|
5
|
a) That the City ensure that the benefit of
additional tax revenues should be measured against the costs of preparing the
lands for development, including the cost of the land, and the potential
liability exposure by permitting development in lands that do not meet the
existing municipal standards.
b) That a cost-benefit analysis be
carried out with respect to the additional lands gained by applying the
Two-Zone Concept.
|
Management
disagrees with this recommendation.
A cost-benefit analysis cannot be carried out to any reasonable degree of
accuracy at this point in time as the key variable inputs cannot be measured,
or are simply unknown.
There are three key variables that would need to be determined to validate
the recommendation. First, the type and level of development within the
impacted area has not been determined. The general uses can range from
office/industrial/commercial development, to low/medium density residential
development, or even to land dedicated for parkland.
Secondly, given that the specific type of development is unknown, any attempt
to measure the exposure liability by permitting development on the additional
lands gained by applying the Two Zone concept, would be difficult at best to
assess.
Finally, given the unknown nature of development, an offset tax revenue
cannot be reasonably estimated. Until these key variables are more clearly
defined, the recommended cost-benefit analysis would be highly theoretical
and speculative, and would be of minimal value to management.
|
|
December 2009: Requires Resolution.
|
|
6
6
|
That
the City require consultants to discuss in detail the potential impacts of
discharging sanitary sewer overflow to the proposed stormwater management
pond, including confirming that this procedure is acceptable to the Ministry
of the Environment.
|
Management
disagrees with this recommendation.
The discharging of the sanitary sewer overflow in a storm water management
pond as an emergency measure practice when a sanitary pump station
experiences a catastrophic failure, has been a standard practice for a number
of years. This option is further supported in the City of Ottawa’s Sewer
Design Guidelines (section 7.2.1.6-System Reliability and Contingency
Planning), when it is feasible to do so. This emergency measure is also noted
in the City’s draft Storm Water Management Design guidelines and is an
accepted measure by the Ministry of Environment by virtue of their issuance
of Certificates of Approval, which call for an overflow into storm water
ponds. All emergency conduit connections to storm sewers, storage facilities,
natural watercourses or surface outfall points are subject to approval by the
Ontario Ministry of the Environment.
|
|
December 2009: Requires
Resolution.
The
Third Party report confirmed management's response on this matter and noted
that the probability was quite low of this occurrence.
Although management disagrees with this recommendation, it is noted that
acceptability of the procedure to MOE will be confirmed by MOE's decision on
issuance of a Certificate of Approval. (Also discussed in the Third Party
Review consultant's draft report, since issue was raised by Part ii Order
requesters.)
|
|
10
10
|
That
the City require consultants to properly calibrate the runoff model and the
hydraulic routing model to represent properly the response of the watershed
to the rainfall input, at no cost to the City.
|
Management
defers its response to a third party review on the issue of calibration.
Staff did undertake to calibrate the model using what data was available. As
detailed on page 138 of the Carp River Watershed/Subwatershed study, various
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) storm durations (1 hr, 3 hr, 6 hr, 12 and 24
hr) were reviewed. It was determined that the 12 hour storm best represented
the peak flow conditions in the subwatershed area. The type of storm
distribution (Chicago vs. SCS) related to the size of the area being
modelled, not just the future land use. As stated in the Flow
Characterization and Flood Level analysis, temporary water level gauges were
established at Richardson Side Road, Palladium Drive and the Glen Cairn Pond.
During the time these monitoring stations were in place, only one large storm
was recorded (September 9 2004, –the tail-end of Hurricane Francis).
Therefore, only one event was available for calibration/verification.
Management will seek guidance from the third party reviewer on the issue of
calibration and whether the steps undertaken, including sensitivity analysis,
were reasonable.
|
|
December
2009: In Progress.
There is a monitoring plan in
place and data collection is ongoing. Specific rainfall events are required
to calibrate the model. Rainfall gauges and 3 flow monitors in the Carp River
will be used to develop rating curves for the purposes of model
validation. Two monitored rainfall
events in excess of 25mm within a 2-6 hour time period are required to calibrate
the model. High water marks were staked in the field for the July 24, 2009
event (in excess of 1:100 year event) The City has committed to MOE, through
the Kanata West Implementation Plan, used to satisfy the Minister’s Order, to
prepare a Validation Report once the model has been validated and distributed
to appropriate agencies. Through the receipt of the Third Party Review
findings, Council approved funding of $75,000 for this undertaking.
June
2009: The third party report approved by Council identified changes to the
models of record that were completed by the original consultants. Until there
is monitored data to confirm the models of record, the report also identified
the maximum range of variability of flow conditions and an interim volume to
be applied with development proceeding to account for any potential
uncertainty in these models.
As at February 26, 2009: This item was included in the Terms of Reference
approved by Council on June 25, 2008 with only minor modifications. The
consultant has produced a draft report, which is tentatively scheduled to go
forward to PEC on April 14, 2009 and Council on April 22, 2009.
|