Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 21, 2002PICKERING AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING Anne Greentree Supervisor, Legislative Services MAY 21, 2002 PICKEI NG Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, May 21, 2002 7:30 P.M. (i) (II) 1. (IIi) 1. (IV) 1. 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 6. 2002 PRESENTATION Ralph Sutton, President of the Ajax-Pickering Big Brothers and Sisters, will present a plaque in recognition of being the 2002 Bowl for Kids Sake "Mayor's Challenge Winner". DELEGATIONS John Ibbetson, 787 Sheppard Ave., will address Council concerning Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/01 submitted by Marion Hill Development Corporation. The following delegations will address Council concerning Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01,701-711 Krosno Blvd.: a) Ramesh Patel, 701-711 Krosno Blvd. b) Nick Givalas, 7725 Birchmount Road, Unit 13. Markham c) Maureen Charlton, 867 Hillcrest Rd. d) David Lirm 713 Krosno Blvd. RESOLUTIONS To adopt the Planning Committee Report dated May 13. 2002. To adopt the Committee of the Whole Report dated May 13. 2002. PAGE 1-4 5-7 (V) BY-LAWS By-law Number 5975/02 Being a By-law to amend By-law 2359/87 regulating parking, standing and stopping on highways on private and municipal property. Deferred back to staff at the May 6~ 2002 Council Meeting By-law Number 5985/02 Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, on Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, in the City ofPickering. (A 03/01) PURPOSE: ZONING BY-LAW LOCATION: 1911 VALLEY FARM ROAD APPLICANT: SEAN AND ANN REGAN By-law Number 5986/02 Being a by-law to prohibit the excessive barricading or fortification of all lands, buildings and structures appurtenant to any land within the City of Pickering. 8-10 11-16 17-20 Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, May 21, 2002 7:30 P.M. Bv-law Number 5987/02 Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation- 905 Bayly St., 1915 Denmar Rd., 1310 Fieldlight Blvd. and 1345 Altona Road) By-law Number 5988/02 Being a by-law to adopt Amendment 8 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering. (OPA 01-002/P) 21 22-29 NOTICE OF MOTION Moved by Councillor Holland Seconded by Councillor Brenner 30-59 WHEREAS the Municipality of Clarington in the Regional Municipality of Durham is bidding to be the host municipality for the International Fusion Energy Research and Development Project (ITER); and WHEREAS the ITER project will lead essential, international research into the commercially viable creation of a cleam renewable energy source to meet the energy needs of subsequent generations through fusion; and WHEREAS the successful bid to bring ITER to Clarington ,Mil mean an immediate infusion of highly skilled jobs and provide a significant economic stimulus to Durham Region while raising Canada's status as a leader in research in development; and WHEREAS the location of two nuclear power facilities within the Region of Durham provides a regular source of local tritium and an expansive base of nuclear expertise which makes Durham an idea location to host the ITER project; and WHEREAS hosting the ITER project within the Region of Durham is widely supported by the community and understood to be a unique opportunity to play an important role in the genesis of a potentially revolutionary new' source of energy; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering confirms its full support for the ITER project and strongly urges the selection committee to opt for the Municipality of Clarington in the Region of Durham as host for the project; and THAT the Corporation of the City' of Pickering hereby confirms its confidence in the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's ability to undertake a thorough and complete environmental assessment of the project: and THAT this motion be circulated to; · All area Mayors and Chairs Dan McTeague, M.P. - Ajax-Pickering-Uxbridge (VII}OTHER BUSINESS (VllI) CONFIRMATION BY-LAW ADJOURNMENT Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, May 21, 2002 ?:30 P.M. RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the Report of the Planning Committee dated May t 3. 2002. tx' adopted. CARRIED: MAYOR PICKFIdNG Appendix 1 Planning Committee Report PC-2002/5 That the Planning Committee of the City of Pickering having met on May 13, 2002 presents its fifth report to Council: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 21-02 REVISED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OPA 99-004/P(R) REVISED ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 22/99(R) PICKERING HARBOUR COMPANY PART OF LOT 23, RANGE 3, B.F.C. (LANDS ON THE WEST SIDE OF LIVERPOOL ROAD, AND SOUTH SIDE OF WHARF STREET ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 13/01 PICKERING HARBOUR COMPANY (COOLWATER FARMS PROPERTY) PART OF LOT 22, RANGE 3, B.F.C. (LANDS ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVERPOOL ROAD, AND SOUTH OF WHARF STREET) That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 99-004/P(R), submitted by the Pickering Harbour Company to redesignate land located on the west side of Liverpool Road, south of Wharf Street, within Parts of Lot 23, Range 3, BFC, to revise Table 3 of the Pickering Official Plan - Open Space System: Permissible Uses by Subcategory - Marina Area to broaden the list of permissible uses to permit the proposed 66 unit residential development be REFUSED in light of Amendment 6 to the Pickering Official Plan; and That Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A 22/99 and A 13/01, submitted by the Pickering Harbour Company to permit on the East Shore Marina lands the upgrading of the marina uses and the development of 66 townhouses with the potential for ground floor commercial uses in those dwellings fronting Liverpool Road, and to permit on the Coolwater Farms lands retail, office, and boat storage uses, be ENDORSED IN PRINCIPLE, AS REVISED BY STAFF, in accordance with the Council - adopted Amendment 6 to the Pickering Official Plan, to permit on the East Shore Marina lands the upgrading of the marina uses and the development of a maximum 26 townhouses fronting Liverpool Road with the potential for ground floor corm-nercial, and to permit on the Coolwater Farms lands retail, office, and winter boat storage, as set out in the staff recommended implementing by-law attached as Appendix I to Report Number PD 21-02; and That City staff and representatives be authorized to present Recommendations #1 and #2 to the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing as Council's position on Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 99-004/P(R), Zoning By-taw Amendment Applications A22/99(R) and Al3/01, and further authorize City staff and representatives to make adjustments to the staff recommended implementing by-law as technical issues are finalized. Appendix I Planning Committee Report PC-2002/5 '3 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 24-02 PICKER1NG OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA 01-002/P ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 04/01 MARION HILL DEVELOPMEN[ CORPOtLATION PART LOT 28, RANGE 3. B.F.C. (NOW PART 1, PLAN 14431 & PART 1. PLAN 40R-2767) LSOUTH-EAST CORNER OF WHITES ROAD ,&ND SHEPPARD AVENUE) 1. (a) That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-002/P. submitted by Marion Hill Development Corporation on lands being Pan of Lot 28. Range 3, B.F.C. in the City of Pickering. to replace the O?ban Residential Areas: Low Densi~. Areas designation on lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue with a Urban Residential Areas: Medium DensiO' Areas designation on Schedule I Land Use Structure be APPROVED AS REVISED. to also add various site-specific policies to section 11.8. g'oodlands Neighbour]u~od Policies. for the subject lands, including a cap in the maLximum residential density of 55 units per net hectare, as set out in Appendix 1 to Report Number PD 24-02: and (b) That the draft bv-lax~ to adopt Amendment 8 to the Pickering Official Plan be FORWARDED TO COUNCIL lbr enactment, as set out in Appendkx I to Report Number PD 24-02. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPOR'I PD 20-02 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 03-02 SEAN AND ANN REGAN 1911 VALLEY FARM ROAD PART OF LOT 20. CONCESSION I That Zoning By-law' )m~endment Application A 02/01. submitted bv Sean and Ann Regain tbr 1911 Valle,,' Farm Road. being Pan of Lot 20. Concession 1. City of Pickering, to amend the zoning of the subject lands fi'om -ICg" to a -SA-11" zone. in order to permit the development of five (5) street townhouses on the subject lands, be APPROVED. subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 20-02: and That the amending zoning bv-laxv to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/01, as set out in draft in Appendkx II to Report Number PD 20-02, be tbrv,,arded to City Council tbr enactment: and That the request made by Sean and Ann Regan. to permit the dMsion of the subject lands, 1911 Valley Farm Road. being Pan of Lot 20. Conccssion 1. City of Pickering to create a total of five residential building lots through land severance, rather than by draft plan of subdivision, be APPROVED. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 22-02 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 22/01 1381190 ONTARIO LIMITED BLOCK T, PLAN M15 701 - 711 KROSNO BOULEV.® That Zoning Bv-law Amendment Application A 2201. submitted by Ramesh Patel. on lands being Block T. Plan M15. City of Pickering. to amend the existing zoning to include a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar. a dr,,' cleaning depot, and technical amendments to claritX' existing yard requirements on the subject lands, be Appendix 1 Planning Committee Report PC-2002/5 APPROVED AS REVISED, to permit the cominuance of the existing gas bar, with limited sale of accessory convenience items as permitted by the Committee of Adjustmem Application P/CA 44/00 and technical amendments to clarify existing yard requirements on the subject lands subject to the conditions included in Appendix 1 attached to Report No. PD 22-02, as revised to: (1) delete Condition 1.0 (a) (uses - convenience store/dry cleaning depot use) (2) delete Condition 1.0 (b) (size restriction for convenience store/dry cleaning depot uses) PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 17-02 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 26/01 689629 ONTARIO LIMITED 420 SHEPPARD AVENUE SOUTH PART OF LOT 32, CONCESSION 1 (PART 2, PLAN 40R- 17618) That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/01, submitted by Grant Morris, on lands being South Part of Lot 31, Concession 1, (Part 2, 40R-17618), City of Pickering, to amend the zoning of the lands to permit the establishmem of a second dwelling unit in the main dwelling, and to convert the existing barn in the rear yard into a garage and dwelling unit, on the subject property, be APPROVED AS REVISED to permit the establishment of a second dwelling unit in the main dwelling; subject to conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report No. 17-02. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REPORT CL 05-02 PICKERING GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY That Council receive for information, Report to Council CAO 05-02 (Revised) concerning a growth management study; and That Council authorize the establishment of a working group made up of council and staff representatives through public notice and invitation to draft detailed terms of reference for the growth management study, and that Council appoint the following members of Council to sit on this working group: That the working group use the ground roles and elements of the growth management study as set out in this Report as the basis for preparing the detailed terms of reference for the study, and that the working group complete and forward these terms of reference to Council for consideration in June 2002. That a copy of this Report be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Region of Durham, and the Toromo and Region Conservation Authority for information. RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY "')00'~ be adopted. That the Report of the Committee of the Whole dated May 1.~ .... CARRIED: MAYOR Appendix I Committee of the Whole COW-2002-6 That the Committee of the Whole of the City of Pickering having met on May 14, 2002, presents its sixth report to Council and recommends: CLERKS REPORT CL 14-02 2002 CURRENT AND CAPITAL BUDGETS -AJAX PICKERING TRANSIT AUTHORITY That the letter from the General Manager of the Ajax Pickering Transit Authority dated April 2, 2002 advising of the resolution passed by the Board of APTA regarding the 2002 Current and Capital Budgets of APTA be received. That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby approves the 2002 APTA Current and Capital Budgets as set out in APTA Report 07-02 attached to the April 2, 2002 letter of the General Manager of APTA. CLERKS REPORT CL 01-02 (ADDENDUM) PROCESSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS & PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS o That Clerk's Report CL 01-02 (Addendum) respecting the Processing of Development Applications and Public Notification be received; and That the Sunmmry of Recommendations of the Staff and the Community Associations as set out in Clerk's Report CL 01-02 (Addendum) respecting improvements to the processing of development applications and public notifications be adopted as noted. That the said Summary of Recommendations of the Staff and the Community Associations be implemented in September, 2002. That the said Smrmmry of Recommendations of the Staff and the Community Associations be reviewed in January of 2004. CLERKS REPORT CL 13-02 COUNCIL EXPENSES WHEREAS Subsection 255(1) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, as amended, (the "Act") provides that where an elected member of a council of a municipality or a local board is, under a by-law or resolution of the council of such local board, paid a salary, indemnity, allowance or other remuneration, one-third of such amount shall be deemed to be for expenses incident to the discharge of his or her duties as a member of the council or such local board; and WHEREAS Subsection 478(10) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, provides that subsection 255(1) of the Act ceases to apply to elected members of the council of a municipality or its local boards on January 1, 2003 unless the municipality passes a resolution before January 1, 2003 stating its intention that one-third of the remuneration paid to the elected members of the council and its local boards shall continue as expenses incident to the discharge of their duties as members of the council or local board; NOW THEREFORE it is the intention of the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering that one-third of the remuneration paid to the elected members of the Council and its local boards shall continue as expenses incident to the discharge of their duties as Members of Council or local boards. Appendix 1 Committee of the Whole COW-2002-6 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REPOR'I' CAO 04-02 AUTHORITY FOR THE CHIEF ADMINISTtL~XTIVE OFFICER TO APPROVE CONTRACTS DURING RECESSES OF COUNCIL That Report to Council CAO 04-02 seeking authorization by the Chief Administrative Officer to act in Council's approval capacity on behalf of Council during any recess, break or absence of City Council be received: and That subject to the Council approved Purchasing Policy& Procedure. the Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to act in Council's approval capacity on behalf of Council during any recess, break or absence of Citx Council on the condition that: a) such actions are in compliance xvith the Purchasing Policy & Procedure as approved under Resolution 136/01: and b) the costs thereof are xvithin the budget previousl? approved by Council; and c) a report respecting those approvals is subsequently submitted to Council. 3. That appropriate officials of the City of Picketing be authorized to give effect thereto. THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 5975/02 Being a by-law to amend By-law 2359/87 regulating parking, standing and stopping on highways on private and municipal property. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45, sections 218.52, 210.73,210.123-126, 210.131,310, 314.7, and 314.8, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering enacted By-law 2359/87 regulating parking, standing and stopping on highways and on private and on municipal property; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Schedule 'A' to By-law 2359/87, as amended, is hereby amended by deleting therefrom the following items: Highway Side Between/And Prohibited Times and Days Pepperwood Gate North Major Oaks Road 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and 226 meters east Monday - Friday of Major Oaks Road Schedule 'A' to By-law 2359/87, as amended, is hereby amended by adding thereto the following items: Highway Side Between/And Prohibited Times and Days Chipmunk Street East Oklahoma Drive 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Sunrise Avenue Monday to Friday, September 1 st to June BOth' Pepperwood Gate North and East Major Oaks Road 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and 322 meters east Monday - Friday. of Major Oaks September 1st to June Road BOth. BY-LAW read a first, second, and third time and finally passed this 6th day of May 2002. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, City Clerk tql iH CRT. AVEN U E DRIVE ilXLAHOMA D~I'x/E SAM ,mC/ LArq E TULLO S i CEC LYNX ~ '0 ?( W 0 FR · H ~LEN £AT, NE PAR K ETTE i BAYS "~- CRTU~ VIS TUA4 F£E/V CH/vfAN 'S PUBLIC / L±JI SCHOOL 014 LAH 0 MA -,% PROPOSED ~I--- ~ NO STOPPING OPEtLA. TIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUN!CIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION SCALE: / PLOT DATE~ 1:4000 [ MAR 4/2002 TRAFFIC REPORT LOCATION OF PROPOSED STOP SIGNS ATTACHMENT#, m TO~#!)~ PEACH ~)D LAN E UNDERHILL COURT CROSSIN~~ HARROW SMITH COURT BAQQtNS DELLBROOK NO BY-LAW YNMAR )OD GREENMOUNT VALLEY FARM PUBL/C SCHOOL PARK z ~ TAWNBE OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION 1:4000 MAR 4/2002 ALPINE LANE TRAFFIC REPORT LOCATION OF PROPOSED NO STOPPING ZONE PLANNiNG 8: DEVELOPXlENT DEPARrI'MEN]- MEMOIL~XDU*i May 14, 2002 Subject: Bruce Taylor City Clerk Ross P3qn Principal Planner - Development Review Draft Amending By-law Zoning By-law Amendment Application A03 i02 Sean and Ann Regan 1911 Valle,,,' Farm Road Pan of Lot 20. Concession 1 City of Picketing On May 13, 2002 the Planning Committee reconm~ended approval of Zoning funendment Application A 0302 to permit the development of five (5) street townhouses on the subject lands. If Council adopts Planning Committee's recommendation ibr approval at their May 21,2002 meeting, Council may consider thc attached Zoning By-law latex- at the same meeting. A Statutory Public Meeting was held for this application on February 21, 2002. Please note that this b~'-la~v may be given all three readings at the May 21, 2002 Council Meeting, provided Council approves the above-noted application earlier that same Meeting. The purpose and effect of this by-law is to permit the development oJ- five (5) street townhouses on the subject lands. If you require further assistance or clarification, please cio not hesitate to contact the undersigned. I concur that this by-law be considered at this time. .1 Dir~ent Ross Pvn2. %ICIP. RPP Principal Planner- Development Review RP/td Attaclmaent 0_!2 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NUMBER 5985/02 Being a By-law to anmnd Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, on Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering. (A 03/01) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing deems it desirable to permit the development of freehold townhouses on Part of Lot 20 Concession 1, in the City of Picketing; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: SCHEDULE 1 Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands on Part of Lot 20 Concession 1, in the City of Pickering, designated "SA-11" on Schedule I attached hereto. GENERAL PROVISIONS No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-la~v. DEFINITIONS In this By-law, (1) (a) "Dwelling" shall mean a building or part of a building containing one or more dwelling units, but does not include a mobile home or trailer; (b) "Dwelling Unit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent and separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitchen and sanitary facilities; (c) "Dwelling, Single Attached or Single Attached Dwelling" shall mean one of a group of not less than 3 adjacent dwellings attached together horizontally by an above grade common wall; (2) (a) "Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the area of the floor surface contained within the outside walls of a storey or part of a storey; (b) "Gross Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, or part thereof as the case may be, other than a private garage, an attic or a cellar; (3) (a) "Lot" shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as the site of a building, or a group of buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area, regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot or block on a registered plan of subdivision; (b) "Lot Coverage" shall mean the percentage of lot area covered by all buildings on the lot; "Lot Frontao_e" shall mean the widtt~ ora lot betv,'een tine side lot lines measured along a line paratlel to and 7.5 metres distant from tile fl-ont lot line: (4) "Private Garag_~ shall mean an enclosed or partially enclosed structure tbr thc storage of one or inore vehicles, in which structure no business or se~wice is conducted for profit or otherwise; (~) "Yard" shall mean an area of land which is appurtenant to and located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open. uncovered and unoccupied above ground except for such accessory buildings, structures, or ortner uses as are specifically permitted thereon: lb) "Front Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the full xvidth o£ a lot between the front lot line of the lot and the nearest wall et'the nearest main building or structure on the lot; "Front Yard Depth" si'roll mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a front yard ora lot between the front lot line and it~e nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (d) "Rear Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the Full width ora lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot line, tile junction point o£ tile side lot lines, and tile nearest wall o f fine nearest main building or structure on tile lot; "Rear Yard Depth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a rear yard ora lot between the rear lot line, or where there is no rear lot line thejunction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of tine nearest main building or structure on tile lot: "Side Yard" shall mean a yard of a lot extending from thc front yard to tile rear yard and from tile side lot line to the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on thc lot: "Side Yard \Vidth" shall mean tile si~ortest horizontal dimension of a side yard ora lot between the side lot line and the nearest ,,',all o£the nearest main building or structure on the lot; PROVISIONS ("SA-11" Zone) (1) Uses Pein'fitted ("SA-Ii" Zone) No person shall, within tile lands designated "SA-11" on Scincdule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the follov,'ing: (a) single attached dwelling residential use: (2) Zone Requirements ("SA-Il" Zone) No person shall, within tile lands designated "SA-ll" on Schedule 1 attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) LOT AREA Uninimum)' l S0 square metres (b) LOT FRONTAGE (minimum): 5.0 metres (c) FRONT YARD DEPTH (minimum}: O.0 metres -3- (d) SIDE YARD WIDTH (minimum): (i) 1.2 metres; and (ii) on the side where dwellings on adjacent lots are attached, no side yard is required, provided any wall other than the common wall that is on the side of the lot upon which the dwellings are attached, shall be set back from the lot line separating such lots as follows: A 1.2 metres measured perpendicularly to such side lot line if no side yard is provided on the abutting lot; or B 0.6 metres measured perpendicularly to such side lot line if a side yard is provided on the abutting lot. (e) REAR YARD DEPTH (minimum): 7.5 metres (g) LOT COVERAGE (maximum): 40 percent (h) BUILDING HEIGHT (maximum): 12.0 metres (i) DWELLiNG UNIT REQUIREMENTS: maximum one dwelling unit per lot and minimum gross floor area - residential of 100 square metres; 0) PARKING REQUIREMENT: minimum one private garage per lot, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from the front lot line and not less than 6.0 metres from any side tot line immediately adjoining or abutting a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street; (k) SPECIAL REGULATIONS (i) Single Attached Dwellings in an "SA-11" zone shall be attached above grade by a common wall which extends from the base of the foundation to the roof line and for a horizontal distance of not less than 75 percent of the horizontal depth of the building; BY-LAW 3036 By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 21 day of May .2002. Mayor, Wayne Arthurs Clerk, Bruce Taylor SA-11 AND 5 i 506 SCHEDULE T TO BY-LAW . 5985/O2 PASSED THIS DAY OF ~vja~v. 2002 MAY©R - CLERK ROSEFIELD ROAD ROAD RTON STREET LANE BOULEVARD 0 rY GETA )- CIRCLE COURT COURT COURT BAYLY City of Pickering STREET I I I I I I [ I ALLIANCE BAYLY PLUMMER STREET STREET Planning & Development Department N DATE 14, 2002 MAY THE CORPORATION OF TIlE CITY OF PICKERiNG BY-LAWNO. 5986/92 Being a by-law to prohibit the excessive barricading or fortification of all lands, buildings and structures appurtenant to any land ,,vithm the City of Pickering WHEREAS pursuant to Section 217(1) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45. as amended, a municipality that is responsible tbr the enforcement of the Building Code Act, 1992. may regulate the tbrtification of and protective elements applied to land in relation to the use of the land and prohibit the excessive fortification of land or excessive protective elements being applied to land in relation to the use of the land; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNC1L OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. In this By-law, a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) DEFINITIONS "Chief Building Official" means the Chief Building Official appointed by Council pursuant to Section 3 of the Building Code Act. S.O. 1992. c.23, as amended, and includes an Inspector appointed pursuant to that Act. "City" means the Corporation of the City of Pickering. "Construct and Construction" means to do anything in the erection, installation, extension or nmterial alteration or repair of a building and includes the installation ora building unit thbricated or moved from elsewhere. "Emergency Services" means police, Ike and ambulance services. "Land" means land, including buildings, mobile homes, mobile buildings, mobile structures, outbuildings, fences, erections, physical barriers and an5' other structure on the land or on or in any structure on the land. "Municipal Law Enforcement Officer" includes a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer appointed pursuant to either paragraph 45 of Section 207 of the Municipal Act or pursuant to subsection 18(1) of the Police Services Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 15. as amended. "Person" means a natural person, an indMduat, a firm, a corporation, an association or partnership and their heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representative of a person to whom the context can apply according to the law, and includes an owner, lessee and tenant of land within the geographic linfits of the City of Pickering. "Protective Elements" means objects, material components, excavation, or any contrivance designed to control, restrict, or render injuD' to lawful access to or from land or premises, and lbr purposes of this by-law shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to: i) protection plates made of metal or any nmterial and installed inside or outside a building. ii) iv) vi) vii) viii) laminated glass or any other type of glass or material that is bulletproof or difficult to break in the event of a fire, installed in windows or doors including protection shutters. armoured or specially reinforced doors made fbr resisting the impact of firearms, battering rams or explosives. grills or bars made of metal or any other material installed on doors, windows and other openings that limits the quick entrance or exit from a building or structure in an emergency situation, except for those installed at the basement or cellar level. substantive bricking over or infilling of windows and doorways. the obstruction or installation of secondary walls in front of landings, doors or windows. concrete, metal or any other material installed as pillars or barriers prohibiting or hindering access onto any land through conventional means or modes of transportation. fences and gates constructed, installed, maintained or reinforced with metal or like materials in excess of 3 (three) millimeters in thickness. surveillance systems. GENERAL PROHIBITION No person shall: a) fortify or barricade any land, building, or structure or other area or part thereof for the purpose of, or which would have the effect of, restricting or hindering access by Emergency Services onto that land, building, structure or other area. b) construct any land and/or premises so as to restrict, obstruct or hinder any person, including emergency services personnel, from accessing and/or exiting in a timely manner, any land, property, building or structure appurtenant to property. c) assemble, install or maintain, nor permit to be assembled, installed or maintained, any inaterial element which is intended to reinforce or fortify land, or which does reinforce or fortify land. d) construct, assemble, install or maintain, nor permit to be constructed assembled, installed or maintained, any protective element on land. EXEMPTIONS The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this By-law: a) financial institutions zoned for such use or otherwise permitted by law. b) c) d) detention centres, zoned for such use or otherwise permitted by law. security service businesses, zoned for such use or otherwise permitted. all other commercial, business, industrial or institutional establishments as determined by the Chief Building Official where the nature of the undertaking necessitates particular elements of fortification or protection and where such use is permitted by the Zoning By-laws of the City or provided such use is otherwise lawfully permitted. POWER OF ENTRY A Municipal Law Enforcement Officer or Chief Building Official may, at any reasonable time, enter and inspect any land to determine whether this By-law, or an Order under this By-law, is being complied with. ORDERS If a Mmficipal Law Entbrcement Officer or Chief Building Official is satisfied that a contravention of this By-law has occurred, the Officer or Chief Building Official may nmke an Order requiring work to be done to correct the contravention and the Order shall set out: a) the municipal address or the legal description of the land. b) reasonable particulars of the contravemion and of the work to be done and the period within which there must be compliance with the Order. c) a notice stating that it' the work is not done in compliance with the Order within the period it specifies, the City may have the work done at the expense of the owner. The period described in Section 5(b) shall not be tess than three months il' the ibrtification or protective elements were present on the land on the day this By-law is passed. If the work required by an Order under Sections 5 or 6 is not done within the specified period, the Municipal Lax¥ Enforcement Officer or Chief Building Official may. at any reasonable time, enter upon the land or may make arrangements tbr municipal employees or a contractor retained by the municipality tbr that purpose, to enter upon the land to do the work. No person shah exercise a power of entD' under this By-law to enter a place, or a part of a place, that is used as a dwelling unless, a) the occupier of the dwelling consents to the entu. having first been informed of his or her right to refuse consent: or b) if the occupier refuses to consent, the power to enter is exercised under the authority of a warrant issued under Section 158 of the Provincial Offences Act. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT The Chief Building Official and the Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shah be entitled to enforce the provisions of this By-law. 10. PENALTIES Every person who contravenes an.',' provision of this By-law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction thereof is liable to a frae in the an~ount provided for by' the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990. c. P.33. as anaended, or any successor legislation thereto. 11. CONFLICT Subject to Section 12, where a provision of this Bv-law conflicts with the provision of any other By-law of the City or any applicable government regulation, the provision that establishes the higher standard to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public shall prevail. 12. Notwithstanding Section 11 and despite Section 35 of the Building Code Act, 1992, if there is a conflict between the Building Code under the Building Code Act, 1992 and this By-law, the Building Code prevails. 13. SEVERABILITY If a Court of competem jurisdiction should declare any Section in this By-law or pan thereof, to be invalid, such Section or part of a Section shall not be construed as having persuaded or influenced Council to pass the remainder of this By-law as being invalid and is hereby declared that the remainder of the by-law shall be valid and remain in force. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 21st day of May, 2002. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk THE CORPORATION OF THE C1T¥ OF PICKERING B'f-LA\V NO. 598Z~¢2__ Being a by-law to appoint Bv-la~ ETrt'orcement Oi~]cers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation -905 Bayly St., 1915 Denmar Rd.. 1310 [:ieldlight Blvd and 1345 Altona Rd. ) WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(I) of the Police Services Act.. R. SO. 1991). c.P.15, as amended, a mmficipal council may appoint persons to entbrce the by-laws of tt~e mtmicipality and WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(2) of' the said Act, municipal by-law enforcement officers are peace ofricers tbr the purpose o1' entbrcing municipal bv-lax~ s: NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKER1NG HEREBY ENACTS .AS FOLLOWS: ]'hat the following persons be hereby appointed as municipal laxx enlbrcement officers in and for the City of Picketing in order to aster-rain whether the provisions of Bv-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to enfbrce or carry into effect the said Bv-taxv and are hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands mumcipally known as 905 Bayly St., 1915 Denmar Rd., 1310 Fieldlight Blvd. and 1345 Altona Rd. James Robert William Thorns Piotr Bednarczyk Joseph Posteraro The authority granted in section I hereto is specifically limited to that set out in section and shall not be deemed, at any time. to exceed the authority set out in section 1 These appointments shall expire upon the person listed in section l ceasing to be employees of Authorized Parkin5 Only Ltd. or upon Authorized Parking Only I~td. ceasing to be an agent of 905 Bayly St., 1915 Denmar Rd.. 1310 Fieldlight Blvd. and 1345 Altona Rd., or upon whichever shall occur first BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 21 st day of May, 2002. XVavne Arthurs. Mayor Bruce Taylor. Clerk n22 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDU1Vi May 15, 2002 To: From: Subject: Bruce J. Taylor City Clerk Steve Gaunt Planner II Amendment 8 to the Pickering Official Plan (Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-002/P) Marion Hill Development Corporation Part Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. (now Part 1, Plan 40R-14431 and Part 1, Plan 40R-2767) (Southeast comer of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue City of Pickering On May 13, 2002, Planning Committee considered Planning & Development Report PD-24-02 which recommends that: 1) Council approve Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 01-002/P to replace the Urban Residential Areas - Low DensiO~ Areas designation on the subject lands with an Urban Residential Areas - Medium DensiO' Areas designation and add various site-specific policies to section 11.8, ~bodlands Neighbourhood Policies, including a cap in the maximum residential density of 55 units per net hectare in the Pickering Official Plan; and 2) that Council enact a draft by-law to adopt Amendment 8 to the Pickering Official Plan. A draft by-law for the enactment of Amendment 8 to the Pickering Official Plan has been prepared and is attached for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for May 21, 2002. A Statutory Public Meeting was held for these applications on May 17, 2001. Please note that this by-law may be given all three readings at the May 21, 2002 Council Meeting provided Council adopts the recommendation of Planning Committee. The purpose and effect of Amendment 8 to the Pickering Official Plan is to redesignate the portion of the subject lands that fronts Sheppard Avenue from Iow density to medium density residential, while adding site-specific neighbourhood policies for the subject lands that further control residential development, address the Amberlea Creek'tributary, and establish traffic and access provisions. If you require further assistance or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me at extension 2033. I concur that this by-law be considered at this time: Director, Planning & D~,~velopment SG/jf S xVDobbin/M emol oCl~kForw ~rdingD~aflAdoptmgBy4aw~oCo~ncit Attachments Steve Gaunt, 'Plan~er II THE CORPOi%\TION OF THE CITY OF P1CI~RING BT-LAW NO. 5988/02 Being a By-law to adopt Alnendnlent 8 to tile Official Plan ibr the City' of Picketing ( OPA 01-002/P) WHEREAS pursuant to the Plan~dng Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13. subsections t7{22t and 21(1). tile Council of tile Corporation of the City of Pickenng may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Picketing: AND \VHEREAS pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Plmming Act. the Minister of Municipal Affairs and ltousing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area nmnicipal official plan amendments from its approval: AND WItEREAS, on February "". ,.>, 2000 Regional Councii passed Bv-laxv 11/2000 ~vhich allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan anaendments frOln its approval: AND WHEREAS the Region has advised that Amendment 8 to tile City of' Picketing Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval: NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPO~,',,TION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Amendment 8 to the Official Plan t'or the City o£ Picketing, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted: That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to tbBvard Municipality of' Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Official Plans and Amendments; to tile Regional Area ,Municipal 3. This By-law shall come into tbrce and take effect on tile cia,,' of thc final passing hereof subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. if required. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finallx passed this 21 day of May ,2002. MAYOR WAYNE ,~THURS CLERK BRUCE J. TAYLOR Exhibit "A" to By-law AMENDMENT 8 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 8 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: LOCATION: BASIS: The purpose og this amendment is to change the designation of the lands fronting Sheppard Avenue groin a Lox,,' to a Medium Density Residential designation on Schedule I -Land Use Structure and add to section l l.S Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies provisions to address compatibility with the neighbourhood, recogmize optional strategies for the stream corridor and provide suitable vehicular and pedestrian access tbr the agfccted lands. The subject lands are approximately 1.89 hectares in size, and located on the south side of Sheppard Avenue. east of Whites Road. All of the lands gall within Part Lot 28. Range 3, B.F.C. This amendment to tile Pickenn< Official Plan has been determined to be appropriate ibllowing tile completion of a review of' a preliminary conceptual site plan in light of the findings of the Northeast Quadrant Development Guideline Review for lands generally located between Kingston Road, Sheppard Avenue and Whites Road and abutting lands in 2002. The central issue is land use compatibility betxvcen medium density residential uses with commercial uses to the south and lox,,- density residential uses to tile north and east. The strategy For the Northeast Quadrant is two-fold. Firstly, the vision is. over time, to encourage high quality design and intensity o£ commercial or residential structures that assist in converting Kingston Road to a pedestrian griendlv 'mainstreet' From an auto dominated highway. Secondly. thc vision is to encoura-e medium density residential use in the northern part og the Quadrant to serve as a transition between the mixed commercial.residential use close to Kingston Road and the existing low density residential use to tile north. Other major elements of the strategy arc to intensif? development by piping the tributary to Amberlea Creek, if a net benefit to the enviromnent can be demonstrated and to adopt a transportation strategy to provide vehicular access to the Quadrant and beyond. The land use objective for tile subject lands is to ensure building siting, height, massing and orientation that is compatible with the community to the north and integrate by means of suitable vehicular and pedestrian access arrangements and design controls with the community and the Quadrant. in addition, since a final decision cannot vet be reached on piping the creek or protecting it in an open state, the interests of the parties are recognized and tile objectives of each option are set out. Since this amendment is to precede thc anaendment tbr the whole of tile Northeast Quadrant, relevant provisions are incorporated into the comprehensive amendment tbr tile Northeast Quadrant, which xxill be adopted by Council at a later date. AMENDMENT: The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: "1. Revising Schedule I - Laud Use Structure by replacing the "Urban Residential Areas Low Density Areas" designation for the lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue with an "Urban Residential Areas - Medium Density Areas" designation, as shown on Schedule 'A' to this amendment. e Adding new policies to section 11.8 - Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies, as follows: "11.8 City Council shall, (b) ...; (c) ...; (d) ...; (e) ...; (0 for the lands subject to the "Marion Hill" proposal, located at the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, (i) despite Tables 6 and 10 of Chapter Three and section 11.8(c), establish a maximum residential density of 55 units per net hectare; (ii) require new development to be compatible with respect to building heights, yard setbacks and building massing with low density residential development on the north side of Sheppard Avenue and on the south side of Sheppard Avenue to the east; (iii) require new development to establish buildings on Whites Road or Sheppard Avenue close to the street edge, with the front doors facing the street, and with a specified percentage of their front walls required to be located within build-to-zones to be established in the implementing zoning by-law for this site; (iv) restrict the height of the Sheppard Avenue elevation of new dwellings fronting Sheppard Avenue to a maximum of two storeys; (v) require a minimum of four functional storeys for the Whites Road elevations of new dwellings fronting Whites Road; (g) for the lands subject to the "Marion Hill" proposal, located on the south-east corner of Whites Road and Sheppard Avenue, (i) support the principle of piping or relocating the Amberlea Creek tributary that flows through the lands, while at the same time recognizing the interests of the landowners, on whose lands the Amberlea Creek tributary flows, to pipe or relocate that tributary, and the interests of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to maintain the Amberlea Creek tributary as an open and buffered creek channel; (h) (ii) (ii) (iii) require the developer of the subject lands proposing to pipe or relocate the tMnberlea Creek tributary to: CA) submit an environmental/ stormwater management report, to the satisfaction of the City. and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, which report must demonstrate a strategy resulting in a significant net environmental benefit to the watershed if justifTing piping of the creek; CB) obtain appropriate approvals and permits from public review agencies; and, Cc) satisfy any required compensation under the Fisheries Act; ensure that development proposals are undertaken in a manner that does not adversely impact downstream xvater quality and quanti%' through the use of on-site controls and/or financial contributions to a downstream stormwater facility if necessary; and through the use of the holding provisions of the Planning Act, require where necessaD,, the proponents of development having lands with thc stream corridor for the tributary to Amberlca Creek to enter into agreements with the City and other agencies, as appropriate, respecting public ownership of the stream corridor lands of the tributao', or its piping or relocation, once approved; for thc lands subject to the "Nlarion tlill" proposal, located on the south-east corner of \Vbites Road and Sheppard Avenue, (i) support vehicular access restrictions preventing left turns from \'('bites Road into the site, and left turns from the site onto Whites Road; (ii) promote the reduction of traffic speeds and improvement of pedestrian safety along Sheppard Avenue by implementing pavement markings and other measures, and considering "traffic-calming" techniques following the adoption of a CiD- policy; and, (iii) require pedestrian access, bv means of easements, from Delta Boulevard to Sheppard Avenue. IMPLEMENTATION: 1 N TERPRETATI ON: Cross RcJcrenc¢ OPA 01 002/P Rdaled Files A 4101 The provisions set fbrth in the City of Picketing O£ficial Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this :\mendrnen:. The provisions set forth in the City of Picketing Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. SCHEDULE 'A' TO AMENDMENT 8 EXTRACT FROM SCHEDULE ! TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN EDITION 2 REDESF~N~ ~ DENSITY ARF~S"TO "URB/~N I SlTY AR~AS" ~ SItEET 1 OF 3 LAND USE STRUCTURE REVISED: MAY 13, 2002 SHEPPARD R~NY DAY STEEPLE HILl_ LANE STROUD$ AVENUE STROUDS L~NE HEDGEROW AVENUE COURT dACQUEUNE WELRUS STREET ROAD SHADYBROOK SHEPPARD AVENUE 8REDA AVENUE City of Pickering SANOK Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 28, RANGE ,3, B.F.C.; PART 1,40R-14431; PART 1,408-2767 OWNER MARION HILLS DEVELOPMENT INC. DAT---~ f~k73-~200----'~DRAWN BY RC APPLICATION No. A 04/01; OPA 01~002/P SCALE 1:7500 CHECKED BY SG FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-6 PA- NOTICE OF MOTION DATE: MAY 21, 2002 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR HOLLAND SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR BRENNER WHEREAS the Municipality of Clarington in the Regional Municipality of Durham is bidding to be the host municipality for the International Fusion Energy Research and Development Project (ITER); and WHEREAS the ITER project will lead essential, international research into the commercially viable creation of a clean, renewable energy source to meet the energy needs of subsequent generations through fusion; and WHEREAS the successful bid to bring ITER to Clarington will mean an immediate infusion of highly skilled jobs and provide a significant economic stimulus to Durham Region while raising Canada's status as a leader in research in development; and WHEREAS the location of two nuclear power facilities within the Region of Durham provides a regular source of local tritium and an expansive base of nuclear expertise which makes Durham an idea location to host the ITER project; and WHEREAS hosting the ITER project within the Region of Durham is widely supported by the community and understood to be a unique opportunity to play an important role in the genesis of a potentially revolutionary new source of energy; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering confirms its full support for the ITER project and strongly urges the selection committee to opt for the Municipality of Clarington in the Region of Durham as host for the project; and THAT the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby confirms its confidence in the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission's ability to undertake a thorough and complete environmental assessment of the project; and THAT this motion be circulated to; · All area Mayors and Chairs · Dan McTeague, M.P. - Ajax-Pickering-Uxbridge Btaylor:Notices of Motion:ITER CARRIED: MAYOR May 2, 2002 CLERK'S DIVISION Ms P. Madill Municipality of Durham Region P.O. Box 623 605 Rossland Road East Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 Dear Ms. Madill: Re: ITER Negotiation Meetings At a meeting held on Apdl 29, 2002, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington considered the above matter and passed the following resolution: "THAT the Report on the Durham/Clarington Mission to Moscow for Iter Negotiation meetings be received and forwarded to all Durham Regional Municipalities, The Town of Port Hope, The Town of Cobourg, Alex Shepherd, MP and John O'Toole, MPP." Enclosed, as directed by Council, is a copy of the subject report. Yours truly, nicipal Clerk PLB*cd Cc: M. de Rond, Clerk, Town of The Town of Ajax G.S. Graham, Clerk-Administrator, Township of Brock S. Kranc, City Clerk, City of Oshawa B. Taylor, Clerk, City of Pickering K. Coates, Clerk, Township of Scugog W.E. Taylor, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge D.G. McKay, Clerk, Town of Whitby M. Rostetter, CAO/Clerk, The Town of Port Hope R. Stinson, Clerk, The Town of Cobourg A. Shepherd, MP J. O'Toole, MPP CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARtNGTON 40 TEIblPERA,~qCE S-~EET EC Cv'M?-¢q , ,-_E ONTARIO L' .S 2A( T :905, 623 3379 REPORT TO CLARINGTON COUNCIL - APRIL 29, 2002 ON DURHAM/CLARINGTON MISSION TO MOSCOW FOR ITER NEGOTIATION MEETINGS The purpose of the mission was to underscore the community acceptance and interest in hosting ITER at the site in Clarington as the four parties of ITER- the Russian Federation, European Union, Japan and Canada- get closer to making a final decision on a site and concluding a treaty by the end of 2003. The delegation included: Roger Anderson, Chair of Durham Region John Mutton, Mayor, Municipality of Clarington Gary Polansky, Chair of ITER Community Council and President of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology Staff members on the delegation were: David Crome, Director of Planning Services, Municipality of Clarington Pat Olive, Commissioner of Economic Development, Durham Region Also attending on the mission was Jacquie Mclnnes, a reporter with Metroland newspapers, who was able to report on the ITER events and undertake several other assignments for her newspaper. The program for the delegation included the following: · Tour of the Kurchatov Institute and meeting with several key Russian delegates to ITER. · Attendance at a briefing by ITER Canada on Sunday afternoon and evening meal with the Canadian negotiating team. · Attendance at the reception hosted by Russia on Monday evening. · Attendance as observers at the opening of the negotiation session on Tuesday morning. · Co-hosting the reception for all delegates at the residence of the Canadian ambassador to the Russian Federation Report on Durharn/Clarington Mission to Moscow Page ]- Details 1. of the Mission are discussed below with some concluding observations. Tour of the Kurchatov Institute Research Facility On Friday, April 19t~, the Russian hosts arranged for the Durham delegates to tour the famous Kurchatov Institute in the suburbs to the north-west of Moscow. The Kurchatov Institute has been the centre of Russian fission and fusion research for over 50 years. The tour began with a meeting with members of the Russian ITER team, including Dr. Evgeny Velikof, the director of Kurchatov Institute. Dr. Velikof is considered by many to be 'the father of ITER". The Kurchatov Institute developed the world's first tokamak. Mr. Velikof provided a history of fusion research at the Institute, commented on the need to make progress with these ITER negotiations and spoke positively of the Canadian bid. He noted that with the consumption of fossil fuel and the effects of global warming, that fusion as an energy source was critical. He estimated that fossil fuel would be exhausted by 2030. Alternative energy sources of the future include "fast-breeder" fission reactors, which is a more advanced technology than fusion. However, a recent paper from the European Union entitled "Fast Track to Fusion" (Attachment 1) argued for more research on fusion that could yield commercial fusion reactors at 2030, about the same time that the fast breeder fission reactor technology would be ready for commercial use. He also noted that new materials of the future could yield smaller and more productive tokamaks. He anticipated that the first 10 years of research at the new ITER site would be pure science and the second 10 years of research would be for the testing of components for commercial fusion tokamaks. Dr. Velikof noted the side benefits of fusion technology for desalinization and the production of hydrogen for fueling vehicles. In response to questions, Dr. Velikof indicated that the Canadian bid was a good proposal, neutral and more economical than the French or Japanese sites. He indicated that the weakness of the Canadian bid was the lack of direct financial support from the Canadian government. He noted the importance of governments to be the driving force for this research. Dr. Velikof had two requests of the Canadian delegation: a) The Russian Federation would be supportive of having ITER on the G8 summit agenda. With the potential announcement of the re-entry of the United States into ITER in the near future, this item would be very topical and helpful in moving the project forward. Canada, as the host for the 2002 summit, does not appear to have placed this on the formal agenda. b) Dr. Velikof is also involved with the Russian bid to host the World Fair in Moscow in 2010. He spoke of his desire to have ITER have a presence in the 2005 World Fair in Nagano Japan, which has the theme "Harmony Report on Durham/Clarington Mission to Moscow Page 2. 2.1 with Nature". It was his hope that this could possibly be in the Canadian pavilion. The fusion display could explain how the sun's energy is created and the strides that science is making to replicate this process of solar energy through a fusion reactor sponsored by ITER. Our tour of the facility followed the meeting. Mr. Lev Golubchicov, who previously visited Clarington, led the tour, cadng his Clarington/ITER briefcase. Mr. Golubchicov was the Divisional Director of Atomic Science and Technology for many years and recently retired. The tour comprised the following: · A tour of the house of academic Igor Kurchatov, which has been made into a museum in his memory A tour of the first fission reactor that produced a continuous chain reaction in Europe and Asia. Members of the delegation were taken into the reactor building and given a presentation by a technician present. This reactor is still in use today to calibrate instruments used in nuclear operations. A tour of the fusion research centre and a meeting with its head Dr. E. Muraviev. The delegation saw Tokamak T10, in which is operation for research purposes today. A larger Tokamak T15 was in the same building but has been mothballed due to lack of funds. ITER Negotiations The third ITER Negotiation Meeting (N3) continued work on the legal arrangements to bring ITER into reality by the end of 2002. The negotiations cover organization issues, principles for site selection and the procurement arrangements for goods and services required throughout the life of the project. Opening Statements The opening statements of the four participants are summarized as follows: Russian Federation ITER is a priority for the Russian Federation(RF). The RF has approved its participation at JET for 2002-2005 in preparation for the commencement of ITER. Russian industries are ready for the procurement of equipment but it is important to decide on a site so industry can proceed. Japan The head of the Japanese delegation noted the importance of ITER to overall fusion research. They are still working on finalizing a proposal to offer a site. Approval of the bid offer is expected shortly. They are working with their regulator on ITER issues and have been in discussion with the USA to return to ITER. Report on Durham/Clarington Mission to Moscow Page 2.2 European Union (EU) The EU Council for Research is expected to approve a mandate for negotiations on the cost and siting of a facility shortly. Until this is done, no bid can formally be submitted. France has not offered the site at Cadarache and the recent elections will delay their consideration. Spain, however, announced that it is offering a site at Vandellos, near Barcelona. They noted that Barcelona has a very high quality of life, that there are high-speed train connections, a highway and a dock at the site. The Spanish site is located at a nuclear generating station, however, unlike Clarington there is no source of tritium. They noted that the Catalonia Region is host to 3 of the 11 nuclear power plants in Spain. It would appear that both sites will be offered by the European Union for consideration and evaluation. Canada The head of the Canadian delegation noted that there had been conversations with the representatives of the USA. He had provided an update on ITER and a summary of the main points of the Canadian bid. The USA is hoping to make a determination shortly and it was suggested that the next session should have a provisional agenda item to welcome the USA back. Canada has also had discussions with China regarding participation in ITER and suggested that there be discussion on the participation of additional countries. The presence of the Durham and Clarington delegations at the negotiation sessions was highlighted as a sign of the eagerness of the local community to host ITER. Progress of the Canadian bid was reviewed with the following items noted: The scope of the EA has received formal approval of CNSC. New company ITER Host Inc. has been formed to guide the bid and private sector implementation. The Canadians reiterated the importance of meeting the milestones previously approved. Canada has had its bid in for 10 months. It was also noted that it was critical that the evaluation criteria be finalized as soon as possible. If additional meetings were necessary, these should be arranged. Discussion One key outcome of the meeting was a decision to stick with the original target for the completion of the ITER agreements by the end of 2002. The delays by governments in formalizing their bids was a cause for concern but it appears that all but the French site in the EU will be available shortly. Although the decision on the site will likely be delayed until the fall, all other components will be proceeding so that the four bids can be reviewed at that time. The key criterion from a Canadian perspective is that economic costs should be a major factor in the determination of the site. This is no longer disputed by other delegations, although some feet that the cost of all sites will be much the same. Report on Durham/Clarington Mission to Moscow Page The possible entry of the USA and other countries is a complicating factor and there was concern that it should not substantially alter the progress made to date. There was concern that it could lead to restarting the negotiation process. Russia, Japan and Canada all seemed very supportive of the USA re-entering the process. The Joint press release and the Canadian press release from the ITER N3 is attached for reference (Attachments 2 and 3). Durham/Canadian Reception The Canadian government, Durham Region and the Municipality of Clarington jointly hosted a reception for the delegates to the ITER N3 at the home of the Canadian ambassador to the Russian Federation. The ambassador's home provided for an intimate space for delegates to socialize. Ambassador Rod Irwin welcomed delegates back to Moscow and wished the group much success. Chair Roger Anderson emphasized that in Durham Region "We want ITER". He noted the many characteristics that made the Cladngton site and the surrounding area an ideal location for this project. Mayor John Mutton spoke of his visit to the JET site in England and stated that Cladngton was anxious to host ITER. He noted that Clarington could accommodate all the infrastructure and housing needs. As a home to other nuclear industry facilities, the public has no major concerns with hosting a site in Clarington. The Municipality is familiar with the situations and problems that might arise and can deal with them effectively. After a stand-up buffet, each head of delegation and Dr. Velikof of the Kurchatov Institute gave further speeches. Gary Polonsky concluded the evening. He recounted the visit to his parent's village in the Ukraine earlier in the trip as one of the most moving moments of his life. He noted that Canada is a country of immigrants like his parents, many that came from Russia, France, and Japan. Research scientists would feel welcome in the multicultural environment of Canada. He pointed to the broad community support for this project as represented by the group he chairs. Mr. Polonsky concluded by noting the future of the bright future for Ontario Institute of Technology as a place to do research and develop a skilled workforce in nuclear technologies. He indicated that there would be opportunity for ITER researchers to serve as adjunct professors at the University. At the end of the evening, all delegates were handed a copy of "We Want ITER". Observations a) The delegation of the Durham and Clarington officials made an impression on the other delegates. Canadian officials reported that there were positive comments received from the delegates of other countries. b) Despite the technical superiority of the Canadian site in Clarington, the competition to host ITER will be strong. Other countries are expected to submit good bids. Governments and not the scientists of the world will ultimately make the decision. Canada will have to be adept and skillful on the political front to win the opportunity to host this project. Report on Durham/Clarington Mission to Moscow Page c) Any opportunity to impress upon the Canadian Government the importance of this project should be taken. The lack of direct federal funding in fusion research and the ITER bid is seen as a handicap. Local governments and other prominent decision-makers need to request the government to improve it's support of this project. d) The possible re-entry of the USA will have a significant impact on the final stages of negotiations. The well-advanced state of the Canadian bid andthe geographic proximity with America should provide support for the Canadian bid. Attachments: 1. Fast Track Concept in the European Fusion Programme 2. Joint News Release 3. ITER Canada News Release Report on Durham/Clarington Mission to Moscow Page IV. FAST TRACK CONCEPT IN THE EUROPEAN FUSION PROGRAMME Prof. Harald Bolt Director of Materials Research Division, Max-Planck-Institute for Plasma Physics Abstract Recentlv an expert meeting regarding a possible acceleration of the fusion programme with a view to energy production ("fast track") was held on the initiative of the EU Research Council. In the course of the discussions about the fast track programme, it has turned out that successful extraction of reactor grade heat and tritium from the blanket modules is essential in the ITER operation. In parallel with FI'ER, material development using a high intensity neutron source is essential to establish a database for licensing. The operation of a reactor combining DEMO and PROTO generations into a single step could be around 2030. I. Introduction A reference roadmap h,'ts been discussed which leads from ITER to DEMO and PROTO fusion reactors in EU. Among these discussions, the significant role of fusion reactors as electrical power resources and their timely availability to society has been emphasized. From this view point, it has been proposed to demonstrate the feasibility of fusion energy within 20-30 years, the so called 'fast track' programme. This means that demonstration of fusion energy will be in -2030, not in -2050 which was a conventional fusion program so far. In the line with this scope, the Fast Track Working Group was organized by the EU Research Council in November 2001, and reported the first assessment of the fast track schedule. In this paper, the main results of the working group are described as well as the materials development program which has to be carried out accordingly. 2. Fast Track Concept The working group asses~d scope and ways of organizing the programme with a view to producing a "fast track" roadmap for fusion, with the clear goal of energy production within 20-30 years. Major conclusions of the working group can be summarized as follows: 1) The ITER project is the essential step towards energy production on thc fast track program. It will be considered to perform modest upgrading over thc life of ITER to test tritium brccding and cncrgy extractIon using blanket modules, which will be a prototype of thc blanket /'or DEMO. 2) In a fast track approach, the DEMO and PROTO generations could be combined in a single step. In the single step, the fusion rector must not be fully technically and economically optimized. It has to be addressed that this approach depends strongly on the development of adequate materials. 3) In medium term, cmphasi~ of rcscarch on ITER is placed on demonstration ol ~,ustaincd l usion power production and extraction. Fusion a.s.,,ociations in EU should concentratc on accompan)>ing ITER R&D and plasma physics. Other plasma devices, such as stellarators and spherical tokam'aks, should address possible improvements of concepts and of designs for future fusion reactors. 4) Material development is highly important, which shall provide solutions for a sustainable, environmentally benign and economically attractive energy tcchnology. ITER provides essential information on plasma facing materials. For structural materials, tests and verification of material performance in reactor relevant environment is necessary using high intensity neutron source such as the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility, IFMIF. Before starting the IFMIF enginccring design, it will be important to identify possibilities of relevant studies on neutron spallation sources. In parallel with these activities, modeling of radiation damage and structural evolution is instrumental to understand and control underlying processes. 5) Regarding elements of key importance of the fast track approach, the construction of ITER is essential, and should start as soon as ~nably achievable. ITER and IFMLF should proceed in a coordinated way. Existing facilities, especially JET will not be interrupted abruptly, but be phased out progressively according to the schedule of ITER realization. 6) Regarding financial resources, additional resources will be needed in the early stages due to the parallel progress of ITER and materials R&D. It becomes essential to expand international collaboration. For instance, it is strongly envisaged for the US to re-join the ITER program. 7) Regarding thc role of industry, it should grow significantly in the engineering of fusion devices during the realization of ITER and later of DEMO/PROTO. Involvement of uulities should increase progressively. To drive the programme lOO most efficiently towards power production, the industrial sector has to assist in managing all phases of the programme. This also ensures that fusion developments meet industrial requirements for energy production. A draft of the fast track road map is shown in Fig. IV. 1. In the figure the operation of DEMO is estimated to be around 2032. 3, Materials Development for Fusion Reactors beyond ITER For DEMO/PROTO reactors, ferritic-martensitic steel is considered as a reference structural material, such as EUROFER, and development of oxide dispersion strengthened ferritic-martensitic steel or SiC-SiC composite inserts is being pursued to improve the plant efficiency. It should be noted that a water-cooled Li-Pb blanket has beeh-considered as the reference in this case. He-cooled plant designs become important, if SiC-SiC composites are mature for structural applications. Regarding neutron -irradiation -damage of materials, exisling fission reactors are available for the study of displacement damage effects. For relevant studies of the damage by energetic fusion neutrons, spallation neutron sources and D-Li stripping sources, such as the IFMIF facility, are considered. For plasma facing materials, the key issues are 1) erosion lifetime, 2) plasma compatibility, and 3) neutron damage. Major candidates for next generation devices are beryllium, carbon, and tungsten, which are to be used in ITER. Data on the erosion lifetime which will be gained from ITER operation is essential to assess the thickness of the plasma facing materials. From the view point of erosion lifetime, tungsten is most promising, if the good plasma compatibility of tungsten will have been demonstrated. To do end, an experimental programme applying tungsten on the first wall is being conducted in the ASDEX Upgrade facility. 4. Concluding Remarks In Ihe course of the discussions about the fast track programme, it has turned out that successful exlraclion of reactor grade heat and tritium from the blanket modules is essential in the ITER operation. In parallel with ITER. material development using a high intensity neutron source is essential to establish a database for licensing, e.g., up to 80 dpa. It has been confirmed that the reactor relevant fusion power generation can be demonstrated within 20-25 years in ITER. IOl I Status: Fusion Materials · baseline materials for fusion reactors are within reach (e9. EUROFER, VV) · baseline technologies (esp. bonding, joining) have been developed for ITER · neutron irradiation facility needed for materials assessment unde; fusion relevant conditions; accompanyin§ modelling effort · long term materials development should further increase attractivity in terms of enwronmentai benignity, thermal efficiency, cost of elec:r~cit'/ 119 EFDA reference case demonstration of the feasibility of fusion power generation Fig. IV. I. Roadmap of Fast Track Programme in EU 103 APPENDIX The Presentation Documents for Prof. H. Bolt International Symposium for ITER [[~ Fast Track Concept in the European Fusion Programme Harald Bolt Max-Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, Garching EURATOM Association Contents Introduction Mandate .Fast Track': Conclusions Role of materials R&D for fusion power development P. 1 ,,fast track initiative": Background 1. British government to EU Commission and Research Minis~ers (24 Oct. 2001) concerns: stabEdy of supply of fossil energy;, global warming, decreasing share ~ convincinq reasons f(x significant role of fusion: - demonstrate feasibility of fusion within 20-30 years - accelerate materials R&D for fusion (in parallel with ITER) - br~g US .on board' - induing rmanc~ partk;ipat~n - involve induslzy in steering function 2. EU Research Council (31 Oct. 2001) takes up matter 3. Fast Track Working Group (27 Nov. 2001) repod to Research Courx='l 4. EU Research Council (10 Dec. 2001) positive response P. 2 107 Mandate MisMon Assess scop~ and ways oforganising the programme with a view to producing a "fast track" roadmap for fusion, with the clear goal energy production within 20-30 .',rear3. Specific taslc5 (report befbre Re. search Council of 10 December 200 i;' 1. First assessment ora fast track schedule 2. Acceleration of materials work alongside work on ITER P. 3 Members of th~ Prof. David KING (Chairman), UK Prof. Angelo AIRAGHI, Italy Prof. Harald BOLT, Germany Dr. Joaquin CALVO, Spain Mr. Bernard FROIS, France Mr. Marcel GAUBE, Belgium Dr. Lars H(SGBERG, Sweden Mr. Gabriel MAR.BACH, France Mr. Steven WALSGROVE, UK P. 4 I08 Starting point and reference scenado ~ Tentzlive Ro~dm~p of Achievements st~rtin~ from the dec~o~ to ~onstruct iht' Ne~t Step P. 5 Conclusions 1/7 [~ .The ITER project is the essential step towards energy production on a fast track." · engineering design finalized; modest upgrading over life of ITER · fully exploiting the flexibility of the present design: - tests of breeding and energy extraction - blanket modules prototyping the blanket for DEMO · demonstrate technical feasibility of fusion power o~ 20-30 year tfme scale P. 6 109 Conclusions 2.q [~ ..... in a fast track approach, the DEMO and PROTO generations could be combined in a single step..." This power plant · has to be designed as creclble prototype for power-~rocuong fusion reactor · must not be fully technically and economically opt~m~sed · depends strongly on the develcpment cf acequate materials P. 7 aims and milestones (K. Lackncr, EFDA) power into grid: · DEMO & 1st generation power plants (economically competilJve) · DEMO & 1 GPP will be based an simiiar/identic~ physics & further improve economic & environmental properties · ,,advanced' power plants · R&D rx:~, due to io09 lead times (materials) ongoing phys~s researc~ P. 8 Conclusions 3/7 Fusion landscape In Europe (medium term) Emphasis of research on ITER: demonstration of sustained fusion power production and extraction Fusion associations should concentrate on accompanying ITER R&D and plasma physics Stellarators and Spherical Tokamaks should address possible improvements of concepts and of designs for future fusion reactors P. 9 Conclusions 4/7 Materials solutions for a sustainable, environmentally benign and economically attractive energy technology · ITER provides essential information on plasma facing matedals . high intensity neutron source such as IFMIF (~ r,,=,~ ~=.-~ ~ ~.o,~,). test and vedfy matedal performance in reactor relevant neutron environment · before starting IFMIF engineering design: identify possibilities of relevant studies on Neutron Spallation Sources · IFMIF engineering design should be completed dudng FP6 (until end 2006) · modelling of radiation damage and structural evolution is instrumental to understand and control underlying Processes. P. IO Conclusions 5/7 ~ Elements of key importance · construction of ITEF~ as soon as reasonably acmevabie next step: extend mandate of negotiaUons to address cost sharing and site dependent ~ssues · ITER and IFMIF should proceed ~n a co-ordinated way realisation of ITER star"Jng in parallel with detaile~ engineering design of IFMIF · existing facilities, esp. JET: not to be interrupted abruptly, but to be phased out progressively according to the schedule of ITER realization and bhe availability of finanC,tal resources (JET) P. 11 Conclusions 6/7 ~ Financial resources · additional resources needed in the eady stages (<2011 ) due to parallel progress of ITER and materials R&D · expand international collaboration · clear position of Europe should generate positive response also from potential ITER partners long term: much less public funding required, r/one generation of fusion dewces can be saved P. 12 112 Conclusions 7/7 [~ Role of industry · role of industry in the engineering of fusion devices should grow significantly dudng the realization of ITER and later of DEMO/PROTO involvement of utilities should increase progressively · to drive the programme most efficiently towards power production: industrial sector has to assist in managing al~ phases of the programme; this also ensures that fusion developments meet industrial requirements for energy production P. 13 Roadmap "l IFMIF EFDA ~fe~ncl ca~,e DEMO/PROTO generation P. 14 113 Summary ,,fast track" ITER: reactor-like fusion performance (moderate extrapolation to power reactor operation) successful extraction of reactor grade heat and tnttum from blanket modules materials: ensure industrial availaDility of mater;als which are ready to be licensed for use (80 dpa) technology: industrial readiness ~n detail ~ fusion power generation feasible in 20 (25) years --'~ all elements to build first fusion power plant (DEMO/PROTO) on basis of DEMO/PROTO operation: enter phase of large scale etecfncJty croduchon P. 15 Materials for fusion reactors beyond ITER [~ 10m Reactor (DEMO/PROTO) P. 16 11,4 structural matedal ~ Baseline: ferfitic-martensitic steel (EUROFER, F82H) 1¢ lo' Composition (%) C0.12, Mn0.4, Crg, V02, Wl.1,Ta01 no Mo, Nb ~ reduced activation neutron irradiation: - dimensionally stable (data of sim~3ar steels up to 150 dpa) - no high temp. embdttlement but~ Iow terr~, embrittlement P. 17 structural mate,iai: needs Baseline: ferritic-martensiUc steel (EUROFER~ F82H) hem wa~'.~a~ u-~ manet ~ ~ to be done (EUROFER): 1. oplimisation of composition and purity from sb'o~ly activating elements: one, max. two further heats needed 2. proof of stabilit7 under fusion relevant neutron irradiation to high dose (80, 150 dpa); esp. assessment of lower operation temperature to avoid embrfftlement improvement of plant efficiency (decreasing deqree of readiness}: 1. OOS-EUROFER: $1mnglt~ening b~ oxide nano-dispemion allows up,er operation temperature of 650'C (present~ 1" generation for fusion, ex1~dence from FBI3, available) 2. SiC-SiC composite Jiner' inserts to extrac~ 800°C heat (non-structural applicatmn of SiC-SiC appears feasible) 3. He-co, led plant designs become irnt3ortant' if SiC-SiC composites are mature for structural applications P~ 18 Neutrons - irradiation damage - neutron source [~ Fusion neutrons cause displacement damage and He-produc[~on ~mportant for relevant studies: - relation of dpa to He (H) procluQK)n - mgh neutron flux (target 25 (~pa~,eari · fission sources Iow energy (<2 Me'V): mainly displacement damage · spallahon sources · D-Li stripping source 10.2 . ~ 10'ii .... ~ ' 103 10'~ I0 ~ 100 10~ under planning: IFMIF P. 19 Neutrons - irradiation damage - neutron source Can material irradiations in spallation sources support fusion studies? · How close can irradiation conditions be be brought to fusion s~uation? · Bracketing of fusmn conditions by fission reactor irradiations and spallation source irradiations? · Capability of advanced modelling of radiation effects and structural evolution to fill bracket? · Would this approacfl be surf-went for licensing of materials? "- Working group ~s being established within EFDA-frame . i~-, N/cm2Ys 10TM 1013 Neutron flux distribution in hung pulse target region of ESS (FZ J0lich) P. 20 .. Plasma facing materials: key issues Key issues · erosion lifetime and plasma compatibility · neutron damage · control of power deposition: to be established in ITER · heat removal · fabrication technology P. 21 Plasma facing components, lifetime (erosion of materials) I~ First wall: Erosion of Iow Z materials order of 3 mm/burn year. 15 mm in 5 years tun.qsten order of 0.1 mm/bum year:. 0.5 mm in 5 years D Ions ~ -.,"-.~.;,..-,~..',:,,,>-.'..¥ :~-~%.~..~'¥.%%~% 70' mostly redeposition tenal Presently'. order of m data from ITER needed to asse~s/:',CA//thickness 10 100 1000 10000 Plasma facing components, plasma ccmpat~bihty of tungsten The tungsten programme in ASDEX Upgrade tungsten coated (500 ~u~ ptasma spray W coated inner wall (1.5 ~ plasma PVD high operational flexibility, W-concentration in plasma <10-s Plasma facing and heat sink materials: research needs ITER: establish quiescent plas4Tta operation; learn to r~duce drvertor heat load by u~punty seeding; erosion data (apply relevant matenals); resolve T-'~Sue Satellite experiment/s): expl~e a~rnat~ves n~ pof~t2e m FrEE Materials development; mainstream: Dlasma faon(;z, matedal: Bin func~onal~y applied hJgh-Z material divertor heat $in~: Cu-43ased denvate$ Eom ITER R+D: h~Jh neutron dose first wall heat S~nk: O~, RAFM Long term development; innovation: 6ompo$[tes (MMC$, CMC$), ducUle reffactones, ~leas (heat Neutron damage: relevant r~rradiation facility for PFM, heat sini~ matenal and PFC development P. 24 118 Joint News Release April, 24th 2002 Third Negotiation Meeting Continues Progress Towards the Joint Implementation of ITER ATTACH Moscow - April 24, 2002. Delegations from Canada, the European Union, Japan and the Russian Federation met in Moscow this week to continue formal negotiations on the joint implementation of the ITER project. ITER is a major international collaborative scientific and technological project with the goal of taking the next major step in the development of fusion as an attractive energy source for our planet. This was the third Negotiations meeting (N3) in a series that is expected to lead, by the end of 2002, to the text of an international agreement on the joint implementation of ITER. At this third meeting of the Negotiators, the Delegations furthered theft discussions on the Joint Implementation Agreement to initiate the construction of ITER, and a number of other related technical issues such as the site selection process, approaches to the procurement allocation, and the organizational structure of the eventual international organization for ITER. The Canadian Delegation reported that on April 5, 2002 the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission announced its approval of the Environmental Assessment Guidelines for the ITER project if sited at the Clafington site. The review of the project and confirmation of the screening level and scope for the environmental assessment is the first formal review of a fusion facility by any of the world's nuclear regulators. This follows the formal offer by Canada to host ITER at the Clarington site made last June. At the Energy Forum associated with the G8 Energy Ministers' meeting in Detroit, May 1st - 3rd 2002, Iter Canada has offered to present a paper on ITER and will have an exhibit on the project alongside the Natural Resources Canada exhibit. The European Union Delegation reported that there has been a decision by the Spanish Government to offer a candidature for the European siting of ITER at Vandellos, near Barcelona. The licensing procedure concerning the possible siting of ITER in Cadarache has been launched. The European Delegation said that once it has a full negotiating mandate, the EU proposal(s) would be submitted to the other Delegations for consideration. The Japanese Delegation reported the present status of discussion by the Council of Science and Technology Policy (CSTP) on their participation in ITER including possible hosting. The conclusion of the CSTP is expected in the near future. It was stressed that Japan has a strong interest in participation/hosting of ITER and 'that the discussion is approaching a final stage. The Delegation also reported that the basic principles of safety management of ITER and safety regulations are being discussed by the Nuclear Safety Commission and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. ITER CANADA For Immediate Release Community Representatives Tell International Delegates "We Want Iter" Moscow - April 24, 2002. Delegations from Canada, the European Union, Japan and the Russian Federation met in Moscow this week to continue formal negotiations on the joint implementation of the Iter project, and representatives from the Canadian community hoping to host Iter brought that message to the delegates in person. Iter is the world-leading international collaborative scientific and technological project with the 9oat of taking the next major step in the development of fusion energy as a safe, clean and sustainable energy source for our planet. Canada has submitted a bid to host this prestigious project at a site in Clarington, Ontario. Last evening, community representatives joined Canada's Ambassador, Rod Irwin, in hosting a reception for the international delegates. Said Dr. Peter Barnard, Iter Canada's Chief Executive Officer, "The overwhelming support shown by the community is a tremendous boost to Canada's bid. By their presence here in Moscow, the community leaders have sent a clear message to the international community: 'We Want Iter'. We believe Canada is the best site for Iter and the support of the community is a big part of what makes us the best." Durham Region Chair Roger Anderson, His Honour John Mutton, Mayor of Cladngton and Gary Polonsky, President of the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Chair of the Iter Community Council all spoke to delegates about their community's commitment to providing a welcoming environment for the Iter project and the hundreds of Iter scientists who would come to work at the Clarington site with their families. The delegates, many of whom had an opportunity to visit the community last November, warmly received the messages from the community leaders. For further Information, contact: Laura Ferguson, Iter Canada (416) 203-9409, ]auz'a¢itercanacta.com or visit vvvvw, itercanada.com ITER CANADA · Iter, which means "the way" in Latin, is an international fusion energy research and development project with the goal of taking the next major step in the development of fusion energy as a safe, clean and sustainable energy source for our planet. Iter will be the largest collaborative research and development project on earth. Fusion is the energy created when atoms are pushed together. Research into fusion has been conducted since the 1920's, and recent advances have renewed interest in the technology4 It is inherently safe and clean - any change in the process will result in an immediate shutdown and no fuel waste or greenhouse emissions are produced. · On June 7, 2001 Canada's Ambassador to Russia, Rod Irwin, launched Canada's bid to host Iter - announcing Canada's offer of a site in Clarington, just east of Toronto. Highlights of Canada's bid include: ¢' The best site technically in the world ,/ Most attractive living location for fusion scientists and their families Major supply of a secure source of tritium - a form of hydrogen that is the fuel for Iter - eliminating a need for its transportation across international borders · / An innovative public/private sector financing proposal ,/ Major savings to the Iter participants when compared with alternate sites The Iter Community Council is a grass-roots organization formed by a cross-section of leaders from the area surrounding the site at Clarington. The Council fosters open communication about the project and in November, 2001 hosted international Iter visitors in a workshop on the socio-economic aspects of the community. In November, 2001 Canada hosted the first formal Negotiations meetings in Toronto, with participation by delegations from Canada, the European Union, Japan and the Russian Federation. In February 2002, Japan hosted the second Negotiations meetings in Tokyo. The process for obtaining a licence to construct from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for the Iter project was initiated in March 2001. On April 5, 2002 the CNSC approved the Scope of the Environmental Assessment (EA) Guidelines for the Iter project. This approval is the first formal CNSC review step in completing an EA - a requirement towards obtaining a licence to construct the facility. Iter Canada is a not-for profit corporation established in 1997 with members from industry, four levels of government, labour and universities. It is committed to locating the world's Iter Fusion R and D Centre in Canada. For more information, visitwww, itercanada.corn. The Russian Federation Delegation stated that the work related to ITER is considered to be of high priority and is conducted in accordance to the federal progranmm of 2002-2005 which is aimed to the preparation of the construction of ITER. This work is conducted in close relation with thc Russian indust~. The RF Delegation emphasized the importance of promptly selecting a site for ITER. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Delegations agreed that substantial progress had been made on a number of issues critical to the successful implementation of the ITER project. The next meeting of the Negotiators will be held in Cadarache. France. on June 4-~). 2002. For further information, contact: Canada Ministry of Natural Resources Canada Jim Campbell +1 (613) 996-2663, 'icam b¢&nrcan, c. ca Laura Ferguson, Iter Canada + 1 (416) 203-9409, lauraf&'itercanada, corn European Commission Jean-Pierre Rager 4-32 (2) 295-3085, eaj_f_SP~ie~e, rqgerfd!cec, eu. iht Japan Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Tecbaaotogy Office of Fusion Energy Satom Ohtake +81 (3)5253-4111 ext. 7820. ohtake~ Russian Federation Ministry of the Russian Federation for Atomic Energy Yury Sokolov +7 (095) 239-2455, sokolov~mlnatom, ru