e.g. weddings) as an on -farm diversified use. 2.2 In January of 2017, Clarington Council refused the Graham Creek Farm application, despite that the Director of Planning at the time had made a recommendation for approval. 2.3 The owners of Graham Creek Farm appealed Council's refusal to the LPAT. The only parties to the appeal were the owners of Graham Creek Farm and the Municipality. Several of the residents of Morgans Road who were in opposition to the application attended the hearing and some of them provided the tribunal with participant Page 212 Municipality of Clarington Report LGS-012-21 Page 3 statements. The Region of Durham did not appear at the hearing but had indicated to staff that it had no objection to the proposed special event use. Likewise, the Provincial agencies declined to take a position on the application. 2.4 In its decision, the LPAT affirmed that weddings and other special events should be permitted as an on -farm diversified use, however it declined to approve the specific zoning by-law amendment for 3582 Morgans Road. In the opinion of the LPAT, the proposed by-law amendment was not acceptable because of its failure to adequately protect the integrity of the principal farm use. Specifically, the tribunal member expressed concern that the proposed by-law failed to adequately regulate with respect to seasonality, maximum number of permitted guests, and maximum frequency of events. 2.5 Included in the decision is the following guidance for any future attempts to regulate on - farm special events: "... an applicant or a municipality might benefit from approaching a matter such as this with a chart that identifies the manner in which an event venue on a farm is to be collectively defined, regulated and scoped by: 1) provisions in a zoning by-law; 2) provisions in a typical site plan agreement and/or other agreement that is mutually negotiated, enforceable and which extends beyond the items in a typical site plan agreement; and 3) provisions in existing or proposed general municipal by-laws which deal with such issues as noise, licensing, hours of operation, etc." 2.6 Rather than provide a final determination of the issues, the LPAT decision sent the parties "back to the drawing board" to work out a solution that would permit the use of farms for special events in a manner that would represent a better balance of priorities in the rural area. Although there has been some indication that the owners of Graham Creek Farm may want to resubmit their application to permit on -farm special events, no further application has yet been received. 2.7 Council and staff continued to wrestle with the issue of on -farm special events for several months following the release of the LPAT decision. These discussions culminated in Council Resolution #C-142-19, which directed staff to work in consultation with all stakeholders and to report back to Council with proposals to regulate on -farm special events. Page 213 Municipality of Clarington Report LGS-012-21 Stakeholder Consultation Page 4 2.8 Staff in the Planning and Development Services Department have had ongoing discussions with representatives from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs ("OMAFRA") to better understand Provincial policy with respect to on -farm special events. 2.9 Based on the guidance found in the LPAT decision and the subsequent discussions with Council, the former Municipal Clerk collaborated with the Municipal Solicitor and staff from the Planning and Development Services Department to identify the constituent elements of a regulatory scheme for on -farm special events. Those components included a zoning by-law amendment, site plan approval, existing regulatory by-laws (e.g. the Noise By-law 2007-071), and the possibility of a by-law exclusively devoted to the regulation of on -farm special events. 2.10 A public open house was convened at the Newcastle library on February 19, 2020 to present various aspects of regulation, and to seek public input. Prior to the meeting, a draft regulatory by-law was circulated. The meeting began with presentations from staff, and the key provisions of the draft regulatory by-law were also discussed. Following this introduction by staff, the stakeholders in attendance were given the opportunity to ask questions and to make comments. Participants were also encouraged to submit their written comments to staff. 2.11 Contemporaneously with the public open house, an online feedback module was implemented on the Clarington website to seek additional input from the public. 2.12 In addition to the verbal comments and input provided at the open house, 26 written comments were received. Attachment 1 to this Report is an anonymized list of the written comments received from the public. 2.13 A review of the written submissions reinforces the perception that opinions about on - farm special events are polarized. One faction of stakeholders emphasizes farm diversification, farmer livelihood, farm innovation, economic development, and the liberty to use and enjoy their property. For this group, fewer regulations means easier access to the economic potential of on -farm special events. Another faction emphasizes the potential for nuisance, the need to protect agricultural production, enforcement challenges, and fears about depreciating property values. This group would prefer further limits and regulations associated with on -farm special events. If individuals from these factions agree about one thing, it is the universal dissatisfaction with the draft regulatory by-law that was presented at the open house. 2.14 Following the open house, the topic was presented to the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington at their March 12, 2020 meeting. A sub -committee was then created to consider the concerns that had been raised by the public. Page 214 Municipality of Clarington Report LGS-012-21 Page 5 2.15 The sub -committee was comprised of members of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, additional local farmers, and representation from CBOT and the Regional Economic Development office. The sub -committee reviewed the draft regulatory by-law together with the comments from the public and made several valuable recommendations for a proposed regulatory scheme. 2.16 Several meetings were convened with the sub -committee to present proposals and to discuss revisions to the by-law. Ultimately, two alternative by-laws were prepared; one by-law that would require farm owners to obtain a licence to operate on -farm special events, and another by-law that regulates on -farm special events but that does not include a licensing component. These two alternative drafts are included with this report as Attachment 2 and Attachment 3, respectively. 2.17 Both draft by-laws attached to this report would create additional regulations for on -farm special events, specifically with respect to maximum attendance, frequency of events, and hours of operation. The licensing version of the by-law imposes the additional requirement to obtain a business license from the Municipality, which would represent an additional annual cost to farmers, and which has the potential to be revoked for non- compliance with its conditions. Regulation in Other Municipalities 2.18 In the preparation of this report, staff also performed an environmental scan of other Ontario municipalities to determine whether there are any other methods in use to regulate on -farm special events. Of the municipalities surveyed, only Norfolk County and Concord (part of the City of Vaughan) were found to have regulations specific to on - farm special events, and in both instances these regulations were implemented as part of the local zoning by-laws. Excerpts from the zoning by-laws for these two municipalities are provided below: Norfolk County Zoning By-law 1-Z-2014 14.471 In addition to the uses permitted in the A Zone, the follow uses shall be permitted, e) wedding ceremonies to a maximum of one hundred (100) people. Concord (City of Section 46.2 Permitted Uses, Agricultural Commercial Vaughan) (AGC) Zone 1) AGC1 the following uses are permitted uses in the AGC1 Zone variation..... f) Assembly hall Page 215 Municipality of Clarington Report LGS-012-21 Page 6 2.19 Additionally, in Grey County, it is simply acknowledged that events and weddings qualify as permitted on -farm diversified uses, with no special by-law provisions in effect to regulate on -farm special events. 2.20 At some point the assertion was made that a by-law had been enacted in the Township of Wilmot to regulate on -farm special events, however this could not be substantiated. 3. Analysis 3.1 The starting point for discussion about on -farm special events is the need to obtain a zoning by-law amendment. On -farm special events are currently only permitted in Clarington through an exception to the zoning by-law that requires an application for a zoning by-law amendment. As with all zoning by-law amendments, the application is a public process and is subject to Council approval, and appeal rights. 3.2 Presently, there are a total of two agriculturally zoned properties in Clarington that have obtained the required zoning approval to permit on -farm special events. Both properties are situated in Ward 4. 3.3 There are currently no active applications for a zoning by-law amendment to permit on - farm special events. 3.4 In addition to a zoning by-law amendment, any buildings, parking areas, or other development in conjunction with on -farm special events would be subject to site plan approval. 3.5 Applications for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval would be evaluated with reference to the OMAFRA Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas. 3.6 The required zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval together represent the existing regulatory framework in which to evaluate requests by farmers to use their properties as a venue for on -farm special events. 3.7 It is only if Council determines that zoning and site plan regulations are not adequate to address potential impacts that there would be a potential need for additional municipal regulation. For example, if Council was not satisfied that the seasonality of events, maximum number of events, hours of operation, maximum number of event attendees, or noise emanating from on -farm special events were sufficiently regulated by zoning and site plan requirements, or other methods proposed by an applicant, this might raise the prospect of additional regulation. Page 216 Municipality of Clarington Report LGS-012-21 Page 7 3.8 Whether, in fact, such impacts would be actualized is an open question. The almost total absence of by-law complaints in connection with the two farm properties where on - farm special events are already permitted suggests that the impacts of these events are manageable. However, these two locations may not reflect conditions elsewhere in the Municipality. 3.9 Agricultural properties are highly variable in terms of size, topography, orientation, means of access, proximity to neighbours and a variety of other features. This disparity in features may result in a disparity of the impacts experienced at each farm location. For this reason, it is extremely difficult to generalize about the impacts that would be associated with on -farm special events. 3.10 This overgeneralization represents a disadvantage associated with the proposed by- laws attached to this report. For this reason, Council may want to dispense with the notion of additional by-laws in favour of a more site -specific approach to regulation. Alternatively, Council may simply wish to defer consideration of additional by-laws at this time. Council retains the discretion to revisit the need to enact additional regulations at any point in time when it becomes evident that impacts associated with all on -farm special events require such regulation. 3.11 An additional regulatory option available to Council is the temporary use provisions under section 39 of the Planning Act. These provisions authorize Council to impose a time limit of up to three years on a zoning by-law amendment. The legislation also provides that the time limit can be extended by Council for any number of further periods of up to three years. The inclusion of a temporary use provision in a zoning by- law amendment would allow Council to impose a probationary period so that impacts can be reviewed before a final decision is made about whether to permit on -farm special events at the property location in question. While this represents a possible avenue of compromise, the cost to applicants of this process could represent a barrier, and farmers may be reluctant to invest in improvements to their farms if they face uncertainty about whether their approvals for on -farm special events will become permanent. For these and other reasons, the Director of Planning and Development Services does not tend to favour temporary use provisions as an option for on -farm special events. 3.12 Another approach that seems to have been used to some positive effect in another Canadian jurisdiction is to require farmers to enter into a "good neighbour agreement" with the Municipality in relation to their on -farm special events. Under such an agreement, the farmer would make certain representations to the Municipality about how it will conduct its on -farm special events, and what process the farmer would agree to submit to in the event of a dispute with neighbours concerning noise or other impacts. While a good neighbour agreement is not a legally enforceable contract, it nevertheless could serve as a useful framework to establish mutual expectations and to avoid or effectively manage any conflict, should it arise. Page 217 Municipality of Clarington Report LGS-012-21 4. Concurrence Page 8 This report has been reviewed by the Director of Planning and Development Services who concurs with the recommendation. 5. Conclusion The regulation of on -farm special events has been a source for controversy in Clarington. Municipal approval of a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval are strict prerequisites to engaging in these events. Supplemental regulatory by-laws are another possible approach, however none of the interested parties that were consulted could agree on acceptable contents for such a by-law. Council can choose to await a property -specific application before making any further determinations. Staff Contact: Robert Maciver, Director of Legislative Services/Municipal Solicitor, 905-623- 3379 ext. 2013 or rmaciver@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Summary of Written Submissions Attachment 2 — Draft By-law — Business Licensing Attachment 3 — Draft By-law — Regulatory Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from the Legislative Services Department. Page 218 Attachment 1 to Report LGS-012-21 Public Consultation - Summary of Written Submissions Type of Concern Specific Comments Concerns Suggestions Time Restriction Resident it concerned at the Reconsider the proposal. 11 pm time restriction. Zoning The farms existed before Resident believes it is Stop selling farm lands to subdivisions, resident it worried discrimination and does not developers. the town is trying to change benefit from the comments. them. Zoning There is a need for more barn Not sure Resident believes it is a great weddings and more farmers. idea to let farmers farm and deal Farmers have the space and with their own property. Everyone could provide an easy solution. looks forward to farm events and the community thrives from thriving farmers. Zoning Allow the farmers more room to None Allow any agricultural zoned area have events with less barriers who farm at any capacity the and more freedom. ability to make money. Don't make it hard for them. Regulations/Zoning There should be more None Please allow farmers to utilize opportunity for people to their space, generate income and generate income while creating create a better community. experiences for others. Perhaps it can be agreed upon with direct neighbours of a short distance. If there are more specific areas, instead of red -tape, set limits. These limits may include how many people are allowed or how many events in a week/month. Farmers are important to the community. Don't make them jump hoops and spend money to be able to hold an event. Let's find solutions. Page 219 Attachment 1 to Report LGS-012-21 Type of Concern Specific Comments Concerns Suggestions Noise, Enforcement -When dealing with rural -The lack of by-law enforcement -Permits have been suggested and Zoning event/wedding businesses, is a problem. Were told that as means of control and minimum separation distances enforcement of these types of enforcement. This should be need to be established. MDS events would be very difficult. If looked at more closely. guidelines are necessary to the Municipality approves these protect neighbouring households businesses, it then must provide -Regulations and standards from undesirable or unwanted actual enforcement. The should be designed to protect noise. neighbouring households must agriculture, and rural have confidence that the Town neighbourhoods. -Studies in Europe show that has and will use various means in commercial agritourism can place to deal effectively with any -have planning staff and Council influence agricultural problems that may arise. use and be assisted by Ag. marginalization through the Advisory Group and/or other non - changing of the farmer into a -Noise is just one issue of many. invested individuals/groups to businessman. Therefore it is thoroughly investigate primary necessary that all stakeholders agricultural activity basis claims are included and involved at for each application. every level of any commercial On -Farm Special Event. -Set FIRM rules. Page 220 Attachment 1 to Report LGS-012-21 Type of Concern Specific Comments Concerns Suggestions Enforcement -Resident agrees that the 10am -A lot of concerns are around -There needs to be some and 1 lam times are acceptable, enforcement. If the Municipality consideration as to distance from however would like to know if issues a permit, they are to be neighbouring homes in relation to that includes set up/take down. If responsible for ensuring that the the events. not, the neighbours will have bylaws are being followed. A traffic concerns. permitting scheme should be -No farm should be created for used rather than a zoning change. the purpose of special events -Resident also has questions about the frequency of events. -Trespassing - Neighbours would -There was a resolution (#C-142- Whether it is all year or only on not be able to issue concerns 19) passed were staff were to specific months. about number of attendees work in consultation with all without trespassing. stakeholders - this should be -Resident also agrees that 150 done. attendees is a very fair number -Bylaw is not available on the to work with. weekend to call if they are - For future meetings it should be needed. One way to handle this is held at the Diane Hamre -OMB decision PL170178 - to have the operator be required complex, as the microphone resident believes that staff to have personal security would be a great addition. should go through this company at their expense. information as it contains - All of the resources from excellent information and -Clarington has a record of not previous hearings, such as OMB, direction. following through with enforcing Ag. Committee and OMFRA penalties when warranted. There should be used. -This is more than a noise by-law was no mention of fines for and should be treated as such. infractions, but there was some verbal indication that they may not -Fireworks should be not be used. allowed. Zoning It is very difficult to make a living There should not be too many The resident wants to move on agricultural land. Innovative regulations. forward with the proposal. activity should definitely be permitted. Page 221 Attachment 1 to Report LGS-012-21 Type of Concern Specific Comments Concerns Suggestions Enforcement -Events should not be allowed in -Ensure the property to be residential rural neighbourboods. considered for event is actually an agricultural operation as the - Neighbours should not be the primary use. ones to ensure compliance with the noise restrictions or other issues. Noise Resident is very concerned with There is no consequence for not There aren't any benefits to the the evening parties. Those following the 11 pm limit. taxpayers for this. The value of speaking were very passionate properties will be reduced when about making it happen, but they go to sell, but MPAC won't there was nothing said about adjust the value for taxes. There working with their neighbours. needs to be accountability. There was no concern about the noise restrictions. Regulations -The notification to neighbouring -The notification to neighbouring properties should be expanded properties should be expanded from 300m to 1 km from 300m to 1 km -There should be a maximum of -There should be a maximum of 300m setback from the event to 300m setback from the event to neighbouring properties neighbouring properties -The maximum attendees should -The maximum attendees should be increased from 150 to 500 be increased from 150 to 500 -The noise should be contained -The noise should be contained to to the property the property -Open houses/u-pick that host -Open houses/u-pick that host school trips should be exempt. school trips should be exempt. Page 222 Attachment 1 to Report LGS-012-21 Type of Concern Specific Comments Concerns Suggestions Zoning It is a large commitment for 2 The resident is concerned that the The resident would suggest that farms with approved special proposed bylaw set up potentially the bylaws address the zoning events. The resident also has conflicts with regulations between regulations and site plan difficulty with the proposed zoning, site plans and the agreements. regulations where those 2 farms proposed bylaws. have gone through extensive design and approval to establish appropriate hours of operation, frequency of events and numbers of attendees. Resident believes it would make sense to reference the zone regulations and site plan agreements. 2% maximum is a barrier for Overall to restrictive. Too hard Less restrictive and equal smaller farms, 150 people is too and long of a process for new opportunity for both small and limiting, more flexibility with noise businesses to get started. large farms. curfews. People will see a business opportunity and buy up prime farm land for events instead of for normal farm practices. Regulations The resident states that there are The resident has concerns with Resident wants Clarington to start already bylaws and systems in the 'extra layer' being added to changing its focus to encouraging place to enforce, and that this potential business opportunities. business opportunities. proposal only serves to hinder people from business Concerns over how the opportunities. Municipality came up with the number of attendees or times. There are already events with earlier and later times. Are they to change that? Regulations What methodology was used to Excessive Regulations. Wants the Wants approval at the site plan determine hours of operation, background information used to approval process with guidelines frequency, numbers, etc? Wants arrive at support the proposals. to assist staff through the definition of Special Event. Wants rules to apply for all rural application and approval process. and not just farms. No grandfathering of current sites. Nnes arqjoo excessive. Qyv «� Attachment 1 to Report LGS-012-21 Type of Concern Specific Comments Concerns Suggestions Enforcement Resident is very glad that the Resident does not believe that Resident hopes that staff involved venue will be limited to 150 these regulations could be with the decision making of the guests and only one event per enforced. Bloomfield currently and special events read the PPS 2014 weekend. This will still allow responsibly hired security to and understand that Clarington venues to host events for 30 ensure guests vacate the property must make decisions "consistent weekends from April to October. at a reasonable time and protects with the intent of the PPS". well being of guests and Resident is also pleased to note community. But even the security It is encouraging to note that the that the 11 am curfew is in company may have difficulties proposed by-laws are reflecting concordance with the Municipal enforcing. Perhaps it could be the guidelines that dictate special Bylaw. For those wanting a rural suggested that the site events must be spatially and experience, the 11 pm curfew is assessment/planning piece temporary to a farm operation. reflective of the landscape. include security. Zoning Resident believes that instead of Resident thinks that people in having to apply for permission, Clarington are looking to host that the zoning for agri-tourism more on -farm events. There should be in allowance for agri should be more allowances in zoned properties. general. Not just with special event permissions. Enforcement Resident questions why a zoning Concern with who was notified, Resident wants violators to be change was presented when number of people were reportedly held responsible and the changes changes could have been not consulted. No minimum fine enforceable. regulated through licensing. presented and concern there will be a reluctance to charge violators. Zoning Bloom Field is not interested in rezoning Zoning/Enforcement Concern with how the Concern with limited enforcement On -site sound tests. Municipality handles noise to handle noise related issues and Consultations with other complaints and the lack of the effects events will have on Municipalities who have gone enforcement. Concerned with the existing rural communities through similar experiences. proposed zoning change thinks that the events should be applying for permit instead. Time Restriction 11:00 PM - too early. Number of people should be increased to at least 180 rage «<+ Attachment 1 to Report LGS-012-21 Type of Concern Specific Comments Concerns Suggestions Enforcement Concern with heavy fines that Work with farmers as partners. could be imposed. Resident would like to build relationships and not feel attacked by Municipality Enforcement Concern with 11:OOPM shut down time. Zoning Lack of knowledge by the The people creating this bylaw Look into examples of how other Municipality understanding don't understand the agriculture successful businesses are agriculture and agricultural industry. Timeline is too tight and growing such as Springdale special events. Municipality doesn't allow for thoughtful Farm, Downey's Farm, unable to identify the difference conversations. Chudleigh's Farm, Brooks Farm, between primary, secondary, and Saunders Farm. and diversified agricultural uses. Definition of on -farm event is too vague, concerns it may not follow provincial guidelines, number of people permitted was not well researched, Zoning Inconsistencies between what The proposed changes would limit Resident would like this proposed the Municipality is doing and the the opportunities for economic bylaw to be rejected. goal of the Region of Durham. success. Why limit the number of The regulations imposed are people when the current special potentially limiting agritourism event bylaw is for 500+ people. opportunities. Limitations on time should be reconsidered. Page 225 Attachment 2 to Report LGS-012-21 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 2020-XXX Being a by-law to license On -Farm Special Events WHEREAS subsection 11(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, authorizes the Municipality to pass by-laws respecting the health, safety and well-being of persons; WHEREAS under Subsection 8(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, a by-law respecting a matter may (a) regulate or prohibit the matter; (b) require persons to do things respecting the matter; and (c) provide for a system of licences respecting the matter; WHEREAS under Sections 150 and 151 of the Municipal Act, 2001, a municipality may provide for a system of licences with respect to any business wholly or partly carried on within the municipality, including the sale or hire of goods or services on an intermittent or or one-time basis; and AND WHEREAS subsection 128(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, provides that a local municipality may prohibit and regulate with respect to public nuisances, including matters that, in the opinion of council, are or could become or cause public nuisances; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington hereby enacts as follows: PART 1 - INTERPRETATION Definitions 1.1 In this By-law, "Applicant" means a person seeking a licence pursuant to this By-law; "Enforcement Officer" means a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer whose duties include the enforcement of this By-law; "Licence" means a licence issued pursuant to this By-law; "Licensee" means a person to whom a Licence has been issued in accordance with this By-law; "Municipal Clerk" means Clerk of the Municipality or a designate; "Municipality" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington or the geographic area of Clarington, as the context requires; Page 226 Attachment 2 to Report LGS-012-21 "On -Farm Special Event" means a social gathering outside of normal farm practices on lands zoned to permit special events as a use that is secondary to the agricultural farming operations; "Owner" means the registered or beneficial owner of farm property; "Person" means an individual or a corporation, and "Persons" has a corresponding meaning; and "Zoning By-law" means a by-law passed by the Municipality pursuant to section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 and includes Zoning By-law 84-63 and Oak Ridges Moraine Zoning By-law 2005-109, or their successors. References 1.2 In this By-law, reference to any Act or by-law is reference to that Act or by-law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time. 1.3 Unless otherwise specified, references in this By-law to Parts and sections are references to Parts and sections in this By-law. Word Usage 1.4 This By-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context requires. 1.5 In this By-law, a grammatical variation of a word or expression defined has a corresponding meaning. Application 1.6 This By-law applies to all On -Farm Special Events in the Municipality unless otherwise specified. PART 2 — PROHIBITIONS Operation 2.1 No person shall conduct an On -Farm Special Event without a Licence 2.2 The Owner or designate must be on scene during the On -Farm Special Event. 2.3 No Person shall contravene any condition of site plan approval, or any provision within a site plan agreement made pursuant to section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, that is applicable to land that is subject to this By-law. 2.4 No Owner shall permit any activity on their property within the Municipality that is prohibited by this By-law. Page 227 Attachment 2 to Report LGS-012-21 2.5 Nothing in this By-law exempts an Owner of a farm property from any requirement in any Zoning By-law, or in any way changes the land uses permitted for a farm property pursuant to any Zoning By-law. Hours of Operation / Seasonality 2.6 No person shall conduct an On -Farm Special Event, a. between the hours of 11:00 PM and 10:00 AM; or b. on a date outside the range of May 1 to October 31. Frequency 2.7 No Person shall host more than one On -Farm Special Event on the same property within the Municipality in any consecutive three-day interval. 2.8 No Person shall host more than two On -Farm Special Events within the Municipality on the same property in any consecutive seven-day interval. Attendance 2.9 Maximum attendance at an On -Farm Special Event shall be the lesser of the capacity determined through the approved Site Plan Agreement, or 300 people. 2.10 No person conducting an On -Farm Special Event shall permit more than the maximum number of attendees as stated in the On -Farm Special Event Licence to attend the event, including persons participating in or working at the event. PART 3 — LICENSING Applications 3.1 Every application for a Licence shall be completed and submitted on forms prescribed by the Municipal Clerk. 3.2 Every application for a Licence shall include, (a) An annual licensing fee of $500.00; (b) The address of the property proposed to be used for On -Farm Special Events; (c) written proof, satisfactory to the Municipal Clerk, that the Applicant is the Owner; (d) A valid farm corporation number for the property; Page 228 Attachment 2 to Report LGS-012-21 (e) Confirmation of a Municipally approved site plan; and (f) Proof of commercial general liability insurance acceptable to the Director of Finance Services and subject to limits of not less than 2 million dollars inclusive per occurrence for bodily injury, death and damage to property including loss of use thereof, for the duration of the special event. 3.3 Every Licence shall be posted in a conspicuous location on the premises of the On -Farm Special Event. 3.4 A Licensee shall comply with all conditions of a Licence. Review 3.5 The Municipal Clerk is authorized to receive and consider all applications. 3.6 The Municipal Clerk is authorized to issue or refuse to issue any Licence, either with or without conditions. 3.7 As a condition of a Licence, the Municipal Clerk may require that a Licensee enter into an agreement to limit or mitigate the impacts to the occupants of neighbouring properties. 3.8 In addition to any other condition or requirement of this By-law, every Licence issued shall be subject to the condition that compliance with all applicable Federal, Provincial and Municipal laws, by-laws, rules, regulations, orders, approvals, permits, standards, and all other governmental requirements is required. Refusal 3.9 The Municipal Clerk shall refuse to issue or renew a Licence if, (a) the Applicant is not the Owner of the subject property; (b) the Applicant is not at least 18 years of age; (c) the application is incomplete; (d) the prescribed Licence fee has not been paid; (e) the Applicant submits false, mistaken, incorrect or misleading information in support of the application; (f) an Enforcement Officer, by way of inspection, has determined that the property is not in compliance with the approved Site Plan Agreement; or (g) There is reason to believe that the carrying on of the On -Farm Special Event(s) at the property would contravene any applicable condition, rule, or law. Page 229 Attachment 2 to Report LGS-012-21 General 3.10 Licences are not transferrable. 3.11 The issuance of a License does not represent a commitment by the Municipality or the Municipal Clerk to issue a Licence in a subsequent year. Term 3.12 Licences are valid from the date of issuance and expire on November 1 in the calendar year in which they are issued, unless revoked or suspended at an earlier date. PART 4 — MANAGEMENT AND RECORDS 4.1 Every Licensee shall retain records of any On -Farm Event activity for the period of six months following the end of the term of the Licence. PART 5 — ENFORCEMENT 5.1 Where any Person contravenes any provision of this By-law, an Enforcement Officer may direct such Person to comply with this By-law. Every Person so directed shall comply with such direction without delay. Powers of Entry r 5.2 An Enforcement Officer, whether alone or accompanied by an individual possessing special or expert knowledge or skills, may enter on land at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the following are being complied with: (a) this By-law; (b) a direction or order of the Municipality made under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 or this By-law; or (c) an order made under section 431 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. 5.3 For the purposes of an inspection under this By-law, an Enforcement Officer may: (a) require the production for inspection of documents or things relevant to the inspection; Page 230 Attachment 2 to Report LGS-012-21 (b) inspect and remove documents or things relevant to the inspection for the purpose of making copies or extracts; (c) require information from any person concerning a matter related to the inspection; and (d) alone or in conjunction with a person possessing special or expert knowledge, make examinations or take tests, samples or photographs necessary for the purposes of the inspection. 5.4 In addition to any other provision of this By-law, and subject to the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, a provincial judge or justice of the peace may issue an order authorizing the Municipality to enter on land, including a room or place actually being used as a dwelling, for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the following are being complied with: (a) this By-law; (b) a direction or order of the Municipality made under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 or this By-law; or (c) an order made under section 431 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. OBSTRUCTION \u/_ 5.5 No Person shall hinder or obstruct, or attempt to hinder or obstruct, an Enforcement Officer from lawfully carrying out a power, duty or direction under this By-law. Suspension of Licence 5.6 The Municipal Clerk may suspend a Licence if the Licensee fails to comply with any provision of this By-law and such non-compliance is not remedied within 7 days, or other time period as deemed appropriate by the Municipal Clerk, following notice from the Municipality specifying the particulars of the non- compliance. Revocation of Licence 5.7 The Municipal Clerk may revoke a Licence if, (a) it was issued in error; (b) it was suspended in accordance with the provisions of this By-law and no satisfactory evidence of compliance has been filed with the Municipality within 60 days from the date of suspension; Page 231 Attachment 2 to Report LGS-012-21 (c) it was issued as a result of false, mistaken, incorrect, or misleading statements, information or undertakings contained in the application or any supporting materials; (d) the Licensee is not in compliance with any Licence condition; or (e) upon the request of the Licensee. 5.8 The Municipal Clerk shall immediately inform the Licensee of a revocation and the reasons for it by means of contacting the Licensee at the address provided in the application. The Municipal Clerk shall also notify all affected agencies. Offences and Penalties 5.9 Every Person, other than a corporation who contravenes any provision of this By- law, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, for every occurrence, day or part thereof upon which such offence occurs or continues, to a fine of not more than $10,000 for a first offence; and not more than $25,000 for any subsequent conviction. 5.10 Every corporation which contravenes any provision of this By-law, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, for every occurrence, day or part thereof upon which such offence occurs or continues, to a fine of not more than $50,000 for a first offence, and not more than $100,000 for any subsequent conviction. 5.11 Without limiting any other section of this By-law, every Person who contravenes any provision of this By-law is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine in accordance with the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33. 5.12 If any Person is in contravention of any provision of this By-law, and the contravention has not been corrected, the contravention of the provision shall be deemed to be a continuing offence for each day or part of a day that the contravention remains uncorrected. 5.13 Where any Person contravenes any provision of this By-law, such Person shall be responsible for all costs incurred by the Municipality directly related to the contravention. Severability 5.14 Each section of this By-law is an independent section, and the holding of any section or part of any section of this By-law to be void or ineffective for any reason shall not be deemed to affect the validity of any other sections of this By- law. Page 232 Attachment 2 to Report LGS-012-21 PART 6- GENERAL Short Title 6.1 The short title of this By-law shall be the "On -Farm Special Event Licensing By- law". Effective Date 6.2 This By-law shall be effective on the date that it is passed. By-law passed this XX day of XX, 2021 J 1y Adrian Foster, Mayor June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Page 233 Attachment 3 to Report LGS-012-21 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 2020-XXX Being a by-law to regulate On -Farm Special Events WHEREAS subsection 11(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, authorizes the Municipality to pass by-laws respecting the health, safety and well-being of persons; AND WHEREAS subsection 128(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, provides that a local municipality may prohibit and regulate with respect to public nuisances, including matters that, in the opinion of council, are or could become or cause public nuisances; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington hereby enacts as follows: DEFINITIONS In this by-law, "Enforcement Officer" means a Provincial Offences Officer as defined under the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33; "Municipality" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington or the geographic area of Clarington, as the context requires; "On -Farm Special Event" means a social gathering outside of normal farm practices on lands zoned to permit special events as a use that is secondary to the agricultural farming operations; "Owner" means the registered or beneficial owner of farm property; "Person" means an individual or a corporation, and "Persons" has a corresponding meaning; "Zoning By-law" means a by-law passed by the Municipality pursuant to section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, and includes Zoning By-law 84-63 and Oak Ridges Moraine Zoning By-law 2005-109, or their successors. References 2. In this By-law, reference to any Act or by-law is reference to that Act or by-law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time. 3. Unless otherwise specified, references in this By-law to Parts and sections are references to Parts and sections in this By-law. Page 234 Word Usage 4. This By-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context requires. 5. In this By-law, a grammatical variation of a word or expression defined has a corresponding meaning. Application 6. This By-law applies to all On -Farm Special Events in the Municipality unless otherwise specified. Prohibitions 7. The Owner or designate must be on scene during the On -Farm Special Event. 8. No Person shall contravene any condition of site plan approval, or any provision within a site plan agreement made pursuant to section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, that is applicable to land that is subject to this By-law. 9. No Owner shall permit any activity on their property within the Municipality that is prohibited by this By-law. 10. Nothing in this By-law exempts an Owner of a farm property from any requirement in any Zoning By-law, or in any way changes the land uses permitted for a farm property pursuant to any Zoning By-law. 11. No Person shall conduct an On -Farm Special Event, a. between the hours of 11.00 PM and 10.00 AM; or b. on a date outside the range of May 1 to October 31. 12. No Person shall host more than one On -Farm Special Event on the same property within the Municipality in any consecutive three-day interval. 13. No Person shall host more than two On -Farm Special Events within the Municipality on the same property in any consecutive seven-day interval. 14. Maximum attendance at an On -Farm Special Event shall be the lesser of the capacity determined through the approved Site Plan Agreement, or 300 people. 15. No person conducting an On -Farm Special Event shall permit more than the maximum number of attendees as stated in the On -Farm Special Event Licence to attend the event, including persons participating in or working at the event. ENFORCEMENT Page 235 16. Where any Person contravenes any provision of this By-law, an Enforcement Officer may direct such Person to comply with this By-law. Every Person so directed shall comply with such direction without delay. POWERS OF ENTRY 17. An Enforcement Officer, whether alone or accompanied by an individual possessing special or expert knowledge or skills, may enter on land at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the following are being complied with: (a) this By-law; (b) a direction or order of the Municipality made under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 or this By-law; or (c) an order made under section 431 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. 18. For the purposes of an inspection under this By-law, an Enforcement Officer may: (a) require the production for inspection of documents or things relevant to the inspection; V4Z _Iqw" (b) inspect and remove documents or things relevant to the inspection for the purpose of making copies or extracts; (c) require information from any person concerning a matter related to the inspection; and (d) alone or in conjunction with a person possessing special or expert knowledge, make examinations or take tests, samples or photographs necessary for the purposes of the inspection. 19. In addition to any other provision of this By-law, and subject to the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, a provincial judge or justice of the peace may issue an order authorizing the Municipality to enter on land, including a room or place actually being used as a dwelling, for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the following are being complied with: (d) this By-law; (e) a direction or order of the Municipality made under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 or this By-law; or Page 236 (f) an order made under section 431 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25. OBSTRUCTION 20. No Person shall hinder or obstruct, or attempt to hinder or obstruct, an Enforcement Officer from lawfully carrying out a power, duty or direction under this By-law. OFFENCES 21. Every Person, other than a corporation who contravenes any provision of this By- law, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, for every occurrence, day or part thereof upon which such offence occurs or continues, to a fine of not more than $10,000 for a first offence; and not more than $25,000 for any subsequent conviction. 22. Every corporation which contravenes any provision of this By-law, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, for every occurrence, day or part thereof upon which such offence occurs or continues, to a fine of not more than $50,000 for a first offence, and not more than $100,000 for any subsequent conviction. 23. Without limiting any other section of this By-law, every Person who contravenes any provision of this By-law is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine in accordance with the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33. 24. If any Person is in contravention of any provision of this By-law, and the contravention has not been corrected, the contravention of the provision shall be deemed to be a continuing offence for each day or part of a day that the contravention remains uncorrected. 25. Where any Person contravenes any provision of this By-law, such Person shall be responsible for all costs incurred by the Municipality directly related to the contravention. SEVERABILITY 26. If any section or sections of this By-law, or parts thereof are found by any court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or beyond the power of the Municipality to enact, such section or sections or parts thereof shall be deemed to be severable from this By-law and all remaining sections or parts of this By-law shall be deemed to be separate and independent therefrom and to be properly enacted and to be of full force and effect. CONFLICT Page 237 27. In the event of a conflict between any provision of this By-law and any applicable Act or regulation, the provision that is the most restrictive prevails. SHORT TITLE 28. The short title of this by-law shall be the "On -Farm Special Event By -Law". EFFECTIVE DATE 29. This by-law shall come into force and take effect on the date it is enacted by the Municipality. By-law passed this XX day of XX, 2021 Ll Adrian Foster, Mayor June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Page 238 Clarington Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: March 8, 2021 Report Number: LGS-013-21 Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Director of Legislative Services Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#: File Number: By-law Number: Report Subject: Appointment to the Clarington Active Transportation and Safe Roads Advisory Committee and the Clarington Heritage Committee Recommendations: 1. That Report LGS-013-21 be received; 2. That Council provide direction on how many, if any, more appointments will be made to the ATSRAC; 3. That the Committee consider the applications for appointment to the Clarington Active Transportation and Safe Roads Advisory Committee (ATSRAC), and that the vote be conducted to appoint the citizen representatives, in accordance with the Appointment to Boards and Committees Policy; 4. That the resignation of Marina Ross be received with thanks and that Ms. Ross be thanked for her efforts; 5. That the Clerk's Division be authorized to continue to advertise for the remaining vacancy on the Clarington Heritage Committee; and 6. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-013-21 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page 239 Municipality of Clarington Report LGS-013-21 Report Overview Page 2 This report is intended to provide background information regarding the Council appointments to both the Active Transportation and Safe Roads Advisory Committee and the Clarington Heritage Committee. 1. Clarington Active Transportation and Safe Roads Advisory Committee Background 1.1 The purpose of the Clarington Active Transportation and Safe Roads Advisory Committee (ATSRAC) is to advise Council on matters related to active transportation, trails, cycling networks, pedestrian connectivity and transportation safety. The Committee will also provide input into the implementation of the Clarington Transportation Master Plan and encourage, promote and participate in the planning of active transportation policies, programs and facilities. 1.2 The Terms of Reference state that the composition of the Committee will be comprised of a minimum of eight voting members, to a maximum of ten, who must be Clarington residents, plus one voting member of Council, with quorum being five members. Appointments will run concurrent with the term of Council or until their successors are appointed. Current Situation 1.3 Staff were directed to advertise for the vacancies in accordance with Resolution #GG- 064-21, arising out of Report LGS-007-21 1.4 Currently, the Committee has seven appointed members for a term ending December 31, 2022. Therefore, Council may appoint at least one member to the ATSRAC for a term ending December 31, 2022. 1.5 The Terms of Reference state the Committee can be comprised of members up to ten who must be Clarington residents. Therefore, Council may appoint two extra members, in addition to the current vacancy, to the Committee for a term ending December 31, 2022 or until a successor is appointed. Page 240 Municipality of Clarington Report LGS-013-21 1.6 The following have put forward an application for consideration: • Phil Haylock • Ryan Kerr • Belva Lukascovics • Connor Houston 2. Clarington Heritage Committee Background Page 3 2.1 The Clarington Heritage Committee (CHC) is a volunteer advisory committee established by Council following the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act. The CHC assists the Municipality to identify, review, discuss and make recommendations to Council on properties and issues of cultural heritage, value and interest. Committee members are bound by the by-law appointing the Committee and its Terms of Reference. 2.2 The Terms of Reference state that the composition of the Committee be comprised of a minimum five members, maximum 12 that includes a Council representative; Newcastle Village and District Historical Society representative; Museum representative; architectural historian; building/design specialist; and up to a maximum of seven area residents. Committee members are appointed for the same four-year term as Council. Current Situation 2.3 Marina Ross was appointed to the Public Library Board on April 15, 2019 and had submitted her resignation to the Committee on January 19, 2021. She was the Museum and Archives Board representative on the CHC. 2.4 Katharine Warren was appointed to the Clarington Heritage Committee on January 15, 2019 and has agreed to be the Public Library Board/Museum and Archives Representative, to make way for another at -large resident on the CHC. 2.5 Currently, the Committee has 11 appointed members for a term ending December 31, 2022. Therefore, Council may appoint one member to the Clarington Heritage Committee for a term ending December 31, 2022. 2.6 No applications were submitted for this vacancy. Page 241 Municipality of Clarington Report LGS-013-21 3. Advertising & Applications Page 4 3.1 The Municipal Clerk's Division placed an advertisement in the local papers and on the Municipality's website, www.clarington.net/Committees, to fill the vacancy on the ATSRAC and Clarington Heritage Committee. 3.2 In an effort to extend the reach of our advertisements for vacancies, the Clerk's Department has created a profile on the www.claringtonvolunteers.ca website. Vacancies on the ATSRAC and the Clarington Heritage Committee were listed on the Clarington Volunteers website. 3.3 As per the "Appointment to Boards & Committees Policy", the applications have been included in a confidential matrix, which has been attached at the front of each of the applications for the respective Committee. 4. Concurrence Not Applicable. 5. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Committee consider conducting the vote to make the appointments to the Clarington Active Transportation and Safe Roads Advisory Committee and that the Clerk's Division be authorized to continue to advertise for the vacancy on the Clarington Heritage Committee. Staff Contact: Lindsey Patenaude, Committee Coordinator, 905-623-3379 ext. 2106 or Patenaude@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Matrix and Applications Interested Parties: The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision: All Applicants Active Transportation and Safe Roads Advisory Committee Clarington Heritage Committee Page 242 Clarington Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: March 8, 2021 Report Number: FSD-010-21 Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number: File Number: Resolution#: Report Subject: 2020 Council Remuneration Recommendation: 1. That Report FSD-010-21 be received for information. Page 243 Municipality of Clarington Report FSD-010-21 Page 2 Report Overview This report complies with the Municipal Act reporting requirements for Council remuneration and expenses. 1. Background 1.1 Attached please find a schedule (Attachment #1) detailing the remuneration and expenses paid to each Member of Council during 2020, in accordance with By-law #2011-005, as required by the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, Section 284. 1.2 A schedule detailing compensation paid to Clarington's representative on the Elexicon Corporation Board of Directors from January 1 to December 31, 2020, is provided in Attachment #2. 1.3 As per Resolution #GPA-455-95, passed by Council on July 15, 1995, the Regional Municipality of Durham Report detailing the remuneration and expenses of the Members of Council and Regional Council Appointees to Local Boards is to be reported. For the fiscal year 2020, the Region's report is not yet available. It will be provided under separate cover. 2. Council Salary Reporting 2.1 Over the past several years, there has been a trend in Ontario municipalities towards increasing the public disclosure of Council remuneration and expenses. To further this initiative, beginning in 2019, the quarterly financial updates report includes any highlights of interest related to these expenses. 3. Concurrence Not Applicable. 4. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that the report be received. Staff Contact: Michelle Pick, Accounting Services Manager / Deputy Treasurer, 905-623-3379 ext. 2605 or mpick@clarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1 — Remuneration and Expenses for Council 2020 Attachment 2 — Remuneration for Directors of Elexicon Corporation 2020 Interested Parties: There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. Page 244 Mayor and Councillors' Remuneration and Expenses January 1 to December 31, 2020 Attachment 1 to FSD-010-21 Name Regular Pay Municipal Travel Allowance Conferences Other Total Severance (per By-law 2011-005) (Note 1) (Note 2) Mayor A. Foster 92,552.84 - 2,811.55 784.37 1,648.87 97,797.63 Councillor J. Neal*** 37,901.76 - 8,081.36 45,983.12 Councillor J. Jones 37,901.76 - 8,081.36 45,983.12 Councillor R. Hooper 35,933.30 * - ** 35,933.30 Councillor C. Traill 37,901.76 - 8,081.36 45,983.12 Councillor M. Zwart 37,901.76 - 8,081.36 488.01 25.44 46,496.57 Councillor G. Anderson***+ 37,901.76 - 11,797.86 49,699.62 Councillor W. Woo 17,126.65 - - 17,126.65 Total 317,994.94 17,126.65 46,934.85 1 1,272.38 1,674.31 385,003.13 * Net of Donation to the Municipality ** Donation to the Municipality *** Regional Councillor + Deputy Mayor - January 1 to December 31, 2020 Notes: 1. Conferences include payment made by the Municipality for registration fee and/or accommodation, as well as direct reimbursement of expenses. 2. Other includes parking, meals, airfare, external kilometre reimbursement and miscellaneous charges. Expenses includes net HST Page 245 Attachment 2 to FSD-010-21 Remuneration and Expenses of Clarington Directors of Elexicon Corporation January 1 to December 31, 2020 Name Salary Miscellaneous Total Expenses A. Foster $ 25,125.12 $ 4,495.17 $ 29,620.29 Total $ 25,125.12 $ 4,495.17 $ 29,620.29 Notes: Miscellaneous Include payments made by Elexicon for registration expenses fee and/or accommodation, as well as direct reimbursement of expenses. Page 246 Clarington Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: March 8, 2021 Report Number: FSD-011-21 Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number: File Number: Resolution#: Report Subject: 2020 Annual Statement for Cash -in -Lieu of Parkland Recommendation: 1. That Report FSD-011-21 be received for information. Page 247 Municipality of Clarington Report FSD-011-21 Report Overview Page 2 This report complies with amendments to the Planning Act, 1990 which became effective in 2016. The Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 requires reporting on Section 37 (Increased Density) and Section 42 (Conveyance of land for park purposes). This report discloses the annual activity in the Parkland Cash -in -Lieu Reserve Fund for 2020. There is nothing to report for increased density funds, at this time. 1. Background 1.1 In accordance with Section 37 (Increased Density) and Section 42 (Cash -in -Lieu of Parkland) of the Planning Act, the Treasurer must provide a financial statement including opening and closing balances to Council relating to cash -in -lieu of parkland monies and increased density funding. This statement must be made available to the public. 2. Section 42 (Conveyance of land for park purposes) 2.1 Under Section 42 of the Planning Act, a municipality may require, as a condition of development, that land be conveyed to the municipality for park or other public recreational purposes. In certain circumstances, Council may require a payment in lieu of land dedication, to the value of the land otherwise required to be conveyed. 2.2 These funds must be held in a special account (Reserve Fund), allocated interest and spent only for the acquisition of land to be used for park or other recreational purposes, including the erection, improvement or repair of buildings and the acquisition of machinery, particular to park purposes. 2.3 Attachment #1 details the Statement of the Treasurer, in compliance with the Act. 3. Section 37 (Increased Density) 3.1 Clarington does not currently have a program set up for Section 37; therefore, an annual statement is not required. The Official Plan has a section on "community benefits" (Section 37) but Clarington does not have a market that would make this provision useful at this time. The Official Plan provision is in place to allow Clarington to consider this opportunity in the future. As a result, there is no Statement of the Treasurer required. 4. Concurrence Not Applicable. Page 248 Municipality of Clarington Report FSD-011-21 5. Conclusion Page 3 It is respectfully recommended that this report, as required by Section 42 of the Planning Act, 1990 be received for information and be made available to the public by posting on the Municipality's website. Staff Contact: Michelle Pick, Accounting Services Manager / Deputy Treasurer, 905-623-3379 ext. 2605, mpick@clarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1 — Cash -in -lieu of Parkland Reserve Fund for the year ended December 31, 2020 Interested Parties: There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. Page 249 Attachment 1 to Report FSD-011-21 Municipality of Clarington Cash -in -lieu of Parkland Reserve Fund For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 Parkland R/F (504) Balance as of December 31, 2019 3,170,856 Plus: Cash -in -lieu Collected in 2020 2020 Reserve Fund Interest 553,376 56,951 Subtotal 610,327 Less: Amount Transferred to Capital Fund - Land Acquisition Costs 30,000 Subtotal 30,000 Closing Balance as of December 31, 2020 3,751,183 Committed Amounts from Prior Years - Available at December 31, 2020 1 3,751,183 Page 250 Clarington Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: March 8, 2021 Report Number: FSD-012-21 Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#: File Number: CL2018-25 By-law Number: Report Subject: High Float Resurfacing Recommendations: 1. That Report FSD-012-21 be received; 2. That the Purchasing Manager in consultation with the Director of Public Works be given the authority to extend contract CL2018-25 High Float Resurfacing for an optional one-year term; 3. That Miller Paving Limited be awarded the optional one-year extension to their contract CL2018-25 for High Float Resurfacing for an approximate value of $3,942,300 (Net HST Rebate); 4. That pending satisfactory performance, the Purchasing Manager in consultation with the Director of Public Works be given the authority to extend the contract for a second optional one-year term; 5. That the estimated funds required for the first optional one-year term in the amount of $3,942,300 (Net HST Rebate) be funded by the Municipality as provided. The estimated funds required for the second optional one-year term will be included in future budget accounts. The funding required for the first optional one-year term will be funded from the following accounts: Description Account Number Amount Rural Roads Resurfacing (2020) 110-36-330-83680-7401 $42,300 Rural Roads Resurfacing (2021) 110-36-330-83680-7401 $3,900,000 6. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-012-21 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page 251 Municipality of Clarington Report FSD-012-21 Report Overview Page 2 To request authorization from Council to award up to two additional optional one-year terms of contract CL2018-25 for High Float Resurfacing with Miller Paving Limited. 1. Background 1.1 In 2018, the Chief Administrative Officer approved the award of the first three years of contract CL2018-25 for High Float Resurfacing to Miller Paving Limited in accordance with the Summer Recess Procedure (Purchasing By -Law 2015-022 S.73). See link to Report PS-009-18 which was included in Report COD-028-18 Contract Awards During Council Recess. 1.2 The contract was for an initial three-year term from 2018 to 2020 and had the option of extending up to two additional one-year terms in 2021 and 2022. 1.3 In view of Summer Council Recess, the contract was approved for the initial three-year term with the Municipality retaining the option to extend the contract for up to two additional one-year terms pending Council approval. 2. Analysis 2.1 This contract extension falls within the 2021 high float resurfacing budget. 2.2 Miller Paving Limited's pricing and performance has been satisfactory under this contract for the past three years. 3. Financial 3.1 The estimated funding for the two optional additional one-year terms is $7,442,300 (Net HST Rebate). The funding required for the first optional one-year term is $3,942,300 (Net HST Rebate). The work will be funded from the 2021 approved budget allocation as provided, and unexpended capital funds from the 2020 budget. The estimated funding required for the second optional one-year term will be included in future budget accounts. The funding required for the first optional one-year term will be funded from the following accounts: Description Account Number Amount Rural Roads Resurfacing (2020) 110-36-330-83680-7401 $42,300 Rural Roads Resurfacing (2021) 110-36-330-83680-7401 $3,900,000 Page 252 Municipality of Clarington Report FSD-012-21 Page 3 3.2 Pricing submitted for High Float Resurfacing remained firm for the first three contract years. For the two additional optional years, the unit prices will be adjusted at the time of contract start by the annual percentage change in the most recent issuance of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), All Items, Ontario as published by Statistics Canada and the pricing will remain firm for the contract year. 3.3 At time of approval in 2018, the total estimated contract value for the first three contract years was $6,690,000 (Net HST Rebate). The annual budget for rural roads resurfacing increased from the 2018 amount in 2019 and 2020, and in 2019, this contract was one of the approved projects for the use of additional one-time Federal Gas Tax funding. See link to Report FND-020-19 regarding the additional Federal Gas Tax funding. With the additional funding, the approximate three-year contract value is $8,973,852 (Net HST Rebate). 3.4 The total estimated contract value for the potential five-year contract is $16,416,152 (Net HST Rebate). 4. Concurrence This report has been reviewed by the Director of Public Works who concurs with the recommendations. 5. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that approval be granted to extend contract CL2018-25 High Float Resurfacing for up to two additional optional one-year terms with Miller Paving Limited. Staff Contact: David Ferguson, Purchasing Manager, 905-623-3379 ext. 2209 or dferguson@clarington.net. Attachments: Not applicable. Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 253 Clarington Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: General Government Committee Date of Meeting: March 8, 2021 Report Number: FSD-013-21 Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#: File Number: CL2021-2 By-law Number: Report Subject: Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2A Recommendations: 1. That Report FSD-013-21 be received; 2. That Ratcliff Excavating & Grading Inc. with a total bid amount of $ 1,150,694.96 (net HST Rebate) being the lowest compliant bidder meeting all terms, conditions and specifications of Tender CL2021-2 and subject to a satisfactory reference check be awarded the contract for the work required to complete the Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2A project; 3. That the total funds required for this project in the amount of $1,360,100.00 (net HST rebate), which includes the construction cost of $ 1,150,694.96 (net HST rebate) and other costs such as material testing, utility daylighting, inspection and contract administration, permits fees and contingencies in the amount of $209,405.04 (net HST rebate) is within the approved project budget and will be funded by as follows: Description Account Number Amount Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2 110-32-325-83288-7401 $1,261,800 Various Erosion Protection Works 110-36-340-83437-7401 98,300 4. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-013-21 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page 254 Municipality of Clarington Report FSD-013-21 Report Overview Page 2 To request authorization from Council to award the contract for the completion of Phase 2A of the extension of the Farewell Creek Trail as detailed in Tender CL2021-2 1. Background 1.1 This project is for the completion of the new trail extension for Farewell Creek Trail including benches, two pedestrian bridges, stormwater management pond outfall culvert crossing as well as creek bank stabilization work. 1.2 Design and tender specifications for the trail extension were prepared by CIMA and provided by the Public Works Department. 1.3 Tender CL2021-2 was prepared and issued by the Purchasing Services Division. The tender was posted electronically on the Municipality's website. Notification of the availability of the document was also posted on the Ontario Public Buyers Association's website. 1.4 The tender closed on March 1, 2021. 2. Analysis 2.1 Forty-one companies downloaded the tender document. Eight submissions were received by the stipulated closing time. One submission was received after the closing time and was deemed non -compliant. 2.2 The Municipality contacted the thirty-two companies who chose not to respond, to inquire as to why they chose not to submit a bid. Their responses are as follows: • One company is an association for distributing the tender document to its members; • Three companies advised that after reviewing the document they could not take on the project due to their current workload; • Three companies advised that the work was outside of the scope which they could complete; • Two companies advised that they felt they could not bid competitively; • Three companies advised that they downloaded the document with the interest of being a sub -contractor for the project; • One company advised that they were interested in the project however upon further review of the specifications felt that they could not bid competitively; and Page 255 Municipality of Clarington Report FSD-013-21 Page 3 Nineteen companies contacted did not respond to the Municipality's request for information. 2.3 The eight bids received prior to the closing were reviewed and tabulated by the Purchasing Services Division (see Attachment 1). All eight submissions were deemed compliant. 2.4 The bid results were forwarded to the Public Works Department for their review and consideration. 2.5 After review, analysis, and discussions it was mutually agreed by the Public Works Department and the Purchasing Services Division that the low bidder, Ratcliff Excavating & Grading Inc., be recommended for the award of Tender CL2021-2. 2.6 Ratcliff Excavating & Grading Inc. has not completed work for the Municipality in the past and therefore references provided are being contacted. 3. Financial 3.1 The total funds required for this project in the amount of $1,360,100.00 (net HST rebate), which includes the construction cost of $ 1,150,694.96 (net HST rebate) and other costs such as material testing, utility daylighting, inspection and contract administration, permits fees and contingencies in the amount of $209,405.04 (net HST rebate) is within the approved project budget and will be funded by as follows: Description Account Number Amount Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2 110-32-325-83288-7401 $1,261,800 Various Erosion Protection Works 110-36-340-83437-7401 98,300 4. Concurrence This report has been reviewed by the Director of Public Works who concurs with the recommendations. 5. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Ratcliff Excavating & Grading Inc. being the lowest compliant bid and subject to a satisfactory reference check be awarded the contract for the construction of the Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2A in accordance with all the terms, conditions, specifications, and drawings of Tender CL2021-2. Page 256 Municipality of Clarington Report FSD-013-21 Page 4 Staff Contact: David Ferguson, Purchasing Manger, 905-623-3379 ext. 2209 or dferguson@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Bid Summary Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 257 Municipality of Clarington Report FSD-013-21 Attachment 1 - Bid Summary Page 5 Municipality of Clarington CL2021-2 — Farewell Creek Trail Phase 2 Bid Summary Bidder Total Bid (including HST) Total bid (Net HST Rebate) Ratcliff Excavating & Grading Inc. $1,277,796.09 $1,150,694.96 Elirpa Construction & Materials Limited $1,345,135.66 $1,211,336.32 CSL Group Ltd. $1,350,783.07 $1,216,422.00 Urgiles Brothers Excavating Inc. $1,595,019.00 $1,436,364.01 Blackstone Paving and Construction Ltd. $1,714,726.18 $1,544,164.38 Dynex Construction Inc. $1,841,346.30 $1,658,189.38 39 Seven $1,996,993.50 $1,798,354.50 DigCon International Limited $2,251,541.95 $2,027,583.26 MS Architectural Limited noncompliant Page 258