Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-162-80 VP � M CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N.SMITH,M.C.I.P., Director HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1JO TEL. (416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1980. REPORT NO. : P-162-80 SUBJECT: Courtice Environmental Impact Analysis BACKGROUND: On July 14, 1980, Council authorized staff initiation of a proposal call for conducting the Environmental Impact Analysis for Neighbourhood 3 of the Courtice Urban Area in accordance with the Terms of Reference adopted by Council on that date. On July 17, 1980 staff forwarded an invitation for a proposal_ submission to the four consulting firms authorized by Council. By August 19, 1980 staff had received submissions from all four firms. These submissions were circulated to Durham Regional Planning and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.1.3(ii) of the Courtice Urban Area Plan in order to obtain their comments . The Durham Regional Planning Department advised us verbally that they had no comments, however, they were familiar with the work of two of the firms, being Gartner Lee Associates and Ecologistics, and were satisfied with the work done by both. 2 - The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority advised us that their main concern with the various proposals was the minimal amount of time that had been allocated for field work, which would possibly produce less detail than required to. properly assess develop- ment proposals. In that regard, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority has suggested that, once a consultant has been selected, that the terms of reference be expanded to provide for additional field investigations. They have also suggested that one of the objectives of this study should be the formulation of recommendations in respect of additional. site specific details or information which may be required at the draft plan stage, above and beyond the information gathered during the course of this over-all study. COMMENTS: Staff have reviewed the submitted proposals (copies available from staff) and comments received through circulation and offer the following: Ecological Services for Planning Ltd. The proposal submitted by this firm contains the lowest bid for carrying out the study, at $10,689.00. However, in our opinion, the proposal does not fully address the Terms of Reference and is particularly vague about how they will address item 1(e) of the Terms of Reference respecting the mitigation of negative effects upon environmentally sensitive features. Gartner Lee Associates The Gax_tnQ r Lee proposal was the second lowest bid at $14,500.00. This submission closely follows the approved Terms of Reference i - 3 - and also proposes an optional public consultation process which would increase the cost of the study to $17,000.00 if the Town wishes to consider such an option. It is staff's opinion that owing to the high level of public involvement already attained during the course of approving the Urban Area Plan, the additional costs involved and the delay that such a process may cause in completing the study within the limited amount of time available, that such a process is not required at this time. We note that upon completion of the study, staff will be in a position to prepare a neighbourhood development plan at which point public involvement will be invited. Ecologistics Ltd. The Ecologistics proposal while being the next lowest bid was substantially higher at $29, 700.00. This proposal does, however, provide a detailed explanation of how each of the terms of reference will be dealt with. The methodology proposed by both Ecologistics and Gartner Lee are very similar and we can only assume that the variance in expected costs reflects Gartner. Lee Associates' knowledge of the area and background data previously gathered during the course of their previous study carried out for the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. Ecoplans Ltd. This was the most expensive of the proposals submitted, with..a budget of $36,000.00. The proposal outline suggests a somewhat different approach to satisfying the Terms of Reference by means of a general overview followed by more detailed site specific 4 - investigations. It is these detailed analyses which make up a significant portion of the project budget and may explain the extreme variation from costs suggested by the other consultant firms. Based on our review, and our recent discussions with staff of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, we would suggest that the firm of Gartner Lee Associates be retained to carry out the Courtice Environmental. Impact Study. Staff note that the purpose of this study is to provide a more detailed overview of environmental sensitivity than provided by the Gartner Lee Study of the entire Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authori"ty, watershed. The Gartner Lee proposal recognizes this, and can be carried out well within the amount budgeted by Council for this study. In fact, only with- the Gartner Lee propos.a.1 could additional funds be made available for carrying out additional Site investigations, as suggested by Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and .s.Gi,ll, r� }a .jai this_oux_s Ludy' budget. We note that while the Ecological Planning services proposal is, in fact, the least expensive to undertake, we are not satisfied that the suggested approach will adequately reflect the Terms of Reference nor that it will result in a study of sufficient detail to meet our require- ments. RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Planning and Development Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. That Report P-162-80. be received; and that m - 5 - 2. The firm of Gartner Lee Associates be retained to carry out the Courtice Environmental Impact Analysis in accordance with their submitted proposal and the adopted terms of ref- erence, less the optional public consultation; and that 3. Staff be authorized to investigate and to require the consultants to carry out additional field investigations above and beyond those outlined by the submitted proposal but at a cost not to exceed the difference between the quoted price and the Council approved budget for the study. Respectfully submitted, TTE:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P. September 25, 1980 Director of Planning