THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COO~ ENV(RONMENTAL PR(yTECPION COMMIITEE Wednesday, November 13, 1991 Second Floor Me ting Room 2580 Shaughnessy Street, Port Coquitiam, BC 5:00 p.m. PERSONNEL IN ATIENDANCE; IE lllll EEvI I: CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING ITEM II: COMMITTEE STRUCIURE & PROCEDURE (Report from Deputy Engineer dated November 13, 1991) ITEM III: RECYCLING - MULTI FAMILY - PROPOSED PROCEDURES (Report from Deputy City Engineer dated November 11, 1991 and City Engineer dated Nvoember 6, 1991) ITEM IV: SOIL REMOVAL/DEPOSIT BYLAW - CURRENT STATUS (Report from Deputy City Engineer attached) IIIINf SI I i II I I 5% INTRAWEST - DFLEGATION - NOVEMBER 20, 1991 (Report from Deputy City Engineer dated October 24/91) I easel s MRMIsa II IINIIII, illlll f ] ITEM VI: iti Ill&i&~i ~ I 'I! I I lh'lls g / NEW BUSINESS ': ''': RI% I f i4, j ..555 sla« ~&hl t sill( [pe sus 'sjjam eR)$ 5I'll I ~'ll'',,", ~ 0 8 ss QBRRIIIP IS@~ — — l '': — g[hlllassll ~~~!RK~~ — ~~'~",fl /gypmtm)g&&s' -' ~ & ~ ' =.-.: =tt slgIÃa arl pillllllkil gll aamsse...'=:eiiaii5%I,P.=a~i a a I't~g[ Rtjg j It) jj Pgj jl' ' 'g — I '1$ l - -'--'-=-- -=: — O' / .+ ~~ l — — — aiu&aigg'RNLs' u&a a= — —, ~'8, . ~g~ I'Iggggl pilll I ''.ll a easi+g III g /, [ THB CORPORATION OF THB CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMitIITTEB MINUTES A meeting of the Environmental Protection Committee was held in the Second Floor Meeting Room, 2580 Shaughnessy Street, Port Coquitlam, Wednesday, November 13, 1991 at 5:00 p.m. lu attendance were: Alderman M. Gates, Chairman Alderman M. Gordon, Co-Chairman C.F. (Kip) Gaudry, Deputy City Engineer Andrew de Boer, Project Engineer (partial) ITEM It CONFmMATION OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Environmental Protection Committee Meeting held on Wednesday, October 23, 1991 were referred to the previous chairman for ratification and signature. ITEM IR ~lviMIITEB ZPRUCITIRB AND PROCEDURE Committee considered a report from the Deputy City Engineer regarding the past procedure and structure set up for the Environmental protection Committee. The Emironmentai protection Commitee will continue to meet every Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. if there cre agenda items. The agenda packages will be prepared the day before and put in the Alderman's mailboxes. Currently sll reports dealing with financial implications from cmrent or fumre budgets are sent to the City Engineer vrho presents them to Public Works Committee for their consideration. The chairman will discuss this with the Mayor to clarify the procedure and routir g for reports with financial implications. ITEM IHi RBCYIJNG - MULTI-FAMILY PROPOSED PROCEDURES — Committee considered a report from the Deputy City Engineer regarding multi-fiunily recycling aud the a&hninistrations proposed procedures for entering onto private property io collect the recycled goods. Committee felt that this was an extremely important topic and should be presented to Council on November 14, 1991. The November g, 1991 is to be rewritten and available for distribution at the Committee meeting. The Deputy City Engineer is to contact the Mayor's office to have the item placed on the agenda. Cont'd .../2 ~ ~~- .=== iil~,— (@gm~~l ILluijtsj'istsisss!Fu. l/Lilt Ill+, ~ 'jj'mu M 'aglgi".. I lulsla," RI I Rg I I s IIIII 1 S lmt I IIiw I ~"-Tel 51'Islltgjjjglglt I[u~i~gs~~ taggglglea I ,— = ~ " ij/gal d.lu$%~,''Jg'ggrl iuu aRmpig tg IQQ II m$ al ~ ISg I I Committee also considered a report from the City Engineer to the Deputy City Engineer on recycling programs dated November 6, 1991. It noted that Mayor Traboulay had reviewed previous information on the recylcing program and stressed that he was in favour of increased advertising an possibly purchasing additional recycling bags to encourage recycling. Committee asked that this be tabled until the budget discussions were concluded. ITEM IVi SOIL REMOVAL/DEPOSIT BYLAW - CURRENT STATUS Committee reviewed several background reports on the proposed soil deposit and removal bylaws as well as legal opinions from the City solicitor, Mr. Grant Anderson. Committee directed that a full straight forward report be written for presentation to Council on Saturday, November 16, 1991. The Chairman directed that the information be placed in their mailboxes by Friday, November 15, 1991. ITEM Vi INTRAWBST DELEGATION NOVEMBER 20. 1991 — Committee reviewed previous reports on the Intrawest site and their request for a delegation to Committee. Committee was advise that the delegation has been confirmed for November 20, 1991 and Intrawest will probably be represented by their solicitor and engineer. NBW BUSINBSSi No new business. The Meeting Adjourned at 5t45 p.m. Aldermap+4. Gates Committee Chairman mmittee until certified correct by the THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM MEMORANDUM TO: Environmental Protection Committee FROM: C.F. (Kip) Gaudry, P. Eng., Deputy City Engineer SUB JECT: ENVIRONMENTAL STRUCTURE & PROCEDURE DATE: November 13, 1991 PR~ON COMMfITBB In the past year the Environmental Protection Committee has operated on the following basic procedure and structure: I) Regular meeting: Every Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. - meetings dropped if no agenda items. 2) Reports All reports dealing with non-monitary issues were sent directly to Council from Committee over the staff signature. 3) Reports with Financial Implication All reports that had financial implications from current or future budgets were normally sent to the City Engineer who would present them to Public Works Committee for their consideration prior to going to Council. 4) Staff Member Committee meetings and special meetings at the request of the Chairman of the Committee. Only 'I 5) Delegations Delegations were encouraged but normally no more than two per meeting. Delegations were always held at the beginning of the meeting and then invited to stay for the remainder of the agenda if they chose. 6) Project Engineer Andrew de Boer., Project Engineer with the Engineering Department often attended the meetings particularly dealing with Recycling issues since he is the main coordinator for the City. 7) Agenda Binders All agenda items are three-hole punched and produced in binders for each meeting. The material is then removed and the binders returned to the staff member for re-use at next meeting. eputy City Engmeer CFG:ck p'" ', ll „&ttga — — uuia)~eigiglgs~a 7 ~~ Rg~igli@~~ /[j( II I I mm ms&al @i &a ~lchaa ~~g gag~&aaeuuuau i~,' =— iu' a~pwIlSRast~~~s ]h~,', .gra:~&~z g'5 '":-~g~~~, /gal „ t p IXII& I ~+ ~ll ~ j~ j r )/ '-" ' !18 &~ 'g tRIMlaruut& ~ ~gg - ~l 'i~el g "-- g THF- CORPORATION OF THE CI'IY OF PORT COQ UITLAM MEMORANDUM TO: Environmental Protection Conunittee PROM: C.F. (Kip) Gaudry Deputy City Engineer SUBJECT: MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLING PROPOSED PROCEDURES DATE: November 8, 1991 — RECOMMENDATIONI That Committee recommend to Council that the attached procedures be used for bringing multi-family/strata units into the recycling program. saa ~W I COMMENTS dt BACKGROI JNDCurrently, we are servicing all single family residences in the City with our recycling program. The next approved step is to include multi-family units in the program. Since the majority of these developments are strata title we have developed a procedure that will assist us in bringing the multi-family units into the recycling program. The main point here is that ihe City vehicles will have to enter onto private property in order to collect the recycled goods. There is a liability associated with this procedure over and above that normally encountered by City vehicles in their day to day business. Even if the strata title corporation or private lot owner signs a waiver of liability the courts will hold that the City cannot contract away its legal liability responsibilities. Often the roads inside of strata titles are sub-standard when measured against current municipal specifications for a similar road way development. For this reason you will note that in the procedures we h" ve listed some minimum specifications that must be met, but it should be pointed out that these do not conform to o, -sall municipal specifications and were in fact developed on the basis that most of:h se developments already contain current roads. lii'I~. g C.F. (Kip) Gaudry, P. Eng. Deputy City Engineer CFG:ck II:...„ li sights IIII] %Id ' g)p u~ m % &~ . » ----~~ = ~ ~ && »,... —, = nasssaaes ~~gsN i @+~ -—»I sw 5n, — ~ — [g ' ' .'.'"='=: ~~ t Big iggg wpa »al II ~, "' ''- %IRII . l]IJ! 0 ggStitanaea ~ sai w leaes aas Qg a gg atI~ g)QP g$ 5 Wli g, g' ''"«s'.'-'z i =, = - "arhIRitin I+&i)I hi li ui~- --g la mi, ma I sEE tss4wat&'s " '0 hit nasa lltg III " + K lie Isla ss& is, —, =:n 'ulI%lg „spg 1/ 'g g g/ gg$ 8 liI 55lig s'ilsR ~,~ itive'ining=-- - g sus'RIRgRl gy utrsallikln 's ili;:::=: = = — — ps)5II s „,,tRIRs~ Q ilttjj~gy '%il ' I,"hi ~ — i@i'ti ki~&i&' 4 I ~ '~ ~ i ~ I melee! iF" 4'!!5hSWViagi@lR~H- i ~ ~ ' ' / =H4R~~~jg48 Q~iRR~~+gg~a51 THE CORPORATION OP THE CITX OF PORT COQUZTLAM TO: Igor Zahynacz, P.Eng. City Engineer FROM: Andrew de Boer DATE: November 5, 1991 SUBJECTr Multi-familv collechAPH rrroceduxes wit~ Project Engineer Strata Chvelooments The following presents a procedure for initiating the collection of recyclable materials from within Strata developments. 1. A representative of the Strata development meets a represer.tative of the City on-site to determine the best location within the Strata for pick-up. The Strata must meet the guidelines listed below: 1.1 Roadway within Strata must have a minimum 6 m pavement width. 1.2 Strata must have a turn around location at the pick--up point. The turn-around can be a back-up on a tee intersection or a drive through loop. 1.3 The road curves within the Strata must be of a sufficient radius of curvature to allow passage of a recycling truck with a 12.8 m turning radius. 1.4 The access to the pick-up point shall have sufficient vertical clearance from overhead a ss mm Pl~ utility lines and horizontal clearance from trees, buildings and awnings to permit easy 5 passage of the recycling trucks. The Strata will be asked to fill out an application form which will indicate the contact person in the Strata. This person is responsible for collecting unacceptable materials left behind after the weekly pick-up. 3. The Strata will be asked to construct a sheltered enclosure at the pick-up location. Upon completion, a city representative will 2. I -',j II ~ =--Fs a seegN/[ . SIN'I siI liI 1 '1 E seel (P $ is& ri s::: ~amrmss —.: —..aiil''l++ —.- [Ef!'Illh» ~,~siiiI[l '/ s»r' e ~ irs—: '.5rsiI- .-rI:.:, ' i m ~ a s~ — — f r rrI 'E ~'~'~ INEI'Ii" ~,~&riIImssmssn@ll III IIII I~IIII&0 re ANNI grree, Ill! sss, r'~ - — rSI — revisit the SI rata to inspect the suitability of the enclosure. 4. The Strata will be asked to fill out a waiver excluding the City of liability for damage to common property. 5. The Strata will be asked to produce a letter allowing City vehicles and drivers to enter the Strata property. 6. Upon completion of the required paper work the contact person for the Strata will be issued recycling starter kits and schedules. The contact person will then be given a date when collection will begin. Andrew de Boer Project Engineer THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQrJ1TLAM DATE: November 6, 1991 C.F. (Kip) Gaudty, P.Eng. Deputy City Engineer TO: Andrew de Boer, EIT Project Engineer FROM: LR. Zahynacz, P. Eng. City Engineer SUBJECT: Recycling Pmgram Mayor Traboulay has reviewed the memo from Andrew to Kip on the Port Coquitlam recycling program dated November 4, 1991 and stated that he is in favour of options 2 & 3 in the report. Mayor Traboulay is especially interested in more advertising, and even possibly purchasing additional recycling bags to encourage recycling. I noted that Andrew de Boer may be arranging through Seaboard Advertising to utilize ten percent of the advertising space in the bus shelters in Port Coquitltun for promoting recycling. Please add these comments to the presentation of the recycling program to the Environmental Protection Committee. ~ wu IRZ:gc Ili~ IRI031 &ewsi asm 8 — — SI Wt pn — oar u'W t IMI4,,— — — — I ~H R8 — aaS ~I%lie rattail ~n ~ag~isKWI! [IJIWIR NMRISII) s pig ~~ g I~I~0 gg~ ~q~t — I II iB I ~ .W4 g 5 I 115 au 1 ul I THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM TO: Pro(ective Services Committee DATE: October 23, 1991 Public Works Contmittee Parks & Recreation Committee Planning Committee FROM: Environmental Protection Committee SUB JECT: PROPOSED SOIL DEPOSJT BYLAW RECOMMENDATION 'A'f That Schedule the draft bylaw be adopted as the City's limits for the defhution of contaminated soil (these limits are the same as used for the Pacific Place standards as issued by the Ministry of Environment). 2) That the permit fee as outlined in clause 14 of the proposed bylaw be amended to indicate a charge of $ 0.10 per cubic metre for all materials deposited on lands in excess of 100 cubic metres per year with no maximum amount per lot. 3) That all materials deposited in Port Coquitlam under the jurisdiction of the proposed bylaw and originating from places outside of Port Coquitlatn automatically be required to furnish proof that they are not contaminated according to schedule 'A'. 4) That the Soil Deposit Bylaw be expanded (or a new bylaw created) that would cover the removal of material from lots in a similar manner and form as the Soil Deposit Bylaw. 5) That the City use the proposed bylaw to prohibit the movement of any contaminated soils in or out of the City or between lots in the City where the contaminated materials have not been remediated to the standards as outlined in schedule 'A'. Cont'd .../2 iy I( [I'Ising iI'lll pii il II i III'"! ,—: Pl ]IIIIII ' — ILI '". is~assi Iwl pg)g/[1R1%llu iii i'iklll ~!l ~ I ~" ts &~~IFs liill 'R I ~&& +~: see,+ mN ~glllllg/is I — ="-= n~~jnss& Ftlig&+~ BACKGROl.'ND & COMMENTS: The Environmental Protection Committee has been reviewing the proposed Soil Deposit Bylaw and have arrived at the above noted five recommendations. Attached to this report is the proposed bylaw and a summary of the bylaw with editorial comments as prepared bah D ty City Engineer. In addition, also attached is the recent letter to Grant Anderson andri We are asking each Committee to review the bylaw and report as to any proposed cltan particular how it might effect administrative staff in each of the jurisdictional areas. Once all comments are received it is the Environmental Protection Committee's recommend the bylaw to Council as soon as possible. ~'!. re~ ~ttrculCll ~ acvcvt ctrt C.F. {Kip) Gaudry, P. Eng. Deputy City Engineer CFG:ck i Iu4lg la = " =,. ,la~ Rl;;..;, Ia)i l ream t: ~ ~ ~it~@ —' ALIIS "ll~'=-c='e ~lt ': i,- fli ~+iaat~~~i.t~~g -==-~ ,l=lll:;tt rag~&~ll~ ='aai hlllsal ala!tsi~sj gigital'atgatsgjilttn ~f'-=- THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COOUI BYLAW NO, 'he A Bylaw to Regulate and the Depos P. of Soil and Other MaterialProhibit on Land in the C ty.. Municipal Council of The corporation ofl the 'City Port Coquitlam, in open meeting assembled, enacts as. follows: Def initions l. In this bylaw: "Contaminated soil" means soil which: (a) contains any of the contaminants listed in Schedule "A" to this bylaw in an amount greater than that set out in Schedule "A" for the contaminant; or creates a risk to the health of persons or animals. "Deposit" includes the redirection or of soil from one parcel to another and from one part movement of a parcel to another part of the same parcel„ (b) "City Engineer" means the City and the Deputy City Engineer. Engineer appointed by Council "Soil" includes earth, gravel, substances of which land issand, composed. rock, and other Aoclication This bylaw applies to all land within the City of Port Coquitlam except land des'gnated agricultural land reserve pursuant to the Agricultural LandasCommission Section 4 of this bylaw applies within all land in the Act. City, including land in the agricultural land reserve. Prohibitions person shall cause or permit the deposit of. soil or other materials on any land except in accordance this bylaw and except in strict compliance with the termswith and conditions of any permit issued pursuant to this bylaw. No person shall cause or permit the d posit of contaminated soil on No 4. any land. ms~ II+ jjjljjIj~~mIIIE =:„= ~ IIIIII fgllp".'. „; jig II llmsgllgIR ail i .— — ', m)j ~ II 111lsll ~~I1 g/I I( Njjm — — &Ijaig~~lmjgjII~I j ~eamsi II~I(IIIh~ji j I//@~~~I ~pe 'i~ ~~BI person shall cause permit the deposit of construction, building or demolitionor waste including but not limited to concrete, asphalt other rubble and plaster, gypro , glass, tile or similaror construction debris on 5- No I any la person shall deposit land except: G. No fill material other than soil on any (a) manure, composts, mulches or soil conditioners foagricultural, farming, horticulture, nursery or domestic gardenirg and landscaping purposes; (b) chips, hog fuel, bark chips, shavings, trimmings, sawdust and other processed wood waste I to a maximu deepth of 10 cm, for agricultural, horticultural, farming, nursery or domestic landscaping purposes; wood waste produced by a processing or manufacturing activity (c) wood parcel . situated on the same parcel or an adjoining Permit Exem tions Provided that the deposit of soil is carried out in compliance with, this bylaw, no permit for the deposit of soil is required: where the soil is used f or construction, .improvement, repair or maintenance of a highway; where the soil is used for the construction, improvement, repair or maintenance of public works undertaken by a (a) (b) government; 15& (c) where the soil is deposited stored on land for the purpose of being used as an and ingredient or component of material or a product processed or manufactured on the same parcel or on an adjoining parcel, and is so used within three months of the deposit; (d) where the soil deposit is necessary in the of a building or structure authorized by construction a plumbing permit or a building (e) ~)I~o~ml~ =2 K~~~Illi~ Is&sw I&gg . I I II I permit by the City of Port Coquitlam, provided the plansissued approved the plumbing permit or building permit disclose thefor deposit of the soil and the resulting elevations of the land in relation to the building or structure authorized or where the volume of soil deposited on a parcel within any one year period does not exceed 50 cubic metres. ~ijhF R ~ ~~+ lK=: --- ~XIII+&~ — ~ ' 3I'~ ~ IIII Permits 8. Except as exempted by section 7, any person who proposes to deposit soil on land shall first obtain a permit under this bylaw. 9. Every application for a permit to deposit soil shall be made by the owner of the land on which the soil is to be deposited, or by a person authorized in writing by the owner of the land. 10. All applications for a permit to deposit soil shall be in the form attached to this Bylaw as Schedule "B" and shall include: (a) the legal description and civic address of the land which is the source of the soil to be deposited; (b) the legal description and civic address of the land on which the soil is to be deposited (the "land" ); (c) the name and address of the person applying for the permit; (d) the name and address of the registered owner of the land; (e) the exact location and depths where the deposit is proposed, defined by reference to any existing buildings, structures, improvements and parcel boundaries, all of which shall be shown on a dimensioned sketch plan; the composition and quantity of soil which is proposed ( f) to be deposited; (g) the method proposed for deposit of the soil; (h) the dates proposed for commencement and completion of the deposit; (i) the proposed access to and from the land for vehicles carrying soil; to prevent personal injury or property (j) measures proposed from the deposit; damage resulting (k) measures proposed to control erosion, drainage and soil stability; (1) I'IJ g IN I. I I I ill III iUV Al I%I !I I Z) s~ ma m ~ &zu mI )II eiiiw RE 1 SIN L I I completed; (m) the location of all watercourses, waterworks, wells, drains, sewers, septic fields, catch basins, Illa'itches, ~ Pew~i ÃI reclamation measures proposed to stabilize, landscape and restore the land and soil after the deposit, is lhlll (n) (o) (p) 11. culverts, manholes, rights-of-way, public utilities and public works on or within 30 metres of the boundaries of the parcel on which soil is to be deposited, and the measures proposed to protect them; the proposed routes to be taken by vehicles transporting soil to the land; measures proposed to minimize or prevent tracking of soil onto City highways and measures for the cleaning of such highways abutting the parcel on which the soil is to be deposited; and copies of all certificates, permits and approvals as may be required by the Ministry of the Environment under the Water Act or the Waste Manaaement Act or by any other authority having jurisdiction. Where the amount of soil to be deposited exceeds 100 cubic metres, the application shall include a report certified by a professional engineer that the soil to be deposited is not contaminated soil. I 12. Where the amount of soil to be deposited exceeds 200 cubic metres, the application shall include a survey plan with a one metre contour interval or a grid of spot elevations no more than 5 metres apart, prepared by a British Columbia Land Surveyor and showing: (a) the location of the proposed deposit of soil and the form and contour and elevations of the land surface before and after the deposit; the existing improvements, structures and buildings on the land; (c) the methods of draining the land before, during and after the proposed deposit; and (d) the location of all services and utilities on or under the land. Where the amount of soil to be depositecl exceeds 200 cubic metres and the location of the proposed deposit is on .a flood plain designated pursuant to Section 969 of the Municiual Act or is on a slope any part of which exceeds 3:1 (run over rise), the application for a permit shall include plans and specifications prepared and certified by a professional engineer or registered landscape architect showing measures: to stabilize, landscape, and restore the land (a) and soil after the deposit, and (b) 13. )yi j'ire iii I jll )5I I I i I ,f~iii lit II Sa l,o leg g /W ram)l I 14 )I IP ' ~" I I ~ 451411 i@BI ~j~~ ii~1)II&~pg z= 5= '44 =~=: =~5% «~g4»» 31 44'1 » I ~ mZljg)~r4 ~ I»s~c154 44 14alzlgliii —:==s s114 I '4»I»4 I I '.'. %4lllm14 m» 44 s I 44»»» i » L' ~ Rl j I m» I to protect any stream or drainage system that (b) may be affected by the proposed deposit and shall also include the assurances and undertakings of the engineer or landscape architect who prepared the plans and of the applicant for the permit in the form attached to this bylaw as Schedule "C". 14. Prior to issuance of a permit under this bylaw, the applicant shall pay to the City a permit fee of $ 50.00 plus 10 cents for each cubic metre of soil to be deposited in excess of 100 cubic metres. 15. The City Engineer may refer any application for a permit to the Director of Planning, Director of Permits and Licences, other City staff members or consultants for advice and may require the applicant to provide better and more detailed information to supplement the application where good engineering practice so requires. Where further information is required by the City Engineer the application shall not be deemed to be complete until such information is provided. 16. Unless an application for a permit is complete, the City Engineer may refuse to review and process such application, and only where the City Engineer is satisfied that an application for a permit is complete and meets the requirements of this bylaw, shall a permit be issued. 17. Every permit issued shall be deemed to incorporate the plans, specifications, documents and information in the application as approved and compliance with the same shall be deemed to be terms and conditions of the permit. A permit shall be substantial'y in the form of Schedule "D" attached to this bylaw. permit issued under this bylaw shall be valid for a period of 6 months and may not be assigned. Administration and Enforcement 19. This bylaw shall be administered by the City Engineer. 20. The City Engineer, the Bylaw Enforcement Officer and all City employees under their direction may at all reasonable hours enter upon any land or premises in the City to determine if the provisions of this bylaw are being met. 21. Upon written notice being given to a permit holder by the City Engineer or the Bylaw Enforcement Officer, of a breach of this bylaw or of the terms of a permit issued under this bylaw, all deposit of soil shall cease until the breach is remedied. A rriii N[ Riji iill I mljiil 14 II Mll 8!RADII I ji I'8. Wmjx! ajjjLg Ml Nli I IN I I II I Pill PIhjjI IIISI Ill se es s'~~:: e& Nse1P.. j a j jI / f hajj %f&! semmmj=:. —: ~ ~ ~ msjl 4 Rl I I gs I I Ii I L I ~~ I w 1 I jism Ii ' ~ I Ig 1 ~ I Ijf l I I Is llaell I !I I . I I mIII j ~ I I I ~ e I I ~ ~ N I Rl ~ I I ~ I El IRa I w I jj wlImklRI hs.= =; SS I Where a breach of this bylaw or of the terms of a permit cause 22. an emergency, including but not limited to deterioration failure of a water system, sewer purification facility, septic field, blockage of asystem, stream drainage facility or potential danger to public health or orsafety, City Engineer may issue an order for imm diate remedy of the the breach. If the permit holder does not immediately commence and diligently continue to remedy the breach, the Council may revoke the permit. 23. The Council may suspend or revoke a permit issued under bylaw if the permit holder violates any of the provisionsthis of this bylaw or any of the terms of the permit. Penaltv Every person who violates provision of this bylaw or fails to comply with any permit any issued under this bylaw commits an offence punishable on conviction and shall be liable to a fine not exceedingsummary $ 10,000.00. Severabilitv 25. If any section or lesser portion of this bylaw is held invalid, it shall be severed and the validity of the remaining provisions of this bylaw shall not be affected. 24. Schedules 26. Schedules "A", "B", "C" and "D" attached to this bylaw are incorporated within and form part of this bylaw. Ci.tat.ion 27. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw, 1991, No. FIRST TIME by the City Council this READ A I 1991. READ A SECOND TIME 'EAD I 1991. A THIRD TIME 1991. APPROVED by the City Council this by the City Council this by the Minister of Municipal day of 1991. Culture this glllllag 818.%IIII II R— 6 IIIIIig Ii day of day of day of Affairs, Recreation and I ll ii P= '1 I g I l 5 I I III I l I I I I IN 'II di "I II I I!IIIN (Il I,II P 4'414 +44m 111 s II IIU 141lmll 1&a '- 4':: ss41: —.=-',, '-= -sii115 ~IRil% 4-"-'c sos 'III " ~1111 IN!%&!!'===;=-:,~ 14am — ~l ~ ll Rl g ml 4'eal ! 411 14114LIII g ~ IS Im ll' N "--- — ~lraa141i ~ ' sm1444 l ~ mSISIWIIIIIN "=- ,gmsKI ai -I%hggggmm'i N ~ 44,S, ~ „„, ~ RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED by the City Council the City of Port Coquitlam, this day of of the Corporation of 1991. Mayor Clerk II &aimed lgmII~IIPPaPPI I%i meaiiims w llllIBLXRI f P 5 I 1% g g I I I II P»reIPePP,I Ii. PPIPPilllg[ I P'small'PI%I, RIIIN~Eaek== g 9— '=,Pl,-HIImf asm $ 8 Ks ~ me ~ m ~ 1 P I P'AR pmlaM P —,gg P'gg[ I Siii ."-- -+amse ~(gf/l 'PSSI ~ „, mh l%i miaPIP, I 8 siep RSep" ~ p~aaieapm IK lÃ$ II ~ I ' I I Pm PPP ~ — IIIE ~i ~ 1 IE =c RRIPPikMll gge' ap ~, 'l ,~& I w L l I P m 1%4 N g g N ggl I P PPP P P ' II I ~iNIPmmlli U p R I laswrema THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COOUITLAM "SOIL DEPOSIT REGULATION I'I BYLAW SCHEDULE a(Ae CONTAMINANTS Maximum Levels HEAVY METALS mg/kg(ppm) arsenic (As ) (Ba) (Cd) barium cadmium chromium 5 (Cr) cobalt copper leao 250 50 100 500 (Co) (CU) (Pb) mercury (Hg) molybdenum nickel 2 (Mo) 10 100 (Ag) 20 50 500 (Br) 50 10 50 400 1000 (Ni) (Se) selenium silver tin 3 (Sn) (Zn) zinc 2. 30 1000 OTHER INORGANIC bromide (free) cyanide (free) cyanide (total) fluoride (free) sulphur g N( & m Im g (Cn free) (Cn total) (F free) (S total) I l g jl)ll MONOCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (MAHs) ethylbenzene toluene chlorobenzene 1,2-dichlorobenzene 1,3-dichlorobenzene 1,4-dichlorobenzene xylene styrene gisiiiij( I I II I K m Iji I 0.5 benzene S ILf 5 3 1 1 1 1 5 5 O'SISI1 8 F=---m mm(I II' Hi I Pl I I I II~ a w ~ IIII )) fl II I al l I' I Ia. III a Iii( , 5II I I L"s i a ~ ~~ ~ l ~ a aa i W 'W fl ~ ~~ al al ~ gl) I LI m la ~ la l ~ m a aa( I g ==.~!8lllll . " —"~ &a Il aaII mm la+I'N/N( eas~ Ilaaimsg3~~ Wz 8+ QRL' I aaaaalmSE~ ." as a PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS nonchlorinated phenols (each) chloropehnols (each) chlorophenols (total) 1 0.5 1 POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs) benzo (a) anthracene 1 1,2-benzanthracene 7,2-dimethyl dibenzo (a,h) anthracene chrysene 3-methycholanthrene benzo (b) fluroanthene benzo (j) fluroanthene benzo (k) fluroanthene benzo (g,h,i) perylene benzo (c) phenanthene pyrene benzo (a) pyrene (a,h) pyrene dibenzo (a,i) pyrene dibenzo (a,l) pyrene indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene acenaphtene acenaphtylene anthracene fluroanthrene flurene napthalene3 phenanthrene3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 -'ibenzo PAHs 1 1 1 1 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 (total) 20 CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS aliphatic (each) (total) 5 7 chlorobenzene (each) 2 4 (total) hexachlorobenzene polychlorinated biphenyls 2 5 PESTICIDES pesticides (total) ~1Shmgg, IE'«' -~&l lsfSZII1hlji ~: ~ — S'~1E) QIIISlzn@~L«««I —— ~ -~~ ~«III~ «~ ~E 851~ ~~~~~«« — =— «E ~ GROSS PARAMETERS mineral oil and grease light aliphatic hydrocarbons 10 1000 150 THE CORPORATION QF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAN "SOIL DEPOSIT REGULATION BYLAW NO. e SCHEDULE for Soil/Deoosit Permit No. eBs'nolication 1. I (full name) of (address) hereby apply for a permit to deposit soil upon (telephone) the following property: Address Legal Description The origin and source of the soil to be deposited is: Address Legal Description The registered owner of property upon which the soil is to ba deposited is of (full name) (address) (telephone) If the applicant is not the registered owner of the property on which the soil is to be deposited then the registered owner igning here authorizes the applicant to make this by application 5. 6. signature of owner The soil is being deposited for the following purpose: area upon which the soil is to be deposited is hectares. The total volume of soil to be deposited is cubic metres. The ground 11 Attached is a dimensioned sketch of the property on which the soil is to be deposited, showing all roads adjoining the property, the parcel boundaries of the property, all existing buildings, structures and other improvements, the location of water, sewer and other utilities as well as natural watercourses, ditches, drains, manholes, culverts, catch basins and other public works on or within 30 metres of the property, the location of wells and septic fields on the property and on any adjoining properties, and the exact location and depth of the soil, to be deposited. The composition and nature of the soil to be deposited is: 9. The method of deposit will be 10 dates between which the soil will be deposited are to Vehicles used for depositing the soil will only obi ain access to the property from (name of street) as shown on the sketch plan provided pursuant to paragraph 7 of this application. The proposed route to be used in and through the City of Port Coquitlam by vehicles delivering the soil to be deposited is 11. 12. ~g following safety measures to prevent personal injury or property damage to persons or property in or about property or on adjacent roads will be implemented: 13. The 14. The @-~s Sl I The soil will be deposited so as to cause no erosion, stability or drainage problems on the property or to neighbouring properties and the following measures will be taken to achieve those objects: 15. (if insufficient space please attach a clearly marked schedule) After the deposit of the soil on the property the following measures will be taken to stabilize, reclaim, landscape and restore the property: 16. 17. (if insufficient space please attach a clearly marked schedule) The following measures will be taken to prevent soil spillage and tracking onto the City's streets and roads, and to clean the same: following measures will be taken to protect and to keep clear and clean of all sediment, silt, leaching or other fouling or obstruction of wells, natural watercourses, septic fields, water works, sewers and other utilities, drains, ditches, .culverts, catch basins and other public works: The 13 (if insufficient space please attach a clearly markea schedule) 18. If the volume of soil to be deposited exceeds 100 cubic metres there is attached to this application a report certified by a professional engineer that the soil to be deposited is not contaminated. If the volume of soil to be deposited exceeds 200 cubic metres there is attacned a. survey plan prepared by a British Columbia Land Surveyor of the property on which the soil is to be deposited showing a one metre contour interval or a grid of spot elevations no more than 5 metres apart on the parcel and indicating all the information required by S. 12 of Scil 20. Deposit Regulation Bylaw No. Where the amount of the soil to be deposited exceeds 200 cubic metres and S. 13 of Soil Deposit Regulation Bylaw No. of applies, the required plans, specifications and letter are assurances and undertaking all duly signed and sealed attached to this app]ication. I declare that the above information is correct, that it is my intention to deposit soil upon the property in accordance with the attached plans and specifications and information, that I am aware of the provisions of the City of Port Coquitlam Soil Deposit and that I will abide by all Regulation Bylaw No. applicable provisions of the bylaw and such terms and conditions as form part of any Soil Deposit permit issued pursuant to this Application. Date Signature of Applicant Applicant's Name Printed Received from (Applicant's name) 199 the sum of $ Deposit Permit Application Fee. Receipt No. City Engineer 14 this day of for Soil THE CORPORATION "SOIL DEPOSIT ASSURANCE OF SOIL DEPOSIT AND Date (year, morth, day) City Engineer City of Port Coquitlam 2580 Shaughressy Street Port Coquitlam, B.C. V3C 2A8 Dear Sir: Application for Soil at civic addre I, the undersigned registered professional engineer/landscape architect hereby give assurance that the design, location, quality, nature, depth, volume and configuration of the soil to be deposited and works to be constructed and undertaken in support of and in relation thereto all as shown on the plans and supporting documents prepared and signed by me and attached to this letter are consistent with sound reasonable engineering fill and soil deposit practice, and when and if carried out in conformance with such plans and specifications will not constitute any reasonably foreseeable risk or hazard to persons or property. I undertake to conduct such supervision, testing and field review to ensure that the deposit of soil substantially complies with the plans, specification and supporting documents attached hereto. I assure you that I have been given the authority by the owner of the lands on which the soil is to be deposited and by the applicant or for the permit (if different from the owner) to stop, remove and as in judgment of soil as required redirect the deposit my required to comply with the plans, specifications and supporting documents attached hereto. Re1 8 Nl I(IN gll l@ 5 JRiN IN/If 'll'm liiISI RUI I!'ll i'R1, j I ~ IQSI I 15 i'EIIRR fl 15 I III, I Il I Ii(I fl tom p 5%1Ie e, llimn ll $4 'il51! I 1 I 8 'II O' 1% IISClf e 41 ji ee I I 5 1si 4 '"' '4 IINIKII '4 ...,,I Ilee'41 I '1I ~ S 4 Iei I e I i I IISWN4 141 I II — '. ~ ' I I el iIJI 2 ~ ' ~ iL, e4 ~ ee 44e I IMJe4 i I ee e euI SW ~ e ~ ~ I I ~ 14 14 I j' ~ --??? H 111 I ~4 e ~ ji!!!t 4ei'1 I I will notify you in writing immediately if my contract for field review, testing, or supervision is terminated limited at any time before the completion ot the deposit ofor soil and works described in the plans, specifications and supporting documents attached hereto. (affix professional seal) Signature Print Name Address Address I, the applicant for soil deposit permit for deposit of soil at the above address, the acknowledge that I have read this letter and agree with its contents. I have also reviewed the plans, specifications and supporting documents attached to this letter and agree with them. I advise IRlill I you that I have given name of registered professional the authority to conduct testing, field review to supervise the deposit of the soil including the authority to and stop the deposit of soil, remove soil or redirect it as set out in this letter. acknowledge an'd understand that all authority and permission toI deposit soil under any permit issued to me pursuant to any application will automatically and be suspended if the registered professional's servicescease are terminated or limited and will not be re-instated until such time as another registered professional submits to you a signed and completed letter in this ,Il)5 f orm. la ~ I'J Imlds dmlld I d ill I IINH Witness ' IUR I~3 elI ~ Signature Signature Ihlm \ I II ed I I I I md I Print I I I of Permit ~)P Applicant for Print I I ELI 11 1 ! ilm III 11I dmlllI mllml dil I all al li' K III HH ~ II III R h ~ IJ I54" IIC h 5 Jl I~BI L IUS liU i Name Name Address Address I %III' LEIS III I@ l L'Rn I ~ dlLJI h.ll ll II Iel1II II I' I I 16 I // II' EI Lh 'a [I: '.;;= — ildl II IHl I Ig NL I8 I Idmd ~ III IN I ~ IrI II dl ssR I II & iii i iiill ~ II Idi i~d g ~ II d &IRIKI ~ HER ql ~ ~ I 1gl ' ~ Nl I I »$R lip li I I I ''(i i Il IIII! :=.. - III U Ill', I JILs ala jdldml ~s-— . 1I I ~ I I ~I%+ Mls h II!IF ~ie lil I,"8 Ilk.':.' II Ih ~ I II J SL I 1 Id h NL " ~ 1I1 IC i » I III L 11 C' III I I Ilmil I a I I I II - ...alii mdd dm~™ l I I I,I I ddi& l dddd I I 6 I I IIIL- ~~ lhiio ass ~ ~ la i; ,. a! 8 I dd d I —— —, I I 5 I IL. ~ ~e,l 'd IIIII+5 Imll I ~ ~ Ild i] I[ IIII«iil Igllt'l IW RIM Ilail I.w iii jll!II 3Iiiiiii'II IIliLII IIlg I III 5 tIIILIIII (III'Il ~ s fIHIIII II III 'i'I ssa 'I I f III Sd 1l" I"' 5 I I ill'l IF S I I»» 'I II I I 1 ~ I S SSII I I II lI II I I I'l 1 II, I ~; II ~iia IITij jar» ~" al SS aTSIT~ .- :. «III I 'SISS asl ra I 'aaa as S — '-'' »asia I ;"I ilil I ~ SS ra»I I IS I'lfilll Iassrar lair»a a I ~ 11 i IS I I S S I ~~ a I aa' I „-.--=.= -='"l j,II I , . ia ~ I I RL III6!IS „ ' Sl r a ri ~, Ul I SI S Sl - lliii ~ a 'aa,, aa I Ill,'I I ~ I ra aaa. I s llsl s'I: —" ma Ia a~ aaa I t I I aa Sl I I I I a s« —, ail Ifal '!IS a a I IIS IIII III I — 5 gg jra~ 'UI I I xiii Ii 17 I I I is I II( f IS ll I a -. aa I a a» S Sr ~ I y ~ 'a ss ~a~QIIII,LI HE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM e "SOIL DEPOSIT REGULATION BYLAW NO. SCHEDULE PPDPP SOIL DEPOSIT PERMIT NO. the "Port Coguitlam Soil Deposit Regulation Byl permission is hereby granted to (Name) s) (tel cubic metres of soil from/up (address of property) (legal description of property) ce with the provisions of the City of Port Coqu it Regulation Bylaw No. Applicatio nd the plans, specifications and other suppo sled therewith as approved, and initialled as app it holder, all which form a part of this Permi the terms and conditions of this Permit. is issued on the condition that the permit holder all orovisions of the Port Coquitlam "Soil De Regulat1on Bylaw No. and all terms and conditio this Permit. SiiWIII im This Soil Deposit Permit is issued this day of 199 and shall expire six months after the day of issuance 58 ill II LISBON f MIRml SH 'aa I ( City Engineer 5!Rl GA/4214 t,~iil i%i P IHP PPI /p I a la iml IR !I sPI'Ii) I)g 'll'Il ll) 18 Nl Ijr i',i! I' IPI! II SI f P. y Ik) I!(ll iil!Nii ()'I Ill(! i' PIPSI II I 'III PI P P I PIISP I ~ '::: IIW PP ~,,ls1$ ~, II PI e & I II IPK;, I S SL SI~ II P I 'P ~ P 1 I II& I a & IS I II ~ iP I I aI ~ u ~ U IKPP I P i t'glllml wood waste from processing or manufacturing situated on same lot or adjoining property. c) ImilmS iiifSil 'Jll4 Illlaulltl gmllSI Ill&.i- =:~I giiI'liIil'm 4) Crmm HX~p ~~St a) Highway repairs (Municipal/Provincial roads). b) Public Work'rojects. c) Stored as product of manufacturing process and used within three months. d) Used for building approval by Plumbing or Building Permit and shown on plans. e) Does not exceed 50 cubic metres per year. Is I II: 84 at 8 rar 41 I 88 g9 I I 8IrrrI.~—~~I III I .../2 Illa ~'"Irrl lil gII ~ I 8II llilall ts 884'84%IP'I'ont'd 848~ 8 ~ ~ 'l «8 g1 lk.:=I—: :, :4 '4 lail'8 I 11 5II- — --.-;-- 444 'aIe 8 I ~ 4848 msgl S II II ' I I 1m 4 4l 844 ' 4 I i ~ I'l I4 I IIlaII I I.II88 gRNI lWIL is Ss ~ s as' jPP I I s I N as as ~% I I g)[@I) '5 1'lRA j'i 1 UWif ss I a sl I I%Ill%ilk ~ el L'SI S ~ II ~ I I I Rmlj I I St I & P ~ II lg ~ 6 as ~ Ig~ II I III~ 111 f/jil a slsl. Iglllal ~ ! I ~ ~ I= 1 'I llama -:'M P! pai »ISS~ SI jj: RIJI~ I ~ ISI I~,.~, lilias jgfll 5!5+ ]Is s illas IIII ~ PJ S~I II J j ~j P Iliji I! sl ~:,:=...': =:= -- —'~'I III„s ': ==' d1llllll "'- — - . == . j ~ asaysgf Sas ~ I la S I Ill I@a I~ I. I pl 581 i I I g 'si IIL ~ I ~1 sa s sslsl s's ga 'IP ~ I 8S IjSl ~ II IH l PIE,;, '.'Ml I I I~ s s 4I 1 W lj 2580 SHAUGHNESSY STREET TELEPHONE: 944 - 541 1 FAX: 944 - 5402 PORT COOUITI AH, B.C. VSC 248 OUR 8'IUE October 24, 1991 Lidstone, Young, Baker & Anderson 1414 - 808 Nelson Street Box 12147, Nelson Square Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2H2 Attention: Crtaru Anderson Dear Sir: REl SOIL DEPOSTI BYLAW The Environmental Protection Committee has had on opportunity to review the proposed Soil Deposit Bylaw and as a result have asked me to gain legal opinion on three major areas. These areas are as follows: 1. 5 a) Can subdivisions be exempted from the fee but still be under the regulatory part of the Bylaw? b) Similarly should we handle building and plumbing permits in the same matuter? a) Could this bylaw be amended in such a manner as to also cover the aspect of soil removal? We do presume that it would then require the approval of the Ministry of Energy Mines and Resources prior to going to Municipal Affairs. b) Would it be your advice to look at it as a separate Bylaw? a) It is the City's intention to prohibit the movement of any contaminated soils in or out of the City or between lots in the City. Does the Bylaw as it is currently written cover this aspect clearly? In our review to date we feel it may not be clearly outlined. 1lgi~ Ill%'iW Ills al s ISSf IIIIII@ IL-,!!IL II 5g ) QI I I III ll i Ii I IgllLU' I I R I! ) Cont'd .../2 / gj lj'g&sp sa ~ieiill @ j I ll I. tai » ss 'a IIII'- =.-m~aalswmall,~)~:= — — F~::=~ g [l~lI sl l EI &ll=- =;; 9=:::."'„9189t~t -.IIIIB l4'-''- . — ' lh --:=.==:.".'me — I'll%: —.—,~aR II~I -~~[l iPIB B'&g Ig~ '' . - ~ ~ -- — +/ l yg~l llill Sl I ' ' 'tll l /IQ /P~~ ~ a aa ll,lIj Ig mp ~&j lllJLS h — - " = ." l II fl ggnsmNE :-- -~l I4 RI.IR i:.:= K iS —, I g I lm . Rk. -~~= ,-I/I& ,'l~,....-...,,, ..III580:.— — am N Rl Ilm I RlSImmSm FiPs g /mj[ Q ~La ~ jjQgg(l j 'aajjme I RUBg [I ii!Illlli I I I l ~;,;; ." "!!!14 ~ ggaas wlRINI+ ass %Slit;=:.: sasa lsRsasasiiesaWRssac===- — — — — -"=== ~ - .'ls ~ I%ONE, YOUNG, ANDERS BARRISTERS 8r SOLICITORS 1414 - 808 Nelaon Street Box 12147, Nelaon Square Vancouver, B.C. V622H2 Telephone: (604) 689-7400 Telecopier: (604) 689-3444 TIVE aw -229 I 'I f October 24, 1991, this letter sets out our opinion on the issues ssions with the Environmental Protection Colnmittee. her soil deposits occurring in the course of subdivision development the regulations under the bylaw, without imposition of a permit fee. quired to obtain soil deposit permits, but would not be required to n of fees by a municipality must be strictly in accordance with the owering the fee: Kirkoatrick v. Maole Ridge [1986] 6 W.W.R. 97 da). In Kirknatrick, a soil removal permit fee based on the volume lowed because the legislation did not specifically author!ze variable e, Section 930(d) of the Municioal Act simply authorized municipal rmit and to ufix a fee for the permit". as added to the Municioal Act to authorize variable fees, In 1989, d by Section 930.1. R SBI 1 I%I (ml II p~yi 5I IBIS gi ~t Il HWI I lmt I l g 'tW --- - - : — =- — — ~+]g)@WMP j& tgttsw ~m ~~ggltialsa'~~ ~ ~ : '.:=— =.I(lj~g,'-'--"-''-!L-i!':~i~iiiiittl(tmIasi@lll&-'~l!gL'Il~~~~ "~[ — -'---i"iimiii-""'— ==-= Bll a =--=—; —.=jllia ma .ALII ----. == 118 'llttgim--aim„,.—.l-"--= Section 930.1(4)(a) of the Municioal Act empowers Council to require the holding of a permit for the removal of soil from any land in the municipality or in any area of the municipality. Section 930.1(4)(b) now empowers Council to: "(b) impose rates or levels of fees for a permit referred to in paragraph (a), that may vary according to the quantity of soil removed or the soil or the material deposited, and the rates or levels of fees may be different for different areas of the municipality". Thus Council has express power to impose different fees for different areas and fees which vary in accordance with the amount of soil deposited or removed. Nothing specifically empowers Council to vary fees on the basis of other activity (such as subdivision) that may be associated with the soil removal. It is virtually certain that the bylaw (or at least the portions of the bylaw imposing fees) will be vulnerable to attack if subdivision developers are exempted from fees while those carrying out identical activities in the ahsence of subdivision are required to pay substantial fees. In Remoel Bros. Concrete Ltd. v. District of Mission (1989) 47 M.P.L.R. 71 (Supreme Court of B.C.), a bylaw which imposed a soil removal fee of $ 0.35 per cubic metre but reduced the fee to $ 1.00 per year if the soil was removed from Crown lands was struck down. McKenzie, J. quashed the bylaw on the basis that the Municioal Act does not authorize the District to differentiate between the owners of private lands and lessees of Crown lands in setting soil removal fees. In Cannon Contractine Ltd. v. District of Mission (Supreme Court of B.C., Vancouver No. A901702, November 30, 1990) it was held that Section 930.1 does not authorize permit fees which vary betvreen different businesses. A bylaw provision exempting subdividers, builders and persons removing less than 200 cubic metres of soil from bylaw regulation and permit fees was held to invalidate all fees imposed under the bylaw. You have also inquired whether soil deposits occurring during the course of construction authorized by a building permit or plumbing permit could be made subject to a soil deposit permit requirement, without imposition of u fee. At present, Section 7(d) of the draft Soil Deposit Bylaw exempts soil deposits From regulation and from the permit requirement where deposits are necessary for the construction of a building or structure. Generally, the power to regulate a matter includes a power of partial regulation and to create exemptions from the regulations, although the decision in Cannon Construction apparently disregards that principle. We comment further on this issue below. Once again, a bylaw which regulates soil deposits during construction but exempts such deposits from the permit fee requirement is vulnerable to attack on the basis that Section 930.1 does not authorize such a distinction. If a permit is required for soil deposits occurring in the course of building construction, we recommend that the standard fee be imposed for the permit. We recommend against fees which vary on any basis other than by area or on the quantity of soil deposited or removed. H, Soil Removal The bylaw could be amended to regulate or prohibit soil removal as well as soil deposits. Under Section 930.1(3) of the Municiual Act a bylaw which urohibits the removal of soil must be approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. A bylaw which reaulates soil removal does not require the approval of either Minister. However, a bylaw which imposes a permit fee for deposit or removal does require the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, under Section 930.1(5). You have asked for our recommendation whether a bylaw to regulate or prohibit soll removal should be enacted separately from the proposed soil deposit bylavv. Although soil deposit and soi! removal regulations may be enacted in the same bylaw, there are two reasons to enact separate bylaws: Soil removal byiaws which impose a fee for the removal of soil are very prone to attacks by conipanies in the sand and gravel business. If a soil removal bylaw includes a prohibition of removal, the requirement for approval hy the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources may delay enactment of the bylaw. III. Soil Removal Bylaw Cases As requested, following is a brief summary of cases involving attacks on soil removal bylaws. To date, there are no reported cases involving attempts to quash soil deposit bylaws although in the Chilliwack case discussed below the bylaw was a combination soil deposit and removal bylaw. In Coouitlam v. Lafarae Concrete [1973) 1 W.W.R. 681 (B.C. Court of Appeal) the imposition of a $ 0.15 fee per cubic yard of material extracted was attacked as beyond provincial and municipal authority, as being "indirect taxation" ultimately paid by gravel consumers and not by the contractor who removes the gravel. Such taxation is within the sole jurisdiction of the federal government. IIowever, the Court held that volumetric fees are valid if the substance of the bylaw is the regulation of soil extraction and the fees are incidental to that purpose. The constitutional issue of indirect taxation continues to be raised in cases now in progress. In C.R. Aaareaate Sales v. Souamish (1983) 49 B.C.L.R. 196 (B.C. Court of Appeal) the Court again upheld volumetric fees on a constitutional basis. The Court also held that soil removal bylaws are applicable to the lessees of Crown land. In IGrkuatrick v. Maole R~id e [1986] 6 W.W.R. 97 (Supreme Court of Canada) the Court declined to rule on the constitutional taxation issue but gave a strict interpretation to the former Section 930(d) of the Municioal Act, holding that it only authorized a flat fee for a permit and not a fee which could vary on a volumetric basis. As noted, in 1987 the Legislature added Section 930(2) to the Act, to specifically authorize volumetric fees. Hovrever, in Allard Contractors Ltd. v. ~Co uitlam (No. 1) (1988) 40 M.P.L.R. 96 (Supreme Court of B.C.) Section 930, as amended, was held to authorize a flat permit fee under Section 930(l) and a separate and distinct fee under Section 930(2) for each unit of materiai removed. A "variable permit fee" was held not to be authorized and the bylaw was set aside. Coquitlam then amended its bylaw to impose separate permit fees and removal fees and the bylaw was upheld in Allard Contractors Ltd. v. Coauitiam (No. 2) (1989) 35 B,C.L.R. (2d) 386 (Supreme Court of B.C.). The new bylaw fixed a flat $ 100.00 permit fee and a "removal charge" of $ 0,26 per cubic metre and was held to be authorized by Section 930(2) and within the constitutional'authority of the Province. In Thornhill Azareaates v. Manle Ridge (Suprem. Court of B.C., Vancouver No. A882943, June 27, 1990) an attempt was made to reopen the Allard litigation on new arguments concerning "discriminatoty distinctions without statutory authorization" in the bylaw, but the petition was dismissed. However, in Novetul .r, 1990, Shaw J. in Cannon Construction accepted the argument that a municipal couucii cannot discriminate between businesses in imposing permit fees. As noted, in ~Rem el Bros, v. Mission a bylaw which differentiated between Crown lessees and private owners was set aside. The bylaw aLso levied a soil removal permit fee of $ 100.00 per year uut waived the fee if less than 200 cubic metres was removed. Concerning the exemption from permit fees for persons removing less than 200 cubic metres McKenzie, J. held: not prepared to invalidate Section 3(c) ... which exempts from the necessity of obtaining a soil removal permit those removing 200 cubic metres or less for other than commercial purposes. Such persons escape the fixed fee of $ 100.00 imposed by Section 7(b). It would in my opinion be unconscionable to compel those persons to pay a fee which is obviously set at a commercial scale." "I am The decision in Remnel Bros. v. Mission, wh!le applying the principle that only discrimination authorized by statute may be employed in establishing permit fees, illustrates the courts'raditional willingness to permit partial exercise of municipal regulatory powers and to allow exemptions from bylaw regulations and permit fees. However, in Remnel Bros. Concrete Ltd. v. District of Chilliwack (Supreme Court of B.C., Vancouver No. A901482, February 19, 1991) the Chilliwack soil removal/soil deposit bylaw was struck down, partly on the basis that its permit exemptions (including exemptions for building construction, landscaping, removal of less than 300 cubic metres annually, highway construction and farming) were discriminatory. Counsel for Chilliwack did not argue that the exemptions in the Chilliwack Bylaw could be distinguished from the Crown land exemption in the Remnel Bros. v. Mission decision. l~!~~ I I@I! III IP l d ferent regulations for different circums and varying regulati&&ns is now uncertain. I'IIII I II141 8 tI LKI thl I ~~!I I ! l aii i SR H1 l (II~ KI I I 1, I 'NN I I 1V. Relocation of Soil Within Parcels f 'III/O II You have inquired whether Council has authority to regulate the movement of soil within a parcel of land. Section 930.1(2) of the Municipal Act empowers Council to regulate or prohibit the removal of soil from, and the deposit of soil on, "any land within the municipality or in any area of the municipality". The definitions of "land" in Section I of the Municioal Act and Section 29 of the interpretation Act refer to land generally. "Parcel" AIA I iI A tNAi sI a II I'i'....:.. ~t ~ I I A I II 4 a III'4$ 'ji A ~ I ~ IC IA I ~ I $ AiN I 'S iA lli "I iIJI i is separately defined in Section 1 of the Municioal Act and if the Legislature intended to restrict Council's power to regulation of the relocation of soil between "parcels" it could have done so easily, I'l,'ll I list itS C il gIl I I ~ I I I It":"'I ilNI I :IA I I SI I .hi i ~ II i In our view, Section 930.1 does empower Council to regulate the deposit of soil on land even though that soil originates from another portion of the same parcel. IIII I! 4 No distinction is drawn in Section 930.1 between contaminated soil and other soil and assuming that Council has the power to differentiate between contaminated soil and other soil, any regulations concerning movement of soil within parcels could be limited to contaminated soil only. a ~ I ' ' Ii iinII A a5 ~ III ~ AIi ~ "" I I I g !IR I I IIil l" I I ! AL:: — — - -» lm A' ~ f. ii ~ I jj ~ I I I A Iei I I an Section 2 of the Bylaw confirms that Section 4 applies to all land in the City, including land in the Agricultural Land Reserve, Although Section 4 should be sufficient to carry out Council's intent, for additional certainty the prohibition could be worded as follows: I llm 1'I ! ! "4. No person shall cause or permit the deposit of contaminated soil on any land in the City and without limitation, no person shall: IF4I 44 I 4 4I / swill (a) move contaminated soil into or out of the City; or I I I I Ill (h) remove contaminated soil from land in the City and deposit it elsewhere on the same parcel of land." l ill'I I111 5 I&1 L iti I I Il(jf'll II Given the complexity of the case law on soil deposi". and removal bylaws and the variety of amendments which may arise following further discussion with the Committee, perhaps we should meet to review the content of the bylaw prior to a draft being submitted to Council, Sincerely, LIDSTONE, YOUNG, ANDERSOIV (qif(llitf Alit)IN'Pl Grant Anderson I GA/4523 li ~I~ cc: Mr. Bryan Kirk, Administrator cc: Mr. Igor Zahynacz, City Engineer IIii i i I ii I I 1M ~ I I":4 41 111 f1 ~ I ~ ~ ~ Jiff I 111 11 ~ ~ illIII 1 i Ill( I I ~ II I II lf II I ~ I 3 l'I I„Ii IIH'8 RBCOMMENDATION: II, 1'II I,'~ L)j51 imp~ I(Ill II $f au I I I I aa I I R liltsttttti'pil'ii I I That Committee recommend that Council formally advise the owners of the Intrawest Site at Shaughnessy and Lougheed that we are not supportive of any further subdivision or development of the properties in question until all contamination and remediation have been satisfactorily addressed. BACKGROUND ds CO~S: As reported to the Enviroiunental Protection Conunittee July 30, 1991, Igor Zabynacz and I met with Glen Sigurdson and Danny Zadak of Intrawest Ltd. to discuss the contamination and proposed remediation plans for their property at Shaughnessy and Lougheed. A copy of this report is attached and is self explanatory. We promised in our meeting that we would approach at least the Environmental Protection Committee for their comments regarding this particular development and it is tbe purpose of tlds report to reconunend that Committee consider asking Council to endorse a resolution that the remediation plan must be fully and satisfactorily in place before any further development or subdivision takes place. It'&If .~I 'ii I, ;it i'ii III, I C.F. (Kip) Gaudry, P. Eng. Deputy City Engineer L!IPlliiV &ra&& I I I.I I I I ~II ~ ~ It I I CFG:ck 'I cc: Bryan Kirk, City Administrator r'i Igor Zahynacz, P. Eng., City Engineer OF THE UITLAM IN COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM mistrator DATE: Aug st 2, 1991 dry, P.,Eng., y Engineer Site ental Protection Committee Meeting, July 31, 1991) ction Conunittee dealt with the attached report from the Deputy City 991 at its regular meeting. As an update to the report, the City has now received a three volume report in access of 400 pages the Engineering Office for any who would like to review the contents. in It and summarized to repotr form by the Engineering Department by )Ill% ! Whtle the Envuonmental Protection Committee continues to monitor and with the matter, they felt it important that Mayor and Council be apprise(I of the latestdeal developments and infonuation that is available. ig',glullei g~ «i@ill Liii$ % %III(lS IR II.NI'll II C F (Kip) Gaudry P Eng Deputy City Engineer CFG:gc cc: I.R. Zahynacz, P. Eng., City Engineer u i Illa( Il ra 'u'Ir (hi ( te. I'l'I rl ~ I Ii''i « Ill I I i Fs.i tl 'I «'' ll I I @i~m MIvI 4&ITRI'I ( t;4 PI', j" ()O~tflti(q I'HURBER IJIZ/j)-.i July 31, 1991 19-483-21 pment Corporation West Hastings Street Bob Mason President ME CENTRE REI4EDZAL ZNVESTIGATION FINAL REPORT i& are pleased to present re. B ecause o f e size o the document, we have Home Centre. had 15 copies printed and professionally bound. Five copies have been distributed indicated. We will hold the remainder and will distributeas them as directed. ln the interim, should you have any questions or W1S h to d'cuss is our report, please contact us at your convenience. We our final report on the nature and extent of contamination at the Qsli&l Pli nmrri +me $ 45L li 4$ Ra a Illa & I II I I Yours very truly, Thurber Envir'onmental Consultants Ltd. Colin T. Maber I li ri iisirr III "& ~ ~ Review Principal Joseph G. Alesi Senior Environmental Consultant &&i m /s I pe i i i i I Ir II I JGA/v alai Enclosure I I Ii I I c c. ~ I i I' I I I I I 'i G.A. Sigurdson, Taylor MacCaffery Chapman Sigurdson Igor Zahynacz, P.Eng., Municipal Engineer, City of Port Coquitlam B.K. Martin, Director, Commercial Projects, John Wiens, Ph.D., Head Contaminated Sites CP Rail Louise Duelist, P.Eng., Environmental SafetyUnit, MoE Progranr, MoE Robert Shepherd, P.Eng., Environment Canada, Conservation and protection, Pacific and Yukon Region 411 '% . r ~ 1 1164 I I 5&441 I ~ &41'I 44' 1 144 4 r ,,INI I &1 I 'I'lI I il 1 r 414' I ~ 11 11 1 I & J 444 I IL I I I Iiai TEE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COGUITLAM TO; Environmental Protection Committee FROM: C.F. (Kip) Gaudry, P. Eng. Deputy City Engineer SUB JECT; Intrawest Site DATE: July 30, 1991 IIecominen dation: For Information +aack round & Comments: Igor Zahynacz and I met with Glen Sigurdson and Denny Zadak of Intrawest Ltd. to discuss the site remediation of their property at Shaughnessy and Lougheed. the Currently, land is one large fee simple lot and they originally had proposed to separate into three major lots and develop each independantly. When it was discovered that portions of the site were contaminated, the entire subdivision process came to a hault. They have now reapproached us to see ivhether we would consider subdividing the unccntaminated area from the contaminated area, and allowing at least partial development to go aheacl. 5 g Kgll Igi!.Lem NIJNla 'NRH We did not have the benefit of the actual soils report and proposed remediation plan at the meeting. The gentlemen suggested that it would be coming shortly, as it was just coming off the press this day. I pointed out the following items: ~ ls M aaII I ~ I aal 6 lg I 1 Sms Is l I I! $ 6IIR IB II I 6 I Ill w Is Sl I That I vzould not recoiranend that the land be subdivided since the contaminated site would be isolated into its own parcel of land with fee simple owr ership, and developers could simply walk away from the land leaving an orphaned site for the City to pick up the remediation costs on. That it was premature to make comments on the soils report remediation plan, since we liad not seen it. I R I I A lm J I Jt I! I ~ 'I balll liliI» 'I That the material classified as special waste cannot leave the actual site before it is remediated witliout a special series of permits obtained from the Federal ancl Provincial Governments. I65 6 fL! I! I /a I fimlm I I Rt',I I' I I I IIII l1' Cont'd /2... l ',; ~ . III I I I Il 616' -'ll .'III ~ I ~ . ~I 6 lgllia I IS:" --I , ISIII AN' I'. 6 I l ~ I I I 'l m!" -'' That we have asked that the City has asked the Ministry of Environment for the opportunity to coirment on. any proposed remediation plan from the Intrawest site or the CN lanclsite. I I I IK 6J I,! I II J I II ' I l I ll c I 5', l MR ~~ sl II ~ ~ I gg I IR 4 liat I Rl =~klJJ Report to EPC Cont'd... That the City would definitely want to know the amount of contamination on CP lands before any decision was made on the Intrawest lands since the two are closely tied together and it is virtually impossible to deal with one without the other. Igor Zahynacz also pointed out that the entire subject of liability would have to be dealt with and agreed to prior to any agreement from the Municipality. We also suggested that as an ongoing process the City would attend any meetings and information sessions upcoming on the subject of the contamination of these lands. . C.F. (Ktp) Gaudry, P. Deputy City Engineer CFC:gc f ~PI III'~ illlll g atWR I g ii)I%i% 1% n Ial 5 II~I I'4=::: Ifl ~ggsais IWMIiCI I l gSIIR II r&g J i I ~ M I I% lg It lail ~ II II I I'i II & af i I I j]ilI I I II II !I S II a I~ I I I IV e I' ill I II It I *" '' iIII;-..a sea IIII IK il a Rlf a Ia S t t I u m. ~ * & I al I I IHI Is = aa limn iS I ''i i s »IISSI Ii S I ' I'II! i i 1 I s Sim ~I!SS S sedIS I I — ' !; I asia ~s I 8; a s ~III i iiilF I S Il S i ~ s'still . i ~ Ig S 81!a, i ligts&. It II gg I,'li IIII .I , I SSSF ~ iis S ~ a sS I ~ i I, iia I I ~ ~ 11 — —.-IS s -- is .. 'IIL:; s ~ ~ Is ii lll :~~i i' s ~ FS ==:::;,I"= "='- =.'"=',:9'mfll g I s»Ia si /gRSlgS. .—.-IS ~ C ~ ' ia W!dglll11SIII Ixs 1 I II II|PI I'sa ISi - ~ 11 I ~ III I as „;,'ii I Ill, r..::. I I I! i i I e i I I I ii) i i I i ... isllll 'I Ii! IF I %1 I gill S ~ ~ ~ ii I I II I I :: ~St %KM. I IIPI I i 'L i I IIIS g i l :/if THE CORPORATION OF OF PORT COQUIT THE'ITY MEMORANDUM DATE: November 18, 1991 B.R. Kirk TO: Administrator FROM: I.R. Zahynacz, P. Eng; City Engineer SUB JECT: Multi-Family Recycling Pmgram Options Recommendation: That Council approve the expansion of the City Recycling Program to multi-family developments provided that the owner/Strata Council meet the following requirements: l. That the owner/Strata Council agree to Ttne attached waiver~rentering private property. 2. That the owner/Strata Council assume responsibility for upgrading and maintai'ning th'e internal private roads to minirnutn standards as approved by the Engineering Department with respect to road width, truck turn around areas, snow clearing, and road maintenance. 3. That one person be appointed by the owner/Strata Council as a contact person for recycling. ~ound Comments: dL Attached, correspondence: l. Waiver Agreement. 2. Memo from Project Engineer to City Engineer dated October 29, 1991 regarding multi family recycling. 3. Memo from the Deputy City Engineer to the Environmental Protection Committee dated November 8, 1991. 4. Memo from the Deputy Engineer:to the:Mayor and Council dated November 14, 1991. The proposed Waiver Agreement allows the City to enter onto private property and requires the Strata Council to assume responsibility for any damage to common property, such as roads. Also, the owner/Strata Council would be required to upgrade the internal private roads to at least the back lane standards (minhnum width oi'ix metres for road pavement). .. Mfg I,R. Zallt/n acz~Eng. City E~ineef ''III 4$ I IIINSI I III I I!fllul ll g II I IS I s tu u a 1 il I I IRZ;gc Attachments I 'gIIi 'll IIIIII I / l¹l '-'"3'li Pll 1W I :=::s Iil], ~l ' ilRI+Ifs ' """-:=== 'tj» * — -- -=-- SIIWIeu InmesllIII IIIIIIEggil%"" "~w4 "I~~~ ~ ~ iIsl I f J ~ II II IS I I IS EI I'l laul& I p j Il g a w 4 S 'I 441 I 4sw S & I ~ ~ ~ w— w Il UssIw U-: ' I~- ~III '-s% —.-L1 Isaslls~ll g Iiy ~ ~ ~ I lg'g g IIgl III s w ~ IUI1115g[gW 8%ii I Ul I I Uj ii iIi4 w III s I I sf( I,R,':;„:=;:. WW w ~ ~ -.-.- — uwklwl — 44 ~w~ 4umsll wws .. — —.— NwSL Iw ''wlc ~SU'SSml WAIVER AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made the day of , 1991. BET&VEEN: (the "Strata Council" ) OF THE FIRST PART lgi) KR. THE CORPORATION OP THE C1TY OF PORT 2580 Shaughnessy Street Port Coquhlam, B.C. V3C 2A8 COQ~ et=,=IIIII (the "City" ) OF THE SFCOND PART the City entering on the property located (the "Land" ) and described as Strata Plan No. releases the City, its officer for the purpose of removing recyclable materials, the Strata Council conunon property within the Land, and employees from liability fo~y damage caused to the to access routes, Without limitation, this waiver and..release agreement includes damage of the owners of the Land. landscaping, buildings and structures held as the common property In — Nl v..~ —;,':: g,]( fit~'m II ~ 8 K ~ I II ~ II consideration of Ill ~ ~ I ,;,.".,31/( [] I( I «r. - -='11im1( f ".~ "Nta — ~~ps Nia» m 's+&" ~ a sos m aa I sa 1 ~' .. -. '1 a —: '~'~+& "i I IIIII I I I II =."I:tsC...i "' Z~.'-,"...'.'amilllB 8 ' = =ma III 11PISIj110 "'';.','~ tuaaiiiih(liliI I ll II aRIP stissai s a an'ss ltalll ilil'I 11 I ~ '.~s I%NISI ma l, ~ .— —- ]/$ 1ga~si!& r«isa tts15 '.— ~~I — The Strata Council acknowledges that the City is not required to enter the Land to remove recyclable materials and the City may at any time instruct its vehicle drivers not to enter the Land. THE CORPORATE SEAL of." THE OWNERS, STRATA PLAN was hereunto affixed in the presence of: ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ' c/s ) ) THE CORPORATE SEAL of the CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM was hereunto affixed in the presence of: ) c/s MAYOR CLERK @THE OZ'ORT COQUITLAM THE CORPORATION CITX MEMORANDUM TO: Igor Zahynacz, P.Eng. City Engineer FROM: Andrew de Boer DATE: October 2 9, 1991 Project Engineer M11LTIFAMILX =RECK'CLING COLLECTION STRATEGX ECT i EO~NDAT ION Each Strata development mM developments. '~ mwimR 551M BACKGROUND are Several townhouse complexes fees —"=.=' to a unwilling to bring their recycling blue bags picklocation curb-side to a city road for weekly enter up. Instead they are insisting that the City into the 'complex to pick-up recyclables. This presents to two coricerns to the City, the first being the liabilities associated with City recycling crews entering onto private property. The second is the decrease in collection efficiency which will occur when crews drive into the private roads for pick-up. -;;-llallff Illllgl,la J5L C s ws % il s 0 skhiPI i I I ,N ill/ "— — -M I ~ 15 SSSS ISi ~ 1~M should be examined on an the City individual basis. If at all possible should pick-up from curbside a" Strata developments If a Strata development finds curbside pick-up unacceptable then a suitable sheltered location should be selected within the complex for pick-up. The City would then ask for a letter from the Strata giving permission to the City to enter .its property. A waiver should also ba signed by the Strata to limit some of the City's liability Recycling collection should not be permitted in apartment parking garages. As well, in the interests of collection efficiency and safety, the City should refuse to collect door-to-door within Strata N'- ' I ~~%- — ~~: s~~jmj ~NOESIS St 1+ 1PQjjjjS Sin ..., ",=, ggl S 151 NQW ~sssreallW=:-g MRg/Rljl~~l g 1ljRlj g$ — -- — ! " 'i11 i~~~ gj/~ggllws '! ~~: sss@%%I% +isjjmggimjemijljlRhgyigalaei~ih — I@mggs sis s is = = s i = ~ ~ ~: ~lail ~gjgjgk =— — II' isssssssm '." .,Jg 0 llgggajj / ggg J +gj 'mlls IEsssaas — — — 8 ~ I — ~~ ': — ~ — =' I '= I %Ilia [ggSgjjjjjj~sjW IAHliR Iw~ s1asm,, gg 2 1I 15%5 MULTI-FAMILY PICP-UP IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIE. ~)g) [ 1mu S IIII K I (IIII Three municipalities were consulted to determine their pzoceduzes for multi-family recycling collection: 1%I i III 44 IS IIi iii~ ij~ /15 I I I I $ tllll'll( II 115.III I I I44N I I I 4 I I'I i LII,P, 51 15 SI II IIII » ~ fg g),IM'l& 'I i I II IIIII Vancouvc~ The City of Vancouver presently has a program 'for multi-family recycling using toter pilot .carts.'he program serves apartments using City lanes so their are no problems with entering into private property. When the Vancouver expands, its program city-wide they foresee that the program will mimi.c the existing garbage pick-up service. For example, if a strata complex has a garbage bin within their property, zecycling crews will also enter the property to pick up secyU=„lables. Vancouver will not be using waivers with its expanded program as they feel they will be unenforceable (iiilii filllPILI Ilfl58 l I'Ilg . BIIrnaby f L~hllll Buznaby has a pilot pxogram using toter carts with no private propezty pick-ups. The program is to be &I I 41 expanded City-wide shortly. With their expanded program Burnaby will allow I Ill W I lilii IKli'IIII recycling crews to enter into private property if there is adequate drive-through capability. Crews will not be allowed to go down into apartment garages for pick-up. The City will use a waiver (see enclosed) where entrance onto private propezty is necessary. lail &II IW I I II I ll I I IIII S Iii'j ~ 5Pt mmi 0 ' I 'l I ItI: 1UsII If gSI IIII I I 4 IK II I I I 11 ia I l I I I 11 1 Port Moody has a fully implemented multi-family program using blue bags. The recycling crews enter into all Strata developments and collect from one or two locations usually besides existing garbage bins. The locations aze sheltered and must be approved by the City before collec'tion= can begin. Port Moody will also collect door-t'o'-door from Strata complexes if requested. Because Port Moody uses a two-man crew on their recycling truck, Uane man is able to guide the vehicle through the tight turns in the Strata complex . I in 1iil l'll l I I ra I I ' .I I ! ~ \ I kJ4 -.IkcIf~ Port Hoody uses developments. 55 .. no waivers to COHHENTS ~~~~ l)$ ) ~SNIR II Ill NI IMI N I [ ILIII/11( [IILit tti'itiili I ~ I I IS I'fli I II s III g it iiilt %II . = g i* '."aII III I,.« '.".==' I IL' With this option collection vehicles collect: bags which are placed at one location on'' a Cit'y right-of-way adjacent to the Strata. The advantages of this option is the high collection efficiency and the low liability since the vehicles remain on City right-of-way. The disadvantage is &e -lack wf convenien~o residents. Resident must walk or drive to the strata entrance to drop off their recycling bags. ISIIII Imam %fWS Fllllll )Nil Collect:i on from nne lnr at..inn wi tht n tIhe S~ With this option one location is selected within the Strata complex to collect the recyclable materials. A representat-.ive of the City and the Strata would select a collection point within the complex. The collection point would usually be located near a garbage dumpster for convenience and would be sheltered and easily accessible to recycling crews. With this option t: he City should obtain permission from the Strata to enter its property as well as a waiver absolving the City of liability for damage to property common to the Strata (see enclosed) . II sia ig[iii '' I. Iai Iin 'it I, I ~ 11 11 'I 'I or rnlleotion w'ithin the'tratA This option woul d be the least favorable to the City. The collection would be inefficient and t: he incidence of accidents high. This option is not recommended. II Andrew de Boer Project Enginees. i sI I Iiat I! Ii II 'lIll '9 Ii I I' I III ttt i a The three options which should be considered for multi-family collecti6n in Port Coguitlam are: Mm sl I ~ ~ I enter into Strata CuXb~uke Cnl 1 ant-inn 'I II( P ~ I I'l ,...,a i iae IIII!51 - Mmi~~$51,1~I! TFIE CORPORATION OF QYTYOFFQFTQQQiYITY /~444, IIIIIlil MEMORANDUM R II gg I I DATE: November 8, 1991 TO: Enviroiimental Protection Con»»i(tee FROM: C.F. (Kip) Gaudry Deputy City Engineer SUB JECT: MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLXNG - PROPOSED PROCEDURES i I RMF. % WTIII IRK'R ERR iRI II) iii g i O': I RIFI 4 4 44 atiMR RECO~~QH: &IIIegl@ II II I 4 i II ITllll, III ( !I I I 1(I I&ll'4!1Ii rqj I II Il IRH444'Si I !tb" I Hwll I il! II II4I I Ii'iaisiIi„':l.4 111 ~ !!!(! I ~~S 8& BACKG~&. Currently, we are servicing all single family residences in the City with our recycling program, The next approved step is to»ic)u&le multi-fanuly units in the progfaln, Slllce the»sajority of these developments are strata title we have developed a procedure that will assist us in bri»gusg the multi-family units into the recycliug prograltl. main point here is that the City vehicles will have to enter onto private propeny in order to collect the recycled goods. There is a liability associated with this procedure over and above that normally encountered by City vehicles hs their day to day hostess. Even if the strata (itle corporation or private lot owner signs a waiver of liability the courts will hold that the Ci(y cannot contract away its legal liabili(y responsibilities. Often the roads inside of strata titles are sub-standard when measured against current municipal specifications for a similar road way dcvcloplncnt. 1 or 'this reason you v&E(l i'tote (hat ht thc proccdurcs wc havi: 1(s(cd some flailiit11U(n specifications that must be met, but it should be pointed out that these do not conform to overall municipal specifications and were. hi fact developed on the basis that most of these developments already contain cuircnt roads. Jill'h'e ( R That Coir»nittee r& consmend to Pouncil that the attached procedures be used for bringing multi-family/strata-units into the rccycling program. Rl ills l!, I C.F. (Kip) Gau&hy, P. Eng. Deputy City Engineer CFG:ck following presents. a~rocedure for initiating the collection of recyclable materials from within Strata developments. A representative of the Strata development meets a representative of the City on-site to determine the best location within the Strata for pick-up. The Strata must meet the The guidelines listed below: Roadway within Strata must have a minimum 6 m pavement width. t'h e 1.2 Strata must have a turn around location atback-up be a can turn-around The pick--up point. on a tee intersection or' drive through loop. 1.3 The road curves within the Strata must be of a to allow passage sufficient radius of 'curvature 12. 8 rn turning with a truck "g of a recycld d the pick-up point shall have clearance from overhead sufficient verticalhorizontal from and lines utility buildings and awnings clearance easy to permit trees, trucks. recycling the of passage 1.II The access to The Strata will Tfe asked to fill out an indicate the contact application form which will person is person in the &rata. This unacceptable responsible for collecting materials left behind after the weekly pick-up. a 3. The Strata will be asked to construct location. pick-up sheltered elzclosure at the Upon completion, a city representative will 2. r I nIIIIIs' ~ I I Strata will be=asked to produce a letter allowincr City vehicles and drivers to enter the 5. The Strata property. 6..Upon completion of the required paper work the contact person for the Strata will be issued recycling starter kits and schedules. The contact person will then be given a date when collection will begin. Andrew de Boer Project Engineer hl 5»I ! I II I! ~ '3 I! THE CITY TO: Ni FRO SUI3 The C the re IE !El CO %lllla The I'I Curre Phial'is+it ] I a S= "= these bringin IHI,Q )[) The m in orcl and ab strata ' I P ijilailP exposu clevelo "', 3'Ri ~lii 'Pi II Ilhl I )) i!ill Pili $$ II III I O' II I PIP snnila some m our ve You w C 0 I'ntti In orcl Pr I I il I IIPS ov eral I ii CFG:c t I I t'g! I'4 I S fii = - - . 'i — - -. I4 I'litle ISP (44 4~ I i I \4 ~r I IS ~ — I ~ - I g SPRPSS41=4 — . — I ~ 4 4i S I o 4 I aP I rm 4 SI I 4 41— C6wlliAM PHONE: 944 - 5411 FAX; 944 - 5409 oil Bvlaws Further to our meeting on November 16, 1991 with Council, we request that you now prepare the following three Bylaws in draft form: li,I4414R Soil Removal Bylaw Soil Deposit Bylaw ($ j!34iiPmi& Contaminated Soil Bylaw Since we have not had draft Bylaws in the specific area of removal and contaminated soUs, I would suggest that the Removal Bylaw be drafted in a similar format and content to the Deposit Bylaw and the Contaminated Soils Bylaw be drafted based on other Municipality's current Bylaws. lllliiii'a 4IIIIBI $ $ 1$ IM44m4 f (g I ] gl I I al 994 14% I ~ IS lIIIS iISIN J Ililg» IisIJII I i ! I IIa; I II 9 Pg II I N I Two other issues came to mind during the discussions that I would like you to consider and advise me on. Firstly, we would like a requirement for a letter of credit for the estimated quantity to be deposited or removed. In addition, we must determine and specify exactly how each of the measurements are to be taken, i.e. in situ or by gravel box measurement. Further, if we use in situ measurement, we must specify the point in time that the measurement is taken since over tune dumped materials will consolidate and the volumetric measurement will be less. I suggest that the volumetric measurements be taken once every three months and the necessary payments made to the City. I also feel that for the Soil Removal Bylaw we should use an in situ measurement before and after the removal takes place and in the Soil Deposit Bylaw we can use in situ for any permit in access of 200 cubic metres but use gravel box measurement for pemuts less than 200 cubic metres. c. Yours truly, 'sI 1!II I J II I sa 'll l441 41 CFG:gc lsll] I I 'I11!I "11 is 9 J cc: Mayor Traboulay Alderman Gates & Alderman Gordon Bryan Kirk, City Adn&inistrator Ron Freeman, City Clerk Igor Zahynacz, F. Eng., City Engineer Deputy City Engineer I J 't I ~ I ~ I sl C.F. (Ktp) Gaudry, P. Deputy City Engineer g Whse aiba t e SUB JECT: RecycHng Program - Increased Advertising The Environmental Protection Comndttee considered your memo of 'November 6, 1991 regarding the Mayor's request for increased advertising and possibly purchasing additional recycling bags. Committee did not support the concept of purchasing additional recycling bags as it might promote the residents dependance upon the City for supply of the bags in the future. Committee also felt that the plans to spend additional money on recycling advertising should wait until the 1992 Budget is approved. C D CFG:gc illMIU(~ 513%i:.=. ~ Q j P ta j~uaa 'aa a s g', 4 g f[ Q iia m'g ll I 'll ~I I gg I tie all IPIRlg g jl,1 ill $ i f gl,'g gr ill,"JIkl $ g flic asn I I I Ill l%5'iia tij It I lit',. Ilium as I 8 ~ 'I& II I [a Pl('5 i i rs tap ig'lgwu I IIs','0 15 + ll THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PORT COQUITLAM IS IS TO: C.F. (I&ip) Gaudry, P.Eng. Deputy City Engineer DETR 19 6 6,1991 Qtt Andrew de Boer, EIT Pro lect Engineer e FROM: I.R. Zahynacz, P. Eng. City Engineer SUB JECT: Recycling Pmgram Mayor Traboulay has reviewed the memo from Andrew to Kip on the Port Coquitlatn recycling pxogram datecl November 4, l991 ancl stated that he is in favour of options 2 & 3 in the report. Mayor Traboulay is especially interested in more advertising, and even possibly purchashtg additional recycling bags to encourage recyclmg. I noted that Andrew de Boer may be ar anging through Seaboarcl Advertising to utilize ten percent of tbe advettising space in the bus shelters in Port Coquitlam for promoting recycling. Please acid these comments to the presentation of the recycling program to the Environmental Protection Committee. I.R. Z'6 I k*', P~E City-Engineer IRZ: gc I IIR i IF, e i l Iil I li acme la'I e ee I 4 III ~ i li li1 ls e 4E'IL l m 1 i II II I gift'9 lie I me gl 9 l 'ee15 jg 'lse'i!a& Iiie.l.9!,E elleCS 6~9 I