Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-07 JointClar*wn General Government and Planning and Development Committees Post -Meeting Agenda Date: February 7, 2022 Time: 9:30 AM 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 Council and Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation or attend, 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 *Late Item added or a change to an existing item after the Agenda was published. Pages 1. Call to Order 2. Land Acknowledgement Statement 3. Declaration of Interest 4. Announcements 5. Public Meetings *5.1. Public Meeting for a Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By- 6 law Amendment Location: 14 Dale Park Drive, Courtice Applicant: Courtice Construction Team Inc. & Dover Property Management Inc. Planner: Toni Rubino (Public Meeting Presentation Attached) 5.1.1. PDS-005-22 Dale Park Drive Draft Plan of Subdivision and 14 Rezoning to Permit 9 Residential Units Consisting of 4 Semi - Detached Dwellings and 1 Single Detached Dwelling 6. Presentations/Delegations 6.1. Delegation by Inspector Stefanie Finateri, Regarding the DRPS Annual 24 Update 6.2. Delegation by Jim Boate, Clarington Active Transportation and Safe 38 Roads Advisory Committee, Regarding Courtice Waterfront Park 6.3. Delegation by Rachel Taylor and Lauren Baker, Regarding Traffic Safety in Solina *6.4. Delegation by Andrew Louws, Regarding a Rail Crossing Reinstatement 49 located on Arthur Street, Newcastle (Correspondence Attached) (Memo from Andrew Allison Listed as Item 7.2) Page 2 7 0 E] *6.5. Delegation by Wendy Bracken, Regarding Report PDS-008-22 Durham 60 York Energy Centre Throughput Increase from 140,000 to 160,000 Tonnes Per Year - Municipal Comments *6.6. Delegation by Linda Gasser, Regarding Report PDS-008-22 Durham 78 York Energy Centre Throughput Increase from 140,000 to 160,000 Tonnes Per Year - Municipal Comments 6.7. Delegation by Hamish Corbett-Hains, Associate, Dillon Consulting 96 Limited, Regarding Notice of Completion, Durham York Energy Centre, Throughput Increase from 140,000 to 160,000 Tonnes per Year — Air Quality Advisor Comments *6.8. Delegation by Linda Gasser, Regarding a Request for an Environmental 118 Assessment (Correspondence Attached) Link to The Region of Peel's Waste Management Strategic Advisory Committee's Agenda for November 30, 2017. *6.9. Delegation by Karrie Lynn Dymond, Clarington Clear, Regarding a 130 Request for an Environmental Assessment (Correspondence Attached) *6.10. Delegation by Gord Robinson, Durham Land Owners Association, Regarding a Request for an Environmental Assessment *6.11. Delegation by Wendy Bracken, Regarding Item 9.1.3 New Business - Bottom Ash (Councillor Zwart) Reports/Correspondence Related to Presentations/Delegations 7.1. PDS-008-22 Durham York Energy Centre Throughput Increase from 136 140,000 to 160,000 Tonnes per Year — Municipal Comments *7.2. Memo from Andrew Allison, Regarding Item 6.4, a Rail Crossing 165 Reinstatement located on Arthur Street, Newcastle Communications 8.1. Minutes of the Newcastle Village Community Hall Board dated December 176 12, 2021 *8.2. Wendy Bracken, Regarding a Request for an Environmental Assessment 179 Staff Reports and Staff Memos Page 3 9.1. Planning and Development Services 9.1.1. PDS-006-22 Zoning By-law Amendment for 14 Jack Potts Way, 197 Courtice 9.1.2. PDS-007-22 An Application to Remove the (H) Holding Symbol 204 to Permit the Development of a Single Detached Dwelling on a Vacant lot Created as Part of a Lot Line Adjustment Application (LD2021/102) for 1 Granary Lane, Courtice 9.1.3. New Business - Support Transition to Electric Vehicles to 211 Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Ontario (Mayor Foster) 9.2. Public Works 9.2.1. PWD-003-22 Northglen West Phase 3 Subdivision, Plan 40M- 212 2606 Assumption By -Law 9.2.2. PWD-004-22 Brookhill Phase 3 Subdivision, Plan 40M-2580 218 Assumption By -Law *9.2.3. New Business - Bottom Ash (Councillor Zwart) 223 (Correspondence from Linda Gasser Attached) (Correspondence from Susan Siopis, Commissioner of Works, Region of Durham Attached) *9.2.4. PWD-005-22 Sidewalk Snow Clearing 234 9.3. Legislative Services 9.3.1. LGS-003-22 2022 Municipal Elections — Accessibility Plan 239 9.4. Financial Services 9.4.1. FSD-005-22 2021 Annual Commodity Hedging Compliance 254 Report 9.4.2. FSD-006-22 2021 Annual Leasing Report 257 10. Unfinished Business 10.1. Proposed Motion - Bennett and Cobbledick Rail Crossing (Referred from the January 24, 2022 Council Meeting) Link to Item 9.2.1.2 from the January 24, 2022 Council Agenda Page 4 11. Questions to Department Heads/Request for Staff Report(s) 12. Confidential Items 12.1. Verbal Update from Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects, Regarding Potential Property Acquisition 12.2. PWD-002-22 Potential Property Acquisition 13. Adjournment Page 5 Clarbgton Notice of Public Meeting A land use change has been proposed, have your say! The Municipality is seeking public comments before making a decision on an application for a proposed Plan of Subdivision and an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment. Courtice Construction Team Inc. & Dover Property Management Inc. have submitted applications for draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a plan of subdivision with a total of 9 units consisting of 4 semi-detached dwellings and 1 single -detached dwelling. The subdivision would extend and connect Dale Park Drive. The applications have been deemed complete. 14 Dale Park Drive, Part 2 of 40R-31041 & Part Block 73 of Plan 10M766 Lands between the existing north and south parts of Dale Park Drive, east of Varcoe Road and west of Cherry Blossom Crescent. " r eIRO" f 1077 • i :: A A- ° - 121M - �=-tti117 � i-=M]J V L7 i� I � r � Single -detached Semi-detached -ismz 0 Site Boundary For additional information on the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment, the background studies are available for review on our website at clarington.net/developmentproposals Questions? Please contact Toni Rubino 905-623-3379, extension 2431, or by email at trubino(a�clarington.net Our procedures have changed as we continue to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. As mandated by Public Health, to maintain physical distancing these meetings will take place electronically. This meeting is live -streamed for public viewing at www.clarington.net/calendar Date: Monday, February 7, 2022 Time: 9:30 a.m Place: Electronic Teams meeting by way of on-line device or telephone If you wish to speak at the public meeting, please pre -register and you will be provided with further instructions. Deno P You can pre -register by completing the online form at www.clarington.net/delegations or contact the Clerk's Department at 905-623-3379 ext. 2109 or clerks(c).clarington.net by Friday, February 4, 2022 at 3:30 p.m. If you are unable to participate electronically, please contact the Clerk's Department and we will do our utmost to accommodate you. We encourage you to submit your written comments for Committee's consideration to Toni Rubino at trubino(c�clarington.net or by mail or drop box to 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 prior to the date of the public meeting File Number: S-C-2021-0008 & ZBA2021-0025 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act The personal information you submit will become part of the public record and may be released to the public. Questions about the information we collect can be directed to the Clerk's Department at 905- 623-3379, extension 2102. Accessibility If you have accessibility needs and require alternate formats of this document or other accommodations, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Appeal Requirements If you do not speak at the public meeting or send your comments or concerns to the Municipality of Clarington before the by-law is passed: a) you will not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal; and b) you will not be able to participate at a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Land Tribunal, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Ryan Windle, MCIP, RPP, AICP Director of Planning and Development Services https://claringtonnet.sharepoint.com/sites/DevReview/Subdiv/S-C-2021-0008 - 14 Dale Park Drive/S-C-2021-0008 ZBA2021-0025 Public Meeting Notice - COVID.docx Page 7 Applications By: Courtice Construction Team Inc. & Dover Property Management Inc. Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a plan of subdivision with a total of 9 units consisting of 4 semi- detached dwellings and 1 single detached dwelling. Public Meeting: February 7, 2022 The purpose of this Public Meeting is to hear what the public has to say about the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. No decision will be made regarding these applications. Page 9 W.. , t9j I - Aw : &Y K-j r* In"I P9 ur 72 Vim A IJ lt ' , .6MMIPPEEM. i I t Y� 1� J � �. o� F,! #� i 0 Single -detached plop Semi-detached _F _ Site Boundary ■. _ Page Comments and Questions • Timing of the proposed development, should it be approved; • Impact of the subdivision on future development to the north; • Traffic and Safety; • Construction and Noise Pollution; • Impact on local Wildlife; and Page 12 • Decreased Property Values. ' , .6MMIPPEEM. i I t Y� 1� J � �. o� F,! #� i 0 Single -detached plop Semi-detached _F _ Site Boundary ■. _ Page 13 Clarftwn Public Meeting Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Joint Committees Date of Meeting: February 7, 2022 Report Number: PDS-005-22 Submitted By: Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services File Number: SC2021-0008 & ZBA2021-0025 Resolution#: Report Subject: Dale Park Drive Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to permit 9 residential units consisting of 4 semi-detached dwellings and 1 single detached dwelling. Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to provide information to the public and Council. It does not constitute, imply or request any degree of approval. Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-005-22 and any related communication items, be received for information only; 2. That Staff receive and consider comments from the public and Council with respect to the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-005-22 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page 14 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-005-22 Report Overview Page 2 The Municipality is seeking the public's input on applications for a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by Courtice Construction Team Inc. and Dover Property Management Inc., to permit 9 residential units consisting of 4 semi- detached dwellings and 1 single detached dwelling. The subdivision would extend and connect Dale Park Drive. 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner/Applicant: Courtice Construction Team Inc. and Dover Property Management Inc. 1.2 Proposal: Draft Plan of Subdivision The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision would permit 9 residential units consisting of 4 semi-detached dwellings and 1 single -detached dwelling. The subdivision would extend and connect Dale Park Drive. Zoning By-law Amendment To rezone the lands from "Agricultural (A)" to an Urban Residential Type One Exception (R1-XX) Zone. 1.3 Area: 0.38 hectares (.96 acres) 1.4 Location: 14 Dale Park Drive, Part 2 of 40R-31041 & Part Block 73 of Plan 1 OM766 in Courtice (see Figure 1) 1.5 Roll Number: 181701007007950 & 181701007003750 1.6 Within Built Boundary: Yes Page 15 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-005-22 2. Background 2.1 The subject properties are vacant assembled parcels of land to facilitate a 5-lot subdivision. The subdivision would connect the east and west portions of Dale Park Drive (see Figure 1 and the Site Context Map Figure 3). The northern parcel, municipally numbered 14 Dale Park Drive (Part 2 of 40R-31041), is in part lands acquired through land division application LD2020-005 to acquire the rear yard of 19 Varcoe Road. The property to the south, Part Block 73 of Plan 10M766, is a remnant parcel of the Cherry Blossom/Dale Park subdivision development. Single -detached Semi-detached -. Site Boundary oN •Y Figure 1: Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision Page 16 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-005-22 Page 4 2.2 North of the west leg of the Dale Park Drive temporary cul-de-sac is a 10-metre-wide parcel (Block 8) owned by the Municipality of Clarington which would form part of the extension of Dale Park Drive (See Figure 2). 2.3 South of the west leg of the Dale Park Drive temporary cul-de-sac is a 7-metre-wide parcel (Block 7) owned by the Municipality of Clarington adjacent to Cherry Blossom Parkette and Rick Gay Park (See Figure 2). There is a fence that separates this block from the park lands. E___4 4.- W BLOCK 4 '�' 2 Subject Properties 1 ' i PAW r I air Cc - BLOCK - �•L I� 0 wo.— T " `. T k i1 ' i.or �o j 40T F I forll toil. I Lt#11 iOr1a dv� I � IX + 4aV 7.04 I i d U I ❑ALE PARK DRIVE _ uRrw. � OPEN SA4CE Additional landsTL owned by ApplicantLd I o I I I Lands Ovrned by + I I Municipality rpr I i¢ 15 DOT 6 Figure 2: Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Surrounding Lands 2.4 On October 29, 2020 Courtice Construction Team Inc. and Dover Property Management Inc. submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 9 residential units consisting of 4 semi-detached dwellings and 1 single - detached dwelling. 2.5 The applications were deemed incomplete on November 26, 2021 and subsequently deemed complete on December 7, 2021. The applications were circulated for comments on December 7, 2021, to applicable departments and agencies Page 17 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-005-22 2.6 The applicant has submitted the following studies in support of the applications: • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Drainage Report • Planning Justification Report • Sustainability Report • Arborist Report 2.7 These studies are being reviewed by departments and agencies and will be summarized in a future report. 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses Page 5 3.1 The subject lands are located north of Regional Highway 2, south of Nash Road, west of Cherry Blossom Crescent and east of Varcoe Road in an existing low -density residential neighbourhood (see Figure 3). Cherry Blossom Parkette and Rick Gay Park abut the southern property. The lands are currently vacant and are treed along existing and former property lines. Both parcels are generally flat. 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North — Single detached dwellings South — Linked dwellings and Cherry Blossom Parkette/Rick Gay Park East — Single detached dwellings West — Single detached dwellings and linked dwellings Page 18 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-005-22 Figure 3: Site Context Map 4. Provincial Policy Provincial Policy Statement Page 6 4.1 The Provincial Policy Statement identifies settlement areas as the focus of growth. Land use patterns shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses that efficiently use land, resources, and infrastructure. 4.2 Opportunities for redevelopment and intensification should be promoted where it can be accommodated. Municipalities must provide a variety of housing types and densities, efficiently utilizing existing infrastructure and public transit facilities. Page 19 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-005-22 Provincial Growth Plan Page 7 4.3 The subject lands are within the defined Built Boundary and within the Urban Boundary of Courtice. 4.4 Growth is to be accommodated by directing a significant portion of new growth to the built-up areas through intensification and efficient use of existing services and infrastructure. A minimum of 40 percent of all residential development occurring annually within each upper tier municipality will be within the built-up area. 4.5 The development of complete communities is encouraged by promoting a diverse mix of land uses, a mix of employment and housing types, high quality public open space and easy access to local stores and services. 5. Official Plans Durham Regional Official Plan 5.1 The Durham Region Official Plan designates the subject lands Living Areas. Living Areas permit the development of communities incorporating the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes, and tenure to provide living accommodations that address various socio-economic factors. 5.2 Living Areas shall be developed in a compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas. Clarington Official Plan 5.3 The Clarington Official Plan designates the lands Urban Residential. The Urban Residential designation is predominately intended for housing purposes. A variety of densities, tenure and housing types are encouraged, generally up to three storeys in height. 5.4 The subject lands are internal to the neighbourhood and near an arterial road. The minimum density is 13 units per net hectare. Detached and semi-detached dwellings are permitted. 6. Zoning By-law 6.1 The property is zoned Urban Residential Type One (R1) in Zoning By-law 84-63. The R1 Zone permits detached dwellings on lots with a minimum frontage of 15 metres and a minimum lot area of 460 square metres. The R1 zone also permits semi-detached dwellings on lots with a minimum frontage of 18 metres and a minimum lot area of 550 square metres. Page 20 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS-005-22 6.2 The single detached dwelling lot (Lot 1) has a lot frontage of 12.5 metres and lot area of 400 square metres. Blocks 2 to 4 are for semi-detached dwellings and have lot frontages between 16.8 metres and 17.5 metres and lot areas between 536 square metres and 564 square metres. These lots/blocks are deficient in the minimum lot frontage and lot area requirements of the R1 Zone. As such the Owners have made application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to accommodate their proposed site specific lot frontage and lot area performance standards. 7. Public Notice and Submissions 7.1 Public notice was mailed to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject lands on January 19, 2022 and two Public Meeting Signs were installed at the subject property on January 10, 2022. One sign was installed on the north property facing Dale Park Drive and one sign was installed on the south property facing the other portion of Dale Park Drive (see Figure 4). Figure 4: Public Notice Signs on the Subject Lands 7.2 Staff have received two inquiries from residents. The comments and questions include the following: • Timing regarding the proposed development, should it be approved; • Impact of the subdivision on the opportunity for future development to the north; • Sightline information for the proposed road extension with regard to safety; and • The type of built form they can expect to see from the development. Page 21 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-005-22 8. Agency Comments Region of Durham Page 9 8.1 Comments from Durham Region Planning, Works and Transit Departments have not been received at the time of finalizing this report, but will be included in a subsequent report. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority 8.2 Comments from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority have not been received at the time of finalizing this report, but will be included in a subsequent report. Other 8.3 Enbridge, Bell Canada, Rogers, Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, and Canada Post have no concerns with the applications. 9. Departmental Comments Public Works - Development 9.1 The Public Works Department has no objections, in principle, to the applications. 9.2 Public Works requires the applicant to install fencing to the standards of the Municipality of Clarington at the side or rear of lots that are located adjacent to the park. Fence details and locations must be provided on the plan. 9.3 Cross sections along the south boundary of Block 2 showing that the trees along that section in the park area will not be affected by the construction of the proposed rear catch basin lead must be provided. 9.4 A detail of the north limit of the site is required. There are currently concerns regarding the bend where the proposed road allowance is not fully contained within the owner's property. 9.5 In order to minimize material tracking outside of the site, it is required that the north access be barricaded to ensure the construction access on the south side of the site is the only entrance used. 9.6 The applicant must provide an On -Street Parking Plan satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. Page 22 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report PDS-005-22 9.7 A Photometrics Plan, Geotechnical Report, Cost Estimate, Road Profile Drawings, detailed Utility Coordination Plan, and a Servicing Plan separate from the Grading Plan are required. Fire and Emergency Services 9.8 No fire safety concerns were found on submitted drawings. 10. Discussion 10.1 The applicant's initial proposal included single detached dwelling lots. The current proposal contemplates maximizing the zone provisions of the R1 Zone to increase density in a built-up area by providing semi-detached dwellings. 10.2 The plan should contemplate future development to the north and not preclude development by blocking off all access from Dale Park Drive. Further information should be provided on how this would be accommodated. 10.3 On the north and south side of the west leg of Dale Park Drive are two vacant parcels of land that are owned by persons affiliated with the applicant. It is the intention that these two lots would be developed for semi-detached dwellings upon the removal of the temporary cul-de-sac and extension of Dale Park Drive. 10.4 The Municipality of Clarington is discussing the future use of Block 7 of Plan 40M-1798 shown on the Draft Plan of Subdivision. 11. Concurrence 11.1 Not applicable. 12. Conclusion 12.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications submitted by Courtice Construction Team Inc. and Dover Property Management Inc. for the Public Meeting under the Planning Act. It is recommended that Staff continue processing the applications including the preparation of a subsequent report upon receipt of all agency and department comments and the resolution of the identified issues. Staff Contact: Toni Rubino, Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2431 or trubino@clarington.net. Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 23 SST slo REG SER February 7th 5 202 Overview • Introduction: Inspector Stefanie Finateri • Community Safety Advisory Council • Body Worn Camera • Roadway Safety • Human Trafficking • Drug Overdoses • Mental Health 0 Recent Initiatives Page25 East Division Leadership • Inspector Stefanie Finateri • S/Sgt Dan Ladouceur ma1 ioll sign -t. � �ry Ail i r �. East Division Boundaries Y CO LU-LtE)LJ NORTi cK Reg na 4 Rd l 9 Clevittr g Line 2 Shirl�3r W7 O ryp �g _ TAG LTIt 2 ti98 9m �. Bo Lmda ry - E m m Fag n x U Cfy Q E w i:a n 9 { c --% F,3Q-la RJ 27 Hou�dary x m Q naesson Rd 13 ''- rj do n m m m r o W itax r En _ [7 Oo b rO Fig o 7 Ri :i Fieg � 1 Rd 3 - M ` m S 1e Yi i rg .� ivs oo a a t b r n m �aa °° m -Lvt I E Lrj_` �a s o n Rd 7 a ra ss o n Rd & '� o r -- m M m `�gilI 14 rq m t 0 d r Q O Sml t m r rrr M E r= m 4 m `m o o Qa � m G�J m 7 U4 c.3 t �a lask I �- _ c = hil Mg -71 m r a m 3 r s o r _ o 4Ai �r rh W7 p GJ r¢4 x Tau n Co lion Ft 8 w ler Q a m F- a E t - Pa s ne 1 +n a m m f--2naess- Ti 4 4 i::o ncasso r Rd 5 UD w 17 ~ U. a Cr # -U2 rO t F, NW m foqd - rn 013 ss n Rd 4 S7 '5 � m '2 � � m r w x w S {o %r " rx�ess- n Rd 3 m Coo � s o n 3 p f] O d *{ LQ al a _ �] a v_ Sie F� x - FU h � n Mu y v �' - err Fag o na Hly Hin s � � vlR r,q D Y m g m FI p 6° r - St Oc" UD r= S = Oa Os noess o n Rd 7 or fc7a m o_ z Vo m m co° 0 w Page 28 r= f% 01 I•ARKS Name IIIIIIIIIIIIIIE Ward Jennifer Madore Allen Jewell Zeljko Matovic Eric Shaw Sharon Payton Lyndsey Riddoch � Jasmyne Julien � Body Worn Cameras • Phased Rollout • East Division training k January loth, 2022 Page 30 Roadway Safety Change 2020 to 2021 Aggressive Driving 5% Including Speeding (30 over and above) -19% Distracted Driving -72% Seatbelt -67% Impaired 4% Aggressive Driving 2% Including Speeding (30 over and above) -48% Distracted Driving -8% Seatbelt -72% Impaired -5% Page 31 Roadway Safety Motor Vehicle Collisions % Change 2020 to 2021 Clarington 9% Fatal -25% Injury -16% East 5% Fatal 20% Injury -3% % Change 2020 to 2021 Clarington -11% East -6% . • . Clarington -1% East 13% Clarington 87% East 106% Page 32 Human Trafficking 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 a Human Trafficking Investigations 120 108 139 2018 2019 2020 OR 2021 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Human Trafficking Victims 109 2018 2019 � Victims Formalized the Human Trafficking Unit in November 2018 Staffing — Two Detectives and Eight Detective Constabde�s 33 Two Crisis Intervention Counsellors from Victim Services burham Region (VSDR) 312 2020 2021 — Under 18 Drug Related/Overdoses El Me IF Opioid Related Other Drug Pending Total Clarington 10 1 13 24 Oshawa 3 0 3 6 EAST Tota 1 13 1 16 30 ' • -FIN re r •17MMWM- • • - • • - 2018 019 2020 2021 Clarington 7 21 39 Oshawa 2 19 12 19 EAST Tota I 11 26 33 58 Page 34 Mental Health 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Mental Health Apprehensions 2701 2018 2019 2020 2021 � Regional East Division-Clarington 5000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Mental Health General Occurences 4847 2018 2019 2020 2021 � Regional East Division-Clarington Roughly 9% of all General Occurrences attended in East Division and Clarington end up having a mental health component; compared to the 2% of calls that are indprqjiyq of a mental health component in the initial call type. Community Initiatives • Food and Toy Drive • Crarn-A-Cruiser • Chief for a Day: Clarington's own Chief Frigan Page 36 e,emtior Lire Her Be Active Good morning Mayor, Council and Staff, thanks for allowing me the opportunity to talk about a trail and park at the bottom of Coutice Shores Drive. My name is Jim Boate and I am an avid trail walker and country roads biker. For many years now I have been exploring the connectivity of our community paths and trail that define our neighbourhoods in Clarington. regularly walk these trails with the Active 55+ seniors on a year round basis, SD'ing of course, and would love to add this suggested trail in our future walks. Page 38 As a member of the Clarington Active Transportation and Safe Roads committee, we offer advice to Council and Staff on matters relating to trails and active transportation. One of our first mandates is to offer advice on creating trails. What I want to speak about today is an exciting proposal to create a new trail and park along the west side of Courtice Shores Drive. This trail and park would include the final leg of Tooley's Creek as it makes its way the shores of Lake Ontario. This was first suggested at the "Courtice Waterfront PIC that took place back in March of 2019. Page 39 This area is one of the last in Clarington to be developed offering a near waterfront experience. This would give residents of Clarington an opportunity to visit this area with and existing park that can be expanded on in future years as the area gets developed. am suggesting a green trail/path and park would circle around the existing creek with 2 small foot bridges crossings at the top and bottom of the park. This is a great location for a starter park of this nature, that could be home to different native flora and fauna, perhaps another Clarington Monarch butterfly migration centre. It offers a gentle trickling creek flowing down to Lake Ontario. It would be accessible to users with mobility devices It can easily retain the existing laftd!§cape. You know every exit off of the 401 in Durham Region has a waterfront park of some description or other except for Courtice exit 425. People are starting to refer to this exit as "Where the Garbage Trucks go". Why not change that to "Courtice Shores Park" exit. What we are suggesting is not a huge expensive proposition. We can start developing this park now and have it available in a short time. A CSP that is family friendly could be a reality by 2023. Let's not be like the Go train that takes 20+ years to get here, let's do it now. will now go through 3 map slides. Thanks and if there is any question I'll do my best to give you an answer. PS thanks to staff and council for clearinothd'snow on our existing paths, big thank you IL 1 r UP 1 1 J L� J. - r L _' ` 1 1 f { r L 1 1 T7 ■ f� F + ■ ii awl %b6 Ir ' P. 1 � . • 1 ,■i�F "tea V F +■■-C ti ■ J '1 4w ' �r VA{ L �. 1 1 r L r. L IL %+. ' � 1 • r L- 1 ' y J.1 r 1_ 4 rJW 7Ad ,r6,L, �tk-4 F r*� # - 1 I 1 •1 ti 1 r r •■ rf} f � r-1 , . � 11 dff J L i r Exit Fu I I sc ree n j 7 �, - - Lbu%- - . - .7oogle m MIR kA 'n Ly,.OrkA) -Al kfp `- rl 1797 Ilk �.., . ERGY =F !F �t �� L •� L DRIV l `�x III `~ 19A y lea ry r� :l �"' rgle� • 4 �; Uh :,., <c, • Sy. ry xis - - - •.:tea -- - - `F. - '-F •: '� ... Dom. ��Sv ��:^—`� • -�: ':.lam• . ' �. ul_ T — - a: .T / v: f - - qlml "Al ITO Page 45 ArmWWI 0 ft r..' Page 46 o .- i x _ • s '��:. , - � �, �- a � ia, � f r� e <p�r•s Fyd._'�.•t g"4 • ' r gFA'-d�rb'r' If I ♦4�sr� +�„�l S1 ': - `..iv-%'!w th � .� J i �i'�e �+.l A�.Y�s �` 'e �� � -• fi�6+.'k 1 Y� w'. � ! f► r � =Y' a S`�`�k.\.`"'`�`�i�� s � ak.`' u G 21�. O - k ski � � �J�Cfn♦ .� �•5,� ����, - �nt�w w+n- ;.�sl": :'• ..P. 'q'4�° /��' .��� �ry� � �9�`i'". �?+L �`_I p� � ._IPipg, �,��RrF.'�1� M�*.g� 'rim 1t i'1 yyT( c 0 g T —Ic7mm l; n�r,m SHOOpR ION p , STOP 31 ONE �F-7;ldwff F, q 1wwilr7l. N ZAR t, I �rjN1 7� f ONE �F-7;ldwff F, q 1wwilr7l. N ZAR t, I �rjN1 7� f Dear Mayor and Members of Council I am writing this letter to request that the Municipality of Clarington requests, on my behalf, that CN rail reinstates the rail crossing surface located on Arthur Street, an unopened road allowance between Lots 26 and 27, Concession 1, Clarke Township. I am a farmer and grow nursery stock and pumpkins. I own a property north of Metcalf Street, fronting on the Highway 401 and the Arthur Street Road allowance. As there is no legal access to my land from Mill Street, this road allowance and rail crossing are my only means of legal access. It appears that the crossing was removed in about 1993 for either safety reasons or lack of use. Transport Canada outlined, in a letter dated May 14t" 1990, that the crossing could be secured with a gate and appropriate fencing south of the crossing, thereby limiting access to the railway and affected land owner. This would limit the Municipality's liability as it would not be open to public access. It is apparent that the Town of Newcastle was closing the crossing on a temporary basis and it could be reopened should the need arise. CN Rail acknowledges that they are the Junior authority at this crossing and is willing to reinstate the crossing surfaces at their expense at the Municipality's request. I am asking that the Municipality takes appropriate steps to contact CN Rail and initiates the reinstatement of the crossing. I am an insured arborist, and an experienced contractor, and lam willing to prune trees on the road allowance to improve site lines, construct the necessary approaches and build appropriate fencing at the crossing, as discussed in the 1990 letter. I have attached copies of relevant documentation for your review. Kind regards, Andrew Louws Page 49 'Na Iinoly va t�TiFiVTEQ;! C0E'EF-S TO CN L .2 NORTH AMERICA The Town of Newcastle 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Attention: Mr. W. Evans - Director of Public Works dioer"-: % •;nvirgnnlent Services Operations East J Suite 504 277 Front St. W. Toronto, Ontario M5P 2X7 November 23, 1993 Our File: 4710-KNG-285.66 Subject: Crossing - Arthur Street - Town of Newcastle - Mi. 285.66 Kingston Subdivision Dear Mr. Evans: The above crossing was one of a number inspected by Transport Canada in 1990 and brought to the Town and Railways attention account safety deficiencies. Transport Canada's letter outlined the deficiencies at this crossing and suggested the appropriate steps that should be taken to meet a suitable standard of safety. The Town subsequently advised Transport Canada that their consultant had advised that the closing of the crossing may be the best course of action to take. The letter went on to say that before formulating a definitive recommendation, adjoining property owners were being contacted to identify their crossing requirements, if any. To date, the Railway has not been informed of the results of these contacts and the crossing is still in place. Transport Canada has again identified this crossing as a candidate for possible closure due to little if any use. An inspection by the undersigned revealed that although proper signing had been installed by the Town regarding restricted visibility, (on the south approach only), the crossing did not appear to have been used from some time. A quick survey of the area identified possible access to the north side of the track from either Mill Street to the west and/or Riley Road to the east. Page 51 -2- The Railway considers that in the interest of safe railway operations and to ensure safety of the public, the Town pass a By-law or Resolution closing the road where it enters the Railway right-of-way. The Railway will at its cost, remove the crossing planks, approaches and construct appropriate fencing. The Town would of course retain its seniority at the crossing and should it be necessary to re -open this crossing in the future, the Railway would be prepared to re -install the crossing surfaces at its expense. If the crossing is to remain open for public use, the road approaches should be improved including, the adding of stone, widening to appropriate road width including shoulders etc. within 50 feet of the crossing, the installation of appropriate signing on the north side and the levelling of grade on the approaches. Your early assistance in dealing with this safety concern would be appreciated and should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact the undersigned at 416-217- 2627. Yours truly �. YLod ,r R gulatory and Crossing Coordinator cc: Ms. L. Hoffman Transport Canada 20 Toronto Street Suite 600 Toronto, Ontario M5C 2B8 Page 52 � I tCS� pNiARIC� November lst, 1990 SA4(l) Re: Arthur Street - North of Metcalf Street - Mileage 285.66 Kingston Subdivision CN Dear Sir: As a result of requests from CN and CP Rail and Transport Canada, the Town of Newcastle is reviewing safety conditions at a number of at -grade railway crossings in the municipality. Included in this review is an assessment of conditions at the railway crossing on Arthur Street - North of Metcalf Street - Mileage 285.66 Kingston Subdivision CN. (See attached sketch - Exhibit 1). With respect to the above noted crossing, it appears that given the extremely low traffic volumes, and the cost of upgrading the crossing to standards acceptable to the railway authority and Transport Canada, the most appropriate course of action appears to be closure of the crossing on a "temporary" basis through enactment of a municipal bylaw. Temporary in this case does not imply any specified date but Indicates that the crossing could be re -opened at some future unspecified date. With the temporary closure the existing crossing surface would be removed and a fence erected along the railway property line on both sides of the tracks. in the future and when ,justified, the crossing could be reopened. It should be noted that Transport Canada has the authority to order closure of any crossing deemed unsafe or hazardous. If Transport Canada "orders" a closure of a crossing the Town relinquishes the right to re -open the location in the future without a formal application to the National Transportation Agency (NTA). Such an application could be opposed by the: railways with the result that the Town may encounter great difficulty in re -opening the crossing. A search of our records indicates that you own or act as Trustee for lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of the subject crossing. Consequently, the Town of Newcastle wishes to determine whether or not you could support closure of this crossing. Please execute one copy of this letter and return to the Town of Newcastle by November 15th, 1990. If a response has not been received from you by 4:30 p.m., November 15th, 1990 we will assume that you have no objection to closure of this crossing. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter, W. A. Evans, P. Eng. Director of Public Works Encl. CORPORATION OF TN N OF NEWCASTLE E^ !<MflE RAt C;F S1HEET 60 WF.I llNVI_LC I. L �� -A� {A 16j C23 3379 FAX 6?3 47G9 r r Y Orono � zli IV 6 5 1 4 j 3 2 1. �— 34 133 131 30 129 27 26 ' 25 24 123 22 i 21 . 20 � A9 , 18 � 17 16 15 114 � l3 j �_� - 90WMANNILLE �r 17 LAKE ONTARIO TOWN OF NEWCASTLE RAILWAY CROSSING REM E W 17 I NEWCASTLE ! ' CONICESSION ROD I 1 aftbfidAhrw, Bo*he d .:� N.T.S. ARTHUR STREET NORTH OF METCALF STREET CROSSING LOCATION I MILEAGE — 285.66 KINGSTON SUBDIVISION C.N. EXHIBIT No. 1. Page 54 e 11 ulsl (e November 1st, 1990 S_14(1) Re: Arthur Street - North of Metcalf Street - Mileage 285.66 Kingston Subdivision CN Dear Sir: As a result of requests from CN and CP Rail and Transport Canada, the Town of Newcastle is reviewing safety conditions at a number of at -grade railway crossings In the municipality. Included in this review is an assessment of conditions at the railway crossing on Arthur Street - North of Metcalf Street - Mileage 285.66 Kingston Subdivision CN. (See attached sketch - Exhibit 1). With respect to the above noted crossing, it appears that given the extremely low traffic volumes, and the cost of upgrading the crossing to standards acceptable to the railway authority and Transport Canada, the most appropriate course of action appears to be closure of the crossing on a'"temporary" basis through enactment of a municipal bylaw. Temporary in this case does not imply any specified date but indicates that the crossing could be re -opened at some future unspecified date. With the temporary closure the existing crossing surface would be removed and a fence erected along the railway property line on both sides of the tracks. In the future and when justified, the crossing could be reopened, It should be noted that Transport Canada has the authority to order closure of any crossing deemed unsafe or hazardous. If Transport Canada "orders" a closure of a crossing the Town relinquishes the right to re -open the location in the future without a formal application to the National Transportation Agency (NTA). Such an application could be opposed by the railways with the result that the Town may encounter great difficulty in re -opening the crossing. A search of our records indicates that you own or act as Trustee for lands adjacent to or in the vicinity of the subject crossing. Consequently, the Town of Newcastle Wishes to determine whether or not you could support closure of this crossing. Please execute one copy of this letter and return to the Town of Newcastle by November 15th, 1990. If a response has not been received from you by 4:30 p.m., November 15th, 1990 we will assume that you have no objection to closure of this crossing. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter. W. A. Evans, P. Eng. Director of Public Works Encl. CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE .tC T F V P F n A N`: F S T RT • .0 tii'M At, 4';L_E • PtiT I-1G -'. A (;1v}�23-33'4 'Ak 623-4'G4 - 2 - A. I have no objection to "Temporary" closure of the above noted railway crossing. B. I have concerns regarding the closure of the above noted railway crossing and wish to discuss it with you or your staff. I can be contacted at the following phone number during business hours. Print Name Signature Page 56 Transport Transport,, Canada Canada Surface Surface 20 Toronto Street Suite 530 Toronto, Ontario M5C 2B8 May 14, 1990 Mr. P.L. Ross District Manager Southern Ontario District Canadian National Railways Suite 405 277 Front Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 2X7 Mr. G.A. Swanson vice President Operation & Maintenance CP Rail - IFS Room 354 - Union Station Toronto, Ontario M5J 1E8 Attention: Mr. B.R. Singer Division Enginee Dear Sirs: Your Me Vorre rAference Our We Nome relere.Xe 495-279.58 495-281.13 495-285.66 495-286.75 Mr. W . Evans Director of Public Works Town of Newcastle 40 Temperance St. Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 A 1'TENTION COPIES M PUBLIC WORIM RE: CROSSINGS TORONTO ST. (KINGSTON SUBD. MILE. 286.75), TOWN ROAD (KINGSTON SUBD. MILE. 285.66), BELLAMY ROAD (KINGSTON SUBD. MILE. 281.13 & BELLEVILLE SUBD. MILE. 152.45)1 & TOWN ROAD (KINGSTON SUBD. MILE. 279.58), NEWCASTLE, ONTARIO NO SW Fla diX= Wf i 1 10k & htum to we 1 ImmWe aw Repon . Tt* Aj pWiate Acl!vn The safety status of the above crossings was recently discussed by representatives of the Town, Railways and Transport Canada. It was generally considered that, if these crossings are to remain open for public use, they should meet an acceptable minimum safety level (i.e. 26 ft. overall road width, including shoulders, within 50 ft. of the crossing, with level grades near the crossings and maximum 5% ascending beyond, with clear sight lines, and signal or stop sign installed). Cmada Page 57 - 2 - TORONTO ST. - MILEAGE 286.75 KINGSTON SUBD. It appears that this crossing may warrant the installation of short arm gates, flashing light signals and bell. The Town is requested to provide a traffic count in order to determine if federal funds can be made available for up to 80% of the installation cost. CN Rail's cost estimate (letter of 86/01/31) should be updated in the event of an application to the Minister of Transport for funding assistance. Until such time as signals are installed, I strongly advise that the stop signs be maintained at this crossing, and that parking be restricted along the roadway within 100 ft. of the crossing. In addition, the road should be widened as outlined above, with a suitable crossing surface provided by CN Rail. TOWN ROAD - MILEAGE 285.66 KINGSTON SUBD. It is apparent that this crossing serves as an access from Metcalf St. to farm property north of the CN right-of- way. It was suggested that the crossing be secured by a gate and appropriate fencing south of the crossing, with access provided only for the railway and property owner. If this is not possible, the road approaches should be reconstructed to a safe standard as outlined above, with restrictive signing installed, and clear sight lines. BELLAMY ROAD - CN MILEAGE 281.13 KINGSTON SUBD. & CP MILEAGE 152.45 BELLEVILLE SUBD. Both Bellamy Road crossings appear to be rarely used in comparison to a farm crossing west of this location. These crossings should be closed, in which event the goad could revert to an unopened road allowance, with the Town retaining its right to public crossing if future needs dictate. If this is not possible, the crossings could be secured by installing a gate and fencing on the north side of the CP right-of-way. TOWN ROAD - MILEAGE 279.50 KINGSTON SUBD. This road is poorly maintained and, in my opinion, should be either closed or secured with gates and fencing. If the road is to remain open for public use, the public should have access to this area only if the road approaches are constructed as above, with suitable restrictive signing (i.e. stop signs, and advance stop signs) with clear sight lines. Page 58 - 3 - I would appreciate your comments regarding the above within 30 days of the date of this letter. It is my intention to ensure that if these crossings are to remain open they should be raised to a suitable standard of safety as outlined above. I trust that all parties will consider the above carefully, and that independent action by this office will not be required to ensure the safety of the public at these locations. Your sincerely .M. Rile Regional Signal Systems Officer Railway Safety Directorate Ontario Region cc: Mr. S.A. Cantin General Solicitor C.N. Rail Montreal, Quebec H3B 2M9 Mr. C. Wendlandt General Solicitor C.P. Rail Montreal, Quebec H3C 3E4 JMR/ j din 495-279.58 Page 59 Delegation to Clarington Joint Committees February 7th, 2022 Item 7.1 Report PDS-008-22 Durham York Incinerator Throughput Increase from 140,000 Tonnes per Year to 160,000 Tonnes per Year Municipal Comments Page 60 SCOPE OF STUDY DONE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING INADEQUATE TO PROTECT PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENT Problems with Process Right from Start with Initial Screening Checklist • Region is seeking to burn 20,000 additional tonnes of garbage everyyear for the next 20 to 30 years tonnes 20,000 year 0 years = 600, 000 tonnes • Regions developed/completed their own checklist and did not check off items regarding effects to land, ecosystems, and public health as being potentially impacted by increased mass loading to the environment • Only checked off impact to air; conducted Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) that is focused solely on impacts on air concentrations • ReLrions did not consider the impacts to land and on human health via multible bathways • Heavy metals, dioxins/furans and other highly toxic incinerator pollutants persist and accumulate in the environment affecting ecosystems, agricultural produce and human health • Clarington is an agricultural community and incinerator is close to subdivisions and schools Environmental Screening failed to adequately assess impacts of the 160,000 tonnes/year case Page 61 Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) Conclusions For Durham/York Incinerator Increasing Garbage Burning to 160,000 tonnes per year • Tonnage of Garbage Burned • Emissions of Pollutants t? AND • Maximum Predicted Concentration of Pollutants � • Decrease attributed to increased stack temperature and flowrate Air Quality Impact Assessment, December 2021 (AQIA), Golder Associates Ltd., Section 8.0 Conclusions, page 51 Page 62 3 Potential Fundamental Issue with the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) • 2019 Technical Memorandum Section 2.0 describes to extrapolate the 140,000 TPA volumetric flow rate to the 160,000 TPA scenario, the multiplication by the ratio of steam productions must be applied to the 140,000 TPA volumetric rate AT REFERENCE CONDITIONS. Multiplying at reference conditions is consistent with scientific principles (see reference to Ideal Gas Law below). • However, the 2021 AQIA does not appear to follow that procedure and instead the multiplication by the ratio of steam productions is applied to the 140,000 TPA volumetric rate AT ACTUAL CONDITIONS. • Higher flow rate for 160,000 TPA results when multiplication occurs at reference condition • Would propagate through rest of report result in higher emission rates and affect concentration predictions Page 63 MFTHODOLOGY USED IN 2021 AQlA x n 1 1:3 % increase in 160,000 TPA vol. flow rate (reference) METHODOLOGY DESCRIBED IN 2019 MEMORANDUM x n=1.13 1 % increase in 160,000 TPA vol. flow rate (reference) Page 64 5 Other Concerns with AQIA VOC Background Concentrations Are Not Site Specific (used Newmarket data); Use of 90th Percentile Background Concentrations Used instead of 98t" Percentile (or Maximum) Concentration is NOT Conservative Concerns with BACKGROUND AIR QUALITY Represented (AQIA, Section 2.0) For backgronnd VOC concentrations, AQLA used Newmarket background air datal, though Table 42 shows. there were two Toronto stations that could have been used as they were also within 100 Ian; their urban air concentrations had snore recent data available than Newmarket and may be more representative of the Courtice site as its air shed values are often referred to as being similar to other southern Ontario urban centres; use of the Newmarket VOC background concentrations potentially underestimates the air irnpacts of VOCs; In contrast, the EA used data fi•om three NAPS Toronto station and NAPS Newmarket to estimate VOC background3 — the EA background estimate for benzene was much higher than that used in AQIA and would be 8.67 tunes (867% of current project criteria); Note the present Chair of Durham Region, Mr•. John Henry, submitted comments to the Ministry registering his objection to the use of VOCs fi•orn other jurisdictions for use as Courtice background concentrations at the time of the EA;. • For averaging periods of 24-hours or less, the 90rs percentile of the data was used to represent background air quality — as this is used to predict maximum concentration at maximum POI, using the maximum background concentrations would be conservative REMEMBER: Numerous ambient air exceedances have been measured for PM, benzo(a)pyrene, S02, and even, in May 2018 for dioxins and furans • The background concentration for 1-hour NO2 fiom the air quality assessrnent (AQATSR) for the EA (used Courtice Monitoring Station measurements) of 64.6 " 5 is more than rn double the background concentration 30.0 �$ 6 used in the 2021 AQIA. Also, the 1 AQJk page 8 I lbid, page 8 3 Section 3.2.4.8 EA AQATSR p. 35 4 Ministry Review, Comments of Oshawa Councillor, M.Er John Henry, page 123 s Air Quality Technical Study Report, December4, 2009, Jacques yam, Table 3-10: Summary of Background Page 65 Concentrations used in the Air Quality Assessment, page 37 6 AQJq, Table 5: Background Air Concentrations, page 13 Other Concerns with AQIA Background Concentrations Primarily Take from Courtice Monitoring Station is NOT Conservative (max of Rundle or Courtice should be used) AQIA data iva s primarily taken from C Drub c e station ln.Ae a d of l iLuidl e bayed on the rationale that oruli c e: is priniaril up-�iind of Rundle and that dii s- iYould avoid double c oinitiniz , The metcoro 10 gic a 1 data, 1 mvever, silo-" that Courtice i s do-wn- ind a i� i anificant portion of the year. A more conservative approach, and easy to do with electronic data, ivoald ha-s-e been to use the maximum of Courtice tics and Rundle for estimating background. Page 66 All Recommendations Should Request Region and MECP Respond in Writing PDS-008-22 Attachment 4: Consolidation of Staff Recommendations on the Durham York Energy Centre Screening Report (December2021) Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and I IE P review the agreed to modelling methodology l data inputs to confirm their appropriateness, taping into consideration Recommendation #1, #, # , #4 and #8 from Dillon, as described in Attachment 2. Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Reg and I IE P review the AQlA to confirm that all appropriate reasonably foreseeable future activities have been included (Dillon Recommendation ## ). Page 67 Issues Identified During the EA Demonstrate Need for More Scrutiny Additional Mass Loading May Have Adverse Impacts and Should Have Been Studied Air .uality/Health Concerns Registered at time of EA * NO2 Annual ambient values (2008) measured at Courtice Road station highest in Southwestern Ontario (including Windsor, Hamilton, Sarnia, Toronto)l • "Ambient air quality monitoring included in the EA indicates that, for two contaminants (PM2.5 and ozone), the monitored data marginally complies or exceeds applicable ministry limits." 2 (r. Victor Low, Director, Section 9, Environmental Protection Act) • Ozone ambient levels exceeded air quality criteria at Courtice station • Health Canada identified health concerns for P2.5, N021, and Respiratory Irritants exposures assessed in the EA for bath the 140,000 tpy and 4OO,000 tpy scenarios and Health Canada recommended additional mitigation measures for these pollutants.3 The Regions, however, did not act on this advice. Now, in 2022, the Regions are asking for a permit that goes in the opposite direction — instead of mitigating pollution exposure, the Regions are applying to do the opposite and increase pollution by burning an additional 20,000 tonnes per year for the next 20 to 30 years 'Air Quality Assessment Technical Study Report (AQATSR), Durham York Residua! Waste Study, Jacques Whitfordt Consultants, July 31, 2009, Appendix A, Figure A-2-4, (aIs❑ Figure 7-10 in HHERA, Dec 2009, page 174) z Review of the Durham and York Residual Waste Study Amended Environmental Assessmen t, Ontario Ministry of Environment, 2010, (subsequent reference Ministry Review), page 109 (pdf), quote is Comment S submitted September 25, 2009, by MOE reviewer Victor Low, P. Eng., Director, Section 9, Environmental Protection Act 3 Ibid, page 125, Health Canada comments, September 25, 2009, reviewer�[+lela Lalani on Durham/York Residual Waste Study Environmental Assessment Study Air Quality/Health Concerns Found/Registered at time of EA These Concerns Need To be Assessed for 160,000 TPA • Potential risks to human health (Concentration Ratio (CIS) values > 1) were identified in the EA for N 2, Respiratory Irritants and PM2.5 in the Baseline Traffic and 140,000 tp scenarios'. • reviewers expressed concerns that 901h percentile values for pollutants (including N 2, 2, PM2.5 and CO.) were used instead of inaxinititil identified concentrations which could have underestimated C s. • Numerous experts (Ministry, reviewer for the Municipality of Clarington, doctors, citizens) raised concerns that ambient air quality criteria (AA Cs) -air benchinarl s not necessarily health -based -were used to characterize health risk. • At time of the EA, Dr. Raymond Copes of Public Health Ontario, advised Dr. Kyle that using air benchmarks to characterize Duman health risk for PM2.5, a non -threshold pollutant, was inappropriate. • Yet, in 2021 A IA, PM2.5 air benchmarks used again So risk due to PM2.5 exposure not properly assessed. • 2021 A IA, the consultants also used 901h percentile vat -Lies to represent the background PM2.5 concentrations though PM2.5 AAQC is a 981h percentile standard, underestimating maximum exposure 'Site -Specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment —Technical Study Report (HHERA), Durham York Residual Waste EA Study, December 10, 2009, Stantec, Tables 7-11, 7-13, 7-2111�age 173, 179, 206 2 Ministry Review, Health Canada comments by Allison Denning, October 13, 2009, page 16 December2021 19117256 Table 13: Scenario 1A - Maximum Concentrations at ail Receptors for Current Maximum Operating Conditions (140,000 tpa) ( Benzene 71-43-2 4.92E-05 Annual 0.45 0.000003 ai% 0.40 0.40 88°/a Benzene 71-43-2 4.92E-05 24-hour 2.3 0.00006 c1% 0.62 0.62 27%u Benzo(a)anthrace ne 56-55-3 2.07E-07 24-hour 0A 0.00000024 cl% 0.0001 0.0001 c1% Benzo(a)fluorene 238-84-6 2.07E-07 24-hour 0A 0.0000002 cl% 0.0002 0.0002 <1% Benzo(a)pyrene [as a surrogate of total Polycyclic Aromatic 50-32-8 2.07E-07 Annual 0.00001 0.00000001 cl% 0D00026 0.000026 256% Hydrocarbons IPAHs11 Benzo(a)pyrene [as a surrogate of total Polycyclic Aromatic 50-32-8 2.07E-07 24-hour 0.00005 0,0000002 <1% 0.000058 0,000058 116% Hydrocarbons (PAHs)] Dioxins, Furans and Dioxin- like NIA -6 2.56E-03 24-hour 0.1 pg TEQIm' 0.003 pg TEQIm' 3% 0.021 0.024 pg TEQ/m' 24% PCBs PllflIn NIA -3 2.06E-01 24-hour 50 1.17 2% 24.48 25.65 51 % PIV12.5 NIA -4 1.95E-01 24-hour 27 1.10 4% 13.22 I 14.32 53% P102.5 NIA -4 1.95E-01 Annual 8.8 106 s1% 8A2 8.18 93°/u Sulphur Dioxide Sulphur Dioxide 7446-09-05 7446-09-05 1.49E+00 10-minute 1.49E+00 1-hour 178 106 28.39 17.20 16% 19.41 47,80 16%v 11.75 28.96 27% 27% Sulphur Dioxide 7446-09-05 1.49E+00 24-hour 150 1.76 1 % 12.64 14.40 10% Sulphur Dioxide 7446-09-05 1.49E+00 Annual 10.5 0.09 <1% 5.26 5.35 511 % Nitrogen Dioxides Nitrogen Dioxides 10102-44-0 10102-44-0 5.16E+00 I 1-hour 5.16E+00 24-hour 79 200 41.26 6.09 52% 30.00 71.26 3% 22.28 28.37 90% 14% Nitrogen Dioxides 10102-44-0 5.16E+00 I Annual 22.5 0.31 1°% 14.04 14.36 64% Page 70 11 Health Concerns Found/Registered at time of EA These Concerns Need To be Assessed for 160,000 TPA • Potential risks (Hazard Quotients > 0.2) were identified in the EA Human Health Multi - Pathway Assessment for the Baseline Case and various scenarios and pollutants incLiding PCBs, DioxinsiFurans, Chemical Mixtures for: o the Resident -Infant (HQ = 11), Farmer -Infant (HQ=118), For 1,2.4- Trichlorobenzene: to the Farmer -Toddler (HQ=20)1 o For DioxinslFurans: to the Resident -Infant (HQ=3.8), Farmer -Infant (HQ=20), Fanner -Toddler (11Q=0.72 o For Chemical Mixtures: Number of Receptors and Effects including Liver Effects to the Farmer -Infant (HQ=117) • The Ministry's Supervisor, Human Toxicology advised in June 2009 that the EA health risk assessment did not suffice for the 400,000 tpy assessment and listed improvements needed for Ministry to determine if assessment appropriately characterized health risk' • The Ministry's Regulatory Toxicologist identified numerous concerns with the EA health risk assessment in a letter dated October 19, 20094; in conclusions in a subsequent letter dated January 2010 he made clear his comments were contingent on the 140,000 tpy scenario - not the 400,000 tpy scenario - and that the proponent has colimutted to "conduct a new environmental study if any expansion is required in the future.''' 1 HHERA, Table 7-14, page 181 2 HHERA, Table 7-15, page 182 Ministry Review, Comments of Ministry Supervisor, Human Toxicology, Barry Lubek�, June 25 2009. page 85 Ministry Review, Comments of Ministry Toxicologist Samir Abdel-Ghaffar, October 19, 2009, Rage 80 s Ministry Review, Ministry Toxicologist comments by Samir Abdel-Gh, afar, January 1P1�§T07�age 189 12 Mal or Problem: Pro]ect Scenarios Do Not Consider Shut Down/Process Ui)set Scenarios: AQ1A states that " rna imum start-up and shut -down conditions remain unchanged from the existing permitted conditions and are not considered in this assessment."36 Shut down and process upset scenarios WERE NOT considered in the 2011 ECA Application, however.I � They are also not considered in the present AQIA. The maximum emissions scenarios (process upset, shutdown) have not been assessed. Given the numerous e ceedances at the stack and in the ambient air since this facility began operations in 2015., the very limited continuous monitoring at the stack and the inability to measure emissions of most of the pollutants of concern every day, as Nvell as the potential for formation of dioxins/furans under process upset conditions, such analysis should have been done. It is imperative that these scenarios (process upset, shut down) be ffitly assessed to protect public health and the environment. The EA did assess Process Upset conditions and method is outlined in Section 4.2.2. page 56 of AQATSR and risks were identified for this scenario for both 140,000 tpy and 400,000 tpy assessments. 26 AQ1A, Section 3.0, page 17 2' E DM Modelling Report, March 2011, Colder Associates, Section 4.1, Exhib t 2, page 16 Page 72 Need an EA For 160,000 TPA Increase Urge you to Strengthen Staff Recommendation Recommendation: That the Municipality reaffirm its previous request to the Region ion and MERE that the Site - Specific HHEI A be omprehensively updated as part of the supporting studies for the EA to expand the DYEC to process 250,000 tonnes per year, including that the scope of the update consider the effect of DYEC upset conditions at this significantly increased capacitor. Page 73 Other MajorConcerns: ESR did not loot at the impact of the Mixed Waste Pre-sort/AID on the waste composition being sent to the incinerator and how it will affect emissions; there will be higher concentrations of plastics, and increased toxicity is a concern.; an EA is needed • ESR did not consider risks of ultraf 1ne particulate and PF s — please see nay comments on S t MWys leave to appeal as they apply here • Regions Want to amend E — the ECA should be amended to include: -IMPROVED monitoring (particulate matter, mercury., environmental monitoring agricultural produce, dairy, eggs), greater frequency of monitoring soil, dioxins/furaiis -REQUIRE E reporting of all AMESA data and underlying reports, data validation protocol Page 74 Please Amend/Strengthen Report Recommendations POS-008-22 Attachment 4: Consolidation of Staff Recommendations on the Durham York Energy Centre Screening Deport (December 021) Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the legions and MECP review the agreed to modelling methodology I data Inputs tc) cc)Pfirm their appropriateness, takiPg intc) c o n sl d e rat 1 on Recommendation # 1, ## , ## , #4 and ##8 from Dillon, as described in Attachment 2. Add: "Request a review of the floerate calculations for the 160,000 TPA (reference) scenario and respond in writing." Page 75 16 Please Amend/Strengthen Report Recommendations Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Regions and IVI E D consider the current waste composition scenario and the future "pre-sorted" waste corn posi It i on snonaric) as part of the demonstration of compliance with air quality limits that the Regions are required to undertake to support their E A Amendment application for the proposed throughput increase, Add: "for the Environmental cr nin to incre ase c ag a city to 160,0 0 0 tonnes p er year" Recommendation That theIlniiplit reaffirm its prior r t to the Region IIEE that the Specific H H E RA he comprehensively updated as part of the supporting stWiles for the EA to expand the DYEDYEC to process 250,000 tonnes per year, including that the scope of the update consider the effect of DYEDYEC upset conditions at this significantly increased capacity. Page 76 17 Please Amend/Strengthen Report Recommendations Add: "and i element mitigation and monitoring measures to help reduce the risk due to fiv paitiDulate matter M- .5 ), respiratory iiTitants, Recommendation: and dioxin fin emissions." That the Municipality request the Region identify and implement mitigation measures to prevent the risk of nitrogen dioxide a ceedances identified i n the AQIA, where practicable. Page 77 DYEC EA Screening Concerns —to Clarington Joint Committee Linda Gasser February 7, 2022. Page 78 Basic themes of my comments • Inadequate identification of issues by proponent nor review of several concerns raised by commenters at 2019 PICs and to draft Environmental Screening Report — self directed assessment inadequate & deficient • ESR data needs to update all ESR assumptions must consider 2020 data - it's available and waste processed in 2020 exceeded 140,000 tonnes per year — relevant to requested capacity increase. • Waste REDUCTION must be priority to address capacity issues at DYEC and other - you can't divert your way out of a garbage crisis • Green house gas emissions (GHGs) -requires updated assessment by independent third party expert —Durham can't burn it's wav to a low carbon future • DYEC monitoring enhancements needed due to increased throughput capacity, waste composition changes since 2009 EA studies & near future anticipated changes to composition if MWP implemented 2022-02-07 Page 79 Inadequate identification of issues and review • I reviewed issues that commenters, either in writing or at PICs had raised as captured in the Consultation Record, Appendix G to ESR. • Durham staff consistently tailor replies which omit key facts when asked questions about incinerator exceedances. • From inception of DYEC operations, there has been a concerted effort to downplay incinerator emissions exceedances or operational problems. At times information provided is inconsistent with the facts with evolving narratives, making it difficult for the average reviewer to address these. • In a proponent driven process where the proponent controls what does or does not get addressed, the ESR doesn't address these concerns raised and it's up to reviewers to raise these again in submissions. 2022-02-07 Page 80 Conflictinginformation in ESR which haspotential to impact Air Emissions due to chan es in waste � com pacts m - ositioni not addressed in EA p Example of conflicting information that has potential to affect Air Quality Impact Assessment conclusions • From ESR Consultation Report, PIC 1 Summary Report page 12/40, staff responses to questions state their M W P wo u I d "decrease the volume of waste by 30°0 " • On page 14 of same document, in a Project Team response staff wrote: "Durham Region is planning to expand its diversion programs by building a mixed waste transfer/pre-sort facility to remove additional recyclables and organic waste which together will divert up to 30,000 additional tonnes per year of material from the DYEC" . • See DYEC ESR Appendix G Consultation Summary Report at: https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/facility- approvals/resources/Documents/2021%20Environmental%20Screening%20Report/REVISED%20- %20December%2021/Appendix%20G_Consultation%2OSumary%20RPT.pdf • Your reviewer has identified in his Recommendation 7 that: the Municipality should confirm with the Region that no change in the waste stream composition is anticipated. • As well, the ESR should update assumptions to include 2020 data. As just one example, project tonnage to be processed at the Mixed Waste Presort is already out of date for SSO. Must be revised 2022-02-07 Page 81 Waste Reduction Strategy essential to addressing waste and capacity at DYEC • Citizens stressed since initial EA that a 3 Rs based strategy had to be adopted in the right order i.e. Reduction, Reuse, then Recycling/diversion. • Durham had NO Waste Reduction or Reuse strategies or even stated as a goal in Durham's latest Strategic Plan, • Original staff developed Guiding Principles (Jan. 2020) for Long Term Waste Plan didn't mention Reduction/Reuse. • In summer 2020, residents and a citizens advisory Committee -EFW WMAC recommended revising the Guiding Principles to include Reduction and Reuse. • Durham staff actively resisted these suggestions at the WMAC July and September 2020 meetings — worth watching to understand staff's approaches. 2022-02-07 Page 82 In 2021 in response to public input Durham staff revised the LTWMP Guiding principles. • In 2019 Durham had second highest waste generation rate within their group of municipalities with similar characteristics described below • See Section 5.8 of Long Term Waste Management Plan htt s://www.durham.ca/en/livin - here/resources/Documents/Garba eandRec clin /Lon - ierm4 as e- an ina - ocumen s ur am Region LIVVI\AP FINAL Jan-31-2U22-AODA.pdf Durham responded as below in LTWMP: • 5.5 During consultation, over 70 per cent of stakeholders supported the guiding principles and provided no additional comment. Comments from some stakeholders suggested that explicit reference to reduce and reuse be included as a guiding principle. • 5.6 As a result, Regional staff propose an additional guiding principle to highlight the importance of reduce and reuse for effective waste management and to simplify the wording of the remaining guiding principles.... • Citizens and community are way ahead of Durham staff and willing to shift behaviours. We need leaders on Durham Council to direct staff appropriately. 2022-02-07 Page 83 "Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and 17l tell you what you value. " (u.s. President Joe Biden) 4 slides showing DR Solid Waste budgets 2019-2022, See 2019 below 80% of Budget - Contract costs for collection - Contract costs for processi ng - Operating costs for facilities - Environmental monitoring/studies Service Excellence for our Communities 15% of Budget - Staffing Sib of Budget - Diversion promotional items - Community ❑utreach - By -Law enforcement - Cal I Centre Z 2022-02-07 Page 84 7 Solid Waste Budget 2020 —major capital $$ 0.3% budgeted Community Outreach and Stud ies-Diversion not specified Proposed Expenditures by Program Area (millions) waste Waste Management Management Administration. Centre Facilities Headquarters & .0$4_9 Corporate Casts/S2 U $2 Q% SB.s 3.7% FaciIities Managementham York $2.3 EnergyCollections. 0.9�o Centre 520.2 processing. 8.5% Haulage & Disposal $36.1 2020 Proposed Expenditures $239-2 million Pr lNdrSetE Re%. a Community Outreach & Studies $6.6 0.3% Environment at Studies 6.2% for 2022.02.07 " Long-term Organics NlanagemePiFQaNr6r $163.5 million rs subject to additional fL. 2021 proposed SW Expenditures -0.8% for Community Outreach 2021 Proposed Gross Expenditures by Program Area Community Envirnnmental Capital Studies p,ga�o 2022-02-07 Page 86 9 2022 SW Proposed Gross Expenditures $320.3 million — Community Outreach 0.2% Waste Capital budget for AD Project currently $242 million Blue box revenue and subsidy 0.2% Enivornmental Studies - 0.7 Waste Management Centre U.S Community Outreach 0.2 l Collection, Processing & Disposal -4 11 .3 f Durham York Energy Centre 6.8 Facilities 2022 Prapased Management Expenditure 0.a $320.3 rnillian (Grass) Adm in, Corporate Costs, RHQ 2.8 l Waste Management Facilities 2022-02-07 Page 87 10 DYEC Incinerator largest source of Durham corporate GHG emissions • ESR must be updated to include 2020 data —substantial increase in 2020 relevant as DYEC process in excess of 140K tpy due to Emergency Amendment permitting additional capacity • ALL GHG emissions must be calculated with calculations provided to show basis for what considered and included. • Durham revised their base year in Climate Change Plan to 2019 • DYEC GHGs will render irrelevant every Durham and/or Clarington GHG reduction target 2022-02-07 Page 88 From Energy Justice webpage on GHGs and incinerators — APPLICABLE to DYEC • Here are the ways that EPA downplays the greenhouse gas emissions from incineration: Ignoring "biogenic" carbon emissions Subtracting avoided methane emissions from landfills, as if conventional landfills are the only alternative Subtracting emissions from offsetting fossil fuels for energy generation Subtracting emissions due to recycling of metals that remain in the ash after combustion Subtracting emissions from avoiding long-distance transportation to landfills • From: Energy Justice Websitehttp://www.energvi ustice. net/i nci neration/d i mate 2022-02-07 Page 89 Denmark's `devilish' waste dilemma Its state-of-the-art trash incinerators are sending its climate ambitions up in smoke. https://www.politico.eu/article/denmark-devilish-waste-trash-energy-incineration-recycling- dilemma/#:—:text=Its%20state%2Dof%2Dthe%2D,climate%20ambitions%20up%20in%20smoke.&text=One%20 issue%20is%20that%20the,tons%20of%20waste%20a%20yea r. Durham can't burn its way to a low carbon future. Extracts from article: Denmark is Europe's top waste burner. Incineration accounts for about a fifth of district heating and about 5 percent of its electricity Incineration, especially when used to produce heat or electricity, is often seen as an improvement over dumping waste into landfills — where it emits methane and can leach toxic chemicals — or shipping it to developing countries where there's little oversight of what happens to it. That doesn't square with Copenhagen's climate goals; Denmark wants to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 70 percent below 1990 levels in the next decade under a climate law adopted last year. A retreat from burning trash carries some big costs. Many of the plants were financed by loan guarantees and are owned by local municipalities. "The government is well on its way to breaking down the municipal waste sector, which for the last decade has ensured constantly increasing waste sorting and recycling of Danes' waste," said Mads Jakobsen, the chairman of the Danish Waste Association. But that system is harder to justify when recycling has become a more mainstream option to remove much of the waste stream that would normally be burned, and countries are focusing on slashing their greenhouse gas emissions. 2022-02-07 Page 90 Projected Annual GHG Emissions from DYEC Page 60 DYEC 2021 ESR 1W YO rkwJ0012 Table 4; Projected Annual GHG contrlbudon from DYEC MG °do- % GHG Contribution DYIEC (Tonnes Contribution bution Contribution Contribution 2019 (tonnes CO2 Processlble) (tonnes COx to Ontario to Canadian e� eq GHG GHG Emissions Emissions Ontario 163,0nn,n00 1401000 159,545 0.10% 0.02% Canada 730, 000, 000 160,000 182.337 0 A 1 % 0.02 % DYEC submits an annual Greenhouse Gas Report as required by Environment and Climate Change Canada under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The information is collected under section 46 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and reports are submitted annually in June_ Facilities that emit 10,000 tonnes or more of GHGs in carbon dioxide equivalent units per year are required to submit a report_ A summary of the DYEC G02e Annual Emissions from 2015-2019 as reported under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is charted below. 2022-02-07 Page 91 From 2022 COW-3 on Feb. 9.22 COW agenda rt #2022-COW-3 Figure 2: 2020 Corporate GHG Footprint by Operating Area Total Corporate GHG Emissions Paqe 4 of 25 Energy -Related GHG Emissions ■ Paramedics 35% ■ Police ■ Transit 0.3% ■ Public Works 2.t Ye t °,6 000111, ■ Socia I Service s ■Administration and Other mSalid Waste 36.6% Management 10.6% ■ Water & Sewer 4.3 As shown in Figure 3 below, the Region's corporate emissions increased marginally from 2019 to 2020 but remained a relatively stable share of Region -wide emissions. 2020 emissions trends may also be best understood in the context of Region's COVID-19 response. For example, as noted in Report #2021-INFO-133, DYEC experienced a significant increase in residential wastes due to stay-at-home orders and school and workplace closures. Managing this increase in waste Volume contributed to increased GHG emissions at DYEC. COVID-19 related operational changes and resultant GHG emission impacts were also seen in other areas, namely in DRT service reductions which reduced fleet fuel consumption. 2022-02-07 Page 92 15 DYEC attributed GHGs up 2020 over 2019, increased throughput in 2020 2022-02-07 Figure 3: 2019 Baseline Inventory vs 2020 Actual GHG Emissions by Sector 50,000 t� t� 40.000 0 0 30,000 0 20.000 10.000 Facilities and Durham York Vehicle Water and Traffic Signals Fleets Sewer Centre ■ 2019 GHG Emissions 12.700 30,300 27.500 55.900 ■ 2020 GHG Emissions 12.200 24.700 27200 65,000 Page 93 Solid Waste LandFllls 45.100 43.100 Mel DYEC monitoring must be updated & enhanced to consider additional throughput & changing waste composition • Consideration of following with details to be determined when AQIA revised to consider input from Clarington and residents • General Comment —Durham MUST report all monitoring plans/results and provide supporting data promptly • Must post MECP responses asap after receipt e.g. 2018 Q 3 & 4 MECP responses to AA only posted last week after requested — identified problems with AA stations. These referenced in ESR. • Increased frequency of AMESA sampling —important to help identify and address operational issues sooner. • Current monthly sampling periods result in long time lags e.g. we haven't got Quarter 3 2021 summary report yet. • More Ambient Air stations and Soil Monitoring annually — 2021 news reports on dioxins soil contamination in Switzerland from incinerators a wake up call. • Additional parameters forCEMS —e.g. Particulate Matter and Mercury 2022-02-07 Page 94 More opportunities for Clarington participation in monthly meetings with Covanta • As Host Community Clarington should request that their staff below allowed to participate in monthly meetings between Covanta and Regions. • Issues can be flagged early and reported to Clarington Council in timely manner • An informed and vigilant Host Community Council needed to protect Clarington community Thank you for your attention. QUESTIONS? 2022-02-07 Page 95 Air Quality Review of Proposed Increase to Throughput at DYEC Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council February 71h, 2022 • Dillon Consulting's Role • Qualifications of the Project Team • Environmental Screening Report and Air Quality Impact Assessment Overview • Methodology • Air Quality Impact Assessment Review and Recommendations • Environmental Screening Report Air Quality Review and Recommendations • Additional Recommendations Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILLQN CONSULT LNC Page 97 • Dillon was retained by the Municipality to act as an air quality advisor: • Supplement the Municipality's review of the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) and Environmental Screening Report (ESR) • Scope is not to provide a peer review of the AQIA. A peer review would involve: • A detailed technical review of the work, including confirmation of calculations, modelling methodologies, etc. • Scope does not include review of current operations at DYEC and confirmation of current compliance • Dillon has relied on information provided by licensed professionals in providing recommendations to the Municipality Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILLON CONti ULA'ING • Hamish Corbett-Hains, MASc, P.Eng. • Professional Engineer licensed in Ontario • Master's Degree in Environmental Engineer • 11 years of experience • Led air quality assessments for primary and heavy industry, and manufacturing as well as land use compatibility studies, transportation assessments, cumulative air quality assessments, and peer reviews • Served as an executive on the board of the Air and Waste Management Association — Ontario Chapter • Member of the Ministry of the Environment sector -specific working group on air quality Technical Standards development • Ravi Mahabir, P.Eng., CRM • Professional Engineer licensed in Ontario & Canadian Certified Risk Manager • Bachelors Degree in Chemical and Environmental Engineer • 19 years of experience • Lead for air quality assessments for primary and heavy industry, and manufacturing as well as regional air quality analyses, cumulative air quality assessments, peer reviews and legal proceedings • Led air quality assessments in multiple Canadian provinces and internationally (for World Bank/ IFC etc.) • Member of Professional Engineers Ontario Sub -Committee developing Guidelines for Air Quality Assessments under O. Reg.1/17 • Member of the Ministry of the Environment sector -specific working group on air quality Technical Standards development Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILLON CONSULT ING Page 99 • In support of the proposed increase to throughput at DYEC, the Regions (Durham and York) prepared an Environmental Screening Report which identified Air Quality as one of the pathways potentially impacted by the increase • An Air Quality Impact Assessment was completed by the Regions' air quality consultant, Golder Associates Ltd • The Air Quality Impact Assessment considers the change from current operations (140,000 tonnes per year of waste processed) to the proposed throughput limit (160,000 tonnes per year of waste processed) Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILL.ON CONSU.:t'lNG Page100 • A review of the air quality, odour, and greenhouse gases sections of the Environmental Screening Report was performed • The Air Quality Impact Assessment and accompanying appendices were reviewed Guiding Questions for the Review: • Does the AQIA follow Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) guidance for an air dispersion modelling assessment? • Does the AQIA follow industry best practices (emissions, modelling, background data selection, cumulative impacts etc.)? • Do the AQIA and ESR provide an appropriate comparison between the existing and proposed operations at DYEC? Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILWN CONSUL I INC: Page 101 AQIA— General Overview Define Determine assessment background Determine scope, concentrati Prepare Calculate Facility Identify Air including meteorologi emission receptor Dispersion relevant ons of cal data rates operating locations Modelling Indicator Indicator conditions Compounds Compounds Compare modelling results + background concentra- tions to criteria • The majority of indicator compounds are monitored at the nearby Courtice and Rundle stations. The remaining indicator compounds are measured by the MECP at stations outside of the local area. • The AQIA states that Courtice is considered to be an upwind of DYEC while Rundle is considered to be downwind. Based on meteorological data presented within the AQIA, it appears that both stations could be considered downwind of DYEC during certain wind conditions. Recommendation: The Municipality request the Regions and MECP review the data selected for background conditions to confirm the assessment is appropriately conservative Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council Courtice (Jan 1, 2015 — Dec 31, 2019) A ,;.. o��,_o. *�ItIl ,-az- Figure 2: 2015-2019 Windrose for Courtice Station As presented in the AQIA, Golder Associated Ltd. DILLON CONSULl'ING Page103 • The summary of monitoring data shows that several indicator compounds are at levels close to, or exceeding, the air quality criteria without the influence of DYEC • PM101 PM2 5, Benzene, Phosphorous, Chloroform, and Sulphur Dioxide all have elevated background concentrations (>50% of the criteria) • Benzo[a]pyrene exceeds the relevant annual criteria without the influence of DYEC • The AQIA appropriately contextualizes this by stating that exceeclances of the relevant criteria for Benzo[a]pyrene is "typical of urban settings in Southern Ontario" Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILLON C ONtiUL!'lNG Page104 • The AQIA quantified emission rates of indicator compounds based on source testing, in - stack emission limits, and emission factors. This approach is conservative and is in line with good industry practice. • Based on the Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) at DYEC, the Facility has experienced one exceedance of in -stack emissions limits since operations began in 2016. • Within the scope of Dillon's review, it was not possible to reconcile the flow rates and emission rates presented for the existing and proposed scenarios. A detailed technical review is required to determine if the data presented is accurate. Recommendation: The Municipality request that the Regions and MECP confirm that all stack parameters and emission rates have been appropriately characterized. Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILWN CONSULL'lNC Page105 • The AQIA used measured meteorological data as well as computationally generated meteorological data in the air quality assessment. • The selection of input data and the computational models appears to be appropriate, and has been reviewed by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILLON CONSULA'ING Page106 • The AQIA has assessed the impacts of the proposed increase in throughput with and without ancillary sources using the CALPUFF air dispersion model. CALPUFF is an appropriate model given the scale of the facility and the proximity of Lake Ontario. • The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park reviewed all model set up files prior to model execution. • Modelling appears to be in line with good industry practice. Scenario #1 ✓ Scenario #2 ✓ iT= .iiC6 -IN Scenario #4 Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILLON CONSUE1 ING Page107 • The AQIA characterizes stack parameters (e.g. exhaust temperature and flow rate) based on previous submissions to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks as well as source testing data. • There appears to be potential inconsistencies in the determination of flow rate between the existing and proposed scenarios. Recommendation: The Municipality request that the Regions and MECP confirm that all stack parameters and emission rates have been accurately determined. Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council As presented in the AQIA, Golder Associated Ltd. DILWN CONsucnuc Page108 • In dispersion modelling assessments, best practice is to locate receptors at any point within the model where an impact could occur. • The AQIA includes ground -level receptors throughout the study area, including all sensitive receptor locations. • The AQIA has not included any elevated receptors in the air dispersion model. • Several elevated sensitive receptor locations exist in the study area based on allowable zoning and Regional plans. Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILWN CONSUCPINC Page109 • Current municipal zoning allows for both a hotel and daycare within —500 m of DYEC • Zoning allows for both of these uses to be greater than 10 storeys. • The proposed Courtice GO Station MTSA is within a kilometre of DYEC and may allow for the introduction of a significant number of elevated receptor locations. • Elevated receptors can experience much higher concentrations of indicator compounds under certain conditions. Recommendation: The Municipality request that the Regions and MECP assess the potential impacts at all sensitive receptor locations which are existing, allowable, or proposed, within the study area. Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council es 0 0 Za d Sensible Uses 0 1-- DILLON CONSULTING Page110 • The AQIA has not considered the impacts of DYEC cumulatively with other approved industries. • Under Ontario's Environmental Assessment framework, best practice is to consider reasonably foreseeable future activities where possible. • Specifically, the approved use of Alternative Low Carbon Fuels at St Mary's Cement has not been included in the assessment. Recommendation: The Municipality confirm with the Regions and MECP that the assessment has appropriately considered all proposed and operating facilities in the area. • Note that the St Marys Cement cumulative assessment showed no significant impact from the use of Alternative Low Carbon Fuels (with DYEC's proposed change included) Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILLON CONSULTING Page111 • The AQIA concludes that the increase in throughput at DYEC will not result in a significant change to off -site concentrations of indicator compounds. • Both Nitrogen Dioxide and Benzo[a]pyrene are predicted to exceed the relevant criteria under both the existing and proposed scenarios. • The report demonstrates that no significant change is expected to the predicted exceedances under both the existing and proposed scenario. • Nitrogen Dioxide is expected to exceed the relevant criteria only during emergency generator testing. • Exceedances of Benzo[a]pyrene are a result of elevated background concentrations. • The AQIA demonstrates that the proposed increase in throughput is unlikely to impact local air quality. The AQIA generally follows industry best practice, however, Dillon has provided recommendations to the Municipality which are intended to support the Municipality's consultation with the Regions and MECP in the review of this proposal. Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILLON CONSULT UNG Page112 • The ESR shows that the increase in throughput will result in a net reduction in greenhouse gasses when compared to the alternative scenario of landfilling at a remote site. • The rationale provided for this assessment is reasonable. Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council Table 8A: Energy Consumption and Emissions to Air Comparison of Remote Landfill and Energy from Waste Base Case — Remote Landfill System 2a —Thermal Treatment of Mixed Solid Waste & Recovery of Energy followed by Recovery of Materials from Ash/Char ENERGY CONSUMPTION (GJ/year) (GJ/tonne) (GJ/year) (G!/tonne) Energy 58,000 232 -2,881,000 -11,524 Consumption EMISSIONS TO AIR Greenhouse Gases (tonnes/year) (kg/tonne) (tonnes/year) (kg/tonne) Net carbon dioxide 59,000 236 33,000 132 equivalent, eCO2 DILLQN CONSULT LNC Page113 • The ESR states that no increase in odours is expected as a result of the increase in throughput, however this statement has not been justified within the report. Recommendation: The Municipality request that the MECP require additional technical studies be completed to verify the conclusion that no increase in odours is expected from the capacity increase at DYEC. • The ESR defines the project as an increase in throughput only. No commentary has been provided regarding waste composition. Should the composition of the waste stream change at any time, consideration should be given to further technical studies. Recommendation: The Municipality confirm with the Regions that no change in waste stream composition is expected. Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILLON CONti ULA'ING Page114 • The ESR describes the methods followed in the 2009 Environmental Assessment to evaluate indicator compounds during start-up, shut -down, and upset conditions. These conditions have not been assessed in the updated AQIA. • Off -site concentrations of indicator compounds were previously predicted to be higher during these conditions. Recommendation: The Municipality request that the Regions and MECP confirm that the selection of operating conditions assessed is appropriate to support the conclusions of the ESR/AQIA. • Note that the impact of additional operating conditions would be expected to be similar for both the existing and proposed scenario. Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILLON CONSULT ING Page115 • Real time ambient air quality monitoring network setup recommended • Across the community • Industry supported program • Collaboration between MECP, Industry • Feedback loop to Industry and Municipality • Regular public reporting (possibly online real-time) Presentation to Clarington Municipal Council DILL.ON CONSU.:t'lNG Page116 Hamish Corbett-Hains, MASc, P.Eng hhains@dillon.ca Page117 Patenaude, Lindsey From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: EXTERNAL Good morning: Linda Gasser <gasserlinda@gmail.com> Thursday, February 3, 2022 9:49 AM minister.mecp@ontario.ca; david.piccini@pc.ola.org ClerksExternalEmail; Clerks Durham Region Request to Minister Piccini to consider requiring an Env. Assessment for Durham Region's proposed MWP & AD 2022 Feb 3 Letter to Minister Piccini requesting EA for Durham Region's AD Project.pdf; 2017-11-30- wmsac-agenda (1).pdf incl. MWP pilot Cda Fibres.pdf High Attached please find my letter requesting that you consider requiring an Environmental Assessment for Durham Region's proposed Mixed Waste Presort and Anaerobic Digester. A project of this complexity and with a range of potential impacts, should require meaningful public consultation and undergo the level of study and scrutiny that an Environmental Assessment would require. Also attached is a Peel Region report describing potential issues around Mixed Waste Pres-sorts - I cannot find the relevant link so include as an attachment to my letter. Thank you in advance for considering my request. I would appreciate confirmation of receipt and a reply at the earliest opportunity. Thanks in advance and kind regards. Linda Gasser 111 Ferguson St. Whitby, ON L1 N 2X7 Email: gasserlinda@gmail.com Page118 Via Email to: minister.mecp@ontario.ca February 3, 2022. Hon. David Piccini, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks 2nd Floor, Macdonald Block, 900 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M7A 1N3 Dear Minister Piccini: I write to you to formally request that the MECP requires an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Durham Region's "AD project" (a Mixed Waste Pre-sort (MWP) and Anaerobic Digester (AD)). Since inception, the public and council have been provided with select snippets of information about this project in staff reports. From the earliest days, Durham staff have consistently withheld project background consulting reports and business case documents and not posted all to the project website. Some documents were posted belatedly a few years after staff's initial Organics Management Strategy, which Report 2017 COW 180 was released June 6, 2017 ONE day before the committee meeting thus depriving both Council and the public of an opportunity to review and precluded the public from speaking at the June 7th meeting. See Durham report from June 7, 2017 COW 180 at: https://www.durham.ca/en/living- here/resources/Documents/GarbageandRecycling/Anaerobic-Digestion-/Council- Reports/11 20170607 2017-COW-180 OrganicsManagementStrategy.pdf From Exec Summary, Section 1.9 The mixed waste pre-sort and anaerobic treatment is the preferred long-term organics management system. Durham staff made their preference known early and worked to achieve their preferred outcome. The planned AD Project is not only increasingly expensive and inefficient given staff admitted they will now require two separate organics processing streams for "Facility Separated Organics" (FSO) and Source Separated Green Bin Organics, but this project also removes the focus on the key principles of Waste Reduction and Source Separation of materials. As well, impacts of the proposed AD Project composition of waste processed at the Durham York Incinerator (DYEC) have not been addressed, neither in Durham's AD Project documents nor in Durham's EA Screening Report requesting to increase throughput at the DYEC from the currently approved 140,000 tonnes per year to 160,000 tonnes per annum. On January 261h, 2022 Durham Region Council approved a massive capital costs increase for their AD Project and did so without also knowing, or asking, what the operating costs might be. Page119 Durham staff released Report 2022 COW 22 for the Committee of the Whole agenda January 19, 2022. Estimated project costs have now skyrocketed to $242 Million dollars. See the 2022 staff report at: https://icreate7.esolutionsgroup.ca/11111068 DurhamRegion/en/regional- government/resources/Documents/Council/Reports/2022-Committee-Reports/Committee-of-the- Whole/2022-COW-2.pdf As they did with their incinerator, Durham Region is pursuing a risky mega -project to process organics that is focused on the "back end" of the issue, with reliance on mechanical waste sorting instead of focusing on source separation of all material streams and is both low cost and more effective and results in cleaner materials streams with less contamination. Durham decided site their AD Project in Clarington, next to their incinerator in Clarington's Energy Park, which park was developed to accommodate prestige employment uses. Durham has not lived up to multiple commitments to the Host Community, such as focusing on waste reduction and reuse, as well as maximizing diversion efforts so as to reduce the amount of garbage burned in Clarington. Durham's AD project most certainly warrants an EA. It is expensive and risky and taking Durham in the wrong direction, both financially and reducing the focus on the principle of Source Separation and keeping materials streams as uncontaminated as possible for end use. No systematic evaluation of Problems and Opportunities to address Organics Management Options. No Evidence Based Supporting Rationale for Dirty MRF -aka Mixed Waste Pre-sort. When embarking on a major project staff should have at the very least described what they considered the primary purpose of the Organics Management Strategy. Durham should have provided background reports that examined the range of possible options to address organics management, including a cost benefit analysis to compare options. Durham staff claim the AD Project would help Durham Region achieve a target of "70% Diversion" , which objective they have abandoned in the current draft of their Long Term Waste Plan, in part because of the expected transition to producers taking over responsibility for Blue Box Recycling. After transition of the Blue Box to producers, diversion metrics as currently reported will become irrelevant after the transition of Blue Box recycling to producers in July 2024. Municipalities will only be responsible for organics and residual garbage. At the same time, Durham staff indicated they plan to expand acceptable organic material in the green bin to include pet waste and sanitary products, thus reducing the organics in the garbage bag their MWP is intended to harvest. Durham Region Waste/Works projects will essentially result in a two tier system in Durham i.e. SSO collection offered to those that are asked to sort organic materials into a green bin, versus those that just dump organics into the garbage bag because the Region won't offer source separated organics collection to certain housing types like Multi -Residential. Page120 As one example, assume a family lives in an apartment in a multi residential (MR) building where currently and for the foreseeable future, there will be no SSO collection and thus no sorting of organics by residents. Those residents will have NO option but to place organics into the garbage bag. Should that family later move into a townhouse or single family home where SSO collection is offered, they would be expected to sort organics materials and put them in the green bin for curbside collection. Let's assume some family members move to a condo or apartment again later in life, once again in Durham, they are unlikely to have access to separated organics collection in MR and will once again be dumping their organics in the garbage bag. Children will learn in school that it's important to sort and separate materials. They and their families would want to do the right thing — for from an environmental and social perspective. But in Durham they may not have that option. This is not only confusing to residents who move from one housing type to another, but this results in inequities to services. Such incompatible approaches based on housing type undermine public confidence in knowing what the right thing is to do with various materials in various places. Kids will sort organics at school, others at their workplaces and other public spaces but if they live in Multi Res buildings in Durham, they will have no choice but to dump their organics in the garbage. Lack of Public Consultation from Project Inception -One Single Sham Consultation on Short Listed Sites Though requested to do so multiple times since Durham staff released their initial report in June 2017, Durham did not conduct public consultation on possible organics options though requested to do so by citizens. Staff did not make available the consultant background reports or preliminary business case available to either Council or the public at the time they were seeking Council approvals. Durham's ONE and only public consultation event took place ostensibly to solicit public input on the "Short listed sites" though the public and some on Durham Council already suspected that the staff preferred site next to their incinerator would be selected, especially since Durham staff developed the "site selection" criteria. Multiple provincial, regional and private sector industrial facilities are already sited within a short strip along Lake Ontario between Bowmanville and Courtice. Clarington has made substantive efforts attempting to maximize opportunities in their Energy Park and waterfront area in general. The South Clarington and South Oshawa airshed is already burdened with emissions from Durham -York incinerator which is seeking to increase throughput capacity. St Marys Cement Bowmanville is now permitted to burn 400 tonnes of garbage per day to name just a few of the many facilities sited there. There have been numerous ambient air exceedances in the vicinity. This is also an environmental justice issue. No single municipality should have multiple waste facilities imposed upon them because it's politically expedient. Clarington's 3 regional councillors will generally be outvoted by councillors from the other 7 municipalities (25) who don't want to host these facilities in their municipalities. Durham Region is turning Clarington into Garbage Alley. An Environmental Page 121 Assessment would require an evidence based site selection process with opportunities to comment on proposed Site Selection Criteria. Preferred Site Announced Before Deadline for Public Comments on Short Listed Sites Though Durham staff claimed they were soliciting public input on their list of Short Listed sites at the sole public consultation event held on February 27 2020, and though Durham had requested public comment by March 20t", 2020, Durham staff released a consultants report dated March 6, 2020, which indicated their Preferred Site which staff would have known when hosting the Feb. 27t" consultation event, this released two weeks prior to the comment deadline, thus making a mockery and sham of their single consultation event. See extract from March 9, 2020 notification at: https://www.durham.ca/en/news/anaerobic-digestion-facility-siting-report-now-available-online- recommends-south-clarington-site.aspx "The report walks through a very thorough methodology that weighs the advantages and disadvantages of each site," says Gioseph Anello, Acting Director of Waste Management Services. "The selection process shortened the original long -list of 16 sites down to the six sites that were presented at the public open house event on February 27. Further analysis was carried out on those six sites to determine the preferred site." Questions and comments on the siting report and the recommended site are open to the public until March 20. Please email your questions and comments to ADProiect@durham.ca. It is offensive that Durham had obviously already determined, and then announced their preferred site, well before the public comment period closed on short listed sites to be considered. This goes beyond the Region wasting the public's time. Durham's actions speak volumes about Durham's lack of care and contempt for Clarington and Durham residents. Furthermore, Durham did not prepare their "Consultation Record" in time for Durham Council to consider public comments received, when Council was asked to make the decision about the AD Project Site on May 27, 2020. Those signed up to receive notifications were advised on October 8tn, 2020 that the Consultation Record was available — months after Council's decision on the site. See Consultation Report at: https://www.durham.ca/en/living- here/resources/Documents/GarbageandRecycling/Anaerobic-Digestion-/Siting- Repo rt/11199994-RPT- 2-PIC-Summary-Report-2020-10-01.pdf Municipality of Clarington comments to the Site Selection Report. From the Municipality of Clarington's staff report PSD 013.20 found at: https://weblink.clarington.net/weblink/0/edoc/311146/PSD-013-20.pdf Land Use Compatibility The Siting Report states that development of the Facility at the Site is "consistent with existing, proposed and surrounding land uses and land use designations and allows for an acceptable use within the land use planning context." The examination of land use compatibility is :l Page122 limited to existing development and does not take into account future uses envisioned for the Energy Park or the Courtice Waterfront. There is no discussion of the land use planning framework that applies to the Site and the compatibility of the Facility with Provincial, regional and local planning policy objectives (Clarington has not received, to date, a Planning Justification Report confirming the Municipality of Clarington Page 13 Report PSD-013-20 statements made in the consultant's report). There has been little consideration of the original Secondary Plan goals/objectives or the update to the Secondary Plan which began prior to the initiation of the siting exercise. The expanded study to create a comprehensive vision for the Courtice Waterfront area began in late 2019 with Regional Planning concurrence. The significance of the recent designation of the area as part of a Provincially Significant Employment Zone should also be addressed in a fulsome manner. The Clarington declared themselves to be an "unwilling host" to Durham's AD Project. Durham Region already built their incinerator on Clarington and now wish to impose their Dirty MRF and AD in the same area. This will turn Clarington into Garbage Alley and the intended prestige employment uses may be deterred by yet more garbage facilities in the Clarington Energy Park. Destination of several materials streams from the Dirtv MRF are unknown. Staff have not indicated how/where non-combustible material extracted from the mixed waste, which is not destined for their incinerator, would be sent for disposal. Since Durham has no operating landfill it's expected that this would require transport to a site outside of Durham. While there might be a market for some metals and possibly some rigid plastics (all of which would have more value if separated at source), Durham staff have not indicated who would be responsible for processing and marketing any recyclables from their MWP. If recyclables extracted from mixed waste would be too contaminated and not marketable, these materials may ultimately require disposal. It is unknown at this time if Durham plans to retain their current Materials Recovery Facility that processes blue box materials and/or if the contaminated recyclables above could even be processed there. Durham's is expected to transition responsibility for Blue Box collection and processing to producers in July 2024. Durham's AD project would entail substantial materials transportation and handling/processing, around which sufficient details have not been provided. More Studv and Technical Evaluation Needed for Proposal While Anaerobic Digestion is proven technology for Source Separated Organics, the Mixed Waste Pre- sort facilities have experienced multiple failures in Canada and elsewhere (See detailed section in 2021 City of London Report -attached). As well, because the facility separated organics (FSO)from their Dirty MRF aka Mixed Waste Pre-sort (MWP) are expected to be contaminated, Durham staff stated on January 191h, 2022 (in response to Page123 questions) that they would process TWO separate streams of organics — FSO and Source Separated Organics (SSO) from their Green bin, though it remains unknown whether or not FSO digestate would meet Ontario standards. TWO separate processing streams for FSO and SSO is excessively expensive and highly inefficient, with FSO digestate quality still uncertain. Durham staff claim the AD project would result in creation of capacity at their incinerator, but, have not provided data to support their claims. Durham statements about incinerator capacity would rest largely on how effective a MWP would be at extracting organic materials and the "quality" of organics extracted —this is a key area that would require the level of analysis that is required when undertaking an EA. In the DYEC ESR staff providing conflicting information, indicating their MWP would "decrease the volume of waste by30%" (Consultation Report, PIC 1 Summary Report page 12/40). Then on page 14 of same document, in a Project Team response staff wrote: "Durham Region is planning to expand its diversion programs by building a mixed waste transfer/pre-sort facility to remove additional recyclables and organic waste which together will divert up to 30,000 additional tonnes per year of material from the DYEC". See DYEC ESR Appendix G Consultation Summary Report at: https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/facility- approvals/resources/Documents/2021%20Environmental%20Screening%20Report/REVISED%20- %20December%2021/Appendix%20G Consultation%20Sumary%20RPT.Pdf The DYEC ESR report for increase in throughput capacity from 140,000 Tonnes per Year to 160,000 and appendices are found at: https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/facility-approvals/increasing-capacity- to-160000.aspx#Environmental-Screening-Report The DYEC ESR does not provide an analysis of the potential impacts on waste composition by removing organics and non combustible materials, as Durham staff claim the MWP would do. Removal of these materials means burning other types of waste, likely more plastics at the DYEC. This change in composition of waste processed would potentially impact air emissions and the waste composition changes would affect the heat value of the waste and ultimately the quantity that the DYEC would be able to process (based on their formula). Estimates of emissions should consider this future change to waste composition at the DYEC. As well, a reduction of the biogenic fraction of waste burned would impact GHG emissions including the reportable fraction which might also be subject to carbon taxes in the future. The incinerator's reportable GHGs are likely to increase thus impacting not only Durham Region GHG reduction targets but also impact Ontario's GHG reduction efforts. In short, Durham's Mixed Waste Pre-sort/AD project is absolutely tied to their incinerator. An EA is required to study and identify the potential impacts that this Mixed Waste Pre-sort/AD project would have on the waste composition sent to the incinerator and how the changes will affect air and GHG emissions at the incinerator, among other matters. 11 Page 124 Recent Staff Reports from Other Municiaalities - Potential Problems with Mixed Waste Pre-sort Peel Region Staff Nov. 30.2017. Report incl. Appendix III Mixed Waste Pre-sort Feasibility (Attached). From page 10 of Appendix III: Product Quality Mixed Waste Processing may not be able to successfully divert organics if the province applies new product quality requirements. This risk would be eliminated if the province confirmed that existing product quality requirements apply to Mixed Waste Processing, or a risk management approach could be developed if new quality requirements were to be established. The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change has been asked to confirm the quality requirements applicable to Mixed Waste Processing. The organic output of Mixed Waste Processing may not consistently meet product quality requirements, particularly for heavy metals, so long as items of household hazardous waste are present in the garbage. This risk could be minimized by expanding or enhancing programs or policies to eliminate these materials from the garbage A City of London staff report in April 2021 provided an overview of Mixed Waste Pre-sort, including a list of many that failed. See at: https://Pub- london.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?Documentld=80154 From page 4: A review of file information, reports and on-line sources suggest that there are a very limited number of mixed waste or partially mixed waste processing facilities operating in Canada at this time. Available details (Appendix 8) suggest that at least 10 facilities have either closed or were re -engineered away from mixed waste processing. Many of these facilities were older, first generation facilities. The Halifax Regional Municipality has recently proposed to close (December 2020) the Front End Processor/Waste Stabilization Facility (FEP/WSF) that has been in operation since 1995. It remains in operation, but its future is uncertain. The City of Edmonton is operating a facility to create refuse derived fuel from mixed waste to send to the Enerkem gasification system. In Nova Scotia, Sustane Technologies (pyrolysis technology) has been processing mixed waste since 2019. These are likely the only three facilities managing a mixed waste stream in operation in Canada. This does not include technologies that combust waste, with and without energy recovery. Experience in the United States is very similar (Appendix 8). Most first -generation, mixed waste processing and composting facilities have closed or have been reengineered to meet newer program needs (e.g., acceptable lower diversion and recovery rates, more stringent end product quality, etc.). A few, newer facilities have been established in the last five years and are developing a proven track record. However, a few newer facilities have also been Page 125 closed or re -engineered as the original design was not meeting performance or contractual requirements. From Page 5: There is also emerging information that suggests that some countries in Europe may be moving away from mixed waste processing and MBT facilities in favour of source separation systems for recycling and organics. For example, MBT will no longer count towards EU recycling targets after 2026. Starting January 1, 2027, the Waste Framework Directive requires that only separately collected and processed organics will be counted as diversion and meet the requirements of the Directive. Further work is underway to understand the European Directives with respect to source separation programs for organics and the role of mixed waste processing and MBT facilities. A recent blog posting by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Appendix B) further confirms more analysis is required on the future direction of MBT facilities in Europe. Please see Appendix B of City of London Report starting on pdf page 16 at https://pub- london.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?Documentld=80154 Other Municipalities Consider AD for Source Separated Organics From Ontario Food and Organic Waste Policy Statement: https://files.ontario.ca/food and organic waste policy_statement.pdf From page 16: Maintaining existing municipal curbside collection services 4.1 Municipalities that, as of the effective date, provide curbside collection of source separated food and organic waste shall maintain or expand these services to ensure residents have access to convenient and accessible collection services. i. In addition to curbside collection of source separated food and organic waste, other collection methods, such as directing disposal streams to mixed waste processing, may be used to support collection of additional food and organic waste. From Page 17: Collection Preference and Alternatives for Residential Resource Recovery 4.4 For municipalities subject to policies 4.2(i) and 4.3: i. Collection of source separated food and organic waste is the preferred method of servicing single-family dwellings. ii. Alternatives to the collection of source separated food and organic waste may be used if it is demonstrated that provincial waste reduction and resource recovery targets can be achieved efficiently and effectively The City of Toronto processes SSO at two city owned ADs. Peel Region considered processing SSO in their own AD but that project was killed by their Council in part due to high costs last year. Please see January 13. 22 Brampton Pointer article at: Page126 https:Hthepointer.com/article/2022-01-13/public-left-in-the-dark-as-peel-quietly-cancels-124m- o rga n i c-w a st e-fa c i I i ty York Region has determined that contracting out processing of their SSO at private sector ADs is the preferred option for them. Their bid recently closed and bid results and pricing are expected to be announced later in spring. York's Long Term Source Separated Organic Waste Processing Plan - Appendix B to their Waste Master Plan at: https://www.vork.ca/wps/wcm/connect/yorkpublic/3e97deld-be2d-47a2-8415- 8f7e148f5413/Appendix+B+-+Final+Report- Long+Term+Source+Separated+Organic+Waste+Processing+Plan.pdf?MOD=AJ PERES&CVID=n5r9Onv Durham, in their January 2022 report, though they had the opportunity to do so, has not updated their waste projections for tonnage to be processed at the proposed MWP or AD, which currently shows estimates for 2020, but does NOT include ACTUAL 2020 data, nor did they provide an update on estimated annual operating costs, which would likely increase due to their recent response that there would be two separate processing streams for FSO and SSO organics. Durham has to date failed to demonstrate whether or not Food and Organic Waste Policy Statement and/or other relevant targets could be achieved effectively and efficiently by their AD Project. Durham Has NOT Maximized Diversion ODDortunities Instead of proactively engaging the public and evaluating effective multiple approaches including low- cost, low -tech initiatives, such as a clear bag policy used very successfully elsewhere to separate materials streams including the removal of hazardous waste from garbage as well as reducing residual waste which is burned at the DYEC. Durham has lagged in updating bylaws and policies to facilitate collection of all material streams including source separated organics at multiple housing types. Evidence based public education together with regular public reporting of program performance to help motivate the public to participate in waste reduction/reuse and diversion programs, and to sort all materials possible, is required together with systematic and appropriate levels of graduated enforcement. Durham's recently approved Long Term Waste Management Plan (LTWMP) (approved by Council January 26, 2022). The Plan does not have a clear focus on Waste Reduction nor the basic 3Rs in the right order— several portions of the LTWMP still focus on diversion. Durham's LTWMP predicated in large part on their current DYEC EA Screening for increasing throughput expansion at their incinerator as well as relying heavily on the untested assumptions of their deeply flawed AD project. See Durham's recently approved LTWMP at: https://icreate7.esolutionsgroup.ca/11111068 DurhamRegion/en/regional- government/resources/Documents/Council/Reports/2022-Committee-Reports/Works/2022-WR-1.pdf Page127 Durham Region devotes a miniscule portion of their waste budget to Public Education/Promotion/Outreach. See extract from Works/Waste budget presented Feb. 2, 2022. Blue box revenue and subsidy 0.2% Enivornmental Studies 0.1 % Waste Management Centre 0.3% Facilities Manageme 0.8% Conclusion Community Durham York Outreach Energy Centre 0.2 % 6.8% Collection, / Processing & Disposal 11.3% 2022 Proposed Expenditure $320.3 million (Gross) Admin, Corporate Costs, RHO 2.8% Waste Management Facilities 1.3% A public process such as an Environmental Assessment requires meaningful public consultation and a professional level of independent review, which has not occurred to date. A professional and independent evidence based Site Selection process is required. Durham residents are being deprived of data and access to ALL background consultants' reports including business case(s) and the opportunity to undertake a thorough review of Durham's AD Project objectives and outcomes. Only a few project studies have been posted to the AD project site. Addressing waste at the front end keeps materials as clean as possible and lowers toxic load to our environment as well as avoiding/limiting the creation of Green House Gases and other toxic air emissions. It is also more efficient and far less expensive than what Durham proposes. Durham's AD Project will perpetuate and entrench the inequities of waste collection services offered in Durham and does not consider offering source separated organics collection to housing to multi 10 Page128 residential housing types, which will be the most common new build in the future as cities increase density. Durham's proposed risky and expensive AD project most certainly warrants an EA with a sufficient level of independent study and scrutiny. What staff propose will take Durham in the wrong direction, both financially and by removing the focus on the principle of Source Separation and keeping materials streams as uncontaminated as possible for end use. I urge you to give your closest attention to, and consideration of, my request for an Environmental Assessment at the earliest opportunity. Yours truly, Linda Gasser 111 Ferguson St., Whitby L1N 2X7 Email: gasserlinda@gmail.com Cc: Clarington Council c/o Clerks Dept. Durham Region Council c/o Clerks Dept. Encl: Peel Region Staff Nov. 30.2018 Report incl. Appendix III Mixed Waste Pre-sort Feasibility 11 Page129 Patenaude, Lindsey From: Burke, Amy Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 11:05 AM To: Karrie Lynn Dymond Cc: ClerksExternalEmail; Langmaid, Faye; Windle, Ryan Subject: RE: Open letter to Council Attachments: #C-019-22 Enviornmental Assessment.pdf Good morning Karrie Lynn, The Planning and Development Services Department has received a copy of your email, sent on behalf of Clarington Clear, to Clarington Council on January 23, 2022. In response to the questions and comments raised, staff provide the following information. Your email requested clarification on three items, each of which is copied below and followed by staff's response: 1. 1 understand that MMAH met with Clarington Planning and highlighted the tools Clarington has to stop Durham from ramming the AD and Pre-sort facility onto Clarington. I would like to know why Clarington are not using the tools outlines by MMAH. To date there has not been a meeting between MMAH and Clarington Planning staff, there has been discussion; however, MMAH has limited insight as to what planning tools the Municipality has at its disposal. MMAH set provincial policy, they are not land use implementation experts. In your delegation of April 6, 2021, the use of an Interim Control By-law (ICBL) was requested. Respecting this land use planning tool, it is important to note ICBLs when passed are in effect for a one-year period and require a study be undertaken. The ICBL can be extended for a second year, and the extension would be subject to appeal by the Region and other property owners or interested parties to the Ontario Land Tribunal Once an ICBL is passed, another one cannot be passed for that same area for 3 years after the ICBL expires. These timeframes are important considerations in assessing whether and/or when the implementation of an ICBL may be appropriate. 2. When do you think Clarington will finally submits it's paperwork? The EA request was over a year ago. Clarington's confidential litigation matter related to the proposed pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility dispute has considered the options available to the Municipality. On December 7, 2021, the Region of Durham served notice to terminate the mediation process commenced by Clarington. On January 24, 2022, Council directed that staff proceed with the submission of a formal request to the MECP that the Region's project be subject to an Environmental Assessment process. On January 24, 2022, Council approved the following resolution: Resolution #C-019-22 That Clarington provide all necessary information to the MECP in order that they can give due consideration to ordering and Environmental Assessment for the anaerobic digester. Page130 In response to Council's direction, staff are in the process of compiling an Environmental Assessment request submission package. A target date for submission will be determined in consultation with the consultants we are engaging to assist us with the submission as outlined in PDS-056-21 as adopted by #C-368-21. 3. Clarington has an agricultural committee and we also are aware the byproduct from the I'll conceived Anerobic Digester is not a product that can be spread on farmers fields. The Region continually steers away from this subject. I would request that Clarington ask the Ministry of Agriculture and the MECP report back on the process Durham would have to go through to have co mingled, contaminated waste even looked at by the Province. The following is provided as general information in response to your inquiry. Environmental permitting for the proposed pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility is the responsibility of the Region of Durham. Clarington Clear is encouraged to reach out to the Region's project team to discuss and gain an understanding of the required scope of environmental permitting and processes. Contact information is available on the project webpage — www.durham.ca/adproject. The regulatory framework for the proposed pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility is described in Section 4.1 of the Siting Report: Mixed Waste Transfer/Pre-Sort and Anaerobic Digestion Organics Processing Facility (GHD, June 25, 2020). The next significant environmental permitting stage for the facility will be seeking the necessary Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECA). This is likely to include a Waste Disposal Site ECA, Air and Noise ECA, and Stormwater Management ECA. Information on the Provincial ECA process is found at https://www.ontario.ca/page/environmental-compliance-approval. Information on Ontario's compost quality standards is found at https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontario-compost-quality-standards. The application of materials from non-agricultural sources to farmland is regulated under Ontario's Nutrient Management Act. More information on the regulation and application of non-agricultural source materials is available at http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/nm/nasm.html#1. In addition to the above questions, your email restated concerns respecting inadequate provision of notice by staff on matters relating to Council's consideration of the Region's proposed pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility. We have previously communicated about the provision of notice by staff on June 29, 2021 and November 4, 2021. Planning & Development Services staff provide notice to interested parties if the Department is putting forward a report to Council on a matter and direction on such a report from Council. We do not provide notice of confidential matters or motions by Members of Council. Since receiving your initial request in June 2021 for Clarington Clear to be added to Clarington's Interested Parties list for the Region's Pre-Sort/AD Project, staff have put forward one staff report, PDS-056-21 on this matter. Staff acknowledged our error in inadvertently neglecting to provide notice of this report to Clarington Clear. After the error was brought to our attention, myself and Faye Langmaid reached out to apologize, provided Clarington Clear with a copy of the report, and outlined the process for notification including how to register to receive notice of Council agendas and minutes. The Environmental Assessment matter that you have referred to for consideration on February 7, 2022, is a motion brought forward by Councillor Neal originally on September 13, 2021. It was referred by Council multiple times (most recently to the February 7, 2022 meeting), before being pulled forward by Councillor Neal to the January 24, 2022 Council meeting. The resolution of Council was passed as written (Resolution #C-019-22). The corresponding notice of the passing of the resolution from Clerks Division is attached. As this matter was pulled by a Member of Council and Page 131 dealt with by Council prior to the meeting it had been referred to, it will no longer be included on the February 7, 2022 Joint Committee meeting agenda. We understand your correspondence, including the following responses of staff, will be considered by Joint Committee on February 7, 2022. We hope that the information provided herein has helped to address your concerns. If you require any clarification, please do not hesitate to contact myself or Faye Langmaid (copied here). Kind regards, Amy Amy Burke Senior Planner Planning and Development Services Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville ON L1 C 3A6 905-623-3379 ext. 2423 1 1-800-563-1195 www.clarington.net From: Karrie Lynn Dymond <karrieldymond@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 5:54 PM To: Anderson, Granville <GAnderson@clarington.net>; Jones, Janice <JJones@clarington.net>; Mayor Shared Mailbox <mayor@clarington.net>; Zwart, Margaret <MZwart@clarington.net>; Hooper, Ron <rhooper@clarington.net>; ClerksExternalEmail <clerks@clarington.net>; Traill, Corinna <CTraill@clarington.net>; Neal, Joe <JNeal @clarington.net>; Park, Lindsey <lindsey.park@pc.ola.org> Subject: Open letter to Council Some people who received this message don't often get email from karrieldvmond@gmail.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL Dear Mayor and Members of Council, I understand that you will be hearing the request for the EA consultant on February 7. I would like to inform Council that for the 4th time my request to be informed of any report on the Durham AD and Pre-sort Facility has been ignored and I have launched a complaint to the Municipal Ombudsman (attached). I would also request that the CAO investigate why information requested is being withheld from myself and my group. This is an affront to democracy. I would like to clarify 3 things from Council. 3 Page132 1. 1 understand that MMAH met with Clarington Planning and highlighted the tools Clarington has to stop Durham from ramming the AD and Pre-sort facility onto Clarington. I would like to know why Clarington are not using the tools outlines by MMAH. 2. When do you think Clarington will finally submits it's paperwork? The EA request was over a year ago. 3. Clarington has an agricultural committee and we also are aware the byproduct from the I'll conceived Anerobic Digester is not a product that can be spread on farmers fields. The Region continually steers away from this subject. I would request that Clarington ask the Ministry of Agriculture and the MECP report back on the process Durham would have to go through to have co mingled, contaminated waste even looked at by the Province. It does not make sense for the Durham business case to be planning for a process that is currently a contaminated material go be approved by the province.. Sincerely Karrie Lynn Dymond 17-177 Oxford Street Oshawa, ON L1J 6G9 Clarington Clear 1(647)568-1679 When one door closes, one door opens. That's what doors do! 4 Page133 Clarington If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131 February 1, 2022 To Interested Parties: Re: Anaerobic Digestor Environmental Assessment File Number: PG.25.06 At a meeting held on January 24, 2022, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington approved the following Resolution #C-019-22: That Clarington provide all necessary information to the MECP in order that they can give due consideration to ordering an Environmental Assessment for the anaerobic digester Yours truly, 2! - -- John Paul Newman Deputy Clerk JPN/Ip C. See Attached List of Interested Parties R. Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services A. Burke, Senior Planner F. Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Loca1:905-623-3379 bLnf I www.clarington.net Interested Parties List February 1, 2022 Page 2 Gioseph Anello, Manager of Waste Planning & Technical Studies, Region of Durham Angela Porteous, Supervisor of Waste Services, Region of Durham Susan Siopis, Commissioner of Works, Region of Durham Sheila Hall, Executive Director, CBOT Simon Gill, Director, Economic Development & Tourism, Region of Durham Jennifer Knox, Director, Nuclear Stakeholder Relations, OPG Ray Davies, Senior Manager, Real Estate Services, OPG Gary Muller, Director of Planning, Region of Durham Brian Bridgeman, Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development, Region of Durham Paul Wirch, Senior Planner Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting Jason DeLuca, Weston Consulting Hannu Halminen, 1725596 Ontario Ltd. Kirk Kemp1725596 Ontario Ltd. Barry Bracken Kerry Meydam Libby Racansky Linda Gasser Wendy Bracken Karrie Lynn Dymond, Clarington Clear 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 ipfgpc. jj gton.net I www.clarington.net Clarftwn 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: Joint Committees Date of Meeting: February 7, 2022 Report Number: PDS-008-22 Submitted By: Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number: File Number: PLN 33.22 Resolution#: Report Subject: Durham York Energy Centre Throughput Increase from 140,000 to 160,000 Tonnes per Year — Municipal Comments Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-008-22 be received; 2. That Report PDS-008-22, including the consolidated list of requests recommended in Attachment 4 of PDS-008-22, be adopted as the Municipality of Clarington's comments on the Durham York Energy Centre throughput Increase (from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year) Environmental Screening Process; 3. That, prior to the February 14, 2022 Council meeting, the Region of Durham and Region of York (the Proponents) be requested to agree to a mutually acceptable time period to meet with Staff and the Municipality's Consultants to address the comments in Report PDS-008-22 for the purpose of resolving concerns; and 4. That Staff report back at the February 14, 2022 Council meeting on the status of the Municipality's request of the Proponents, and next steps. Page136 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-008-22 Report Overview Page 2 The Regions of Durham and York are seeking environmental permissions to increase the processing capacity at the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) to its current maximum design potential. The Environmental Compliance Approval for the DYEC allows the facility to thermally treat up to 140,000 tonnes of waste per year. The Regions are proposing to increase this amount by 20,000 tonnes per year. As constructed, the DYEC can process up to 160,000 tonnes of waste per year without any modifications or additions to the existing infrastructure or equipment. In accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act, the Regions have undertaken an Environmental Screening Process to assess the potential environmental, social and economic effects of the proposal. The results are documented in the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report (December 2021), released on December 20, 2021 for a 60-day public review period. Following completion of the Environmental Screening Process, the Regions will make application to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks for the necessary amendment to the DYEC Environmental Compliance Approval. The Environmental Screening Process identified air quality as having potential to be negatively affected by the proposal due to increased total air emissions from the facility. To assess the potential changes the waste capacity increase would have on air quality, the Regions completed an air quality impact assessment. The assessment concluded that the proposal will comply with the provincial regulated air quality standards and will not have a significant effect on local ambient air quality. Staff, with support provided by air quality experts retained by the Municipality, have reviewed the Environmental Screening Report and supporting documents. Report PDS-008-22 presents Clarington staff's comments and recommendations on the Environmental Screening Process. It includes comments the Regions as part of the Environmental Screening Process, are to be given the opportunity to respond to. As well, some requests are applicable to the Environmental Compliance Approval Amendment process to follow. In order to meet the requirements set out in the Environmental Screening Process, it is prudent that the Municipality seek agreement from the Regions to work towards addressing the Municipality's questions and comments, and establish a timeframe within which to do so before the conclusion of the public review period on February 18, 2022 at 4:30pm. 1. Introduction 1.1 In June 2019, the Regions of Durham and York (Regions) announced the initiation of an Environmental Screening Process (ESP) under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act to increase the amount of waste processed each year (throughput) at the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) by 20,000 tonnes. Page137 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-008-22 Page 3 1.2 In accordance with the requirements for waste projects subject to an ESP, the Regions carried out consultation with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), undertook a public and stakeholders consultation program, and assessed potential negative environmental, social and economic effects of the proposed throughput increase. 1.3 On December 20, 2021, the Municipality received Notice of Completion of the ESP (Attachment 1). The results of the review and consultation for the proposal are provided in the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report (December 2021) (ESR) posted on the DYEC website (www.durham.ca/DYEC160K). The issuance of Notice of Completion by the Regions marked the start of a 60-day public review period, concluding on February 18, 2022. 1.4 Planning and Development Services staff have been involved in the ESP for the proposed throughput increase at the DYEC since issuance of the Notice of Commencement. 1.5 The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the proposal and results of the Regions' ESP, and to provide Clarington's staff comments and recommendations. Staff's comments are supplemented by comments prepared on behalf of the Municipality by Dillon Consulting Limited, who's scope of review was specific to the air emissions / quality assessment components (Attachment 2). The comments and recommendations have considered concerns from the public outlined in the ESR's Record of Consultation Summary Report (December 20, 2021) and heard through discussions with staff. 2. Background 2.1 The DYEC, located within the Clarington Energy Business Park (Energy Park) and jointly owned by the Regions, has been in commercial operation since 2016. The Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for the DYEC currently allows the facility to process up to a maximum of 140,000 tonnes per year of post -diversion waste for disposal at the site. By 2018, the Regions had to begin by-passing some of the post - diversion waste received each year to other waste disposal sites, to ensure that the capacity limits set out in the ECA were not exceeded. 2.2 Despite robust waste diversion programming, the Regions have and expect to continue to see post -diversion waste generation that exceeds the current capacity limit of the DYEC. This is primarily due to population growth and according to the Regions is compounded by the on -going COVID-19 pandemic. As stated in the ESR, 15,409 tonnes of post -diversion waste was by-passed from the DYEC by the Regions in 2020. Page138 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-008-22 2.3 In 2020, a temporary emergency ECA Amendment was issued to the Regions by the MECP, permitting the DYEC to process an additional 20,000 tonnes of waste until December 31, 2020. A second temporary emergency EA Amendment was issued in 2021, permitting the DYEC to process an additional 2,000 tonnes of waste until December 31, 2021. These additionally permitted throughput amounts were not fully utilized by the Regions. 2.4 To address the immediate need for additional waste disposal capacity for waste generated by the Regions, the Regions have initiated the environmental approvals process to increase the amount of material the facility is permitted to process annually, from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes. The Regions state that the DYEC is capable of processing up to 160,000 tonnes of waste annually without any changes to the facility (i.e. modifications or additions to the infrastructure or equipment) being required. 3. Key Findings of the Assessment 3.1 The ESP requires that the proposal be evaluated by proponents against a list of screening criteria, to identify the potential for any negative effects on the environment. Potential environmental effects are grouped into the following categories: • Surface water and groundwater • Land • Air and noise • Natural environment • Resources • Socio-economic • Heritage and culture • Aboriginal • Other 3.2 For the proposed DYEC throughput increase, potential negative environmental effects identified by the Regions included effects on air quality due to facility emissions and the proximity of the DYEC to the future heliport location for the Bowmanville Hospital. For many of the screening criteria, the Regions determined that no potential negative environmental effect was predicted on the basis that the DYEC was already designed and built with the ability to thermally process 160,000 tonnes per year of waste. As indicated, no modifications or additions to the infrastructure or equipment at the DYEC are proposed. 3.3 To determine the potential impact of the increased air emissions at the DYEC, the Regions' consultants completed an Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) (Golder Page139 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-008-22 Page 5 Associates, December 2021). The ESR indicates that the modelling methodology / input data were reviewed and approved by the MECP in advance of modelling. As stated in the ESR, "the modelling concluded that the DYEC increase in capacity to 160,000 tonnes per year will comply with the MECP regulated air quality standards and will not have a significant effect on local ambient air quality." Impact management and monitoring set out in the ESR includes the continuation of the DYEC's existing air pollution control and air emissions monitoring program. No changes to the existing air pollution control technology, continuous emissions monitoring, stack emissions source testing or ambient air monitoring are proposed. 3.4 No additional study can be undertaken at this time with respect to the future heliport location for the Bowmanville Hospital. The ESR notes that air ambulance service is currently suspended to the hospital. Prior to construction of the DYEC, the Regions had received aeronautical clearance from Navigation Canada, which currently remains valid. Staff will ensure that the Regions' are aware of the Lease Agreement executed by the Municipality with Lakeridge Health for a temporary air ambulance heliport at 1150 Haines Street, just south of the Bowmanville Cemetery. 3.5 Benefits of the proposal cited in the ESR include: • Increased operating efficiency by allowing for full use of the equipment; • Annual net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; • Cost savings from the reduction or elimination of waste by-passing; and • Increased revenue generation from additional power generation and materials recovery. 4. Municipal Comments on the Environmental Screening Report 4.1 Review of the ESR has been supported by Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon). The Municipality retained Dillon in 2020 to assist Council and staff to understand and comment on the technical air quality components, regulatory requirements, and cumulative impact of the DYEC proposal to increase throughput, as well as St. Marys Cement's 2020 ECA Amendment application for the expanded use of Low Carbon Alternative Fuels (previously completed). 4.2 The review completed by Dillon on the DYEC proposal is provided as Attachment 2. Dillon has provided recommendations which are intended to support further consultation with the Regions and MECP in the review of this proposal. The comments and recommendations outlined below consider the advice of the Municipality's consultant, as well as public comments communicated directly to Clarington staff, prior to writing this report. Page140 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-008-22 Air Quality and Cumulative Effects Page 6 4.3 In summary, Dillon's review of the AQIA finds that the Regions' assessment has generally followed good industry practice, is aligned with provincial guidance, and has generally taken a conservative approach. 4.4 Dillon provides several recommendations to confirm the appropriateness of specific modelling and data inputs used by the Regions, ensuring the modelling is appropriately characterized and conservative. These inputs include: • The data selected to represent background conditions, confirming the approach to selecting background concentrations was sufficiently conservative; • The identification of receptor locations for modelling, ensuring they sufficiently considered sensitive uses permitted by current zoning for the Energy Park; • The assumptions relating to the stack flow and stack temperature increase; and • The absence of an assessment of process upset conditions. Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP review the agreed to modelling methodology / data inputs to confirm their appropriateness, taking into consideration Recommendation #1, #2, #3, #4 and #8 from Dillon, as described in Attachment 2. 4.5 The AQIA uses ambient monitoring data to represent background conditions. The data period used considered all available data up to and including 2019. The background air quality concentrations are carried forward to the cumulative air quality assessment. The data period selected does not account for the expanded use of Low Carbon Alternative Fuels at the nearby St. Marys Cement — Bowmanville Site. Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP review the AQIA to confirm that all appropriate reasonably foreseeable future activities have been included (Dillon Recommendation #5). 4.6 The DYEC is situated in close proximity to multiple new development areas being planned by the Municipality. These include the Courtice Waterfront and Energy Park Secondary Plan and the Courtice Employment Lands and Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) Secondary Plan. Both Secondary Plan areas are envisioned to undergo significant transformation from their current predominantly agricultural use into thriving neighbourhoods with amenities, opportunities for recreation, and residential uses. In accordance with provincial and regional policy, this includes planning to achieve transit supportive densities and a diverse mix of uses in the Courtice GO MTSA. Policy Page 141 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-008-22 Page 7 requires that the Municipality plan to accommodate a minimum overall density target of 150 people and jobs per gross hectare in the Courtice GO MTSA. 4.7 It is unclear in the ESR or AQIA whether the dispersion of indicator compounds that may be achieved by the proposed increase in throughput will potentially impact these developments and the Municipality's ability to meet provincial and regional land use policy requirements for transit -oriented development. It is noted that a Land Use Compatibility Study by the Courtice Waterfront Landowners is underway and will be subject to review and acceptance by the Region. Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Regions and MECP include the Courtice MTSA in the AQIA and assess whether the proposal may have potential negative effects on the future development of this area and the Municipality's ability to achieve provincial and regional land use policy requirements. 4.8 The ESR indicates that the MECP requires an updated Emissions Summary Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) report as supporting documentation for a future ECA Amendment application, demonstrating that the proposal will be compliant with Ontario Regulation 419/05: Air Pollution — Local Air Quality. Dillon's review notes that changes to the composition of the DYEC waste stream have the potential to affect the assumptions made within the AQIA, thereby potentially effecting its results. 4.9 The Region of Durham (Durham) is currently in the procurement process for the future establishment of a waste pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility. Staff understand that commissioning of the facility is targeted for 2026. Pre-sorting post -diversion waste collected by Durham is intended to remove organic waste and non -diverted recyclables prior to final disposal at the DYEC. Durham reports that nearly 50% of post -diversion waste collected and destined for the DYEC is organics suitable for anaerobic digestion, while approximately 4% is blue box recyclables. 4.10 Council and staff appreciate the beneficial contribution of the pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility to delay future expansions of the DYEC beyond 160,000 tonnes per year. Durham is the majority owner of the DYEC, contributing roughly 78% of the current approved annual capacity. Council may consider seeking clarity from the Region on the potential effect of waste composition change due to pre-sorting on the emissions from the DYEC or the potential effects to air quality. Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Regions and MECP review the AQIA to confirm that the future "pre-sorted" waste composition scenario has been appropriately considered (Dillon Recommendation #7). Page142 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS-008-22 4.11 The Host Community Agreement (HCA) for the DYEC sets out criteria and processes that are to be considered when expansions to the waste capacity occur. Durham committed that "at the time of any expansion, Durham will give consideration to improvements to the emission control system to meet the then current MACT standards...". "MACT" stands for Maximum Achievable Control Technology. The commitments on air emission technology and the waste sources and composition as set out in the EA remain applicable. The current proposal for increased tonnage will not trigger other clauses about building expansion and site plan amendments, as the existing boiler units can address the increase in tonnage. Clarington, for its part committed, in the HCA, to not oppose the development or operation of the facility. Recommendation: That the Municipality request Durham confirm how it has addressed the applicable requirements of the Host Community Agreement. 4.12 As indicated in the ESR, the potential for the proposal to have environmental effects on air quality exists because of stack emissions. On multiple occasions, Staff and Council have heard concerns respecting the potential risk of bioaccumulation as a result of the emissions from the DYEC. A Site -Specific Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment (HHERA) was completed for the facility as part of the 2009 EA and was peer reviewed by the Municipality's consultants (SENES). The peer review concluded that the HHERA for the DYEC considering the 140,000 tonne per year scenario was comprehensive and conformed to risk assessment guidance. It was recommended that the HHERA be updated when the facility expands to 250,000 and 400,000 tonnes per year, as was envisioned at the time. 4.13 There were comments and suggestions for improvement in the HHERA modelling based on operational information. Also, given the age of the HHERA, updating of air emissions standards, changes to baseline conditions existing in the area and significant new development underway, the peer review comments continue to provide valuable guidance. Recommendation: That the Municipality reaffirm its previous request to the Region and MECP that the Site -Specific HHERA be comprehensively updated as part of the supporting studies for the EA to expand the DYEC to process 250,000 tonnes per year, including that the scope of the update consider the effect of DYEC upset conditions at this significantly increased capacity. 4.14 Dillon's review of the ESR confirms that odour management practices currently in place at the DYEC reflect good industry practice. However, a concern is raised regarding whether sufficient justification is provided to confirm the conclusion that the proposed increased throughput will not contribute to odour concerns. Page143 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-008-22 Page 9 4.15 Potential odour emissions for current DYEC operations were originally assessed using modelling as part of the initial ECA Amendment application for the facility. Verification by means of on -site sampling was subsequently undertaken in 2015. Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP undertake additional technical studies as a component of the ECA Amendment application to verify that the no increase in odours is expected from the proposal (Dillon Recommendation #6). 4.16 The results of the cumulative assessment completed as a component of the AQIA indicate that the maximum predicted concentrations of nitrogen dioxides would exceed the relevant air quality criteria during testing of the standby emergency diesel generator. This testing occurs for up to a one -hour period, once per week. The assessment approach was considered to be very conservative, using worst case meteorological conditions. The exceedance was relative to the more stringent Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQs) of 79 ug/m3 in comparison to the Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC) of 400 ug/m3. Notwithstanding, no mitigation measures were proposed. While neither the CAACs or Ontario AAQCs are regulatory compliance limits, minimizing or eliminating the risk of exposure where feasible is requested. Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Region identify and implement mitigation measures to prevent the risk of nitrogen dioxide exceedances identified in the AQIA, where practicable. 4.17 In addition to nitrogen dioxides, the AQIA cumulative assessment indicated that exceedances of air quality criteria were also predicted for benzo(a)pyrene. The concentration of benzo(a)pyrene was reported to already be in exceedance of the standards in background (i.e. before any additional contribution from DYEC operating at increased capacity is added). Multiple exceedances of benzo(a)pyrene and sulphur dioxide over the applicable Ontario AAQCs at both the Courtice and Rundle ambient air monitoring stations are noted in the ESR. 4.18 The ESR attributes already elevated background concentrations of benzo(a)pyrene and sulphur dioxide to other nearby sources, including transportation emissions from Highway 401 and other industrial sources. Members of Council and the public have raised questions and concerns with respect to the state of the local airshed, and the potential cumulative effect of the industrial operations along Clarington's waterfront and the adjacent 400-series transportation network on local airshed quality. 4.19 Based on the recommendation of the Municipality's consultant following their review of of St. Marys Cement's ECA Amendment application to expand the use of Low Carbon Alternative Fuels at the Bowmanville Site, Council directed that staff work with MECP and industry (e.g. St. Marys Cement and DYEC) to set up a real-time air quality Page144 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-008-22 Page 10 monitoring network within the Municipality (Resolution #C-449-20). The conclusion of Dillon's review reaffirms their recommendation regarding the establishment of a real- time monitoring network in their review of the current DYEC proposal to increase throughput. 4.20 The regulation and monitoring of overall air quality in Ontario is the responsibility of the MECP. Council has previously been made aware of the air quality review completed by the MECP in July 2018 for the south Clarington area, which indicated that "analysis shows that air quality in Durham Region is similar to that of other urban settings in southern Ontario and the Greater Toronto Area." As an initial step in considering Council's request, MECP have agreed to update this summary. Additional monitoring with TAGA units in Clarington was conducted in the summer of 2021. Based on recent discussion with the MECP, staff anticipate that the updated air quality review will be provided within the first half of 2022. The Mayor and staff have also engaged local industry on Council's request. The updated air quality review will be informative for this on -going work and is valuable to share with the community. Additional Public Consultation 4.21 Following the ESP, the Regions are required to apply for approval from the MECP to amend the existing ECA to permit the increase in annual processing capacity from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year. While these applications are typically subject to requirements for posting for public comment on the Environmental Registry, there are limited opportunities for exemption where an equivalent public participant process has already been carried out for a proposal. It is not known at this time whether the consultation process carried out by the Regions as part of the ESP would warrant an exemption, or whether the Regions would seek the exemption. Further, the updated ESDM requested by the MECP has not yet been made publicly available. Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Region and MECP commit to public consultation as a component of the ECA Amendment process to provide the Municipality and the public opportunity to review and provide comment on the application, including all supporting technical studies and other documents. Page145 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-008-22 Other Comments Page 11 4.22 Several of the public comments reported in the ESR Record of Consultation Summary Report (December 20, 2021) raised questions and concerns relating to the potential effect of the proposal on waste reduction and diversion. The ESR outlines long term waste management planning activities underway by the Regions, which seek to maintain a focus on reducing the quantity of waste requiring disposal at the DYEC. Durham Region Council approved the 2022 — 2040 Long -Term Waste Management Plan and its first five-year action plan on January 26, 2022. The focus of the new LTWMP is on maximizing the diversion of materials from waste and recovering waste as resources to optimize its existing and planned disposal and processing infrastructure and minimize the need for disposal. 4.23 Municipal staff were involved throughout the development of the Region's new Long - Term Waste Management Plan. A copy of staff's comments on the draft Plan is provided as Attachment 3. On -going consultation with Local Area Municipalities, municipal Councils, and specific Municipal Departments on the implementation of actions was requested. The comments also underlined Council's Strategic Plan 2019 — 2022 goal to "advance waste reduction initiatives by promoting the four Rs: Refuse, Reduce, Reuse and Recycle." The development of an updated Long -Term Waste Management Plan by the Region supports the commitment made by the Region in the DYEC Host Community Agreement to the continuous implementation of a comprehensive waste management strategy. 4.24 The ESR states that "industrial property values are anticipated to increase with the district heating potential and road infrastructure provided as part of the DYEC construction." One of the major advantages attributed to the DYEC in its EA and Host Community Agreement is its district energy potential. However, the necessary infrastructure beyond the east wall of the DYEC has not been implemented to encourage / promote and utilize the district heating and cooling potential of the DYEC. 4.25 In 2021, a collaboration between the Municipality and Durham was initiated to assess viable options to provide a District Energy System (DES) to serve the Clarington Waterfront, Energy Park and surrounding secondary plan areas. A pre -feasibility study assessing the economic and carbon emission reduction potential of DES options for the area is anticipated to be completed in the coming weeks, the results of which will be presented to Durham and Clarington Councils with a request for direction on whether to proceed with a complete feasibility study. 5. Environmental Screening Process 5.1 Ontario Regulation 101/07: Waste Management Projects enacted under the EA Act sets out EA requirements for waste management projects. Three categories of project types Page146 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-008-22 Page 12 are identified. In general, these include i) projects that are subject to an individual EA, ii) projects that are subject to a streamlined EA, and iii) projects that are exempted from the EA Act. 5.2 Individual EAs are required for large-scale, complex projects with the potential for significant environmental effects. They require MECP approval. Streamlined EAs are used for routine projects that have predictable and manageable environmental effects. Proponents of these types of projects follow a self -assessment and decision -making process. Approval by the MECP is not directly granted for each project. 5.3 In June 2019, the Regions commenced a streamlined EA, referred to as an Environmental Screening Process (ESP), in accordance with Ontario Regulation 101/07: Waste Management Projects as a first step in amending the ECA for the DYEC to increase the facility's waste processing capacity. In undertaking the ESP, the Regions are obligated to comply with a prescribed process for assessing the environmental effects of the proposal, including requirements for consultation with government agencies, and interested persons, and for documenting the results of the ESP in an Environmental Screening Report (ESR). Key dates in the Regions' ESP are outlined in Table 1. Table 1: Key Dates — DYEC Throughput Increase Environmental Screening Process July 3, 2019 Notice of Commencement August 21, 2019 Public Information Centre #1 October 23, 2019 Public Information Centre #2 December 2, 2019 Public Information Centre #3 December 20, 2021 Notice of Completion December 20 — February 18, 2022 Public Review Period February 18, 2022 Deadline for Submission of Elevation Requests To be determined Statement of Completion 5.4 Upon completion, public notice is provided and the ESR and related technical studies and other supporting information is made available for a review period of at least 60 days. During this period, those with concerns have an opportunity to ask questions and seek to resolve issues directly with Proponents. A Notice of Completion for the Regions' ESP and the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report (December 2021) was released on December 20, 2021, for a 60 day review period, ending at 4:30pm on February 18, 2022 (Attachment 1). 5.5 Where concerns cannot be resolved during the review period provided or within an additional time period mutually agreed to by a concerned party and the Proponent, an Elevation Request may be submitted to the MECP that the project be subject to a higher level of study. If no elevation requests are received during the review period, the Page147 Municipality of Clarington Page 13 Report PDS-008-22 Proponent files a final Statement of Completion and can proceed with the project, subject to any other required approvals. 5.6 Section 4 of this report provides multiple recommendations for seeking additional information and clarification from the Regions on the proposal. A consolidation of the recommendations is provided in Attachment 4. Considering the scope of the comments outlined herein and the limited time remaining in the 60-day review period, it is recommended that Staff immediately seek out a mutually agreeable time period during which the Municipality, our consultants, and the Regions can work towards addressing and resolving questions and concerns. Staff would bring forward an update at the February 14, 2022 Council meeting and seek direction on next steps. 6. Concurrence Not Applicable. 7. Conclusion 7.1 The Regions have undertaken a streamlined EA process in accordance with the requirements for waste projects under the EA Act as a first step in undertaking to increase the amount of waste the DYEC is permitted to process annually by 20,000 tonnes, from 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year. Under the proposed 160,000 tonnes per year scenario, no modifications or expansions to the existing infrastructure or equipment would be required. 7.2 The original EA undertaken for the DYEC considered expansion scenarios of 250,000 and 400,000 tonnes per year and has provided much of the technical basis for the current assessment of potential negative impacts. As requested by the MECP, an AQIA has been completed and an updated stand-alone ESDM will be prepared as supporting documentation for the ECA Amendment application process that will follow. 7.3 Staff and the Municipality's Air Quality Advisor have reviewed the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Screening Report (December 2021), released by the Regions for a 60-day public review period. Dillon's review has found that the AQIA has generally followed industry practice and provincial requirements. However, multiple recommendations have been provided requiring discussion with the Regions and MECP. 7.4 The ESP that the Regions proposal is subject to is a proponent -driven process. Concerns with the proposal are to be directly addressed with the Regions. The timelines set out for review of the ESR, addressing questions and concerns with the Regions, and potentially making a request to elevate unresolved concerns to the MECP is limited, ending on February 18, 2022. Page148 Municipality of Clarington Page 14 Report PDS-008-22 7.5 It is respectfully recommended that Council authorize staff to immediately notify the Region and MECP of our interest to have the comments set out herein addressed, and that a mutually agreeable time period to try to resolve concerns be established and communicated to the Director of the MECP prior to the end of the public review period. In order to keep Council informed and to have an opportunity to seek further direction from Council, it is recommended that staff report back with an update at the February 14, 2022 Council meeting. Staff Contact: Amy Burke, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2423 or aburke@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Notice of Completion Public Notice dated December 20, 2021 Attachment 2 — Briefing on Durham York Energy Centre proposal to increase throughput (Dillon Consulting Limited, January 27, 2022) Attachment 3 — Municipal Comments on the Region of Durham's 2021 — 2040 Long-term Waste Management Plan (Draft) Attachment 4 — Consolidation of Staff Recommendations on the Durham York Energy Centre Screening Report (December 2021) Interested Parties: The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision: Gioseph Anello, Director, Waste Management Services, Region of Durham Andrew Evans, Project Manager, Waste Planning & Technical Services, Region of Durham Celeste Dugas, Manager, York Durham District Office, MECP Philip Dunn, Senior Environmental Officer, York Durham District Office, MECP Jeff Butchart, Issues Project Coordinator (Acting), York Durham District Office, MECP Wendy Bracken Linda Gasser Kerry Meydam Clarington Clear c/o Karrie Lynn Dymond Page149 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-008-22 Durham York Energy Centre Throughput Increase (From 140,000 to 160,000 tonnes per year) • York gron ' Notice of Completion Works Department December 20, 2021 (revised) Public Notice The Regional Municipality of Durham and The Regional Municipality of York have completed an Environmental Screening Process in accordance with the Waste Management Projects Regulation (Ontario Regulation 101/07) of the Environmental Assessment Act to amend the Environmental Compliance Approval for the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC), located at 1835 Energy Drive, Courtice, Ontario. The Regions will submit an Environmental Screening Report to the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks on December 20, 2021 for review and approval. The Environmental Screening Report has been prepared to increase the annual processing capacity at the DYEC from 140,000 tonnes per year to 160,000 tonnes per year. This additional capacity is needed to accommodate population growth within the two Regions, allow the DYEC to operate more efficiently and produce more energy. This increase in capacity will not require any modifications to existing infrastructure. 34 a K W � N � O � U V Baseline Rd Courtice Ct Y GP McSawaftDr adi F�OhJY Cr FNQr9Y Dr I A Crago DURHAM YORK cN ENERGY CENTRE (DYEC) L r,nmr- The Screening process involved identifying and applying criteria for potential environmental effects, public/external agency and Indigenous consultation and the development of measures to mitigate any identified environmental effects. The proposed capacity increase is not expected to have any significant net effects on the environment. The results of the study were documented in an Environmental Screening Report, available for a 60-calendar day review period from December 20, 2021 to February 18, 2022. The report is available for public review at durhamyorkwaste.ca If you are unable to access the digital copy of the report posted on this website or require an alternative format, please contact 1-800-667-5671. If you have concerns or comments regarding this project, please contact The Regional Municipality of Durham (contact details below) to discuss. If concerns regarding this project cannot be resolved in discussion with The Regional Municipality of Durham or The Regional Municipality of York, a person or party may request that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks make an order for the project to comply with Part II of the Environmental Assessment Act (referred to as a "elevation request"), which would elevate the project to an Individual Environmental Assessment. Requests for an "elevation request" must be submitted in writing to the Director, Environmental Assessment Branch and to the "Proponent" at the address listed below no later than 60-calendar days from the date of this Notice (December 20, 2021). Elevation request must be made in accordance with the provisions set out in Section B.3. of the "Guide to environmental assessment requirements for waste management projects". The requester must include the following information in a written "elevation request": Page150 • the name of the project and proponent; • the basis of the request; • that the project be elevated to an individual environmental assessment; • the nature of the specific environmental concerns that remain unresolved; • the benefits of requiring the proponent to undertake an individual environmental assessment; • information about any efforts to discuss/resolve these concerns/environmental effects with the proponent; • details of any correspondence between the person and the proponent; and • any other matters considered relevant by the requesting person. Please submit the elevation request to each of the following two contacts. If submitting a hard copy request, please advise by phone or email as well due to COVID-19 circumstances. If no elevation requests are received by 4:30 p.m. on February 18, 2022, The Regional Municipality of Durham and The Regional Municipality of York intend to proceed with the process as scheduled. Director, Environmental Assessment Branch Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks 135 St. Clair Avenue W, 1st floor Toronto, ON M4V 1 P5 EABDirector(o)_ontario.ca Andrew Evans, M.A.Sc, P.Eng Project Manager, DYEC Regional Municipality of Durham 605 Rossland Road, East Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3 info durhamyorkwaste.ca 905-404-0888 ext. 4130 All personal information included in a submission - such as name, address, telephone number and property location - is collected, maintained, and disclosed by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks for the purpose of transparency and consultation. The information is collected under the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act or is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is available to the general public as described in s.37 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Personal information you submit will become part of a public record that is available to the general public unless you request that your personal information remain confidential. For more information, please contact the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Park's Freedom of Information and Privacy Coordinator at (416) 327- 1434. Page 151 Attachment 2 to Report PD-008-22 Memo DILLON CONSULTING To: Amy Burke, Senior Planner, Municipality of Clarington From: Hamish Corbett-Hains, Associate, Senior Air Quality Engineer, Dillon Consulting Limited cc: Ravi Mahabir, Partner, Dillon Consulting Limited Date: January 27th, 2022 Subject: Briefing on Durham York Energy Centre proposal to increase throughput Our File: 20-3534 Background Dillon Consulting Limited (Dillon) was retained by the Municipality of Clarington (the Municipality) to provide support in commenting on the proposal by the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) to increase the site's throughput of post -diversion waste from 140,000 tonnes per year to 160,000 tonnes per year. Specifically, Dillon's review was focused on the assessment of air emissions related to the proposed increase in throughput at DYEC. Dillon's scope included a review of publicly available reporting in sup- port of the DYEC capacity increase, and development of this briefing note that documents key findings. In addition, Dillon was requested to provide an opinion on the assessment of cumulative air quality ef- fects resulting from operations at DYEC as well as the nearby St. Mary's Cement facility. Dillon's scope does not include a compliance review of current facility operations or an assessment of previously approved reports (e.g. original Environmental Assessment or original Environmental Compliance Approval documents). It has been assumed that the MECP reviews ongoing DYEC reporting and DYEC is currently in compliance with applicable air quality regulations. This briefing note is not a detailed peer review of the documents referenced to assess accuracy, rather it is a review of the approach and findings of the air quality studies presented to guide the Municipality in responding to the DYEC proposal. In conducting this review, Dillon therefore relied on the information provided by other consultants. Review of the Studies Dillon reviewed studies made publicly available by the Regional Municipalities of Durham and York (the Regions) in support of a streamlined Environmental Assessment. Included in Dillon's review were the Environmental Screening Report (ESR) authored by the Regions, dated December 2021, and Appendix D to the ESR titled Air Quality Impact Assessment, Durham York Energy Centre, prepared by Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), also dated December 2021. The two reports are collectively referred to as "The Reports." Dillon did not perform a peer review of the ESR or the Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA), which would involve independently confirming key technical aspects such as air dispersion modelling input parameters. In reviewing the reports Dillon notes that the methods followed appear to generally be DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED wwwAillon.ca Page 1 of 5 Page 152 reasonable and in line with provincial guidance and industry standards. Specifically, the following were noted, with recommendations made as applicable: The AQIA quantified emission rates of indicator compounds using a combination of source testing, in -stack emission limits, and emission factors. This approach is in line with industry best practice. • The Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) at DYEC has confirmed that the facility is operating in compliance with the allowable in -stack emission limits with one exception in 2016. Therefore, the approach to quantifying emission rates is likely to be conservative. o Dillon clarified the approach to determining emission rates under the increased throughput scenario with Golder. The approach followed appears to conservatively over -predict emissions for the current operating scenario, while the methods used to predict emissions for the increased throughput scenario appear reasonable. The AQIA appears to appropriately represent the proposed operations, however, if emissions for the current scenario are over -predicted, the AQIA may minimize the difference between the two scenarios. The AQIA evaluated the emissions of indicator compounds from DYEC cumulatively with background concentrations, based on historical monitoring data from the nearby Courtice and Rundle monitoring stations. 901" percentile monitored ambient concentrations were selected to represent background concentrations which is considered to be a conservative approach following good practice. The information provided regarding the siting of the two stations demonstrates that both stations are in appropriate locations which have been approved by the MECP. o The Courtice monitoring station was selected to represent background concentrations where monitoring data was available. This was justified in the AQIA as the Courtice station was considered to be upwind of DYEC. The wind data presented within the AQIA shows that the Courtice station can be considered to be upwind of DYEC under approximately 20% of wind conditions. By excluding Rundle data from background concentrations, this approach may not be sufficiently conservative. Recommendation #1: The Municipality should request that the Regions and MECP review the data selected to represent background conditions to confirm the assessment is appropriately conservative. o The AQIA states that the Rundle station is downwind of DYEC and therefore impacted by emissions from DYEC. The wind data presented within the AQIA shows that the Rundle station can be considered to be downwind of DYEC under approximately 20% of wind conditions. The monitoring data at Rundle includes concentrations of some indicator compounds which are more than double the Courtice station, including benzo[a]pyrene. The AQIA attributes the increased concentrations to the influence of local sources such as Highway 401. Recommendation #2: The Municipality should request that the Regions and MECP review and confirm that elevated concentrations at the Rundle monitoring station have been appropriately attributed and that potential impacts from DYEC have been considered. DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED wwwAillon.ca Page 2 of 5 Page 153 The AQIA used the US EPA's CALMET/CALPUFF modelling system, including meteorological data generated with the predictive Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF), to predict the dispersion of indicator compounds emitted from DYEC. The use of these models is considered good practice by regulators in Ontario. The modelling input files for both the meteorological model (CALMET) and the air dispersion model (CALPUFF) were provided to the MECP for review and approval prior to model execution. The AQIA selected receptor locations for the air dispersion modelling assessment which are in line with MECP guidance. A nested grid of receptors was modelled to represent the area surrounding DYEC. Additionally, individual discrete receptors were placed at "locations of interest", including: hospitals, nursing homes, schools, daycares, senior citizen centres, residential receptors, water bodies, and parks. o There are lands zoned to allow uses considered "locations of interest" within the AQIA at elevations above ground level. No elevated receptors were used in the AQIA. Recommendation #3: The Municipality should work with the Regions and MECP to request that all "locations of interest" allowable under current zoning by-laws be included in the AQIA and all subsequent studies as appropriate. The AQIA established project criteria concentrations based on the lower of the Ontario Ambient Air Quality Criteria (AAQC), Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), and the MECP's Ontario Regulation 419/05 Point of Impingement limits. The project criteria used are reasonable and appropriate. The AQIA predicted concentrations of indicator compounds at each receptor location within the study area based on four emission scenarios at DYEC. The scenarios assessed include existing operations with only emissions from the main stack, existing operations with emissions from the main stack and ancillary sources, proposed operations with main stack only, and proposed operations with main stack and ancillary sources. The maximum concentrations were presented independently as well as cumulatively with background concentrations. The AQIA separated the main process stack from the ancillary sources as no change to any of the ancillary sources is included in the proposed changes at DYEC. o When considering DYEC emissions from the main process stack under proposed scenario independent of background concentrations, the AQIA predicted that all indicator compounds were below the relevant criteria. o When considering DYEC emissions from the main process stack and ancillary sources under proposed operations independent of background concentrations, nitrogen dioxide is predicted to exceed the relevant criteria during emergency generator testing. The remaining indicator compounds are below the relevant criteria. Nitrogen dioxide is predicted to exceed the relevant criteria under the existing scenario during generator testing and no change in the predicted nitrogen dioxide concentrations is expected as a result of increased throughput at DYEC. o When considering cumulative concentrations (background concentrations as well as DYEC emissions) under both the existing and proposed scenarios, two additional criteria are exceeded: benzo[a]pyrene on both a 24-hour and annual basis. For both exceedances, DYEC accounts for less than 1% of the criteria. Additionally, the maximum predicted concentration of benzo[a]pyrene is not predicted to change as a result of the increase in throughput at DYEC. DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED wwwAillon.ca Page 3 of 5 Page 154 o The air dispersion modelling assessment included within the AQIA demonstrates that no significant change to air quality is expected when comparing to the relevant air criteria as a result of the increased throughput from 140,000 tonnes per year to 160,000 tonnes per year. This is due to the large influence of background concentrations when comparing to the relevant criteria, as well as the relatively small increase in emissions expected as a result of the increase in throughput. The AQIA did not consider the increase in truck traffic to the site. The justification for this exclusion is that the proposed increase is expected to result in an additional 4 trucks per day, from 23 to 27, and that this represents a negligible change. This assumption appears to be reasonable. The AQIA concludes that a small decrease in offsite concentrations is expected due to the proposed increase in throughput as a result of increased stack temperature and flow rate resulting in improved dispersion of indicator compounds. Increases in both flow rate and temperature will cause the initial plume to travel higher into the atmosphere which result in a greater level of dilution and can result in lower ground -level concentrations at downwind locations. o Dillon clarified the approach to determining stack parameters with Golder. The assertion that stack flow rate will increase appears reasonable, however, the magnitude of the increase is not clearly explained in the AQIA. Similarly, the conclusion that stack temperature will increase due to the increase in throughput requires further explanation. Accordingly, the conclusion that no increase in offsite concentrations is predicted may require revision. Recommendation #4: The Municipality should request that the Regions and MECP review the justification for an increased stack temperatures and request adjustments to the air dispersion modelling accordingly. The AQIA uses ambient monitoring data to represent background data. Under Ontario's Environmental Assessment framework, best practice is to consider the cumulative impacts of the project (i.e. DYEC), ambient data, and reasonably foreseeable future activities where possible. In this case, the use of Alternate Low Carbon Fuel (ALCF) at St. Mary's Cement (SMC) has been approved and is underway, which has the potential to have overlapping impacts with DYEC. Recommendation #5: The Municipality should request that the Regions and MECP review the AQIA to confirm that all appropriate reasonably foreseeable future activities have been included. The ESR concludes that, per tonne of additional waste processed, DYEC will release fewer greenhouse gasses — measured in carbon dioxide equivalents —than the alternate approach of landfilling the waste at a remote site. The ESR considered the reduction in transportation -related greenhouse gasses as a result of landfill diversion as well as the net benefit of carbon dioxide emissions resulting from incineration when compared to methane — a more potent greenhouse gas — emissions resulting from landfilling. The approach outlined in the ESR appears to reasonably compare the two options. The ESR describes the odour management approaches used at DYEC which appear to be in line with good industry practice. The ESR states that odour investigations have been conducted in conjunction with the MECP which have concluded that reported odour complaints in the area DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED wwwAillon.ca Page 4 of 5 Page 155 have not been attributable to DYEC. The ESR concludes that there is not expected to be an increase in odour due to the increase in capacity, however this conclusion has not been justified within the ESR. Recommendation #6: the Municipality should consider requesting that the Regions and MECP require additional technical studies be completed to verify the conclusion that no increase in odours is expected from the capacity increase at DYEC. The ESR describes the proposed change at DYEC as an increase in the total volume of waste processed. No information is provided about the composition of the waste stream. Some key assumptions within the AQIA are based on current operations at DYEC. Should the waste stream composition change, these assumptions may no longer remain appropriate. Recommendation #7: the Municipality should confirm with the Region that no change in the waste stream composition is expected. • The ESR describes the methods followed in the 2009 Environmental Assessment to evaluate air quality during process upset conditions including start-up, shut -down, and equipment malfunction, which result in elevated emission rates. No assessment of process upset conditions has been included in the AQIA. Recommendation #8: the Municipality should request that the Regions and MECP require an assessment of all potential operating conditions, including process upset conditions. Conclusions Dillon was retained by the Municipality to provide support in commenting on the proposal by Durham Region and York Region to increase the throughput of waste at the Durham York Energy Centre. Dillon's scope included a review of publicly available reports supporting the increase in throughput. The findings of the review are as follows: Studies completed by DYEC show that the increase in waste throughput would lead to a small increase in emissions and a reduction in at -receptor concentrations of indicator compounds. The studies generally follow industry best practice, however, Dillon has provided recommendations to the Municipality which are intended to support the Municipality's consultation with the Regions and MECP in the review of this proposal. When considering the public interest in this project and other projects in the local area, it is recommended that the Municipality work with the MECP and industry (e.g. SMC, DYEC) to set up a real-time air quality monitoring network within the Municipality. This monitoring network would measure and report on a range of key air quality indicators. The intent of the network would not be to evaluate industrial compliance, but rather to enhance the public's understanding of air quality within the Municipality with a high -degree of transparency. The network would also be useful in establishing long-term trends in air quality within the Municipality and evaluating the impacts of any air -quality related initiatives. DILLON CONSULTING LIMITED wwwAillon.ca Page 5 of 5 Page 156 Attachment 3 to Report PDS-008-22 clffftmil October 29, 2021 Angela Porteous Supervisor of Waste Services Works Department — Waste Management Regional Municipality of Durham 605 Rossland Road East Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3 Email: WastePlan@Durham.ca Dear Ms. Porteous: Re: 2021-2040 Long-term Waste Management Plan Phase Two Consultation File: PLN 33.23 The Region of Durham's Long -Term Waste Management Plan — Draft (September 9, 2021) has been reviewed by the Municipality and we offer the following comments in conjunction with our previous comments provided during the Local Area Municipalities Consultation Session held on May 28, 2020 and May 19, 2021. Background The Region of Durham (Region) is developing a new Long -Term Waste Management Plan (LTWMP) to guide Regional waste management services over the next 20 years. The objectives of the previous Region of Durham Long Term Waste Management Strategy Plan: 2000 to 2020 (December 1999) have largely been met. A significant component of implementation of the previous LTWMP was the establishment of the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) in Clarington's Energy Park. The new LTWMP seeks to respond to a range of current issues which influence planning and provision of municipal waste management services, including a rapidly growing and increasingly diverse population, regulatory changes, and climate change. The focus of the new LTWMP is on maximizing the diversion of materials from waste and recovering waste as resources to optimize its existing and planned disposal and processing infrastructure and minimize the need for disposal. Regional Council endorsed the guiding principles, vision, and objectives for the LTWMP on January 27, 2021. Public consultation on the draft actions and targets proposed in the LTWMP was held from September 21 to October 25, 2021. The draft LTWMP contains measurable targets and accompanying actions for the short term (2021-2026), mid-term (2027-2033) and the long term (2034-2040), and has been designed to be reviewed and updated every five years to ensure alignment with corporate direction and associated legislation. Implementation of the LTWMP is anticipated to begin in 2022, subject to Regional Council approval. 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 Page157 Page 2 Draft Targets and Actions The LTWMP proposes 11 targets coupled with 53 actions to meet these targets. In general, the Municipality strongly supports the LTWMPs emphasis on waste minimization and diversion from disposal, fostering increased understanding and awareness of and access to waste diversion programs, and enhanced environmental protection. This focus is in alignment with Clarington Council's Strategic Plan 2019 — 2022 goal to "advance waste reduction initiatives by promoting the four Rs: Refuse, Reduce, Reuse and Recycle." As the host community for the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC), Clarington is directly affected by the performance of the facility and the potential impacts of future expansion. Within five years of commencing commercial operations and 10 years ahead of original forecasts, the Region is seeking approval to increase processing capacity at the DYEC. With strong growth forecasted to continue in Durham Region, strong action and a commitment by the Region to avoid for as long as possible the next, more significant, DYEC expansion is needed. The development of an updated LTWMP by the Region supports the commitment made by the Region in the DYEC Host Community Agreement to the continuous implementation of a comprehensive waste management strategy. With respect to the draft targets and actions proposed in the LTWMP, we offer the following comments: Target 1A, to increase public engagement on the 5Rs through partnerships, increased accessibility, and different media, is supported by the Municipality. To achieve this target, understanding of the common inquiries Local Area Municipalities hear from the public is important. Common inquiries received by the Municipality relate to the following: • Special pick up for mattresses, appliances, and other large household items that don't fit in the garbage; • How to purchase blue and green bins; • How to dispose of yard waste, trees that have been cut down, used fill, batteries and more; • Complaints about recycling not being picked up, garbage accumulated at local bus shelters, and residents using public garbage receptacles for their own household waste; • Who is responsible for waste collection in the Municipality (multiple calls daily); • Locations of waste drop-off facility locations. The Municipality also commonly receives calls from residents who first reached out to the Region but did not find the wait times acceptable or were awaiting a reply and were contacting the Municipality for assistance in the meantime. The Municipality would like to discuss the establishment of a shared database with Durham Region to access their messaging and infographics regarding waste management services for consistency of messaging. Enhanced communications and awareness of responsibilities for waste management services will be increasingly The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net Page 158 Page 3 important as Durham Region transitions to an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) System for blue box collection. Local Area Municipalities request to be engaged and consulted with as part of communication planning for this transition. To this end, a separate Action 3C2 focused on public engagement and education for planned and future EPR program transitions is set out in the draft LTWMP. It is anticipated that having some waste management services provided by the Region while others are provided by Producers will be confusing for many. The Municipality is fully supportive of this action. More specifically relating to Action 1A6 and Action 1A7, content should ideally be "ready to serve" and easily sharable. This information should be differentiated and geared for children/families and adults so it can be used with the appropriate target audience. It is recommended that the Region develop video and social media that community groups can share on the Region's behalf. Offer opportunity for focus groups or scheduled events for more affected organizations, identifying groups who may have education and/or environmental initiatives as part of their mandate. For example: • Public libraries, who may be able to host an event such as a virtual tour; • Cadets or Navy League; • Horticultural and Garden Clubs, 4H, Agricultural Societies; • Girl Guides and Boy Scouts; • Clarington 55+ Active Adults and Bowmanville Older Adults Association; and • Local Hall Boards. It is recommended that materials be shared with Clarington's Diversity Advisory Committee for input on ways to reach various communities or additional considerations to ensure efforts have the greatest reach/engagement. In addition, it is recommended that public education campaigns be coordinated around related recognition events (e.g. Earth Day, community clean-up days) so the public and our community partners (who are sharing communications on our behalf) can make the connection. Action 21131 proposes that annual generation rates of garbage be measured to track progress in reducing garbage disposed. However, it is not clear whether this information will be made publicly available each year. Annual public reporting for this action is strongly encouraged. Action 2134 proposes collaboration with the Local Area Municipalities on common messaging and an approach to textile diversion and the reduction of single -use plastics/items. The following past actions by the Municipality on these items should be noted: • Over the years, the Municipality has faced challenges with the proliferation of clothing and small household item donation bins throughout Clarington. Donation bins have commonly been used as de facto dumping grounds by the public leading to property standards concerns and enforcement costs. In addition, concerns regarding safety and aesthetics have also been raised. These challenges have resulted in the clean-up and removal of donation bins The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net Page 159 Page 4 throughout Clarington, except for those located on properties which contain a permitted and operating collection/sorting/retail facility (i.e. Salvation Army store). Presently, neither of Clarington's two zoning by-laws identify donation bins as a permitted use within any zone. Other Municipal by-law also impose restrictions on the placement of donation bins on both private and Municipal property. Local Municipalities should support and promote clothing and household donations to the thrift store retailers operating in their area. This not only addresses the priority of waste diversion but has the added benefit of creating local jobs and markets for these affordable items. More rural parts of our Municipalities can continue to be supported by those charities that offer on -call collection from their door step. On October 7, 2019, Clarington Council banned the use of all single -use plastics in Clarington's Municipal Administrative Centre, effective November 30, 2021. In accordance with Council's direction staff has also continued to work on the development of programs to effectively eliminate the use of single -use plastics in other Municipal facilities, where there exists an environmentally responsible alternative, and is moving forward with other forms of waste reduction for municipal buildings that are in line with Council's Strategic Priority for Environmental Sustainability. In August 2021, a fully accessible 4Rs pilot project was launched at two Municipal recreation facilities. A three -stream waste system, including bins with educational signage and tactile mats in front of each bin for accessibility now provides for the separation of garbage, blue box recyclables and organic waste. The colour -coded signage provides a QR Code link to the Region's Know Before You Throw webpage to assist users. All Municipal buildings are the responsibility of our Community Services Department, who should be engaged in any future discussions on establishing common approaches and consistent waste programming for Municipal facilities. Action 3A1 captures the initiative already underway by the Region to develop a mixed waste pre-sort and anaerobic digestion facility. While Clarington Council supports the related objective to increase diversion of waste from disposal and support the circular economy, Clarington Council has declared itself as an unwilling host for the facility (Clarington Resolution #GG-244-20, approved July 6-7, 2020). Action 3A5 and Action 3B3 both relate to increasing diversion and improving servicing for denser forms of development, which we appreciate are becoming increasingly complex. It is not clear whether Action 3133 is referring to both existing and new medium and higher density developments. We recommend action focused on addressing existing challenges with medium and high density housing forms that do not receive Regional waste collection services currently, to transition these built forms to full waste servicing. Specifically relating to new developments, we recommend Action 3A5 be broadened to capture other forms of more complex and dense developments / built forms, including mixed -use and other medium and high density housing forms. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net Page 160 Page 5 To this end, the Municipality is prepared to: • Promote the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste, with particular attention to medium and higher density housing forms, which meets applicable provincial standards and has given consideration to the Region's waste collection design and servicing requirements; and Enhance municipal policies to further support waste diversion and servicing for new developments. While Action 31131 and Action 31132 speak to updates that will be needed to the Region's waste by-law, it should also be noted that any consideration of local by-laws to support waste reduction and diversion, local by-law enforcement, and/or proposals for the municipal assumption of responsibility of program and/or services requires full consultation with Local Area Municipalities and the concurrence of municipal Councils. Action 3C4 involves the Region exploring additional opportunities to reuse or recycle materials not covered under the regulations for Hazardous and Special Products. The Municipality requests that Clarington Emergency and Fire Services be consulted on any proposed changes to household hazardous wastes accepted at the Clarington Household Special Waste Depot in order to ensure that appropriate fire safety measures are in place and EFS staff are adequately trained to respond in the event of an emergency. Action 3C7 relates to the evaluation of continued blue box services to small businesses (i.e. BIAs) deemed ineligible for servicing under the new EPR program. Staff understand that a report on potential options will be before Regional Council in November 2021. The Municipality requests that the Region notify our local BIAs and other small businesses currently receiving blue box collection services of this pending options report and consult with them on the options being considered. The Municipality can provide appropriate contacts for our local BIAs, if needed. Target 4A is intended to implement the LTWMP objective to support the Region's greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and climate change mitigation efforts. The Municipality provides the following comments with respect to the proposed development of initiatives to offset or reduce GHG emissions from solid waste that contribute to the Region's Corporate GHG emissions: • A strategy to sequester and/or offset carbon emissions should be included in this plan as a solution to the GHGs emitted from the DYEC; • A portion of the waste burned at the DYEC originates from outside Durham Region. Only Durham Region's waste is included in Regional Corporate GHG emissions calculations. This assumes that all other municipalities are taking responsibility for the GHG emissions associated with their waste. The Region should include all GHG emissions from the DYEC as corporate GHG emissions calculations to take responsibility for the impact of the facility, which is under its control. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net Page 161 Page 6 • Currently, scope 3 emissions are not included in the Region's corporate annual GHG inventory reporting. The Region has influence over key Scope 3 emissions categories including contracted waste haulage services. The Region should include this in their GHG emissions reporting. • While the Region is not required to calculate GHG emissions from historical landfills, the Region could take actions to track and reduce GHG emissions and pollution associated with historical landfills. • Within Action 4A1 and Action 4A8, it is unclear what is meant by `alternative fuels'. If the reference is to low -carbon fuel sources, it is suggested that this term be used for added clarity and demonstration of the objective of GHG reduction. • Action 4A4, exploring the possibility of using waste heat generated at DYEC and surrounding facilities for district heating should be expanded to include all potential sites of waste heat production and consumption in the areas in and around the Energy Park. • Regarding Action 4A5, any carbon emissions management plan should include all carbon emissions associated with Regional waste facilities and operations that are under the Region's control, including scope 3 emissions from waste haulage, waste transportation, and staff's transportation. • It is unclear whether the measurement proposed for Target 4A includes annual reporting of waste facility and waste haulage/ transportation related GHG emissions. It is encouraged that this value form part of reporting on the LTWMP. Objective 5 sets out 2 targets and 7 actions to protect or improve water, land and air quality in Durham Region. While Target 5A speaks in general terms to the Region's waste management facilities, there is no direct mention or actions focused on the DYEC. The Host Community Agreement between the Region and the Municipality for the DYEC (item 3) commits the Region to ensuring that the DYEC incorporates and utilizes modern, state of the art, emissions control technologies; uses maximum achievable control technology for emissions control and monitoring systems; and that 24/7 monitoring systems for appropriate parameters are used, where technically possible. In support of this commitment, the Municipality requests that an additional on- going action be added to the LTWMP to review emissions control and monitoring systems at the DYEC and other existing and future Regional waste processing facilities, and to identify, evaluate and implement where feasible and practicable opportunities for improvement based on operational experience, emerging best practices and technological advancements. On November 2-3, 2020, Clarington Council approved Resolution #C-449-20, which included that Municipal Staff be requested to work with MECP and industry (e.g. [St. Marys Cement], DYEC) to set up a real-time air quality monitoring network within the Municipality. In collaboration with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, work is underway to update past reporting on the air quality for Clarington and in particular the south Courtice area. We appreciate the support the Region has provided to share information and data and would like to continue to collaborate with the Region, The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net Page 162 Page 7 MECP, and other local industries to review and share information about local airshed matters. We request the Region add a further action under Objective 5 committing to collaborate with the Municipality and other local stakeholders on the implementation of a real -term monitoring network in the short-term and to contribute to the monitoring, improvement and reporting on the cumulative impact of the DYEC and other industrial emitters in proximity to the DYEC on an on -going basis. It is not clear how Target 5113 to increase accessibility of waste management programs and services, directly contributes to the overarching objective to protect or improve water, land and air quality in Durham Region. In closing, We appreciate the opportunity to be engaged throughout the development of an updated LTWMP for Durham Region and for the consideration of our feedback. If you have any questions on the comments provided herein, please contact Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects (905-623-3379 ext. 2407 or flangmaid P_clarington.net) or Amy Burke, Senior Planner (905-623-3379 ext. 2423 or aburke(@_clarington.net). Sincerely, n le, Director Plann ng and Development Services Municipality of Clarington cc: Mayor and Members of Council Andy Allison, CAO Department Heads Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects Amy Burke, Senior Planner The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 1 Local:905-623-3379 1 info@clarington.net I www.clarington.net Page163 Attachment 4 to Report PDS-008-22 PDS-008-22 Attachment 4: Consolidation of Staff Recommendations on the Durham York Energy Centre Screening Report (December 2021) Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP review the agreed to modelling methodology / data inputs to confirm their appropriateness, taking into consideration Recommendation #1, #2, #3, #4 and #8 from Dillon, as described in Attachment 2. Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP review the AQIA to confirm that all appropriate reasonably foreseeable future activities have been included (Dillon Recommendation #5). Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Regions and MECP include the Courtice MTSA in the AQIA and assess whether the proposal may have potential negative effects on the future development of this area and the Municipality's ability to achieve provincial and regional land use policy requirements. Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Regions and MECP consider the current waste composition scenario and the future "pre-sorted" waste composition scenario as part of the demonstration of compliance with air quality limits that the Regions are required to undertake to support their ECA Amendment application for the proposed throughput increase. Recommendation: That the Municipality request Durham confirm how it has addressed the applicable requirements of the Host Community Agreement. Recommendation: That the Municipality reaffirm its previous request to the Region and MECP that the Site - Specific HHERA be comprehensively updated as part of the supporting studies for the EA to expand the DYEC to process 250,000 tonnes per year, including that the scope of the update consider the effect of DYEC upset conditions at this significantly increased capacity. Recommendation: That the Municipality request that the Regions and MECP undertake additional technical studies as a component of the ECA Amendment application to verify that the no increase in odours is expected from the proposal (Dillon Recommendation #6). Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Region identify and implement mitigation measures to prevent the risk of nitrogen dioxide exceedances identified in the AQIA, where practicable. Recommendation: That the Municipality request the Region and MECP commit to public consultation as a component of the ECA Amendment process to provide the Municipality and the Public opportunity to review and provide comment on the application, including all supporting technical studies and other documents. Page164 Clarbgton 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: Andy Allison Date: February 4, 2022 Re: Rail Crossing Arthur St On Monday's Joint Committee agenda there is correspondence from Andrew Louws. He is also appearing as a delegation. Attached to this memo is a copy of an email that I sent to Mr. Louws on October 4, 2021. It contains some background information that that will assist Committee in its consideration of Mr. Louw's request. Mr. Louws has been communicating with me over that past several months, and our discussions have always been very respectful. I just did not feel that it was appropriate for staff to be pursuing his request in the way that he wanted, and that is set out in the email. Andy Allison cc: Department Heads Page 11 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 Page165 From: Allison, Andrew Sent: October 4, 20219:47 AM To: Andrew Louws <dtsiall4@gmail.com> Cc: Margaret Zwart (mzwart@clarington. net) <mzwart@clarington.net> Subject: RE: Rail crossing Arthur St Andrew: As you are aware, I have personally reviewed the documents in our Municipal files to see what they indicated. Included in my review were all three of the letters that you have attached to your email below. I have also reviewed two documents that may have been included in your FOI request (I have not reviewed your FOI file to confirm). They are attached. Everything that I have reviewed supports closing the crossing for safety reasons. I think that I suggested to you when we last spoke, that the railway company, the Canadian Transportation Agency and/or Transport Canada may have more information that could assist you. That is why I made reference in my last email (copy of our email chain attached) to an email from Ron Albright from last year with information about who to contact at the CTA and TC. It may be that they can provide you with the information that you are looking for, or there may be information in the Registry Office that will assist you, but these are matters for you to follow up on, perhaps with the assistance of legal counsel. There is nothing in what I have read, or that you have provided, that supports improving what is now an unopened road allowance on either side of the tracks for what is admittedly a private purpose. You have correctly pointed out that CN in its November 23, 1993 letter has acknowledged that the Municipality is "senior". Interestingly, in its letter dated September 13, 1985, the Canadian Transportation Commission stated that the Municipality (then Town) was "junior". Even if we are "senior", it does not mean that we should open it up, only that we could possibly do it at reduced expense. In this instance, every piece of correspondence that I have reviewed suggests that for safety reasons the crossing should not be opened. When you acquired the property through the tax sale, it was on an "as is" basis. The Municipality has no reason at this point to go back over the process that was followed decades ago to close the crossing. If you want Clarington Council to direct staff to take the actions that you have set out in your email, I would respectfully request that you formally make that request by sending a letter to the Mayor and Members of Council (through our Clerk). Council may disagree with what I have set out in this email, and that is OK. I take direction from them. Andy From: Andrew Louws <dtsiall4@gmail.com> Sent: September 7, 2021 11:25 AM To: Allison, Andrew <AAllison@clarington.net>; Zwart, Margaret <MZwart@clarington.net> Subject: Rail crossing Arthur St Page 166 1W:IIall :1►1_1I HI Andy and Councilor Zwart Concerning the Rail crossing on Arthur st Road allowance between lots 26 &27 Clarke Twp This Road allowance serves as the ONLY current legal access to my Lands I wish to access my lands to Farm them. The last letter I could find with respect to this crossing, outlines that the Railroad is indeed Juniour in its relationship at this crossing and is willing to replace the crossing surface at their expense. As a citizen and Taxpayer, I cannot contact the railroad company and request this crossing surface to be reinstalled, however you and your organization can. I am asking that you Contact The railroad company and request that the crossing surface be Re -installed The Railroad company was requesting to limit access to this crossing by securing it with a gate and appropriate fencing. As the affected landowner, citizen and taxpayer I am willing to pay the municipalities costs, so as not to be a burden to other taxpayers, for contacting the railroad to request the crossing be reinstalled I am also willing to install and pay the cost of improving the approaches, sitelines, fencing and gating and securing the crossing to ensure that the public cannot access it. Thank you for your timely attention into this matter Page 167 From: Allison, Andrew To: Andrew Louws Subject: RE: Lot 27 and 26 Clarke twp Date: Monday, April 12, 2021 2:42:00 PM I have received a list of the information that Clerks sent to you. In it is an email from Ron Albright from last year with information about who to contact CTA and TC. Did you attempt to do that? I am not sure what you want the Municipality to do at this point. We cannot locate a by-law closing the road allowance, but that doesn't mean that CTA didn't order that the crossing be closed. There could be a by-law registered in the RO, but I haven't checked that. If there is something that you want us to recognize, you will have to assert it and we will have to formally respond to it. Andy From: Andrew Louws <dtsiall4@gmail.com> Sent: April 6, 2021 8:10 PM To: Allison, Andrew <AAllison@clarington.net> Subject: Re: Lot 27 and 26 Clarke twp EXTERNAL HI Andy You have my permission to ask clerks what they sent me. Andrew On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 11:31, Allison, Andrew <AAllison(@clarington.net> wrote: Andrew: I have reviewed the documents. I am assuming that you received this information in response to an FOI request. I say "assume" because I am not privy to such requests and do not ask the Clerks Department for information in relation to any requests unless the requestor asks me to get involved. Do you want me to make inquiries of Clerks? If you do, do I have your permission to see what you asked for and what was sent to you? I note from the letters to the surrounding landowners that it was stated that no reply would mean no objection, so it is possible that there was no reply. In terms of the by-law, I would have to make inquiries. It could be that no by-law was passed. Page 168 Andy From: Andrew Louws <dtsiall4l@gmail.com> Sent: March 18, 2021 12:53 PM To: Allison, Andrew <AAllison(cDclarington.net> Subject: Re: Lot 27 and 26 Clarke twp EXTERNAL Hi Andy Could you kindly have a look at these attached documents. I have not yet obtained a copy of the bylaw closing the crossing or the response of the landowners impacted. it appears the closure was to be temporary in nature. Thanks Andrew On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 22:41, Allison, Andrew <AAllison(@clarington.net> wrote: I have reviewed your materials. Interesting. When you have an opportunity, please call me — 905-242-6312. Andy From: Andrew Louws <dtsiall4(@gmail.com> Sent: November 16, 2020 8:24 PM To: Allison, Andrew <AAllison(@clarington.net> Subject: Re: Lot 27 and 26 Clarke twp EXTERNAL HI Andy Here is what I can find on this crossing quickly I have not gone to speak to Mrs Jose but I could go and ask what she has in her records. https://weblink.clarington.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=12341&searchid=fO9cb42a-1d42- 428d-8660-94e2a2752e4b&dbid=0 look at page 2. The Jose's use to farm on either side of the railroad there for many years (generations) https://weblink.clarington.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=38099&searchid=fO9cb42a-1d42- 428d-8660-94e2a2752e4b&dbid=0 1985 in the public record Page 169 https://webIink.cIarington.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=12516&searchid=fO9cb42a-1d42- 428d-8660-94e2 a2752e4b&dbid =0 1973 correspondence in the public record. what I do not have is copies of this correspondence from CN railroad in this case, maybe you can obtain it through Ann Greentree. On the rail canada atlas website you can find the crossing. https://rac.mmaponline.net/canadianrailatlas/ I have attached a pdf Let me Know if I can get you anything else Andrew On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 at 14:22, Andrew Louws <dtsial14Pgmail.com> wrote: Page170 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAMPTON, ONTARIO LOB 1JO R. DUPUIS, P. ENQ., DIRECTOR TEL. (416) 263.2231 987.5039 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 1985. REPORT NO.: WD-66-85 SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION REQUESTING TOWN CONCURRENCE IN THE PROPOSAL TO CLOSE A PUBLIC CROSSING AT THE CNR AND THE UNOPENED ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LOTS 26 & 27 IN CONCESSION 1 OF THE FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE. RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended: 1. That this report be received; and, 2. That the Canadian Transport Commission be advised that the Town of Newcastle is in agreement with Closure of the public crossing at the road allowance between Lots 26 & 27, in Concession 1, and CNR Kingston Subdivision Mileage 285.66. ....2 � 1,9. 1� Page 171 Page 2 REPORT NO. WD-66-85 REPORT: The Canadian Transport Commission has been reviewing all of the level crossings on the CNR Kingston subdivision rail line towards either updating the crossings, or taking them out of service. A meeting was held at the subject crossing to ascertain its status. Planking and signs at the crossing have been in place for some years, however, the approaches in the form of a road on the original road allowance do not exist. This road falls into the category of an unopened road per Town policy, therefore, removal of the status of its crossing of the CNR as "public" would be in order. The crossing could still be utilized by area farmers as a private crossing for access to lands to the north. There are several other private crossings along the adjoining sections of railway. As the removal of the Public Crossing status will have no implications on the Town and there is no need contemplated for opening of a road on the road allowance, it is recommended that the C.T.C.'s request be accommodated. RGD : j co October 1, 1985. Respectfully submitted, R.G. Dupuis, P. Eng., Director of Public Works. Page172 Canadian Transport Commission canadienne Commission des transports 20 Toronto Street, 5th Floor, Toronto, Ontario. M5C 2B8 mm, The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle, G.B. Rickard, Head of Council, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario. L1C 3A6 Dear Sirs/Madames: Files: R.O. 495-285.66 RE: PROPOSED PUBLIC CROSSING CLOSURE OF TOWN STREET BETWEEN LOTS 26-27 CONCESSION 1 IN THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE AT MILEAGE 285.66 KINGSTON SUBDIVISION CNR. CTC FILE 26711.2512 Reference is made to a joint site meeting held on May 23, 1985 between this office's Regional Engineer, Mr. C. Stephens, the CNR representative, Mr. L. Bovay and your municipal representative. As discussed, the Town of Newcastle is requested to advise whether they will consider closing the aforementioned crossing. In order to assist you in making the decision of whether or not to close the crossing, the following information is included. 1. The road authority would revert the road to "an unopened road allowance." Canada, Page 173 -2- 2. If and when this road was needed the junior party, in this case , the Town of Newcastle would be responsible for all costs. These costs would include, the crossing surface and any protection deemed necessary at the time of installation. 3. The cost of future maintenance would also be paid solely by the junior party, the Town of Newcastle. 4. The procedure for the re -opening of said crossing would be an application (letter) and plan to the Railway Transport Committee. Yours trul , ,lie M.D. Lacombe, Regional Director, Ontario, Railway Transport,Committee. CFS/tjs cc: Mr. D. Grant, Regional Manager - Operations, Great Lakes Region, Canadian National Railways, Suite 805, 277 Front Street West, TORONTO, Ontario. M5C 2X7 Mr. S.A. Cantin, General Solicitor, Canadian National Railway, 935 de la Gauchetiere St. W, llth Floor, Law Dept., MONTREAL, Quebec. x3B 2M9 Page174 ui ':ARO - LINE ST I 4 L w EDWARD II ST -JAMES I ST ,ROB'.. OB ERT 3 T AK Eti E II �?ONT!- Sr 93005 93001 ARK ST :i 1 93005 41 CA 6y II 00 0 LEGEND TOWN OF NEWCASTLE 4 01 ROAD NEEDS STUDY Page 175 1984 13T MY OPDATE ,T NEWCASTLE NEWCASTLE COMMUNITY HALL BOARD December 21, 2021 Zoom 7 pm Present Were: Barry Carmichael, Chair Henry Corvers Crystal Yaki Marg Zwart, Local Councilor Granville Anderson, Regional Councilor Regrets From: Janeen Calder Sierd DeJong Also Present: Gabrielle Bell, Secretary 1. AGENDA Moved by H.Corvers, seconded by G. Anderson That the agenda is accepted as presented. "Carried" 2. MINUTES Moved by C. Yaki, seconded by H. Corvers The minutes of October 19 2021 are accepted as presented. "Carried" Moved by H. Corvers, seconded by C. Yaki That minutes of November 16 2021 are accepted as presented. "Carried" 3. BUSINESS ARISING a) Security System — no response to email sent to R. Groen, Supervisor Buildings & Property b) Accessible Parking spot will be located in front of cenotaph c) Clock Tower - B. Carmichael reported that we have had the clock looked at by one company to see we can mute or stop the clock chimes at night. We have not received report back. Danny Hooper will also be looking at clock when he is available. d) Centennial Room display case — tabled to January. B. Carmichael will give C. Yaki contact information to follow up with Horticultural Society in the New Year. e) Blinds for Early On — G. Bell is gathering information for quotes f) Keys for Hall Board members will be limited to 3 — master key for all outside doors, main hall and custodial closets. All other keys will be in custodial closet if needed. S. Fogg has been instructed to ensure all keys are accounted for within the key lock box. Board members to return all other keys to Steve for storage. Page 176 g) Dishwasher update — B Carmichael reported that cost is looking like $11000.00. We have committed $5000.00 from fundraising account. Secretary is obtaining information on balances in Trust Funds. Municipality has been asked what process would be for obtaining loan from them. We are also investigating refurbished or second hand. 4. FINANCIAL REPORT Moved by M. Zwart, seconded by C. Yaki That financial report is accepted as presented. "Carried" 5. INVOICES Moved by C. Yaki, seconded by M. Zwart That the following invoices be paid as presented: B. Carmichael $160.00 Flags B. Carmichael $75.00 Employee Xmas Gift "Carried" 6. CORRESPONDENCE a) ISF Pro has sent notice that products we are presently using cover the variants — received for information. b) Municipality of Clarington has changed policy for appointment to Board and Committee "The appointment recommendation shall either (i) be ratified at council; or (ii) pulled at Council, the vote shall proceed in the same manner as if the vote were taking place at Committee" c) Municipality has received grant to offer free seniors programming. They are asking for free space in Community Buildings for same. Moved by G Anderson, seconded by C. Yaki That Board gives approval to participate in Seniors Program offering free space during the day when it does not impact a booking. "Carried" d) Building Services sent out request for Operating Funding Requests with due date of November 29t". Secretary has already submitted Budget Requests to Finance Department as requested. There is no need to submit to both departments as per Director G. Acorn. e) Secretary requested contact information for Security Company used by Municipality for checking proof of vaccination in case scheduled security does not show up. Lee -Ann Reck, Manager Client Services has sent this information. All Board members have been copied. This information should be posted at hall so it accessible to whoever is on duty. f) Rob Groen, Supervisor, Buildings & Property has sent out updated information for approved trades contacts and after hours Municipal contact in case of emergency at building. All Board members have been copied. This information should be posted at hall so it accessible to whoever is on duty. 7. COVID19 Update Page 177 a) Updates have been sent out to staff and Board Members. We are now at 50% capacity. We do not have an event in the main hall scheduled until February 2022, other than use by yearly tenants for meetings, which are all well below 50%. 8. RISK MANAGEMENT REPORT Has been received for information. Copy will be sent to Building Services 9. CUSTODIAL Moved by M. Zwart, seconded by H. Corvers That the meeting go in camera "Carried" Moved by H. Corvers, seconded by G. Anderson That meeting come out of camera "Carried" 10. NEW BUSINESS a) Request by Early On to add paragraph to contract (see attached) — M. Zwart will consult with R. Mclvor at Municipality for clarification on re-enter and re -letting terms. b) Vaccination Policy — tabled to January meeting. c) 100t" Committee is requesting approval of recommendation to take on capital project of an elevator for the 100t" anniversary. Moved by M. Zwart, seconded by G. Anderson That recommendation from to 100t" Committee to Newcastle Hall Board to consider elevator as capital project for 100' Celebration be approved. "Carried" d) Early On has requested installation of 2 new fans in their room. Secretary has purchased and Early On will reimburse Hall. We will arrange install through Building Services. The present fans are over 25 years old. e) Curtains in main hall —Vanessa Bilenduke-Guppy notified B. Carmichael that purchasing is obtaining multiple quotes as per policy. Stage curtain will be replace (color match) and side curtain hardware will be replaced. f) Secretary reported Bowmanville Kinsmen have been contacted numerous times to confirm holding of May 2022 date for Lobsterfest. There has been no response. Boar approves recommendation to no longer hold a date for this client. g) B. Carmichael will be out of country from December 312021 to April 2022. He will attend meetings via Zoom or What's App. Motion by H. Corvers to adjourn 8:35 pm Page 178 Patenaude, Lindsey From: wendy-ron wendy-ron <wendy-ron@sympatico.ca> Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 11:58 AM To: ClerksExternal Email Subject: Correspondence for Joint Ctee February 7th regarding January 24 2022 Clarington Motion Attachments: 2022 Feb 7 Correspondence to Clarington Joint Ctte Re Clarington Jan 24 2022 Motion on EA for MWP and AD.pdf; 2022 January 26 Delegation to Regional Council on Report 2022-COW-2 Organics Management.pdf EXTERNAL Hello, Please find attached my correspondence to Clarington Joint Committee on February 7 2022 regarding the Clarington January 24th 2022 motion regarding an EA for the Mixed Waste Pre-sort and AD. I have attached both a letter and the PowerPoint it refers to as my correspondence. Please confirm you have received. Thank you, Wendy Bracken Page 179 Via Email to Clarington Joint Committee February 3, 2022 Re: Motion of January 24, 2022, regarding Mixed Waste Pre-sort and AD Dear Members of Clarington Joint Committee and Council, I am writing to urge Clarington Council to continue to move forward with strong efforts and information and evidence to the Ministry to request that the MECP requires an EA for the Durham Mixed Waste Pre- sort and AD mega project. The need for an EA for this mega project is becoming clearer by the day and is directly linked to the environmental screening and application by Durham to amend their ECA to upsize the incinerator capacity to 160,000 tonnes of garbage per day. The project will impact the waste composition being burned at the incinerator which will impact the toxicity and quantity of the emissions, including the incinerator's greenhouse gas emissions. With more plastics concentrated in the waste, halogen content will go up (affecting dioxin/furan emissions) and greenhouse gas emissions will increase. An EA is needed to assess these impacts. Furthermore, while AD is proven technology, the mixed waste pre-sort (dirty MRF) is not. The Region has failed to provide key details on the project and its impacts, including whether the digestate will be marketable, what toxic residues can be expected, and how this project will affect the incinerator. I did a delegation to Durham Regional Council on January 26th 2022 on Durham's Organic Management Plan update. I have attached my delegation PowerPoint as part of this correspondence for you to consider. In my PowerPoint you will see my concerns regarding the skyrocketing costs and risks, both environmental and financial of this mega project. I am concerned that Durham has failed to provide simpler, low-cost front-end solutions, and has not provided important information other Regions have for their citizens and councillors about the risks of this project, including information from Europe about the problems with mixed waste processing, and contaminated digestate. See also a link in my PowerPoint to an article about Denmark needing to shut down some of its incinerators because when the plastic content is high, their greenhouse gas emissions go up and their targets cannot be met. Page180 Additionally, many in the general public are not aware and do not realize, given the one-sided marketing of this project, that their clean, source separated organics (SSO) - which so many take pride in collecting for the clean compost end product - will likely be mixed with dirty organics and other toxic residues from processing black garbage bags at the dirty MRF and the grade of the end product digestate remains questionable as does where it will go for application/disposal with negative impact to the environment. This project most certainly warrants an EA. There is much at play and undetermined. It is expensive and risky, both financially and to the environment. Once again, the Region is moving forward with an extremely expensive mega -project that is focused on addressing waste at the back end - the end with highest adverse environmental consequences - and, again, it is Clarington, that will feel the most impact. Instead, the Region should be proactively engaging the public and maximizing low-cost, low -tech initiatives, such as more comprehensive, fact -based public education, more and graduated enforcement, clear bag policies, increasing diversion of more materials including textiles, Styrofoam. The last term EFW-WMAC passed motions encouraging such initiatives. Addressing waste at the front end keeps things as clean as possible and lowers toxic load to our environment. It is also especially egregious that Durham determined their preferred site even before the public comment period closed on site selection. That action speaks volumes about Durham's lack of care for Clarington and its residents. Thank you for your consideration, Wendy Bracken Page 181 Delegation to Durham Regional Council by W Bracken January 26th, 2022 in Report #2022-COW-,' Organics Management Solution Update Page182 Critical Decision as Concerns and Costs Mount With Durham's Organic Management Plan • Skyrocketing Costs • Increasing Risks • Critical Information Has Not Been Provided to Regional Councillors and Public on the Risks of this Project • Failure to Investigate Other Available Options, plans of other regions • Fails to maximize 3Rs first; costs, risks increase with back -end focus There are other paths forward, modifications that can be made. Only one responsible decision at this time: Refer back to staff for more information including options, a fulsome analysis of risks; Take the time to get more information, to consider that information and make a more fully informed decision on very costly project Page183 Skyrocketing Costs of Durham Plan Table below from page 4 of Report #2022-COW-2, emphasis added Pre-Sort/Transfer Capital Cost Wet Anaerobic Digestion Capital Cost Biogas Upgrading System Cvurtice WPCP Biogas Pipeline Other ConstructordDevelopment Related Costs LandiServicing MTotal Nominal Construction Costs .naerobic Digestion Csts D19 Business Case 2020 Business Case 21022Busine##C� 465 541 1163 1261 1788 Noi lnckKded 12.2 Included Above Nat hek}ded Not Included 55 08 58 36 48 104 Included Above 1 .2 D2.9 242_0 1.5 Times the 219 Estimate That's a 0% INCREASE Page184 0 IncreasingRisks of Mixed Waste Pre-sort AD Project Statements very concerning: will vendors seek to transfer risks to Region? (for example, make Region responsible for disposal of digestate, meeting standards) F-.&L,urpts below fro,, , pdre 4 of Repurt #2022-COW-2, eI I IP1 IdJIJ dUUCI.. Report 2022-Cove-2 Page 3 of 8 3.3 At the time of this report, the capital cost of the AD Project is now estimated at 242 million i.e_ $40.1 million more than 2020 estimates. The key reasons for the increases are: 1) refinements to the scope of the AD Project; 2) the impact of OVID-19 and other market pressures on infrastructure projects; and ) anticipated hid premiums due to reduced market tolerance for project risks. Inflation and Risk Intolerance: 3.5 In Report # 2021-I IFo-'I 15, Council was apprised of the cost impacts of o ID- 1 9 and other economic market pressures on infrastructure projects, such as global supply chain disruptionstunc rtainties, skilled labour shortages and increased labour costs. These market pressures have led to capital cost increases on large infrastructure projects and demonstrates that the market is not prepared to tolerate the same level of project risk that it may have accepted a few years ago. It is anticipated that this conservatism may result in an added premium on the AD Project bids. Page 185 Critical Information On Risks, Costs, Impacts Not Provided • L Gasser provided Committee of Whole detailing information and references to jurisdictions (Peel, London, York) which regarding costs, risks, trends of organics been provided in Durham reports with correspondence to you various reports from other Ontario include critical information waste management that have not • Region of Peel has backed away from Region -owned facility • York has private contracts for SSO • Both Peel and City of London Ontario reports identify contamination issues with mixed waste processing (FSO) igestate; London report identifies particular concern with heavy metals; • London report also identifies many mixed processing facilities closed or re -en ineered as weren't meeting performance or contract requirements; including newer facilities Page186 Excerpts of European information from City of London, Ontario Report First Excerpt from Section 2.1 on page S of pdf; Second Excerpt from Appendix B on page 19,Third Excerpt from Swedish EPA blog found on page 20 https://pub-Iondon. escri bemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=80154 Experience in Europe and a few other countries with large scale mixed waste processing and resource recovery facilities indicate that these facilities can meet local requirements. For example, a 2017 report identified 570 Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) facilities operating in Europe. The challenge for Canadian municipalities is understanding the local conditions in which European MBT facilities operate, contractual requirements, how risks are shared or assumed, operating and capital costs, etc. There is also emerging information that suggests that some countries in Europe may be moving away from mixed waste processing and MBT facilities in favour of source separation systems for recycling and organics. For example, MBT will no longer count towards EU recycling targets after 2026. Starting January 1, 2027, the Waste Framework Directive requires that only separately collected and processed organics will be counted as diversion and meet the requirements of the Directive. A recent dlog posting by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Figure 1) further confirms more analysis is required on the future direction of MBT facilities in Europe. Frorrl mechanical sit M ng to source se paraz i-ort ilwo ran&% ko me cimwe N M13 r vat io SOMMW a "Od t* Ud:kw -nk� NO CW090ron 0pgr l INM SM NX0 prOdUel "its. R" I* INOWM Wth WT plank To SMOdah RKff cIP&W*5, !IAWNPd 1a si-A krcus to WOW Uprehan d we" 0 me 1 IX LNgIr lick+ nurLwL4411 W-. go Mu"Y Ir7molm dM SOWKM SaPWODn OI rm%m id Ymsa Dw MQ me u no Vw EwWwod PKomw RwRor sibilAy wn ,npna�c�d Ax �ww■� p�raitMcl �#re�a s�ur� s#pir�ar� attid f�o,x*hp�d party patron boomm ya y companonh tots EP'R #**Puelow j r0 .- CaWrW AMZ Page 187 Table 4 of Durham Region Corporate Climate Action Plan httbs://www.durham.ca/en/resources/CAO-Office/Durham-Region-Corborate-Climate-Action-PIan.Ddf Table 4 - Proposed/Potential Short-term Corporate GHG Reduction Priorities to 202522 Internal utilization of renewable natural gas Solid Waste generatlan from anaerolm digestion and other 0-7,500 tCO,e Regional processes. Solid Waste Landfill biocorer pilot. 12,000 tCO,e Facilities Deep energy retrofits of existing buildings to 2,000-2,000 tCO2* corporate portfolio. Pursue battery electric and hybrid electric 4 Fleet Groups vehicles for all corporate -owned fleets, where including operationally feasible. With an estimated 2,000-4,000 tCO,e Paramedics. Police, baseline of appraxlmately 29,500 tCO2e in Transit, and Works 2019. this large repesents a 7%to 14% GHG reduction by 2025. Impacts of Other Projects Including 160 k increase on GHGs and emissions need more fulsome assessment and context https://www.durhamyorkwaste.ca/en/facility-approvals/resources/Documents/2021%20Environmental%2OScreening%20Report/20211217_DYEC_ESR_FI NAL.pdf Yar4w�- Region Table 4: Projeetad Annual GHG [,contribution from DYEC GHG % 6J4 GHG Contribution DYEC (Tonnes Contribution Contribution Contribution 2019 (tonnes CO2 Processiblej tonnes COS to Ontario to Canadian eq) eq) GHG GHG 163,000,000 730,000,000 Emissions Emissions Ontario 140.Oa0 159,545 0.10% 0.02% Canada 160,000 182,337 0.11 % 0.02% Page189 8 Figure 2 of Durham Region Corporate Climate Action Plan httbs://www.durham.ca/en/resources/CAO-Office/Durham-Region-Comorate-Climate-Action-PIan.Ddf Figure 2 - Corporate GHG emissions inventory from 2007 to 2019 Framework 180,000 140,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 40,000 20,000 Aurhw rok Iwo WtN SoloW"L d& NMR%WyAWW UmW W" II"1 ra*rsanrkypk WAIMIDANYMI W RAMS M" 1M loll M12 tMS3 MW 1A11 M A11 M MI! 11.eda 11,1M i4Arr 711M Si IM 11AM sJ ur i3.071 A1M 4#0 03H +i9M Q.W E." 37M MIN HVIN am ABM % M AM 17.0 WO &M am am H.4W 11,1M I5,W 51111 KM MIN SAW 1R.f1u Un II.111 HISM 12,6d1 11,1M W,101 M2.W ULM QMN 15-ON IMM AM 1aM 1R41W M M W-W TY&M TAM Page190 9 Excerpts below from: https://www.politico.eu/article/denmark-devilish-waste-trash-energy-incineration-recycling-dilemma THE RECYCLING MYTH DenimarliCs `devilish' waste dilemma Its state-of-the-art trash incinerators are sending its climate ambitions up in smoke. Denmark is Europe's tap waste burner. Incineration accounts for about a fifth of district heating and about 5 percent of its electricity. But what just a few years ago seemed like a clever way to deal with garbage has now became a problem. LL "Today, we import waste with a high content of plastic in order to [use the excess] capacity at the incineration plants, with increasing CO2 emission as a result" — Dan jorgensen, Denmark's climate minister "Tile process of burning trash is inherently polluting you can put state-of-the-art pollution controls on an incinerator, but that doesn't make the facility clean," said Jens Peter Mortensen, a waste expert at the Danish Society for Nature Conservation. Page191 10 Excerpts below from Energy Justice Network page with link: http://www.energynustice.net/incineration/climate Trash Incineration and Climate Change: Debunking EPA Misinformation Trash incineration is incredibly bad for the climate, releasing 2.5 times as much carbon dioxide CO2 to make the same amount of electricity as a coal power plant. This is evidenced by national data compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in their eGRID database. However, the industry, with the support of the EPA, uses creative accounting to make it seem as if the trash incineration industry is actually a climate solution. It's important to understand their accounting tricks. First, if you look at the actual amount of CO2 coming out of smokestacks from trash incinerators vs. other sources, it's obvious that they're the worst of the lot. This is based on our analysis of EPA's eGRID data: 6.000 5.000 4.000 3.000 2000. 1.000 0 Cat (Ibs[MWh) Trash Biomass Coal Oil Natural Gas Incineration Incineration Here are the ways that EPA downplays the greenhouse gas emissions from incineration: • Ignoring "biogenic" carbon emissions • Subtracting avoided methane emissions from landfills, as if conventional landfills are the only alternative • Subtracting emissions from offsetting fossil fuels for energy generation • Subtracting emissions due to recycling of metals that remain in the ash after combustion • Subtracting emissions from avoiding long-distance transportation to landfills Page192 11 https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/carbon-capture-tax-credit-1.6321458 Excerpts below from January 20 2022 CBC story Scientists want Ottawa to scrap carbon capture tax credit f v w 4!4 in Plan amounts to huge subsidy to oil and gas as Ottawa aims to cut subsidies, letter a rgu es The Canadian Press -Posted: Jan 20, 2022 11:32 AM ET I Last Updated: January 20 More than 400 Canadian climate scientists and other academics are pleading with Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to scrap her plan to create a tax credit for companies that build carbon capture and storage facilities. Freeland floated the idea of the tax credit in last year's federal budget and consultations to design it ended just before Christmas. A letter sent to Freeland Wednesday asks her to ditch the idea altogether, calling it a massive subsidy to the oil and gas industrythat directly contradicts Canada's pledge to eliminate such subsidies and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Page 193 12 Failure to Investigate and Communicate Other Available Options, and plans of other regions; Essential Due Diligence To Investigate Further New Information • Need staff to report back on option of procuring private sector AD for Source Separated Organics (SSO) • Need staff to report back on more front-end, low-cost options including clear bag policies, other strategies for multi -residential • Need staff to give a more fulsome, detailed analysis of risks as other regions have done Page194 There are other paths forward, modifications that can be made. Instead of Mixed Waste Pre-sort Facility/AD Facility, modify to less costly, progressive options: • AD for Source Separated Organics (SSO); investigate private sector options • Eliminate risky Mixed Waste Pre-sort, instead get out the organics and hazardous materials with front-end strategies including clear bag policy, multi-res planning and designing, better education Page195 Critical Decision as Concerns and Costs Mount With Organic Management Plan • Skyrocketing Costs • Increasing Risks • Critical Information Has Not Been Provided to Regional Councillors and Public on the Risks of this Project • Failure to Investigate Other Available Options, plans of other regions • Fails to maximize 3Rs first; costs, risks increase with back -end focus There are other paths forward, modifications that can be made. Only one responsible decision at this time: Refer back to staff for more information including options, a fulsome analysis of risks; Take the time to get more information, to consider that information and make a more fully informed decision on very costly project together with the LTWMP plan(2022-WR-1) Page196 Clarftwn 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: Joint Committees Date of Meeting: February 7, 2022 Report Number: PDS-006-22 Submitted By: Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#: File Number: S-C-2018-0005 and ZBA2018-0026 By-law Number: Report Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment for 14 Jack Potts Way, Courtice Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-006-22 and any related communication items, be received; 2. That the By-law attached to Report PDS-006-22, Attachment 1, be approved; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-006-22 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page197 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-006-22 Report Overview Page 2 This report recommends the approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment to correct a previous Zoning By-law Schedule that was approved for Delpark Homes (Prestonvale) Inc. in 2020. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would not change the number of lots or the lot sizes that were approved when the original Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications were approved. 1. Background 1.1 In March 2020, Subdivision and Zoning By-law applications were approved for 1430 & 1539 Prestonvale Road. Since the draft approval the applicant has completed the requirements of the draft approval and the Subdivision was registered on November 4, 2021. The approved subdivision can be seen in Figure 1 below. Figure 1 is a graphic from PSD-006-20 that showed the lot frontages and dwelling types for the subdivision. F111ltlll�r� �illiililliliiiii M i1 i111�I1�1I F Ililllllll 111i1111111 RESCEN 14 Jack Potts Way South tourtice' Arena a ' Q W M1� Subject Lands Single Detached Home: frontage 10.1m - Single Detached Home: Frontage 11.3m - Single Detached Home: frontage 12.Om Townhomes Figure 1: Approved subdivision and the type of dwelling units Page198 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-006-22 1.2 The Zoning By-law Schedule attached in report PSD-006-20, Figure 2 below, included an error by zoning one of the lots in the subdivision, now known as 14 Jack Potts Way, "Urban Residential Exception (R2-65)" instead of "Urban Residential Exception (R2- 54)". The R2-65 zone is intended for lots under 11.3 metres of frontage with a single car garage. All the other lots in the subdivision that had 11.3 metres of frontage or larger were zoned "Urban Residential Exception (R2-54)" or "Urban Residential Exception (R2-67)". This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2020- , passed this day of , 2020 A.D. z h SOUTHFIELD AVENUE SOUTHFIELD AVE H Uj KERSEY CRESCENT N O s z O � U Z 14 Jack Potts Way ROY NfCHOLS DRIVE LL JACK POTTS WAY 0 z z t j w O LLI Z O I- w K a - Zoning Change From'A' To'(H)R2-54' Zoning To Remain'A' - Zoning Change From'A' To'(H)R3-59' Zoning Change From 'A' TC'EP' - Zoning Change From 'A' To'(H)R2-65' Zoning Change From 'A' To'R1' - Zoning Change From 'A' To '(H)R2-67' N Courtice • ZBA 2018-0026 • Schedule 4 Figure 2: Zoning By-law Schedule from Report PSD-006-20 with 14 Jack Potts Way identified Page 199 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-006-22 Page 4 1.3 The applicants have submitted for a building permit for 14 Jack Potts Way and the permit does not meet the provisions of Zoning By-law 84-63 as the "Urban Residential Exception (R2-65)" is intended for smaller lots with single car garages. 1.4 The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would zone 14 Jack Potts Way "Urban Residential Exception (R2-54)", consistent with the 11.3 metre lots in the subdivision. 2. Public Notification 2.1 This report is to correct the previous Zoning By-law Schedule that inadvertently zoned the property, 14 Jack Potts Way, "Urban Residential Exception (R2-65)" instead of "Urban Residential Exception (R2-54)". A new public meeting is not required as previous public notice was provided, and a public meeting held to meet the Planning Act requirements for the applications. 2.2 The interested parties on file for applications S-C-2018-0005 and ZBA2018-0026 have been sent notice of this meeting and the purpose of bringing this report forward. As of writing this report staff have not received any correspondence from the interested parties notified. 2.3 The Zoning By-law Amendment would be subject to a new appeal period, if approved. 3. Discussion 3.1 The proposed zoning by-law amendment contained in Attachment 1 of this report is to correct the original zoning by-law amendment approved for 14 Jack Potts Way. 3.2 There are no proposed changes to the number of lots or the lot sizes that were approved when the original Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications were approved. 4. Concurrence Not Applicable. Page 200 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-006-22 5. Conclusion Page 5 It is respectfully recommended that the revised Zoning By-law Amendment be approved as contained in Attachment 1 of this report. Staff Contact: Brandon Weiler, Planner, 905-623-3379 ex. 2424 or bweiler@Clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Zoning By-law Amendment Interested Parties: The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision: Eddy Chan, Delpark Homes (Presontvale) Inc. Mark Jacobs, The Biglieri Group J. Boate D. Moser V. Suppan M. Enjati Page 201 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-006-22 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 Number 2022- being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA2018-0026; Now therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Schedule `4' to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from "Urban Residential Exception (R2-65)" to "Urban Residential Exception (R2-54)"as illustrated on the attached Schedule `A' hereto. 2. Schedule `A' attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act. Passed in Open Council this day of , 2022 Adrian Foster, Mayor June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\1423659882\1423659882..,Attachment 1 to Report PDS-006-22.docx Page 202 This is Schedule "A" to By-law 202 - , passed this dap of , 2022 A.D. i M- Roy FV CH JACK POTTS WAY MZoning Charge From 'R2-65'To'R2-54` Courtiot * ZBA 2018-0026 * Schtduda d C:\Program Files\eSCRIBF\TEMP\1423659882\1423659882Attachment 1 to Report PDS-006-22.docx Page 203 Roy FV CH JACK POTTS WAY MZoning Charge From 'R2-65'To'R2-54` Courtiot * ZBA 2018-0026 * Schtduda d C:\Program Files\eSCRIBF\TEMP\1423659882\1423659882Attachment 1 to Report PDS-006-22.docx Page 203 Clarftwn 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: Joint Committees Date of Meeting: February 7, 2022 Report Number: PDS-007-22 Submitted By: Ryan Windle, Director of Planning and Development Services Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#: File Number: ZBA2021-0022 By-law Number: Report Subject: An application to remove the (H) Holding Symbol to permit the development of a single detached dwelling on a vacant lot created as part of a lot line adjustment application (LD2021/102) for 1 Granary Lane, Courtice Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-007-22 and any related communication items, be received; 2. That the By-law attached to Report PDS-007-22, Attachment 1, be approved; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-007-22 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page 204 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-007-22 Report Overview Page 2 The purpose of this report is to recommend approval of the application to remove the (H) Holding Symbol to permit the development of a single detached dwelling on a new lot created as part of land severance applications (LD 101/2021 & 102/2021) for 1 Granary Lane, Courtice). The lot is currently vacant. 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner: 1.2 Applicant: 1.3 Proposal: 1.4 Area: 1.5 Location: 1.6 Roll Number: 1.7 Within Built Boundary: 2. Background Baseline Properties D.G. Biddle & Associates Ltd. Removal of Holding (H) Symbol from: "Holding -Urban Residential ((H)R2) Zone"; 54 hectares Lot 30, Con 2, former Town of Darlington. 40M-1755, Blk 56 181701005022112 Yes 2.1 In January 2022, the subject parcel was created through Land Division applications LD 101/2021 & 102/2021. A portion of the parcel from the property with the Roll Number: 181701005022750 (Part 1, 40R-31561) was merged with an existing parcel at 1 Granary Lane (Part 3, 40R-31561) to create a residential lot large enough to meet zoning regulations to establish a Single Detached Dwelling. This small parcel of land has a Holding zone attached to it due to it previously being part of a larger parcel of land that is the subject of a Draft Plan of Subdivision (18T-90022). Page 205 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-007-22 Page 3 • �y,�. f� � I ... WA _ 1 II • 1 1 1 � 1 y Figure 1: Site context Map Page 206 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-007-22 1 r r` PLAN P AOR 5055 [µo3 PAP [P1 P2a6ETI [pcPl� y� f Q Pao 29505,5 66 pn1Y 1,05 � �1 .1 QIN }co(�C) P ARC roR_ %� 1-4. y PL AN& 53,+ [RpPg55.577 TD , NS�nS� �/ y 31a3 CP7Em 4 DRIVE o I -0014 SOT 14 -� G 8 LOT 13 w m < 1 -----� C z m� PLAN i 8 1�ptiN ab ENS �1Nw�� EASEt� te' �tis� \11�SY ". 156 Page 4 p51 4, PART 4,� 1 pIN �f.84 59.21 P4ASE7 / N69'26 a6 P3,P4,PBJaAEpS SIB I6 N697"', P5) FENCE k69'2930'E PS 0.2 N 4sin o BLOC[ 0073 pIN O65ftf,70414 AS BLOCK 23 "ER PIN 26598-0224 i BLOCK 24 PIN 26598-0225 \ BLOCK 25 \ RN 26598-0226 } � � LOT 16EN w i. b✓,- - �0 �1 40tv1-1755 � REGISTERED Figure 2: Parts subject to LD 101/2021 & 102/2021 3. Staff Comments 3.1 The Holding (H) symbol is generally a provision enabled by the Official Plan to ensure that certain obligations have been considered prior to development and redevelopment of the lands. This includes: servicing, access, protection of natural areas, measures to mitigate the impact of development, submission of required studies, execution of agreements and any other requirements as may be deemed necessary by Council including the implementation of the policies of this plan. 3.2 The (H)R2 Holding Symbol is in place on the subject property due to this parcel historically being attached to a larger parcel that is subject to potential future subdivision development (18T-90022). With this parcel being merged with a single residential parcel zoned R2 at 1 Granary Lane, the above -stated servicing obligations are addressed. 3.3 The Subject property is zoned "Holding —Urban Residential Type Two ((H)R2)" in Zoning By-law 84-63. 3.4 All property taxes have been paid in full. Page 207 Municipality of Clarington Report PDS-007-22 4. Conclusion Page 5 4.1 In consideration of the comments noted above, approval of the removal of the "Holding H)" symbol for Part 1 in 40R-31561, as shown on the attached By-law and schedule (Attachment 1) is recommended. Staff Contact: Sean Jeffrey, Planner I, 905 623 3379 ext. 2420 or sjeffrey@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 -Zoning By-law Amendment to Remove `H' Symbol Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 208 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-007-22 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 Number 20_- being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington to permit the development of one single detached dwelling on the subject lands (ZBA2021-0002); Now therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Schedule "Y (Bowmanville)" to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: "Holding — Urban Residential ((H)R2) Zone" to "Urban Residential (R2) Zone"; as illustrated on the attached Schedule "A" hereto. 2. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of the By-law. 3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act. Passed in Open Council this day of .2022 Adrian Foster, Mayor June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk ,Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\9321754503\9321754503Attachment 1 to Report PDS-007-22.docx Page 209 This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2022- , passed this day of , 2022 A.D. 4 [FUTURE AVONDALE DRIVE] tc tA ce o a o = 1 pC m � J 1- - SANDRINGHAM DR d BROWNSTONE ORES F:::� FFUTMTT�� © Zoning Change From '(H)R2' To 'R2' Courtme ZBA 2021-0022 Schedule 4 • • Schedule A — Key Map Page 210 Municipality of Clarington Joint Committees DATE February 7, 2022 MOVED BY Mayor Foster SECONDED BY Resolution # Whereas the Municipality of Clarington is committed to protecting our economy, ecosystems, and community from climate change; Whereas the Municipality of Clarington strives to maintain a healthy environment and foster a heathy community to nurture the wellbeing of residents and provide a high quality of life; Whereas the Durham Community Energy Plan demonstrates that the transportation sector is responsible for 47 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in Durham Region; Whereas the majority of Ontario's electricity is produced from low carbon sources; Whereas investment in domestic EV production has the potential to create mitigate carbon emissions and create well -paid jobs for residents of Durham; Now therefore be it resolved: That the Municipality of Clarington, respectfully request that the Provincial government take the following actions to support municipalities, businesses, and the public to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector: • Support research and development of battery and energy storage technologies with applications for use in EVs and renewable energy storage; • Provide subsidies to for residents, businesses, and municipalities to install public and private EV charging infrastructure in new and existing developments; • Provide subsidies to residents, businesses, and municipalities to incentivize the purchase of EVs; • Support mandatory minimum EV charge station -ready parking spots in new commercial and residential developments; That this resolution be forwarded to the Honourable Erin O'Toole, MP (Durham), Honourable Philip Lawrence MP (Northumberland -Peterborough South), Lindsey Park, MPP (Durham), David Piccini, MPP (Northumberland -Peterborough South); and That this resolution be forwarded to the Region of Durham and Durham area municipalities for endorsement; That this resolution be forwarded to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) the Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO) for circulation to municipalities with a request for endorsement. Page 211 Clarftwn 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: Joint Committees Date of Meeting: February 7, 2022 Report Number: PWD-003-22 Submitted By: Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works Reviewed By: Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#: File Number: S-C-2015-0002 By-law Number: Report Subject: Northglen West Phase 3 Subdivision, Plan 40M-2606 Assumption By -Law Recommendations: 1. That Report PWD-033-22 be received; 2. That the draft By-law (Attachment 2), assuming certain streets within Plan 40M-2606 and adjacent plan 40M-2560 (Attachment 1), be approved; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PWD-033-22 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page 212 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-003-22 Report Overview Page 2 This report concerns Northglen West Phase 3 Subdivision. It requests Council's permission to approve a by-law to assume certain streets within Plan 40M-2606 and adjacent plan 40M- 2560 as public highways. 1. Background The Subdivision Agreement 1.1 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington entered into a Subdivision Agreement registered June 29, 2017 with 2265719 Ontario Inc. to develop lands by plan of subdivision, located in Bowmanville and described as Plan 40M-2606 and adjacent plan 40M-2560 (Attachment 1). The agreement required the developer to construct all roadworks, including hot -mix paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, street trees, a storm drainage system and streetlights. 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-2606 and adjacent plan 40M-2560 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: Karen Richardson, Manager, Development Engineering, 905-623-3379 ext. 2327 or krichardson@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Key Map Attachment 2 — By-law Report to PWD-033-22 Page 213 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-003-22 Interested Parties: The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision: Domenic Tassone, 2265719 Ontario Inc. Page 3 Page 214 5 z Q O m I Northglen West CRA►GCT Subdivision, Phase 3 �T Plan 40M4606 ILI CT T, Id m Q m c E 3 0 00 CT w D z w w J J_ z Q O m Concessi6n WILLIAM FAIR DRIVE :_ 11111 11111 _� �� . 11111 �� • � (D NORTHGLEN BOULEVARD DRAWN BY: BIE a 45 E.L. DATE: December 17, 2021 REPORT PWD-003-21 BOWMANVILLE ATTACHMENT No. 1 FILE NAME: 21 REY MAP 40M-2606.mxd w ry 0) ins J:\Engineering\Attachments\Attachments Post ESRI Upgrade\40M-2606.mxd Attachment 2 to Report PWD-003-22 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 2022-XXX Being a By-law to establish, lay out 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: 1. That the blocks shown on Plan 40M-2560, and listed below in this section, being in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, is hereby established, laid out, and dedicated by The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington as public highway: Block 172 (0.3m Reserve) Block 173 (0.3m Reserve) Block 174 (0.3m Reserve) Block 175 (0.3m Reserve) 2. That the blocks shown on Plan 40M-2606, and listed below in this section, being in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, is hereby established, laid out, and dedicated by The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington as public highway: Block 212 (0.3m Reserve) Block 213 (0.3m Reserve) 3. That the streets and blocks shown on Plan 40M-2560, and listed below in this section, being in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, are hereby accepted by the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington as public highways, and assumed by the said Corporation for public use: William Fair Drive Block 172 (0.3m Reserve) Block 173 (0.3m Reserve) Block 174 (0.3m Reserve) Block 175 (0.3m Reserve) 4. That the streets and blocks shown on Plan 40M-2606, and listed below in this section, being in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, are hereby accepted by the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington as public highways, and assumed by the said Corporation for public use: Bruce Cameron Drive Page 216 Attachment 2 to Report PWD-003-22 Henry Smith Avenue Kenneth Cole Drive William Fair Drive Crombie Street Block 211 (Street Widening) Block 212 (0.3m Reserve) Block 213 (0.3m Reserve) Passed in open Council this XX day of MMM, 2022. Adrian Foster, Mayor June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Page 217 Clarftwn 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: Joint Committees Date of Meeting: February 7, 2022 Report Number: PWD-004-22 Submitted By: Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works Reviewed By: Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#: File Number: S-C-2012-0003 By-law Number: Report Subject: Brookhill Phase 3 Subdivision, Plan 40M-2580 Assumption By -Law Recommendations: 1. That Report PWD-004-22 be received; 2. That the draft By-law (Attachment 2), assuming certain streets within Plan 40M-2580 (Attachment 1), be approved; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PWD-004-22 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page 218 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-004-22 Report Overview Page 2 This report concerns Brookhill Phase 3 Subdivision. It requests Council's permission to approve a by-law to assume certain streets within Plan 40M-2580 as public highways. 1. Background The Subdivision Agreement 1.1 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington entered into a Subdivision Agreement registered June 7, 2016 with 1613881 Ontario Inc. to develop lands by plan of subdivision, located in Bowmanville and described as Plan 40M-2580 (Attachment 1). The agreement required the developer to construct all roadworks, including hot -mix paving, sidewalks, curb and gutter, street trees, a storm drainage system and streetlights. 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-2580 as public highways. The proposed by-law may be found as Attachment 2 to this report. 3. Concurrence Not Applicable. 4. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Council pass the by-law attached to this report. Following its passage, the Municipal Solicitor will register it in the Land Registry Office. Staff Contact: Karen Richardson, Manager, Development Engineering, 905-623-3379 ext. 2327 or krichardson@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Key Map Attachment 2 — By-law to Report PWD-004-22 Interested Parties: The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision: Corrado Russo, DG Group Page 219 w F- w w w LLJ w m Cf) U Q } Y < o a 0 ti Qe ROSS WRIGHT AVENUE H w � w w � Cn m m SUMERSFORD DRIVE m J Of U SUMERSFORD DR 0-U\CK1RP 2 h�RV Fy✓O"FS tRP\� AV`c"pF Qv\�K <v TF p o o� Ml `�FR pRFS pF � w LLJ m <<FR pRFSC Brookhill Subdivision, eRo ��� Phase 3 Oky�<<eOU�FVq Plan 40M-2580 Rp 0 w op. N � W o S c� — Q DRAWN BY: 3 E.L. 0 m DATE: December 21, 2021 way? REPORT PWD-004-21 BOWMANVILLE ATTACHMENT No. 1 FILE NAME: —faK2-2-1kEY MAP 40M-2580.mxd J:\Engineering\Attachments\Attachments Post ESRI Upgrade\40M-2580.mxd Attachment 2 to Report PWD-004-22 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 2022-XXX Being a By-law to establish, lay out 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 blocks shown on Plan 40M-2580, and listed below in this section, being in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, is hereby established, laid out, and dedicated by The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington as public highway: Block 85 (0.3m Reserve) Block 86 (0.3m Reserve) Block 87 (0.3m Reserve) Block 88 (0.3m Reserve) Block 89 (0.3m Reserve) 2. That the streets and blocks shown on Plan 40M-2580, and listed below in this section, being in the Municipality of Clarington, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, are hereby accepted by the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington as public highways, and assume by the said Corporation for public use: Kilpatrick Court Purdy Place Quick Trail Block 85 (0.3m Reserve) Block 86 (0.3m Reserve) Block 87 (0.3m Reserve) Block 88 (0.3m Reserve) Block 89 (0.3m Reserve) Page 221 Attachment 2 to Report PWD-004-22 Passed in open Council this XX day of MMM, 2022. Adrian Foster, Mayor June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Page 222 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE RESOLUTION # DATE February 7, 2022 MOVED BY Councillor Zwart SECONDED BY Whereas the Region of Durham proposes to run a pilot project using Durham York Energy Centre (waste incinerator) bottom ash in Phase 2 of the reconstruction of Regional Road 18 (Newtonville Road); And whereas this is not a proven technology; And whereas the Municipality of Clarington wishes to protect the health of the environment and our residents; And whereas Clarington is fast becoming a "dumping ground" for the Region of Durham's waste; Now therefore be it resolved that the Municipal of Clarington is vehemently opposed to the Region of Durham's proposal to run a pilot project using incinerator bottom ash in the reconstruction of Regional Road 18 (Newtonville Road). Page 223 Patenaude, Lindsey From: Linda Gasser <gasserlinda@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 12:13 PM To: ClerksExternal Email Subject: please add to next relevant agenda: correspondence to Chair Henry and Works Committee re 2022 W-12 Attachments: 2022 Feb 1 Report W-12 Newtonville Road pilot.pdf; 2020 Aug 13 Whitby This Week Durham ad re LTWMP - to be completed by 2022.pdf Importance: High EXTERNAL Good morning: I sent the attached correspondence to Durham Clerks and Works committee yesterday. I had intended to copy Clarington Clerks as well but just noticed I forgot to do so. Given my correspondence relates to a regional project in Clarington as described in Regional report 2022-W-12, I would appreciate if you could add to the next relevant agenda so that Council would have an opportunity to address this matter and so that the public would be aware of this. Thank you. Linda Gasser 111 Ferguson St. Whitby, ON L1N 2X7 Forwarded Message Subject:correspondence to Chair Henry and Works Committee re 2022 W-12 Date:Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:08:42 -0500 From:Linda Gasser <gasserlinda@gmail.com> To:Clerks Durham Region <Clerks@durham.ca>, John Henry <iohn.henrv@durham.ca>, 'Don Mitchell' <mayor@whitbv.ca>, Marilyn Crawford <marilyn.crawford@alax.ca>, Bill McLean <bmclean@pickering.ca>, Dave Barton (Mayor of Uxbridge) <dbarton@town. uxbridge.on.ca>, W.E. Ted Smith <tsmith@townshipofbrock.ca>, Tito -Dante Marimpietri <tmarim pietri@oshawa.ca>, John Neal <JNeal(@oshawa.ca> CC:Mayor Adrian Foster <mayor@clarington.net>, 'Joe Neal' <ineal@clarington.net>, 'Granville Anderson' <ganderson@clarington.net>, Hooper, Ron <rhooper@clarington.net>, Zwart, Margaret <mzwart@clarington.net>, ctraill@clarington.net, jjones <iiones@clarington.net>, mail=iomeara@durhamregion.com <iomeara@durhamregion.com>, Orono Times <oronotimes@rogers.com>, Gioseph Anello <Gioseph.Anello@durham.ca>, ramesh. iagannathan@durham.ca, dan.waechter@durham.ca, Susan Siopis <susan.siopis@durham.ca> Page 224 Good morning: Please see attached my correspondence to Regional Chair John Henry and Works Committee members re Durham staff report 2022-W-12, Newtonville Regional Road phase 2 - "alternative materials" and proposed further testing of "seasoned" incinerator bottom ash. Regards. Linda Gasser Whitby Page 225 Via email to Clerks(a�Durham.ca February 1, 2022. Regional Chair John Henry and Chair/Members of Works Committee Regional Municipality of Durham 605 Rossland Road East, Whitby Re: Works Staff Report 2022 W-12 Regional Road 18 (Newtonville Road) Pilot. Phase 2 with plastics, with "Seasoned" Incinerator Bottom ash to be considered for further testing- financing including $3.5 million 2019 Federal Gas Tax Allocation Dear Regional Chair Henry and Works Committee Members: You may recall I spoke against this matter multiple times since staff floated using federal gas tax funds for this ill-considered project which is an attempt to clean up the mess left by the plastics and incinerator industries and should not be funded by public dollars. Federal Gas tax is not "free money" and should not be treated as a windfall to be blown on questionable pursuits.. Your Waste staff have devoted multiple resources to promote their Phase 2 pilot to experiment with the use "alternative materials" for Phase 2 of Newtonville Road. How much has been spent to date on all the work done leading to this Phase 2 pilot update? Staff have not included: a) supporting documents including pilot project costs to date & future anticipated costs, nor attached testing reports nor described any proposed monitoring. b) not provided evidence that they consulted with Clarington Council and residents, upon whom they want to again foist another regional waste materials "experiment". On January 20th, Chair Henry was described as saying, in a Whitby This Week article, responding to federal funding for affordable housing... Henry called the announcement a "great story for Durham, " adding "everyone deserves a safe place to live". Has Durham made good on their housing commitments to ensure that every homeless person in Durham has housing, that every family has affordable housing and/or child care? These are as yet unmet basic human needs. Plastics What your staff have considered has been tried elsewhere with mixed results. See extract below from Canadian Plastics site re potential hazards: 1 Page 226 February 5, 2021 Canadian Plastics https://www.canpIastics.com/features/the-plastic-road-ahead/ A challenge, however, is to balance the asphalt performance with gains in recycling and sustainability as well as environmental concerns. In some early applications, where waste plastic was simply ground up and tossed into the mix, the plastic agglomerated near the road surface, creating the opportunity for small pieces to break away and generate microplastic pollution...... There's also concern about the potential for certain types of melted plastic to release toxic fumes. An October 2020 report by the U.S.-based National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) acknowledged the risks of running the wrong plastics through an asphalt plant and advised against using recycled PVC in paving applications, as it releases toxins when heated. See Report section 5.4 on page 4: Asphalt mixes were also modified with 0.3 per cent by weight of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibers from recycled plastic bottles from two US sources. Fiber modified asphalt was significantly improved depending on the type and source of PET fiber. Section 5.5 Similar recycled material as used in our tests, containing mixed plastics from the Region's MRF, will be ground into pieces small enough to be added to this asphalt mix in varied quantities with recycled fibers, and placed on the Phase 2 RR18 road segment to assess the benefits in our Regional road network. Please keep in mind that after Blue Box recycling and collection transitions to producers in July 2024, Durham will no longer have control of Blue Box recyclables. The fate of Durham's MRF is under study and I am not aware if a decision has been made around that. Nowhere in the report do I see any environmental monitoring proposed so as to identify potential off site impacts of using plastic materials. How would staff claims about the supposed circular economy benefits actual benefit Durham, since you won't have control over Durham's blue box recyclables? Bottom Ash Whose interests are Waste staff working to promote, when they use public resources to help Covanta Energy -the operator who is responsible for costs around ash disposal — to clean up their mess? 2 Page 227 Waste staff have routinely promoted "reuse" of ash generated by Durham's incinerator. See attached their announcement when they started their Long Term Waste Plan consultations. These attempts to greenwash a problem only benefits industry, not Durham residents. Given so many unmet needs they also make Durham politicians supporting these lame greenwashing forays look completely out of touch. While staff write that "raw" bottom ash will not be used in this pilot, they reference "seasoned" ash. See Section 7.1 pages 5-6 7. Bottom Ash 7.1 Bottom ash produced by the Region's Energy -From -Waste (EFW) Facility as an incineration by-product was another waste material considered for incorporation into the granular road base. The Region contracted Wood Environmental to conduct testing on this material. The material had a high moisture absorption rate that could be detrimental to the road base especially in the spring and fall seasons. Research indicated that a seasoning period of at least six months is necessary to condition the ash for construction purposes. As a result of the testing performed, the raw bottom ash material is considered not suitable for use on this project. Further testing on seasoned ash will be undertaken for future projects. Attempts to reuse ash are nothing new, with multiple concerns around same. See extract below: https:llipen.org/sites/default/ftlestdominents/After_ incineration_ the toxic_ ash problem2015.p df After incineration: The Tox[c Ash Pmblern -1PEM Dioxin, POBs and Waste WG 7.1.4 Bottom ash In the Netherlands, the annual production of bottom ash is approximately 1200.000 tons. The bottom ash production is quite steady because the quantity of incinerated waste has not been changed for the past few years. In 2002, 770.000 tons were used for road bedding%. and hardening surfaces of industrial sites. This is much lower compared to previous years, when 820.ODO up to 1340MO tons have been dumped under roads. Waste incinerators have storage facilities for periods during which road building activity is lower. However, the drop in 2M2 is not a re5uh of a small demand for road works, but because of growing concern about the negative environmental impact of dumping bottom ash under roads. Road constructor: have been increasingly reluctant to further Ow holtom ash for road construction_ In consequeocr of this growing concern, the quantities in stock at incinerators have increased to 1.028-IM tams by the end of 2002. which is alnkut as much as annual production x" Small quantities of bottom ash are landfilled on common landfill sites and exported respectively. In the past few years the annual quantities landitlled ranged fmrn 700 to 12500 tons. In 2002 and 20031.2M and 2,30f1 ions of bottom ash respectively were exported. Similar with fly ash, the use of bottom ash ar a hedging for fads bring.; the ash easily into contact with other (non harardaus) materials used for road construction. like sand and stones. But_ inevitable, rcm& need to be reconstructed, or repaired. and the old road debris that need to be removed wntains elevated levels of toxic substances. Mixture of bottom ashes. fly asttrs arhd other ntaiMithi can increase leachability of dioxins from these materials as dissolved bumic matters content increases.7' 3 Page 228 Where, and what approvals would be required, to permit storage of your incinerator's bottom ash during what staff describe as a "seasoning" process and what are the costs of such storage and proposed testing? Is this storage, and potential future uses contemplated, permitted by the Durham-Clarington Host Community Agreement? I ask Works Committee to refocus on priorities and the urgent needs of your residents. Please do NOT support Recommendation B and moving ahead with Phase 2. Request details around how and if Clarington Council/residents were consulted, TOTAL project costs -to date and projected, what environmental monitoring would be incorporated to monitor potential off site impacts if the project proceeds and the logistics and costs around "seasoned" ash storage and testing. Thank you for your attention. Yours truly, Linda Gasser Whitby Encl. 2020 Advertisement -see para 2 re bottom ash reuse Cc: Clarington Council 4 Page 229 M Have your say on the Region`s new Long-term Waste Management Pllan? The Region is developing a new Waste Management Plan, to be completed by the end of 2022. As Durham continues to grow, we must ensure our waste managernent services evolve to meet the current and future needs and challenges. Managing waste is a shared responsibility. We all have a part to play. The Plan will focus on promoting Waste reduction where ever possible and maximizing diversion of waste from disposal. We will do this by developing innovative ways to use waste as a resource in a circular economy while demonstrating leadership in sustainability and addressing the climate crisis. Examples of innovative ways to use waste as a resource include using Anaerobic Digestion to generate renewable energy from our organic waste and finding reuse options for the ash generated at the if Durham York Energy Centre. Virtual consultations have been held with Region staff, the Local Area Municipalities and with Regional Advisory Committees. These consultations focused on identi.Fyinl priorities for the inew Waste Plan. The priorities that have emerged in the consultations so far include a. focus on finding new opportunities for reducing and reusing waste, maximizing diversion and reducing the climate change impact of waste management. The challenges that need to be addressed include diversion from rnulti-residential buildings and educating new residents about our waste and recycling programs. The Waste Management Plan will include a series of Five -Year Action Plans that will help keep us on track by setting goals and milestones for a shorter time period. The Region and in the local Area Municipalities are also concerned about the Blue Box Program and its impact on waste diversion. The Waste Management Plan will include some priorities for the Blue Box in the first Five -Year Action Plan — what does this mean? The Province is developing regulations to transfer responsibility for the Blue Box. from municipalities to the producers (or companies) of paper and packaging materials. By 2026, Ontario will have a full extended producer responsibility program in place for the blue box and municipalities will no longer operate the Blue Box program. This upcoming change mus1: also be considered in the new Waste Management Plan. Consultation with residents is sta«-ting this month and into September to get youir icleas. While our plans -for in -person consultations have been put on hold d4riTI-9this tinkle of physical distancing, we are using an on-line forum to engage with residents. For more information own the Waste ManagementPlan visit durham.ca/WastePlan. —.rt�I Page 230 r7 �L alhs I'_ vi 7W777)))) . DURHAM REGION The Regional Municipality of Durham Works Department 605 Rossland Rd. E. Level 5 PO Box 623 Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3 Canada 905-668-7711 1-800-372-1102 Fax: 905-668-2051 durham.ca Sent via email (clerks clarington.net) February 4, 2022 Mayor Foster and Members of Clarington Council c/o June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Clerk's Department Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 Attention: Mayor Foster and Members of Clarington Council Re: Resolution Regarding Regional Road 18 Pilot Project It has come to our attention that a motion for resolution is on the Clarington General Government Committee agenda for your February 7, 2022 meeting, regarding our Regional Road 18 Pilot Project ("project") with a reference to the use of Bottom Ash from the Durham York Energy Centre. We request that this letter be added to that agenda to inform your deliberations on the matter. We wish to correct and clarify that Bottom Ash is not proposed and will not be used on this project in any form, as clearly stated in our February 2 Regional Works Committee report. Our project team engaged the services of Dr. Simon Hesp, an expert in the field, from Queen's University to ensure the latest industry data and techniques are applied to this project and ensure that no negative health or environmental impacts would result from the project. We note that Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) was also consulted and did not voice any concerns regarding the project. In addition we would like to take this opportunity to identify the significance and potential benefits of Phase 2 of this project, proposed to commence in the spring of 2022. If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540. Page 231 Mayor Foster and Members of Clarington Council Resolution Regarding Regional Road 18 Pilot Project February 4, 2022 Page 2 of 3 • In 2019, Regional Council adopted principles of the Circular Economy and directed staff to ensure all diversion materials are considered resources. This project represents a significant step in this direction. • The purpose of this project is to demonstrate that recycled material collected and processed by our Regional Material Recycling Facility (MRF) in Whitby is a potential valuable resource. • Numerous published studies have demonstrated that the judicious addition of recycled plastics in asphalt can increase lifecycles of road segments by up to two- fold and increase benefit/cost ratios by up to three -fold. Similar projects have been completed in several countries around the world including Canada and more specifically in northern Ontario. • In this proposed Phase 2, we will demonstrate that we can use a lower temperature grade asphalt which is softer than our Regional standard and still achieve the same if not greater strength and rut resistance with the addition of mixed plastics from our MRF in the base asphalt lift. • The fibers made from recycled PET plastic that will be added in the base and surface asphalt will demonstrate significant increase in road tensile strength, crack resistance and durability. • We expect the addition of mixed plastic and PET fibers will significantly increase the lifecycle of this road segment. If this practice is incorporated into our annual road program in the future on a large scale, the increase in Iifecycle and longevity of our reconstructed roads would be significant as would be the cost savings to our taxpayers. • We estimate 4.5 tonnes of PET fibers, and 6 tonnes of mixed plastic from our MRF will be used in Phase 2 of this pilot project. • If this pilot is successful, in the future we have the potential of utilizing up to 300 tonnes of mixed plastic and 240 tonnes of PET plastic if added to all asphalt in our annual road program. • We estimate 400 tonnes of recycled glass from our MRF will be used in the granular road base of Phase 2 of this pilot project. In future, this offers the potential for all of the recycled glass processed at our MRF to be utilized within our annual road program. Page 232 Mayor Foster and Members of Clarington Council Resolution Regarding Regional Road 18 Pilot Project February 4, 2022 Page 3 of 3 • It is important to note that this initiative could significantly reduce our reliance on virgin materials such as aggregate that is currently mined and trucked throughout this Region and beyond. Phase 1 of the pilot project was completed last fall on time and under budget. With Regional Council approval we will be ready to tender the pending Phase 2 in March with work expected to be completed this year. This segment of Regional Road 18 is in poor condition and requires this reconstruction work to bring it up to Regional standards. Given the low traffic volumes on this road, the proposed innovation lens in Phase 2 has been key to prioritizing this road for reconstruction. Sincerely, Susan Siopis, P. Eng. Commissioner of Works c: Members of Regional Works Committee Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO, Municipality of Clarington John Henry, Regional Chair and CEO Elaine Baxter-Trahair, Chief Administrative Officer Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk and Director, Legislative Services Ramesh Jagannathan, Director, Transportation and Field Services Gioseph Anello, Director, Waste Management Services Dan Waechter, Manager, Construction Services Joanne Paquette, Manager, Communications, Works Dr. Simon Hesp, Queen's University Page 233 Clarftwn 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: Joint Committees Date of Meeting: February 7, 2022 Report Number: PWD-005-22 Submitted By: Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works Reviewed By: Mary -Anne Dempster, CAO Resolution#: File Number: By-law Number: Report Subject: Sidewalk Snow Clearing Recommendations: 1. That Report PWD-005-22 and any related communication items, be received; and 2. That all interested parties listed in Report PWD-005-22 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page 234 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PWD-005-22 Report Overview At the January 24, 2022, Council meeting staff were directed to report back on the status of Sidewalk Snow Clearing operations. This report is intended to provide a very high-level overview of current challenges with the delivery of existing service levels and to also identify potential options to be explored by staff in greater detail following the end of the current winter control season. The findings of these investigations will be reported back to Council in the early Spring for further direction. 1. Background 1.1 On January 17, 2022, a major winter storm occurred in Southern Ontario with some of the highest snow accumulations being recorded in Durham Region. The snowfall that occurred is reported to have exceeded 55 centimeters causing significant delays and disruptions to the provision of our various winter control services. 1.2 The Municipality has historically relied on an external contractor to provide snow clearing services for parking lots at municipal facilities, municipal sidewalks, trails, school crossing guard locations, laneways, connecting paths and to provide snow removal services as directed. A new vendor for this work, GWS Landscaping Inc., was awarded the contract in the Fall of 2021. 1.3 For sidewalks that are located at the front or adjacent to homes or businesses, each respective property owner is responsible for the clearing the snow and ice during the winter months. Staff of the Municipal Law Enforcement Division respond to complaints for the enforcement of the snow clearing By-law #93-144. Municipal Law Enforcement matters are outside the scope of this report, however a separate review of their snow removal needs is also taking place and is receiving the attention of the Director of Legislative Services who can provide an update as needed. 2. Operational Status 2.1 Service level expectations are clearly articulated in the procurement documents, and staff continuously monitor the performance of our vendor to ensure that expectations are met. Staff have been in constant communication with the vendor, both before and after the January 17 snowfall event, in order to avoid complaints of incomplete or missed locations, including facilities, sidewalks, trails, Senior's locations and crosswalks. Page 235 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PWD-005-22 2.2 Any deficiencies that are identified with the contracted services are recorded and presented to the vendor to remedy. 2.3 Prior to January 17, staff also completed an inspection of the contractor's depot and equipment by Clarington staff to ensure the quantity and condition of the contractor's equipment were sufficient for the task. These resources, however, were considered under normal storm response requirements. 2.4 Staff attempt to address and resolve any service level deficiencies issues with the contractor at every occasion with an expectation that they will be corrected. 2.5 The January 17, 2022 winter event was historic in terms of the volume of accumulated snow. In response, the Municipality of Clarington officially declared a Significant Weather Event. This declaration under the Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards provides Municipalities with additional time to respond to required levels of service respecting the clearing of snow from roads and sidewalks. 2.6 Consistent with the Municipality's response to any winter storm, our contracted services were called -out early on January 17, 2022, but it quickly became apparent that their resources were completely overwhelmed by the amount of work required at most locations. It was also reported by the vendor that issues were being experienced related to equipment breakdowns and a shortage of staff to complete minimum work requirements within a reasonable timeframe. 2.7 Most of the GTA schoolboards were closed for 2-3 days following the storm to allow for suitable snow cleanup. The Kawartha Pineridge and Peterborough Victoria and Northumberland County School Boards, however, did not close their schools on Tuesday, January 18, 2022, despite the presence of severely snowed -in sidewalks, crosswalks, walkways, impassable streets and the lack of parking. 2.8 This situation was discussed with the school boards on Tuesday, January 18, 2022, and it was agreed that an additional snow day closure would occur on Wednesday January 19, 2022, to allow the Municipality more time to target snow clearing operations in school areas and on main sidewalks. 2.9 In an effort to improve service levels and to aid GWS, Municipal staff also reached out to another local snow clearing vendor for assistance on Wednesday, January 19, 2022. This additional contractor, BJ Flint, provided welcome assistance to supplement the work of our primary vendor in areas where there was a need. These areas included main walking routes on sidewalks, trails, urban walkways and paths. 2.10 Following our initial response to storm clean-up on roads, Municipal staff have also been mobilized to provide snow removal in the Downtown Business Improvement areas of Orono, Bowmanville and Newcastle. Further, extensive snow removal work has also Page 236 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-005-22 Page 4 occurred on numerous roadway courts throughout the Municipality and along the boulevards on Highway #2 between Courtice Road and Townline Road in Courtice. Work along Highway #2 in Courtice has also involved the assistance of the Region of Durham who have jurisdiction over the roadway. 2.11 It should be noted that a number of other jurisdictional issues have affected the timely and effective provision of snow clearing operations along the Highway #2 corridor in Courtice. In this area the Region of Durham is responsible for roadway snow plowing while the Municipality and the respective private property owners are responsible for sidewalk snow clearing. Issues that arose included the clearing of snow by Durham Transit's contractor onto sidewalks, the plowing of heavy snow from Highway #2 onto the sidewalks and the poor response to the clearing of snow on the sidewalks fronting private properties. A response by Clarington staff to these areas under normal snow removal operations is not typical. 2.12 The effects of the January 17, 2022, storm can still be seen in many areas throughout Clarington. Staff are presently responding to these concerns by scheduling the removal of snow from main intersections and on sidewalks where storage space is very limited. Work will commence in these additional areas beginning on Monday, February 7, 2022. Members of Council are encouraged to report any problem areas to the Public Works Department so that they can be suitably addressed as part of this clean-up response. 3. Options 3.1 At the conclusion of the 2021-2022 winter season, staff will be undertaking a complete review of our current contract with a view to improvement. It is possible that changes will be needed to better allocate work to the three distinct service areas of Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle, as well as the outlying Hamlets. A revised structure of work allocation may require an additional investment of resources to achieve the desired service levels, subject to Council approval. 3.2 Given the large scope of work under the existing contract and the continued reluctance of contractors to bid on this type of work, it may also be prudent to devote additional staff resources to this work, again subject to Council approval. For the Municipal component this option will require a considerable investment into new capital equipment and the hiring of new staff. Routes for sidewalks could be developed to maximize efficiency for both service providers resulting in better response times and the ability for each service provider to complement each other and ensure timelines are met. 4. Concurrence Not Applicable Page 237 Municipality of Clarington Report PWD-005-22 5. Conclusion Page 5 Given the current time of year, implementing changes to our existing contractual arrangements for the various services cannot be made without incurring additional issues, delays and other risks. It is therefore respectfully recommended that staff be given the time to prepare a business case scenario for each of the above options and to report back to Council in the early Spring. This opportunity will allow the Municipality to be much better prepared to respond to winter conditions during the next winter season of 2022-2023. Staff Contact: Brett Novak, Manager of Operations, 905-623-3379, extension 2909 or bnovak@clarington.net. Attachments: Not Applicable Interested Parties: There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. Page 238 Clarftwn 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: Joint Committees Date of Meeting: February 7, 2022 Report Number: LGS-003-22 Submitted By: Rob Maciver, Director of Legislative Services Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#: File Number: By-law Number: Report Subject: 2022 Municipal Elections — Accessibility Plan Recommendations: 1. That Report LGS-003-22 be received; and 2. That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-003-22, and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Page 239 Municipality of Clarington Report LGS-003-22 Report Overview Page 2 This Report is intended to provide information to the public regarding Clarington's 2022 Municipal Elections, specifically as it pertains to initiatives to be incorporated into the electoral process to provide for greater accessibility and inclusiveness for Clarington voters. 1. Background Municipal Elections Act (MEA) 1.1 Section 12.1 of the MEA states that Staff are required to create an accessibility plan prior to Voting Day. The following is the excerpt of that section: 12.1 (1) A clerk who is responsible for conducting an election shall have regard to the needs of electors and candidates with disabilities. 12.1 (2) The clerk shall prepare a plan regarding the identification, removal and prevention of barriers that affect electors and candidates with disabilities and shall make the plan available to the public before voting day in a regular election. 1.2 There is also a requirement that, within 90 days after Voting Day in a regular election, the Clerk shall prepare a report about the identification, removal, and prevention of barriers that affect electors and candidates with disabilities and shall make the report available to the public. 1.3 Section 41(3) of the MEA states, "The clerk shall make such changes to some or all of the ballots as he or she considers necessary or desirable to allow electors with visual impairments to vote without the assistance referred to in paragraph 4 of subsection 52 (1)„ 1.4 Section 45 (2) of the MEA states, "In establishing the locations of voting places, the clerk shall ensure that each voting place is accessible to electors with disabilities." The Report 1.5 Staff provide the following report as information only as there is no requirement for Council to approve the report or Accessibility Plan. The Plan will be used to inform the Clerk's procedure on Accessible Elections, referenced in other election materials, and will be posted on the election website. 1.6 This report has been reviewed and discussed with Clarington's Accessibility Advisory Committee. Page 240 Municipality of Clarington Report LGS-003-22 Election Overview Page 3 1.7 Based on 2018 electoral data, we anticipate approximately 66,000 eligible electors in the Municipality of Clarington. According to Statistics Canada, there are approximately 22.3% of Canadians over the age of 15 have some sort of disability. Therefore, we can estimate that 13,000 eligible electors are limited in their abilities, whether it be vision, hearing, mobility, speech, mental health, or learning. 1.8 Clarington's 2022 Municipal Elections will be conducted via internet and telephone voting. There will not be traditional voting locations, but rather there will be Election Assistance Centres (EACs) where electors can be added, have school support changed, new PINs created, and vote. While we have used Ward voter counts to determine the number and location of EACs (as well as election officials), voters can attend any EAC when they are open. To address users who may be in geographic or demographic areas with greater needs, we are also providing EACs of a shorter duration, during the Advanced Voting Period. Additionally, Clarington voters will be able to vote at our municipal libraries during the Voting Period (during regular library hours). 2. Elections Accessibility Plan 2.1 To ensure dignity, fairness, integration, and equal opportunity for all our Clarington voters, the Clerk's Division plans to undertake several initiatives. Attachment 1 details these initiatives. 2.2 The 2022 main initiatives are highlighted below: • Election Assistance Centres will be physically accessible. • The electronic voting platform will be fully accessible and compatible with assistive technologies. • Training will be accessible to all election officials. • We will strive to ensure that all content on Clarington's election website www.Clarington.net/votes meets or exceeds level AA compliance with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. • Election official's mandatory training will include Accessible Customer Service content. • An approach to communications, website, etc. that make election information more accessible for all voters. This may include short videos for training election officials, as well as videos that show voters how to find election information and how to do internet/telephone voting. Page 241 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report LGS-003-22 2.3 The Clerk's Division will continue to learn, develop, and adjust our approaches to meet the needs of electors with disabilities. 3. Feedback 3.1 On January 12, 2022, this Plan was forwarded to the Clarington Accessibility Advisory Committee for their review and comment. The Committee provided general comments and asked questions which were responded to by the Records Information and Legislative Projects Coordinator. Subsequently, the Committee passed the following resolution: That the Accessibility Advisory Committee endorses the Municipality's Election Report and the attached Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan. 3.2 The Municipality of Clarington welcomes feedback to identify areas where changes need to be considered to improve the delivery of an accessible election. This plan is a living document and will continue to change. 4. Concurrence Not Applicable. 5. Conclusion 5.1 It is respectfully recommended that this report, regarding Clarington's 2022 Municipal Election — Accessibility Plan, be received. Staff Contact: June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk, 905-623-3379 x 2102 or jgallagher@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 — 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections — Accessibility Plan Interested Parties: The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision: Clarington's Accessibility Advisory Committee Page 242 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report LGS-003-22 Attachment 1 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections - Accessibility Plan 1. General 1.1 This plan will be monitored and improved, or updated, as best practices are identified and new opportunities for improvement arise to respond to feedback from the public. 2. Definitions 2.1 The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, defines "disability" as, (a) any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, a brain injury, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical co-ordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing impediment, muteness or speech impediment, or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device, (b) a condition of mental impairment or a developmental disability, (c) a learning disability, or a dysfunction in one or more of the processes involved in understanding or using symbols or spoken language, (d) a mental disorder, or (e) an injury or disability for which benefits were claimed or received under the insurance plan established under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997; 2.2 The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, defines "barrier" as anything that prevents a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society because of his or her disability, including a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, an information or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or a practice; 2.3 An important note from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, "disability" covers a broad range and degree of conditions, some visible and some not visible. A disability may have been present from birth, caused by an accident, or developed over time. 2.4 Disabilities can take many forms, both visible and invisible. The following criteria were considered in the development of this Plan: Page 243 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report LGS-003-22 Attachment 1 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan • Policies and procedures must be consistent with the principles of the MEA and must respect the dignity and independence of persons with disabilities. • Access to electoral services must be integrated and equitable. • Initiatives should address and accommodate a wide range of abilities. • Must be consistent with the Municipality of Clarington's Accessibility Customer Service Policy as contained in Report CLD-001-17 and Clarington's Multi year Accessibility Plan 2018-2023. 3. Identification of Barriers 3.1 Review comments from electors, candidates, and election officials that were collected following the 2018 election. 3.2 Accessibility Advisory Committee will review and provide input on our election accessibility initiatives. Staff will provide a demonstration of the internet/telephone software to the Accessibility Advisory Committee. 3.3 Update, and use, an accessibility checklist for election personnel to use when conducting site visits of each Election Assistance Centre. This information is maintained in our electronic elections management software. 3.4 Assess voting processes and procedures to ensure they meet the needs of the electorate. 3.5 Communicate with staff from various municipalities throughout Ontario and other parts of Canada to seek input on barriers they have identified. 3.6 Seek input from Clarington's Accessibility Coordinator. 3.7 Seek input from the CNIB and other organizations, where applicable, on how to decrease barriers to voting. Page 244 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report LGS-003-22 Attachment 1 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan 4. Removal and Prevention of Barriers 4.1 Communications and Information Information 4.2 Provide election information that is informative, clear, and easy to understand. 4.3 Ensure that all information provided to election officials, candidates, third party advertisers, or voters meets, or exceeds, the Municipality of Clarington's Branding Guidelines, Accessible Word Document Guidelines. 4.4 All presentations (e.g. PowerPoint presentations) meet, or exceed, the Municipality of Clarington's Presentation Guidelines. 4.5 Ensure communication initiatives and information for candidates and electors are available in alternate formats upon request (hardcopy, website, videos, email, where applicable) free of charge. 4.6 Follow the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) clear print guidelines and signage guidelines for signs and other print materials. This includes posting signs and materials at eye level and without obstructions (e.g., tables) to allow the person to get closer or use a magnifier. 4.7 Candidates and electors with disabilities may request to receive information and election documents in a format that considers their accessibility needs due to a disability. The Municipal Clerk, or designate, shall consult with the requester and shall provide or arrange for the provision of a suitable format. Notice of this provision is located on the Municipality of Clarington's Election Website at: Clarington.net/votes and is included in election notices placed in the local media. In addition, candidates with disabilities may access the election information on the Municipality's election website using technologies such as screen readers. 4.8 Promote the election through various engagement opportunities, such as demonstrations of the election software with the Accessibility Advisory Committee, at community festivals, etc. 4.9 A Voter Information Letter will be sent to each eligible elector. In addition to other election -related information, such as the date and time of the election, the letter will inform electors that all the Election Assistance Centres will be accessible. Page 245 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report LGS-003-22 Attachment 1 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan 4.10 In the event of disruptions to service or unforeseen circumstances that affect the accessibility of Election Assistance Centres during the Voting Period, notices of disruption, including information regarding the nature of service, the reason, the expected length of disruption, and alternatives, will be posted in real-time: • On the Municipality's website • On Facebook • On Twitter • At the site of the disruption • At the Municipal Administration Centre located at 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville Every effort shall be made to provide alternative methods of providing the information or service to persons with disabilities. Notice and updates shall be made regularly throughout the service interruption. To facilitate this, Election Staff will be provided with some default "Notice of Disruption" signs. Where applicable, a media advisory will be issued. 4.11 After the election, the Municipality will release a post -election report assessing initiatives to address accessibility barriers and determine if the initiatives can be improved and/or continued in subsequent elections. Website 4.12 Working with the Communications Division, the Clerk's Division will post all election information to the Municipality's website, www.Clarington.net/votes. We strive to ensure that all web content, including PDFs and videos, meets or exceeds level AA compliance with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. 4.13 The website accessibility incorporates tools and design elements to ensure accessibility such as: a) Text alternatives for any non -text content will be provided so that the content can be changed into other forms that people may need. b) Text resize. c) Colour contrast. d) A quick link to the accessibility section of the election website. Page 246 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report LGS-003-22 Attachment 1 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan 4.14 The Municipality's election website will receive continuous updates before, and throughout, the 2022 Election. 4.15 A section of the Municipality's election website will be dedicated to accessibility. 4.16 Accessible elections information, to be posted on the website in plain language, including, but not limited to, the following information: • Internet and telephone voting information and training • Election Assistance Centres, including transit information, parking, entrances, and interior voting areas • Special Voting Locations • Personal Assistance • Distribution of election information • Accessible debates • Disruption of services • Feedback • Contact Information • Accessible Elections Plan • Other election resources Candidates and Third Party Advertisers 4.17 Provide information to candidates and third party advertisers regarding campaign expenses and, in particular, rules affecting candidates/third party advertisers with disabilities. 4.18 Provide candidates with election information on how to make their campaigns accessible and election information that is accessible, including the provision of a copy of, and links to: • A "Candidates Guide to Accessible Elections", produced jointly by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario and the Province of Ontario. • An "Accessible Campaign Information and Communication" document provided by the AODA = https://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/documents/en/mcss/publications/accessibility/Qui ckreferenceguidetoaccessiblecampaigninformation. pdf Page 247 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report LGS-003-22 Attachment 1 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan An "Accessible All Candidates Meetings" document provided by the AODA = https://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/documents/en/mcss/publications/accessibility/Qui ckreferenceguidetoaccessibleallcandidatesmeetin.pdf An "Accessible Constituency, Riding Association, Central Party and Campaign Offices" document provided by the AODA = httos://www.mcss.aov.on.ca/documents/en/mcss/Dublications/accessibility/AC CESSIBLEOFFICES.pdf 4.19 Candidate and third party advertiser information sessions (i.e., financial sessions and sign sessions) will be held in accessible locations. Additional accommodations, such as Sign Language interpretation, are available upon request. 4.20 Provide candidates and third party advertisers with accessible resources upon request. Feedback 4.21 Solicit feedback on accessibility initiatives through our Election web page and by way of manual form, "Accessibility Feedback Form", at each of the Election Assistance Centres. 4.22 Provide "Customer Service Feedback Forms" at each of the Election Assistance Centres. 4.23 If someone feels that they have identified a barrier, have a recommendation to improve accessibility for the upcoming election or any other election feedback, they are encouraged to contact Staff through the feedback forms or: Municipality of Clarington Municipal Clerk Municipal Administration Centre 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 votes .clarington.net 905-697-4747 4.24 Publicize the following communication channels so that an elector with election accessibility concerns can readily contact the Municipal Clerk's Division Staff: Phone: 905-697-4747 Email: votes(a)_clarington.net Page 248 Municipality of Clarington Page 11 Report LGS-003-22 Attachment 1 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan 4.25 Election officials will also be provided with an opportunity to provide feedback following the election. 4.26 The feedback will be forwarded to Clerk's Division for action. In addition, election officials can complete the feedback form and submit the feedback on behalf of the person with a disability. Alternatively, the form may be printed and provided to the person for manual completion. Each completed form is reviewed by Municipal staff who will respond within three business days providing an anticipated action and timeframe for a full response where appropriate. The feedback process provides election officials with an opportunity to take corrective measures to prevent similar recurrences, address training needs, enhance service delivery, and provide alternative methods of providing election services. 4.27 Internet and Telephone Voting 4.28 The 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections will involve working with our vendor, Simply Voting, to provide internet and telephone voting to eligible voters. This method of voting allows all electors to cast their ballot from anywhere with an internet connection or telephone, whether the elector is coping with an illness, working days or nights, has a disability, or has trouble travelling. 4.29 Voters may use any device that has access to an internet browser, such as a smartphone, tablet, or computer. Access to the platform will be granted through a PIN provided in a Voter Information Letter. Letters will follow the Municipality's accessible document guidelines. 4.30 Simply Voting is committed to supporting electors with disabilities and making sure the ballot works with assistive technologies. The interface of the voting website is regularly audited against Section 508 and WCAG-2 accessibility requirements by the Bureau of Internet Accessibility and is found to be in compliance with WCAG 2.1 A/AA criteria allowing for the use of screen readers. It provides a comprehensive compliance and remediation report on features such as the availability of text alternatives for non -text content, captions for multimedia, compatibility with assistive technologies such as JAWS, and ease of navigation. While the voting website does not include an audio ballot directly, telephone voting provides for an audio option. 4.31 The voting website allows electors to use translation software if they are more comfortable reading in a different language. It also provides an accessible "Human Interface Challenge" for security purposes (for example, providing an audio CAPTCHA). Additionally, a voter can change the brightness or contrast on a screen. Page 249 Municipality of Clarington Page 12 Report LGS-003-22 Attachment 1 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan 4.32 The telephone voting method allows electors to vote on all types of touchtone phone and wireless devices, uses clean, plain language, has menu options that are easy to follow advising them to select options/provisions of confirmation of the voters' selection, and offers a standard volume that can be adjusted depending on the telephone or device being utilized. 4.33 Prior to the Voting Period, the Municipality will conduct several third -party audits of the election software, which will include a review of accessibility features. 4.34 Simply Voting will provide voting demonstration videos, which will include SRT caption files. Included in the SRT files are the captions themselves, and the timecodes for when they should appear onscreen. This file can be imported to YouTube, then each viewer will be able to turn captioning on and off as they watch. SRT files also work with some other video -sharing platforms and some other standalone video players. These videos will be made available on our Elections website. 4.35 Internet and telephone voting means travel to polls is not necessary, but assistance will be available through in -person Election Assistance Centres and over the phone via the Election helpline. 4.36 Election Assistance Centres (EACs) 4.37 Internet and telephone voting means travelling to a voting location is not necessary, but EACs will be available throughout the municipality to assist voters. 4.38 EACs will be physically inspected, using a prescribed checklist, to ensure all are accessible when deciding on locations. The inspection considers the Canadian Standards Association Barrier -Free Guidelines and, after the inspection, an Accessibility Report Card shall be completed. 4.39 When selecting EACs, staff will strive to have a seamless process from curb to ballot for voters, with a particular emphasis on the process for voters with a visual or mobility impairment. This includes enhanced walkability to the EAC locations and reduce excessive distances between the parking lot and the entrance. 4.40 Enough EACS shall be provided throughout the Municipality on Voting Day and during the Advance Voting period to limit travel distances. 4.41 Public Transportation Access — where possible, EACs will be selected to provide easy access to public transit stops. However, the location may not necessarily be located on the same street as the transit stop. Identification of the voting location shall be clearly visible from the street level. Page 250 Municipality of Clarington Page 13 Report LGS-003-22 Attachment 1 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan 4.42 EACs shall have adequate signage for easy navigation. 4.43 A minimum of two designated, or reserved parking spaces, will be guaranteed at each of the EACS for persons with disabilities. These will be located as close to the entrance of the EAC as possible. Accessible parking spaces will be clearly posted, easy to see from the road, and marked with the International Symbol of Accessibility. An increase in the usual parking limits for people with disabilities will be provided, where possible. Curb cuts will be identified; for voters who use a mobility aid (such as a wheelchair, scooter, cane, or crutches) they will be able to access the road and sidewalk. 4.44 The main entrance to the EACs will be the accessible entrance. Where the EAC has steps up to the entrance, ramps will be provided to assist if the voter uses a mobility aid or has mobility impairments. The slope of the ramp will conform to the barrier -free design requirements of the Ontario Building Code or the Canadian Standards Association Barrier -Free Guidelines. If the ramp is temporary, it will be securely attached to the steps so it cannot slip or wobble. In locations where the entrance doors do not have auto -openers, the doors will be propped open in a safe manner if at all possible. Where it is not possible to prop the door open, an Election Official will be assigned to operate the door for all electors entering and exiting the voting location. 4.45 The interior voting area will be large enough to maneuver a mobility device and seating will be made available for people who are waiting in line. 4.46 A minimum of one voting booth per EAC shall be wheelchair or scooter accessible. Table lifts (i.e., wooden blocks) will be used at this booth to accommodate the needs of any elector in a scooter or a higher wheelchair. 4.47 Doormats or carpeting shall be level with the floor to prevent potential tripping hazards. 4.48 EAC supervisors will be provided with a list of location -specific instructions to improve the accessibility of the location. 4.49 Election officials will routinely monitor the EAC for accessibility issues, such as doormats that have flipped up, etc. Access doors/entrances will be checked frequently to offer assistance and, where the entrance to the EAC is not within the immediate vicinity of the EAC , have additional Election Officials assigned to them to provide assistance. 4.50 Any person with a disability accompanied by a support person or service animal may enter any EAC with their support person or service animal, including the voting compartment areas. Page 251 Municipality of Clarington Page 14 Report LGS-003-22 Attachment 1 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan 4.51 EACs will have adequate internal and external lighting, and staff will ensure the voting area is well lit. 4.52 It is anticipated that the Clarington Public Library will serve as a resource for electors who may not have access to a computer. Municipal staff shall collaborate with the Library to ensure that library staff are trained in elections procedures. 4.53 In accordance with the MEA, provide voting opportunities on the premises of: a) an institution in which 20 or more beds are occupied by persons who are disabled, chronically ill, or infirmed; b) a retirement home in which 50 or more beds are occupied Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, we will provide on -site voting for the residents of: • Whitecliffe Terrace Retirement Residence • Fosterbrooke Long -Term Care Facility • Glen Hill Strathaven • Seasons Clarington Retirement Community • Lakeridge Health Bowmanville • Bowmanville Creek Retirement Community 4.54 Staff Training and Assistance 4.55 All staff carrying out election duties will be trained to recognize and ensure that persons with disabilities are served in a way that accommodates their needs. Training will include, but is not limited to, the following six items: a) Review of the purposes of the Act and requirements for Accessible Customer Service under Ontario Regulation 191/11 Integrated Accessibility Standards. This will include being trained not to restrict service persons or animals who are assisting a person with a disability once any necessary oaths are taken. b) How to interact and communicate with persons with various types of disabilities. c) How to interact with persons with disabilities who use assistive devices or require the assistance of a service animal or support person. d) How to use the internet and telephone voting software to deliver election support. e) What to do if a person is having difficulty accessing election information or services. Page 252 Municipality of Clarington Page 15 Report LGS-003-22 Attachment 1 2022 Clarington Municipal Elections Accessibility Plan f) Certain staff members will be trained on how to use Clarington's Language Line to provide election assistance to voters who may speak another language or require American Sign Language (ASL) translation services. This system provides translations in more than 240 languages. Election staff can access this service using a toll -free number and a video -on -demand app, which supports ASL translation for in -person customer service to voters and candidates. Staff will also be able to use a conferencing feature during phone inquiries to get a translator on the line to help facilitate the conversation. 4.56 Note pads and pens will be available at all EACs to assist in communicating with electors who are deaf, deafened, or hard of hearing. 4.57 Election Officials in each EAC may assist the voter in casting their ballot. Prior to entering the voting booth, the Election Official shall, in conjunction with the person with the disability, determine the extent to which they need assistance and the best way in which this assistance can be provided. This may include making selections on the iPad as directed by the elector. 4.58 For voters in the designated institutions or retirement homes, the Election Official can attend on voters in their specific living areas or at their bedside to assist them to vote. All Election Officials are sworn to an Oath of Secrecy. 4.59 Election Officials will be provided with accessible customer service training, including the proper use of accessibility tools- both analog and digital- available to assist with the voting process. They will also be trained on the correct pronunciation of each candidate's name when assisting voters as incorrect pronunciation can affect oral understanding for a person with a vision loss. 4.60 Staff will be directed to avoid using pronouns and gender identifiers, and instead, refer to individuals by their first name or other neutral greetings. 4.61 The Municipality of Clarington recognizes that everyone learns differently. In order to provide training via different methods, training videos will be provided for Election Officials who learn visually, in addition to written reference material and group sessions (where the material is presented by instructors as well as hands-on training). 4.62 Election officials will be provided accommodations upon request to ensure training is accessible to all election officials. The Election Manager tool of our voting software, Simply Voting, is not WCAG-2 compliant. However, the majority of election staff will not be required to use the tool to perform their regular duties. Nearly all activities such as voter list revisions, PIN replacement, and reviewing vote status can all be performed in our other elections management platform, VoterView, which is accessible. Page 253 Clarftwn 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: Joint Committees Date of Meeting: February 7, 2022 Report Number: FSD-005-22 Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services Reviewed By: By-law Number: File Number: [If applicable, enter File Number] Resolution#: Report Subject: 2021 Annual Commodity Hedging Compliance Report Recommendation: 1. That Report FSD-005-22 be received for information. Page 254 Municipality of Clarington Report FSD-005-22 Page 2 Report Overview This report complies with the legislated requirement to annually report to Council the status of any existing commodity hedging agreements. 1. Background 1.1 Under Ontario Regulation 653/05, the Treasurer is required to report on an annual basis to Council regarding the status of existing commodity hedging agreements, including a comparison of the expected results to actual of using the agreements and confirmation that they comply with the Municipality's policies and goals. 1.2 As required by the Municipal Act, 2001, Council adopted a Commodity Price Hedging Agreement Statement of Policies and Goals in report COD-054-08, on October 6, 2008. In this statement of policies and goals, the responsibilities are delegated as follows: a. The Director of Financial Services/Treasurer (at the time Director of Finance/Treasurer) or designate is responsible for the financial administrative matters pertaining to commodity price hedging. b. The Director of Corporate Services or designate is responsible for the procurement and contractual administrative matters pertaining to commodity price hedging. 1.3 The designate for the Director of Corporate Services was the Purchasing Manager. Following the 2020 reorganization, this position has moved to the Financial Services Department and reports to the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer. 2. Annual Reporting Matters 2.1 The Municipality did not have any existing hedging contracts in fiscal 2021. At the date of this report, the Municipality has not entered into any contracts for 2022. 2.2 Staff continue to receive regular market intelligence and support from Blackstone Energy Services on the natural gas market. The information provided by Blackstone allows the Municipality to proactively respond to the market conditions to ensure a secure supply source and cost certainty where determined to be prudent. 2.3 The Municipality has not hedged electricity. The structure of an electricity hedge is different than natural gas. A significant portion of our bill is the Global Adjustment which is not part of a hedging agreement. Staff continue to monitor but do not anticipate entering electricity hedges in 2022. Page 255 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report FSD-005-22 3. Concurrence Not Applicable. 4. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that that this annual commodity hedging report be received for information in compliance with Ontario Regulation 635/05 of the Municipal Act, 2001. Staff Contact: Trevor Pinn, CPA, CA, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, 905-623-3379 ext.2602 or tpinn@clarington.net. Attachments: Not Applicable Interested Parties: There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. Page 256 Clarftwn 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: Joint Committees Date of Meeting: February 7, 2022 Report Number: FSD-006-22 Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Reviewed By: By-law Number: File Number: [If applicable, enter File Number] Resolution#: Report Subject: 2021 Annual Leasing Report Recommendation: 1. That Report FSD-006-22 be received for information. Page 257 Municipality of Clarington Report FSD-006-22 Page 2 Report Overview This report complies with the Municipal Act, 2001 annual reporting requirements on leasing under Regulation 653/05. The Municipality did not have any material leases in 2021. 1. Background 1.1 Under Ontario Regulation 635/05, the Treasurer is required to report annually to Council the details of existing material leases including the following: a. Confirmation of compliance with the lease policy; b. Summary of material leases; c. Estimated costs of material leases; d. Impact of the leases on the financing arrangements and the debt servicing levels. 1.2 As required by the Municipal Act, 2001, Council adopted a Statement of Lease Financing Policies and Goals in report FND-021-03, on September 8, 2003. To date Clarington has typically chosen to purchase or debenture (if necessary), rather than use financial lease agreements. There is no impact on long-term financing or debt servicing levels of the Municipality. 2. Lease Summary 2.1 The Municipality of Clarington did not have any material leases in 2021. 3. Concurrence Not Applicable. 4. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that this report on annual leasing for 2021 be received for information in compliance with Ontario Regulation 653/05. Staff Contact: Michelle Pick, CPA, CGA, Accounting Services Manager/Deputy Treasurer, 905-623-3379 ext.2605 or mpick@clarington.net. Attachments: Not Applicable Interested Parties: There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. Page 258