Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CS 44-11
7 300, Report To Executive Committee PICK ERING Report Number: CS 44-11 Date: December 5, 2011 From: Everett Buntsma .Director, Community Services Subject: Technical Review for the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 44-11 of the Director, Community Services, regarding the Technical Review for the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports be received; 2. That the letter proposal from Sorenson Gravely Lowes Consulting Associates Inc. and SCS Consulting Group Ltd. for consulting services related to the technical review of the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing Stormwater Reports for the six Neighbourhoods (16 - 21), in an amount not to exceed $93,711 including HST and disbursements be approved; and 3. That appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: As part of the Minutes of Settlement for the Central Pickering Development Plan Conformity Amendment, the City is required to process the Draft Plans and prepare a draft zoning by-law for Seaton in a short time frame. In order for Draft Plans of Subdivision to be approved and processed, it is typical for them to be supported by the appropriate technical reports. For Seaton, these reports are known as the Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports (NFSSRs), which themselves fulfill the recommendations of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan Amendment (MESPA). The developers have stated that they will submit the MESPA before the end of 2011, which will address comments provided by the City and TRCA on the original Master Environmental Servicing Plan document that was submitted in August 2010. Due to the significant amount of work that remains to be completed and reviewed, including the MESPA, staff requires additional consulting assistance to complete an in- depth technical review of the NFSSRs for Seaton Neighbourhoods 16 - 21 in order to assess the methodology, correctness, completeness, suitability of the designs and/or appropriateness of the NFSSR content in a timely manner. It is also important that the technical review be conducted such that all NFSSR's are reviewed with a consistent approach as the NFSSR's are being prepared by three different consulting firms. At this Report CS 44-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Technical Review for the Seaton Neighbourhood 74 Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports Page 2 time, all six NFSSR's are anticipated to be submitted early in the New Year with a required 8 week review period. As the review of the NFSSRs occurs in conjunction with the review of Draft Plans, and the review of Draft Plans is already part of the City's contract with Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. (SGL), staff see efficiencies for the City continuing to use SGL and SCS Consulting Group Ltd. (SCS). It is recommended that the firms of SGL and SCS be retained to undertake the technical review of the NFSSR's for Neighbourhoods 16 - 21. Proceeding in this manner with Council approval, is provided for under the Purchasing Policy. Financial Implications: 1. Approved Source of Funds Item Account Code Source of Funds Budget Required Seaton Technical 2290.2392.0000 Other Revenue $85,000 $84,390 Review for (Developer Stormwater Contributions) Management Total $85,000 $84,390 2. Estimated Project Costing Written proposal from SGL and SCS $82,930 HST (13%) $10,781 Total Gross Cost $ 93,711 HST Rebate (11.24%) 9.321 Total Net Project Cost $84,390 3. Project Cost under (over) approved funds $610 The 2011 Current Budget included $85,000 for the Seaton technical review for stormwater management, therefore, there are adequate funds to complete the consulting services assignment. In addition, this budget included $40,000 in related staff costs. These costs will be offset by $125,000 in revenue from the Seaton developers for MESPA and NFSSR review. CORP0227-07/01 revised I R port CS 44-11 December 5, 2011 Subject: Technical Review for the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports Page 3 Sustainability Implications: Not Applicable Background: 1. Work Program for the City's Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review Through the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review, which is being undertaken by SGL, in association with various sub-consultants, including SCS, staff has consulting assistance to complete the review of the draft plans of subdivision. When preparing the terms of reference for the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review, staff anticipated completing the technical review of the NFSSR's under a less aggressive time frame and with limited consulting assistance. In light of the significant amount of work that remains to be completed and reviewed, including the MESPA, staff requires additional consulting assistance to complete the technical review of the NFSSRs for Neighbourhoods 16 - 21. At this time, all six NFSSR's are anticipated to be submitted early in the New Year with a required 8 week review period. 2. Technical Review of the Seaton NFSSRs for Neighbourhoods 16 - 21 In the 2011 Current budget, funds were approved to retain consulting services to undertake a technical review for Seaton with respect to stormwater management. City staff recently provided SGL and SCS with a Terms of. Reference and Scope of Work (Attachment 1) and requested a letter proposal and work plan to undertake the work. In accordance with Section 10.05 of the City's Purchasing Policy, the initiating Director may acquire consulting services without obtaining competitive written proposals if a particular consultant is desired, subject to Council approval. SGL and SCS are appropriate to complete the technical review of the Seaton NFSSRs for Neighbourhoods 16 - 21. It is staffs position that hiring SGL and SCS is the best use of financial and staff resources in order to ensure that the technical review of these complex reports are completed in a timely manner and is consistent with other work completed through the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review. Staff is pleased with the work that SGL has done to date. SCS was part of the consulting team put together by SGL and assisted in preparing the Seaton Neighbourhood Plans, which will be extremely beneficial when completing the technical review of the NFSSRs. Also, the consultant has extensive experience in the preparation as well as technical review of similar size Functional Servicing Stormwater Reports. A letter proposal and work plan was received from SGL and SCS dated November 15, 2011 (Attachment 2) that detailed how the consulting services assignment would be undertaken at a cost of $93,711, including HST and disbursements. It is recommended that the City retain SGL and SCS to complete the technical review of the Seaton NFSSRs for Neighbourhoods 16 - 21. CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CS 44-11 December 5, 2011 76 Subject: Technical Review for the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports Page 4 Attachments: 1. City's Request for Proposal for Consulting Services, dated October 19, 2011 2. Letter Proposal from SGL and SCS, dated November 3, 2011 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: 6 A:: ~ ~ L-- - ~C-) U- Mar ee Gadzovski, M.Sc.(Eng.), P.Eng. XEverettB ntsma, NPD, CMM Senior Water Resources & U _Director, Community Services Environmental Engineer Cat erine Rose, MCIP, R P Neil Carro , I RPP Manager, Policy Director, ing & Development Ril and Holb n, P. Eng. Gillis A. Paterson, C.M.A. Di ion Heat, Engineering Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer MG:mg Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering ity Council ~UtJ- Zp~ Zo/! Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 revised ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# CS of t3 7-7 J1 ~ The C crjmrzatio of the pity of P9C:~~ring 'irke ring Civic C o n,nlex Picacffiiii3, 0\ I..l V bi<7 ai. HI(:.E:N'rr-E'°vt,,NAl, 2011 r.iTyoipi(kc ang.(om 7nii7l; & Dt.v(xlcprnrnl Daptjrfrice.itM,...~.,,,~.~..,~,.,.,..,m,.. 905.420.4617 it;Ii''rc'e i.ti(>n.(fi3.27(~0 T1'Y 905.120.1739 sx 905.420.7648 41 1arail plan&devl@city,ofpickering.com CITE ;lC October 19, 2011 Paul Lowes, MCIP, RPP Principal Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. 509 Davenport Road Toronto, ON M4V 1 B8 Subject: Request for Proposal for Consulting Services Additional Scope of Work Related to the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review File: D-1100=064 The City of Pickering is requesting additional consulting assistance from your firm and your engineering subconsultant (SCS Consulting Group) currently working on the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review (SNPR). We require assistance with the technical review of the Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports (NFSSRs) in a timely and coordinated manner with the upeorning review of the Draft Plans of Subdivision and fine-tuning of the Neighbourhood Plans. Subject to receipt of a satisfactory proposal, we are prepared to recommend to Council that this scope of work be added to the current contract you have with the City, without going through the City's purchasing policy and issuing a general Request for Proposals. Since the review of NFSSRs occurs in conjunction with the review of Draft Plans, and the review of Draft Plans is already part of the City's contract with Sorensen Gravely Lowes Consulting Associates Inc. (SGL), staff sees efficiencies for the City continuing to ! use SGL with SCS. With your team's familiarity with the SNPR, start up time should be quicker and overall costs should be less. ! In July 2011, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) set a hearing date for mid January 2012 for Seaton related matters. The parties also established an aggressive schedule for delivering and reviewing various reports. In that schedule, the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) were given two months to review the NRSSRs from the date of their receipt, anticipated to be November 30, 2011. C~ 1C;krJ (t"•r;t '.t~" 78 A TACHMEN`f# TOREPORT#14 -1 2, ' of 3 I~Iage 2 I . However, thwi sf;hedule also anticilY° ted receipt by the City of an Amendment to the Seat ri wu- r4"iC st .r Envi<<<r r-°icinr, flan (ME SPA) on Sept(-.mber g, 2011 The i; ty has not yet received the MESPA as discussions around the hydrological modelling continue 'with the Seaton Com,,tilting Team, he 1(~C:A and the City. Consequently, it is anticipated there: will be some delay in the preparation and delivery of the NSSRs. Nonetheless, upon receipt; staff anticipates an aggressive, and intense period of review generally in keeping with the original two month period in the OMB schedule. i. Please find attached a memorandum to me from Marilee Gadzovski, the City's Senior Water Resources& Environmental Engineer, providing additional background on the Seaton, process, and the requirements for this consulting assignment. Please prepare a proposal which addresses items 2 to 6 of her memorandum. We i would, appreciate receiving five copies of your proposal by November 3rd so that we have time for review, and negotiations if necessary, and make our December Report to Council deadline. If you of SCS staff have any questions or require additional information, please contact either myself at 905.420.4660 extension 2038, or Marilee Gadzovski at extension 2067. Yours truly t Catherine Rose, MCIR RPP Manager, Policy CR:jf - d;tthniimr+tlnWMwkDmaMJ.1-•pDIH~_i0➢sU t9c-fEa iSratan Welp7{.mi.rMmd Ptar31GR. Pwpus'&IPaa1~53itTednk.&~'~gvlzw.9a Attachment Copy: Steve Schaefer, SCS Consulting Group Chief Administrative Officer Directors Division [lead, Engineering Services Manager, Development Control Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Senior'VVater Resources & Environmental Engineer Water Resources Engineer. ~ ATTACHMENT#__,.._ - TO REPORT# cs 4-11 - of 7q I ICE I N 1811 AICi;hd'rk`NNIAI. 20111 To: Catherine Rose October 18, 2011 Manager- Policy From: Marilee Gadzovski Senior Water Resources & Environmental, Engineer Copy: Division Head, Engineering Services Principal Planner - Policy Water Resources Engineer Subject: Seaton NFSSR Technical Review Terms of Reference/Scope of Work - File: D-8000-04-11 1. Background In May 2006, the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) was approved by the Province of Ontario under the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994. The CPDP required the preparation and adoption of Neighbourhood Plans concurrent with, or prior to, the processing of Draft Plans of Subdivision. As part of Neighbourhood Planning a number of background studies were required including a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) for the study area. In August 2008, a Phase 1 MESP (Existing Conditions) report was completed by the Seaton Consulting Team on behalf of the Landowners and reviewed by the stakeholders, namely, the City of Pickering and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA): It included data and analysis of the aquatic communities, fluvial geomorphology of the streams, terrestrial communities at existing and proposed road crossings of the Natural Heritage System,•site geology and hydrogeology, hydrology and hydraulics, existing municipal services and the existing transportation system within Seaton. In August 2010, the Seaton Consulting Team on behalf of the Landowners completed the Phase 2 MESP, which was submitted for review. The MESP provided input into the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review being undertaken by the City of Pickering, and the Regional Services Class Environmental Assessment being undertaken by the Region. of Durham. In January 2011, Minutes of Settlement were signed by the Seaton Landowners, the City of Pickering, the TRCA, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Ontario Realty Corporation represented by the Minister of Infrastructure, agreeing to request the that the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approve the Pickering CPDP Conformity Official Plan Amendment (OPA) as a modification to the OPA Applications filed by the Landowners. In addition, the Landowners have agreed to amend the MESP to address comments provided by the City and TRCA and resubmit a Master Environmental Servicing Plan Amendment (MESPA). _ _ _ _ I AT Ti HME l-r®KE_r0RT#_.~Y ,'T{ -of 80 As part of the Minutes of Settlement, the City agreed to process the Draft Plans and prepare a draft zoning by-law for Seaton in a short time frame., In order for Draft Plans to be approved and processed, it is typical for them to be supported_by the appropriate technical reports. For Seaton, these reports are known as the Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Reports (NFSSRs), which themselves fulfill the recommendations of the MESPA. 2. Purpose' The City of Pickering requires assistance to complete an in-depth technical review of the NFSSRs for all six Seaton Neighbourhoods 15,.17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 in order to assess the methodology, correctness, completeness,. suitability of the designs acid/or appropriateness of the NFSSR content in a timely manner. It is also important that the technical review be conducted such that all NFSSR's are reviewed with a consistent approach' as they are being undertaken by several different consulting firms. 3. Study Program The Table of Contents (TofC) for the NFSSRs, has been agreed to by the Seaton Consulting Team and Landowners, TRCA and the City of Picke(ng, and is attached for reference. City of Pickering staff have identified the areas within the<TofC that the review should be focused on and includes the following. • Section 1'.0 Introduction a) Purpose and Scope of Work b)` Study Area • Section 2.0 Summary of MESPA Findings and Direction c) SWM and Infrastructure Direction from the MESPA • Section 3.0 Existing Conditions a), Hydrology/Hydraulics b) Channel Morphology and Streambank Erosion c) Geotechnical Conditions d) Hydrogeological Conditions Items b), c) & d) to be reviewed with respect to how those items relate to SWM infrastructure • Section 4.0 Municipal Servicing and Grading a) Conceptual Grading Pfan c) Conceptual Servicing Plan g) Phasing/Implementation of Services Section 6:0 Stormwater Management Strategy a) through g) exclusive of the Feature Raised Water Balance Assessment noted in c) Section 7 Summary a) NFSSR Compliance with City's OPA b) NFSSR Implementation of MESPA Requirements Future Study Requirements October 18, 2011 Page 2 Seaton N>=SSR Technical Review - ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT # O 44-11 of 13 81 Several items in the TofC have been excluded from the focused review as those areas are believed to be within the mandate of the TRCA. The technical review consultant should examine the above-noted Items together with the complete TofC and comment on the completeness of this focused review for the City's purposes. The technical revir w (onsultant shall review tl°ie !T EE's, (mideline: Profe,ssional Engineers Conducting feet (,f Technical Reviews (draft April 2009), to make thurnselves aware not only of the procedures of a technical review process but of the professional responsibilities and ethical obligations as described in that guideline. The technical review is intended, at a minimum, to make the following assessments of the NFSSRs: « Whether the completed work has met the objectives of the agreed upon NFSSRs TofC, the City of Pickering's Conformity OPA requirements.and the City's SWM Policies and Design Guidelines, « Whether there were other options that should have been considered by the authoring engineer, « Whether the evaluation of options was comprehensive, unbiased and.rigorous, « Validity of any assumptions made by the authoring engineer, « Validity of the technica[calculations, « Validity and appropriateness, innovation, efficiency and economics of the design, specifically with respect to the long-term operations and maintenance of the proposed SWM facilities; Validity of conclusion and recommendations and « Whether the design, conclusion and recommendations of a NFSSR is consistent with (or impacts) those a neighbouring NFSSR as the Neighbourhoods do not follow watershed boundaries. 4. Scope of Work The technical review consultant shall prepare a proposal that includes the following: • A detailed work plan on how the technical review will be conducted, • The documents to be reviewed, • Resources available to the reviewer, • Methodology of the review, • Format of the review report, « Protocol of communications between the reviewer and the other parties, « Confidentiality considerations, « Statement of conflict of interest, Schedule for review. October 18, 2011 Page 3 Seaton NFSSR Technical Review ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT i of 5. Deliverables- Technical Review Report 82 The>key deliverable is a Technical Review Report for each of the six NFSSRs. Each Report shall document the reviewer's findings and shall fully describe the information upon which the opinions are based. The reviewer shall reference particular legislation, code, standards or good engineering practices or standard conventions, upon which the findings are based. As the Review Reports contains statements of engineering judgement, and are therefore an engineering document, the Reputts will be required to be sealed. By sealing the Reports, the technical review consultant is accepting responsibility for the opinions in the report, riot for the work that was reviewed. 6. Fee Proposal The technical review consultant shall provide the estimated cost of the Technical Review services as outlined herein inclusive of all sub-consulting fees, mileage, disbursement allowances and HST. In addition, the consultant shall provide the hourly rates all personnel that may be used during this retainer including a brief summary of their expertise and potential input. Attachment /mg i October 18, 2011 Page 4 Seaton NFSSR Technical Review ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT#- CS y4-II ^:.of_I-~-- 83 June zn11 Seaton Community Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report (NFSSR) Final Annotated Table of Contents This annotated Table of-Contents (TOC)-details the scope of work required.for each NFSSR that will be prepared for the neighborhoods within Seaton. It was agreed that this annotated TOC would fulfill the agencies' request for a Terms of Reference for the NFSSRs and the scope of work has been determined in consultation with both the TRCA and the City of Pickering, The organization of* the TOC, as presented below, should not constrain the presentation of information In any specific NFSSR. During the preparation of an NFSSR, it maybe determined that an alternative order of presentation provides a better format in terms of clarity of information. However, all topics as outlined below must be addressed in the NFSSR, to the level of detail indicated, regardless of report organization. 1. Introduction a) Purpose and Scope of Work A standard introduction text will be provided to be utilized for all NFSSRs which will: Outline the context and objectives of the NFSSRs; Provide a brief description of the City of Pickering's Conformity OPA Requirements, specifically: City policy on Seaton NHS, grading in NHS, SWM/infrastructure etc - Table 3; City policy regarding development - Section 11.37 (g) through (k); City-policy on Sustainable Water Management - Section 11,44 (a) & (b); City policy on Stormwater Facility Considerations - Section 11.45 (a) through 0); City policy on NFSSR - Section 11.73 a) through r). - Provide a'background review, of the MESPA recommendations; and, - Provide a brief outline of the NFSSR format (i.e., components/ sections). b) Study Area - Provide a brief description of the NFSSR study area and relationship to Neighbourhood Plan boundaries (i.e., relationship to. crossings, SWMFs and subwatershed/watershed boundaries). . Prepare a `Key Plan .showing Neighbourhood Area, land ownership, watercourses, roads etc. - Provide a discussion, on the conformity of the proposed Graft Plans with the City's Neighbourhood Plans. - Provide a brief description of the NFSSR Study Area.and its relationship to the Staged Servicing and Implementation Strategy and the Regional EA for Water, Sewer and Transportation (i.e., acknowledge that NFSSR work is integrated with these studies; specific elements addressed in the Servicing section). i ATTACH MENIT#__L_ TO REPORT #-L-440/ of J.- •84 Seaton Community Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report Annotated Table of Contents Final ,June 1, 2011 Page 2 2, Summary of I[VIESPA Findings and Direction a) Natural Heritage System Provide a description of the NHS and sensitivities of the features within the Neighbourhood area. - Indicate which features require special consideration; with respect to water balance, crossing, erosion, etc. b), ESA Specific Requirements Summary of recommendations from'MESPA re: Endangered Species Act requirements for the NFSSR area, specifically; Identify Redside Dace occupied reaches and recovery habitat; Identify applicable components of Redside Dace overall benefit plan that are to be addressed in NFSSR area; Identify applicable components of bobolink overall benefit plan that are to be addressed in NFSSR area; Identify known locations of butternuts and restrictions that apply; Identify other ESA species known to be present and restrictions that apply (i.e., additional species that maybe classified as ESA, if NFSSR completed in the future). c) SWM and Infrastructure Direction from the;MESPA, Describe the requirements for the specific NFSSR re: stormwater management, and roads and servicing crossings of the NHS, 3. Existing Conditions a) Hydrology/Hydraulics identify any refinements to subratchmeht, catchment and subwatershed areas from the MESPA based on more detailed topographical mapping, - Prepare a drawing showing existing drainage conditions for the neighbourhood including subcatchment, catchment and subwatershed areas, drainage areas to features, regulatory floodiines for all reaches and topography. b) Channel Morphology and Strearnbank Erosion Determine meander belt widths in areas where required for unconfined systems. i Surnmary of field work, characterize the findings and constraints (erosion sites, scars, slumps, small ephemeral streams etc.). c) Geotechnical Conditions l - Describe geotechnical conditions of NFSSR area (geotechnical report(s) to be included as an appendix), Characterize the soil types. - Identify'geotechnical issues that may affect stormwater management. Identify' the erosion hazard limit for confined systems (long term stable top of slope), including any toe erosion allowance. - Determine -appropriate setback requirements from the Iroquois shoreline (where .applicable). ATTACHMENT# TOREPORT# C_54V-/l of 85 Seaton Community Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Storrnwater Report Annotated Table of Contents Final Jane 1, 20 f 1 Page 3 d) Hydrogeological Conditions Describe local groundwater flow conditions (flow directions, depth to water table, recharge and discharge conditions, hydraulic conductivity) and their relationship to the sensitivities of the natural features. e) Feature Based Water Balance Describe surface water drainage including identification of drainage to local wetlands, woodlands and watercourses including headwater drainage features. Refine existing conditions MESPA feature based water .balance models (QUALHYMO) based on more detailed 'topographic mapping to confirm feature based water balance requirements. f) ESA Conditions - Butternut Trees. - Inventory all trees outside of NHS, and within the NHS where infrastructure and grading -are proposed to be located, to identify if butternut trees are present. If butternut trees are found, assess condition, determine need for protection and/or apply for permit and/or follow conditions set out in regulation, when ten or less apparently healthy trees are proposed for removal and prepare a planting plan as required (re: regulation modification that is proposed to come into force at the end of May, 2011). 4. Municipal Servicing and Grading a) Prepare a Conceptual Grading Plan and cross-sections, illustrating major system drainage, road grades and slopes, lot types (split, walkout, front drainage etc.), limit of grading, sloping greater than 5%, and trails. Major system flow paths should be indicated and designed ensuring all requirements are met (ie, some roads may require one lane of traffic to be open during emergencies etc.), and any capacity restrictions should be identified: Routing of any external flows through the site as well as any interim servicing conditions =must also be identified. b) Note areas where grading is proposed within the NHS and provide discussion regarding impact mitigation and restoration of the NHS. c) Prepare a Conceptual Servicing Plan and cross-sections, where applicable, illustrating storm, sanitary and water-main servicing including sewer obverts, road grades, direction of flow, trunk servicing, and drainage divides. d) Provide construction practices recommendations as required for servicing and infrastructure having regard for Redside dace and ESA requirements, and identify compensation, mitigation or restoration plans for crossings of the NHS as applicable. e) Outline conceptual requirements for erosion and sediment control consistent with TRCA Guidelines and having regard for Redside Dace and ESA requirements, and development phasing in vicinity. ATTACHMENT#.J.m TO REPORT#L/1/'// L42 _ of 8 6 Seaton Community Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report Annotated Table of Contents Final June 1, 2011 Page 4 f) Provide an overview of non-municipal utility requirements including butnot limited to hydro, cable, gas.and telephone, g) Prepare a figure showing the phasing for the implementation of the required neighbourhood -spine services including any interim and temporary . measures. 5. Transportation 5.1 System Design a) Prepare a figure.showing the transportation system for the neighbourhood including all roads, the transit system (if applicable), trails, sidewalks and bike lanes. b) Include typical details for the required road right-of-way sections (both rural and urban) and indicate where these are applicable within the Neighbourhood. c) Provide discussion on transition zones between rural and urban cross sections. '5.2 Natural Heritage System Road Crossings a) Complete a preliminary design of all roads that are not part of the Regional Eft that cross through. the NHS; including plan and profile elevations and required grading (including grading beyond the right of way). b) Complete the NHS Roads Checklist provided in the MESPA for each road crossing of the NHS for all roads'that.are not part of the Regional EA as indicated in the MESPA as per the Neighbourhood Plan. c) Prepare a NHS Road Crossing figure (template to be provided)' illustrating the following: - All constraints' and natural hazards plus buffers as per the MESPA (floodlines, wetlands, woodlands, meander belt width, erosion hazard limit, stable top of slope, fisheries setback); Proposed road plan and profile elevations (rural or urban cross-section); Infrastructure and intersections with trails; Flood elevations (existing and proposed); and, Field Work Requirements check list (staking of wetlands and driplines where required [after review of original survey work]; geotechnicai boreholes); d) If ;identifietl in the NHS Roads Checklist as, being required, complete the investigations required by the Checklist for each crossing of the NHS; and include as an appendix, to determine the crossing structure details. e) Provide a summary table of all crossings considered within the Neighbourhood including the location, size of the opening, length of the crossing structure and type of structure, and other design elements. ATTACH M ENT #__L TORE PORT IL of `87 Seaton Community Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report Annotated Table- of Contents F=inal June 1, 011 Page 5 6. Stormwater Management Strategy a) Outline the stormwater management design criteria (i.e, 2-100 year quantity control, Regional Storm quantity control, erosion, water quality, ESA/Redside Dace, groundwater and surface water balance from the MESPA), b) Undertake an assessment of stormwater management alternatives, having regard to the MESPA Stormwater Management Options. Strategy. Components may include wet SWM ponds, dry'SWM ponds, LIDS, OGS, etc. In addition, alternative component measures can be considered if feasible and applicable to the NFSSR'area, c) Complete a' quantitative analysis for each alternative SWM scenario to evaluate compliance with the design criteria outlined in a) above, including: Hydrology Model Update: Update the post-development conditions Visual Otthymo model with the site I specific drainage areas, land use and SWM facility information for each alternative scenario. Comment on the effectiveness of the proposed SWM strategy in relation to the peak flows at key flow nodes downstream. Erosion Analysis, Update the MESPA Qualhymo Erosion model with the site specific drainage areas and land use for post development conditions. Complete an exceedance assessment utilizing the erosion thresholds at the most sensitive reach in each subwatershed (West Duffins, Whitevale, Ganatsekiagon, Urfe and Brougham Creeks) as identified in the MESPA (number of exceedances and exceedance hours comparison between pre and post-development conditions, with and without mitigation); iterate as necessary to achieve optimal SWM strategy. Comment on the effectiveness of the proposed SWM strategy in relation to the erosion exceedance assessment. Feature Based Water Balance Assessment: If required for wetlands, woodlands. and/or headwater drainage features identified in the MESPA, update the MESPA Qualhymo feature based water balance model with the site-specific drainage areas and land use for post development conditions, with and without mitigation measures. I Complete a feature based water balance assessment (i.e., the comparison of pre- development conditions as per the MESPA and post-development conditions runoff volumes, with and without mitigation); iterate as necessary to achieve optimal SWM strategy for maintenance of natural heritage features and functions, as per the recommendations of the MESPA. Comment on the effectiveness of the proposed SWM strategy in relation to the feature based water balance assessment. . TO REP©RT_# CS / ATTACH Mf`NT# ~2 ofd Seaton Community " 3 Neighbourhood Functional Servicing and Stormwater Report Annotated Table of Contents Final June 1, 2011 Page q d) Complete is Life-Cycle Cost Analysis on the SWM scenarios which meet the design criteria with an emphasis on the Long-Tew Operations and Maintenance costs (i.e., specific details -on the `operations and maintenance costs and expected service life of the facilities will be forthcoming from the City of Pickering), e) Select the "preferred SWM strategy based on a number of evaluation criteria, including the fife-Cycle Cost Analysis, and in consultation with the City. Prepare a plan illustrating the preferred SWM strategy including SWM facility, SMP and LID measure quantities, locations, types and drainage areas, f) Prepare a SWM Facility Details figure (template to be provided) for each facility servicing the neighbourhood including,the following: - Drainage area.(ha) and assumed percent impervious (to be based on actual draft plan); All constraints and natural hazards plus buffers as per the MESPA (floodlines, wetlands, woodlands, meander belt width, erosion hazard limit, stable top. of slope, fisheries setback); Summary of geotechnical conditions, identification of geotechnical issues for SWMF construction including soil types, slope stability, pressures, need for dewatering, pond iners, etc.; Summary of hydrogeological conditions, discussion.of infiltration characteristics of the , surficial soils in study area for SWMF measure selection and design; - Preliminary grading and servicing including maintenance access road, sediment drying area, emergency spillway, high flow by-pass etc.); Required and provided storage volumes (permanent pool, extended detention, quantity); Determine appropriate block sizes for SWlvt facilities and grading; Outfall location and treatment (i.e. wetland flow spreader, bioswale - reference to LID figure if applicable); Field Work Requirements check list (staking of wetlands and driplines where required [after review of original survey work]; outfall location; geotechn.ical boreholes); and, Identify special design. considerations for groundwater management (i.e., liner, perimeter drains etc.). g) Prepare a LID Measure` Details figure (template to be provided) for each LID servicing the neighbourhood including the following: - Description of local soil and groundwater conditions; All constraints and natural hazards plus buffers as per the MESPA (floodlines, wetlands, woodlands, meander belt width, erosion hazard limit, stable top of slope, fisheries setback); Summary of geotechnical conditions, identification of geotechnical issues for LID construction incuding soil types, slope "stability, pressures, need for dewatering, pond liners, etc.;' Summary of -hydrogeological conditions, discussion of infiltration characteristics of the surficial sails in study area for LID measure selection and design; - Preliminary grading and servicing;° - Drainage area (ha) and assumed percent impervious (to be based on actual draft plan); Required and provided storage volumes (if necessary); Design flow rates and velocities (if necessary); and, ' ATTACHMENT #--L TO REPORT# .89 Seaton Communib;+ Neighbourhood Function=al Servicing and Stormwater Report Annotated Table of Contents Final June 1, 2011 Page 7 Field Work Requirements check list (staking of wetlands and driplines where required (after review of original survey work]; outfall location; geotechnical boreholes). 7. Summary a) NFSSR Compliance with the'City of Pickering's OPA For the relevant OPA sections outlined in Section 1.0, present the relevant section in full, and describe how each section has been met through completion of the NFSSR (tabular format). b) NFSSR Implementation of MESPA Requirements Indicate how the NFSSR implements the MESPA recommendations (tabular format). c) Infrastructure Intrusions into the NHS - Prepare a drawing that identifies all locations and extent of all infrastructure and grading within the limits of the NHS. 8. Future Study Requirements Include a listing of Future Study Requirements applicable to the individual draft plans within the Neighbourhood including, but not limited .to, the following if required: - Stormwater Management Facility and LID Measure Design Brief; - Stormwater Management Facility and LID Measure Operations and Maintenance Manual; - Stormwater Management "Facility and LID Measure Monitoring Program; - Design Brief for NHS Crossings (if applicable including hydraulic, geomorphic, fisheries and terrestrial passage design); I - Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Report including phasing in the vicinity; - Grading Plans and Cross Sections; - Edge Management Plans; and, Restoration Plans/Compensation Plans. i ATTACH MENT# 2- TO REPORT#_~ 1 Of 90 r► Sorensen Gravely Lowes ~T Planning Associates Inc. l,J Principals: Warren Sorensen, P.Eng, MOP, RPP 509 Davenport Road Catherine Gravely, MES, MOP, RPP Toronto, Ontario M4V 1 B8 Paul Lowes, MES, MOP, RPP Telephone (416) 923-6630 Carol-Anne Munroe, MOP, RPP Facsimile (416) 923-6916 November 3, 2011 Ms. Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP The Corporation of the City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, ON, L 1 V 6K7 Dear Ms. Rose: Re: Proposal for Engineering Services - Seaton Neighbourhood Functional Servicing & Stormwater Reports (,NFSSRs) Technical Review Further to your request of October 19, 2011, we are pleased to provide you with the following proposal to provide our civil engineering and planning services in support of the technical review of the NFSSRs for six Seaton Neighbourhoods. Project Understanding We understand that the City is requesting an extension to our consulting assignment to assist with the technical review of the NFSSRs in conjunction with the review of the Draft Plans and completion of the Neighbourhood Plans that we will be conducting with City staff. Six NFSSRs will be included in the review program (one for each of Seaton Neighbourhoods 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21). The reports will be prepared by several consulting firms, however the review approach will ensure a consistent approach to assess the methodology, correctness, completeness, and suitability of design and/or appropriateness of the NFSSR content. We understand that all of the information required for the Technical review will be included within the NFSSRs. Project Schedule As part of the timelines set out upon consent of all parties to the OMB appeals to the Neighbourhood Plans, the City is to review the NFSSRs within two months of their receipt, which was originally anticipated to be November 30, 2011. We note that this schedule may be delayed due to the on-going discussions regarding the hydrological modelling through the Master Environmental and Servicing Plan (MESP). 9 1 ATTACH MENT#--!?L- TOREPORT#15-44-1/ of I_ Sorensen Gravely Lowes -TL Planning Associates Inc. page 2 Staffing The following key personnel will be assigned to the project. Please refer to the enclosed curricula vitae for more detailed information. Steve Schaefer, P. Eng., Principal, SCS - Steve will supervise the NFSSR technical review and quality of services delivered. Steve has been in the consulting engineering industry since 1989 and has a background in both water resources and municipal engineering. He has been responsible for numerous Functional Servicing Plans throughout his career. Paul Lowes, MCIP, RPP, Principal, SGL - Paul as the project manager of the Seaton Neighbourhood Plans will ensure that this technical review is coordinated with the finalization of the Neighbourhood Plans and the review of the landowners draft plans of subdivision. He will also act as an advisor to the technical team on policy matters and provide a link between the technical review and the planning review of the draft plans of subdivision. Sarah Kurtz, P. Eng. - Water Resources Project Manager, SCS - Sarah will be the Project Manager, responsible for review of the Stormwater Management portion of the NFSSRs. Sarah is a professional engineer specializing in Water Resources and has been involved in the completion of many Functional Servicing Reports and Master Environmental Servicing Plans for both large and small developments throughout the GTA. Sarah, together with her team will be responsible for completion of the technical reviews and completion of the associated reports. Malcolm Catto, P. Eng., Principal, SCS - Malcolm manages the detail design group, which is responsible for preparation of detail design drawings for a variety of subdivision and site plans throughout the GTA. Malcolm's team has also been responsible for technical review services of detail design drawings for residential subdivisions in the Town of Markham as well as numerous drawing reviews undertaken for various clients. Malcolm will provide input to the technical review of the grading and water/sanitary/storm infrastructure preliminary design within the NFSSRs. Scope of Work We propose to undertake the following scope of work in accordance with the procedures of a Technical Review process and the professional and ethical obligations as described in PEO's Guideline: Professional Engineers Conducting Peer or Technical Reviews (draft April 2009): 1. Preparation We will undertake the following initiatives prior to receiving the NFSSRs to prepare ourselves and the process to be used to review the documents: Review the PEO's Guideline: Professional Engineers Conducting Peer Review or Technical Reviews (draft April 2009) and confirm the relevant requirements and objectives of a "Technical Review"; ATTACHMENT TO REPORT#_O...S~-/ ~ 3 Of ~ 92 Sorensen Gravely Lowes ~TL Planning Associates Inc. page 3 H Review the City's SWM Policies and Design Guidelines; Review the City's Development Control Guidelines; Review the MESPA findings and direction; Develop an understanding of the City's Conformity OPA, the Neighbourhood Plans and the policy framework for detailed technical studies through the assistance of Paul Lowes; Prepare a review matrix to be'used for each of the NFSSRs to ensure a consistent approach for the Technical Review; Prepare a draft report outline for use on each of the NFSSRs to ensure a consistent commenting approach and content; Provide the draft review matrix and report outline to the City for review and comment; and Meet with the City to confirm the review approach (Meeting #1). 2. NFSSR Review We assume that all six NFSR's will be provided simultaneously to facilitate a uniform review of the documents. The following procedure will be undertaken to: - Confirm the objectives of the agreed upon NFSSRs Table of Contents, the City's Conformity OPA requirements and the City's SWM Policies and Design Guidelines have been met; - Determine if other options should have been considered by the authoring engineer; - Confirm if the evaluation of options are comprehensive, unbiased and rigorous; - Confirm the assumptions made are valid; - Confirm the technical calculations are correct; - Confirm if the proposed designs are valid, appropriate, innovative, efficient and economically sound, specifically with respect to the long term maintenance of the proposed SWM facilities; - Confirm the conclusions and recommendations are valid; and - Confirm the conclusions and recommendations are consistent with those neighbouring NFSSRs with overlapping watershed or servicing boundaries. Introduction - Confirm that the purpose of the reports and study area are adequately and correctly described. Summary of MESPA - Confirm that the S WM and Infrastructure Direction from the MESPA is adequately and accurately described. 'Existing Conditions o Hydrology - Review the accuracy of the following: Consistency with the MESPA; ■ Drainage areas relative to the topographic mapping; ■ Model inputs (soil types, Tp, Ia, CN, etc.); ■ Model set-up; and ■ Description of the model in the text of the NFSSRs. 9 3 ATTACHMENT#_-~ TO REPORT#CL44'11 _ of Sorensen Gravely Lowes Z Y Planning Associates Inc. page 4 o Hydraulics'-. review of the accuracy and adequacy of the following: ■ Consistency with the MESPA, if updated or new hydraulic mapping is included, the review will include: • General cross-section locations and configuration (not including a detailed review of each section coding); • Roughness coefficients; • Flow inputs (aerial reductions where appropriate); • Floodline plotting on the topography; and • Description of the model in the text of the NFSSR. o Channel Morphology and Streambank Erosion - review of background data to confirm a consistent approach and recognition of the 100-year erosion limits as a constraint factor to the future limit of developments or creek crossings (field confirmation of all erosion sites will not be undertaken as part of this review). We assume that the accuracy of the morphology and streambank erosion assessments will be reviewed by TRCA. o Geotechnical Conditions - review the Geotechnical Report and confirm that the soil types, hydraulic conductivity have been accurately reflected in the NFSSRs (with regard to the association with the proposed LID and SWM measures). The review will also confirm the existence of any adverse soil conditions and the recommended treatment. We assume that the slope stability will be reviewed by TRCA, however we will include a general review of the general slope stability issues identified within the report and flag any areas of concern early in the review process to allow the appropriate peer review to be undertaken. o Hydrogeotechnical Conditions - review the Hydrogeotechnical Report to confirm that the areas of discharge or recharge and the associated hydraulic conductivity of the soil types as well as the groundwater levels and any potential existing well impacts have been adequately and accurately reflected within the NFSSRs (with regard to the association with proposed LID and SWM measures). We assume that the water balance and impacts of recharge or discharge areas on adjacent creeks will be reviewed by TRCA. Municipal Servicing and Grading o Conceptual Grading Plan - review the accuracy and adequacy of the following: ■ Confirmation that the plan demonstrates major system drainage paths, road grades and slopes, lot types (split, walkout, front drainage etc.), limit of grading, sloping greater than 5% and walls. ■ Confirm that sufficient grade points are provided to demonstrate that the grading concept is feasible. ■ Conformity with municipal standards related to road and lot grades including slope transitions on roads, maximum slope/berms on lots. ■ General review of areas within the grading plan for numerical accuracy of slopes and grades (not inclusive of every grade and slope on the drawings). ATTACH MENT# a! TOREPORT# CS 4q-11 94 of Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. page 5 ■ Complete numerical review of all areas of steep slopes or significant grade transitions through lotting or against limits of development. ■ Confirmation that the lot grading and lot sizes accommodate the Acoustical Study berming requirements. ■ Confirmation that boundary conditions are adequately addressed with regard to drainage, grade transitions, future urban streetline grades on boundary roads. ■ Confirm there are no trapped drainage areas both within the plan and on external boundary road low points. ■ Review the need for any overland flow routes and that the associate block widths are adequate. ■ Review the overland flow capacity calculations for major overland flow routes along right of ways to ensure the flow is maintained with the right of way and that sufficient travel portions of the lanes are available where necessary. o Conceptual Servicing Plan - review the accuracy and adequacy of the following: ■ Sanitary & Water (we assume that Durham Region will undertake a technical review of the sanitary and water design and associated criteria and tributary population) • Confirm the proposed sanitary sewer and watermain layout does not result in any conflicts with the City's storm sewer system or road layout (i.e. deep sewer, crossings, sewers outside of right of way etc.). • Review proposed creek crossing locations and ensure no conflicts with the City's road infrastructure. ■ Storm Sewer • Confirm that an adequate storm servicing plan is provided including the storm sewer location, direction of flow, obverts, road grades, trunk servicing, drainage divides and cross sections where applicable. • Confirm that the City's design criteria have been noted in the document. • Confirm that the storm sewer layout is in accordance with municipal criteria and effectively conveys drainage to the SWM facilities or storm outfalls. • Ensure external drainage is accommodated. • Review the need for any major system capture points. • Review the recommendations regarding the use of inlet controls. • Review the need for foundation collectors or sump pumps due to shallow storm sewers or outfall elevations (review alternatives). • Review the need for any storm sewers outside of the right of way and that the associated block widths or easements provided are adequate. ATTACHMENT#~ TO REPORT#CS 9 (a of 121 Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. page 6 • Review the need for RLCB's and that they can be adequately accommodated. • Confirm that the storm sewer layout is consistent with the proposed drainage boundaries and grading plan. ■ Phasing/Implementation • Confirm that a phasing and implementation plan is included in the NFSSRs. • Review the need for any interim storm outfall locations or SWM facility requirements. • Review the need for any interim road connections or turning circles. • Review the need for any interim servicing easements or blocks. r-~ Stormwater Management Strategy o Criteria - Confirm the SWM objectives and design criteria as confirmed in the MESPA are adequately and accurately referenced in the reports. o SWM Assessment - Review and confirm that an assessment of appropriate SWM and LID methods was undertaken based on the MESPA Stormwater Management Options Strategy and the relevant site opportunities and constraints (i.e. soils, vegetation, water balance. requirements, topography, groundwater table etc.). Ensure that any SWM or LID measures proposed are compatible with the City's current design criteria and accepted practices and that long term maintenance can be adequately accommodated. o Hydrology - Review the accuracy and adequacy of the following: ■ Consistency with the MESPA; ■ Drainage areas relative to the proposed grading and storm sewer layout of the draft plans; ■ V02 Model inputs (soil types, Tp, la, CN, etc.); ■ Model set-up; ■ Ability for the proposed SWM facilities to meet downstream peak flow targets at all nodes identified through the MESPA; and ■ Description of the model in the text of the NFSSRs. o Erosion Analysis - Review the accuracy and adequacy of the following: ■ Consistency with the MESPA; ■ Drainage areas relative to the proposed grading and storm sewer layout ■ Qualhymo Model inputs (soil types, Tp, la, CN, etc.); ■ Model set-up; ■ Ability for the proposed SWM facilities to meet downstream exceedance targets at all nodes identified through the MESPA; and ■ Description of the model in the text of the NFSSRs. o Lifecycle Costs ■ Review the lifecycle analysis to ensure that the expected maintenance intervals are accurately and consistently described. ATTACH MENT# ~ TO REPORT#_Q6__q4"11 of Sorensen Gravely Lowes ~?L Planning Associates Inc. page 7 ■ Review the cost analysis provided to ensure the City's rates were appropriately incorporated. o SWM Facilities Detail Figures ■ Confirm that the SWM facility figure include the following: Adjacent constraints and natural hazards and buffers including floodlines, wetlands, woodlands, meander belt width, erosion hazard limit, stable top of slope and fisheries setback. ■ Confirm that a summary of the applicable soil type and groundwater condition is described and accurately translated from the Geotechnical Report. ■ Confirm the Geotechnical related design implications for the SWM facilities have been incorporated into the preliminary design, including soil types, slope stability, pressures, dewatering, liners etc. ■ Confirm that the Hydrogeological conditions have been accurately and adequately addressed and incorporated into the design, including a discussion of infiltration characteristics related to the design of the facility. ■ Ensure that the SWM facility figure accurately and adequately demonstrates that: • The grading meets municipal and geotechnical requirements;, • The required volume is provided for all components of the SWM facility (permanent pool, forebay volume and configuration, extended detention, quantity control, infiltration volume etc.); • Maintenance access is provided to all necessary areas; • A sediment drying area is provided; • An emergency spillway is provided from the facility; • Storm sewer and overland flow drainage into the facility are appropriately shown; • A high-flow by-pass is provided; • The 100 year level in the SWM facility is sufficiently below the storm sewer infrastructure to avoid HGL issues; and • The SWM facility outfall structure adequately takes into consideration the backwater elevations in the receiving watercourse. ■ Confirm that the SWM Block is adequately sized to accommodate the above requirements. ■ Confirm that the outfall location and treatment are in accordance with the LID recommendations and include measures such as wetland flow spreaders or bioswales (Note: Appropriate outfall measures within TRCA regulated areas will be subject to review by TRCA and MNR). ■ Confirm that appropriate fieldwork requirements related to the outfall have been listed in the NFSSRs including (staking of wetlands, driplines, steep slopes, creek configuration and invert/bank elevations). ■ Confirm if any special design considerations were required and are adequately identified in the report. ATTIACHMENT#-L TOREPORT# CS L44-/I 97 g of~Z Sorensen Gravely Lowes Planning Associates Inc. page 8 ■ Review and confirmation of overland flow route and spillway velocity and depth calculations including a review of hydraulic jumps. o LID Measure Detail Figures ■ Confirm that the LID facility figure include the following: Adjacent constraints and natural hazards and buffers including floodlines, wetlands, woodlands, meander belt width, erosion hazard limit, stable top of slope and fisheries setback. ■ Confirm that a summary of the applicable soil type and groundwater condition is described and accurately translated from the Geotechnical Report. ■ Confirm the Geotechnical related design implications for the LID facilities have been incorporated into the preliminary design, including soil types, slope stability, pressures, dewatering, liners etc. ■ , Confirm that the Hydrogeological conditions have been accurately and adequately addressed and incorporated into the design, including a discussion of infiltration characteristics related to the design of the facility. Ensure that the LID facility figure accurately and adequately demonstrates: • The grading meets municipal and geotechnical requirements; • The required volume is provided for all components of the LID facility (if applicable, including quantity control, infiltration volume, oil-grit separator preliminary sizing etc.); • Maintenance access is provided to all necessary areas (for LID's on municipal lands); and • Storm sewer and overland flow drainage into the facility are appropriately shown. ■ Confirm that adequate flow rates and velocities have been demonstrated (where necessary). ■ Confirm that the LID Block is adequately sized to accommodate the above requirements or that use of LID's on private property are identified appropriately and that homeowner education programs are recommended. ■ Confirm that the outfall location and treatment are in accordance with the LID recommendations and include measures such as wetland flow spreaders or bioswales. (Note: appropriate outfall measures within TRCA regulated areas will be subject to review by TRCA.) ■ Confirm that appropriate fieldwork requirements related to the outfall (where required) have been listed in the NFSSRs including (staking of wetlands, driplines, steep slopes, creek configuration and invert/bank elevations). i AT ACHMENT4 a!._ 1'OREPORT# Q y4'11 of 12.2 98 Sorensen Gravely Lowes KY Planning Associates Inc. page 9 Summary o Ensure that the relevant OPA requirements are addressed. o Ensure that the conclusions and recommendations of each NFSSR and the corresponding critique are consistent with the draft plans of subdivision and the City's and consulting teams critique of the draft plans. o Ensure that the MESPA recommendations are summarized in tabular format and that an adequate description of how each item was implemented through the NFSSR is included. o Confirm that the overall assumptions and conclusions are valid. o Confirm that the conclusion and recommendations of each NFSSR are consistent with the any abutting draft plans of subdivision with regard to shared servicing or drainage conditions. Future Study Requirements o Confirm a list of future study requirements is provided, including but not limited to: ■ SWMF and LID Measure Design Brief; ■ SWMF and LID Measure Operations and Maintenance Manual; ■ SWMF and LID Measure Monitoring Program; ■ Design Brief for NHS Crossings; ■ Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Report including phasing in the vicinity; ■ Grading Plans and cross-sections; ■ Edge Management Plans; and ■ Restoration Plans/Compensation Plans. To ensure efficiency and consistency in the report review, we propose to employ a consistent reviewer for the various components of the reports (i.e. grading, SWM ponds etc.). For this reason, it would be beneficial to receive three copies of each report to allow simultaneous reviews to be undertaken. A series of meetings will be held between SCS and SGL and with City staff to coordinate the review of the NFSSR's with the review of the draft plans of subdivision. SGL will coordinate these meetings with City staff (Meeting #2 and #3). The technical review comments will be compiled into separate report for each NFSSR and will be provided to the City in a draft format for review. A meeting with the City is anticipated at this time to explain and discuss the proposed review comments (Meeting #4). Due to the extent and number of the reports, the meeting with City staff may need to occur over multiple sessions and days. A final report will be prepared following the City's review. Should further meetings be required with the City or the authoring engineers or if additional reviews are required for future re-submissions of the NFSSRs, we can provide an updated scope at that time. / A3'TAChMENT#- ~ TO~PORT#C.= 99 i of Q Sorensen Gravely Lowes ~TL Planning Associates Inc. page 10 3. Review Report Format A separate written Technical Review Report will be provided in a letter format for each of the six NFSSR's and will include the following format: o Introduction (identify the individual who authorized the review, the authoring engineer, the study being reviewed, the purpose of the review being a "technical review", documentation provided, communications made during the review, a description of our methodology for conducting the review and the particular legislation, code and standards upon which the findings are based) o Comments (using the approved Table of Contents as a format, provide a written summary of all relevant technical comments or opinions. Each comment or opinion will be identified with a separate number to facilitate a response to the comments). In accordance with the PEO's guidelines, the report will not include any specific recommendations or changes to the authoring engineer's design or report. The report will only identify problems and concerns regarding errors, omissions or failure to meet the City's expectations or noncompliance with standards and regulations. If alternate opinions are suggested in the report, they will be clearly identified as such. Reasons will be given for the opinion and will include clear indication of the constraints within which the opinion holds, and the relevant qualifying circumstances, facts and assumptions. A qualifying statement of liability will be include in the report to document that any opinions suggested by our firm are for the consideration of the authoring engineer and if implemented are to be considered as their own design. The review matrix tool developed for our implementation of the NFSSR reviews will not be included in the report since the report will only focus on required or suggested changes as opposed to acknowledging which sections are acceptable. The report will be written in a positive and constructive manner. The report will be sealed by a professional engineer. 4. Protocol for Communications between the Reviewer and Other Parties Unless directed otherwise, our sole point of contact will be with the City of Pickering. No direct contact will occur between our firm and the Seaton landowners or their consultants. Any meetings, discussion or correspondence from the landowners or their consultants will be facilitated through the City's staff. Clarification of issues may be helpful during the review. If necessary, contact with the authoring engineer will be facilitated through the City. I AT T/-,Cl-iMENT#_A.) EOREPORT# -l~ of _1L n, 0 Sorensen Gravely Lowes ~TL Planning Associates Inc. page 11 5. Confidentiality Considerations Any information received from the authoring engineer will be treated as confidential disclosures. Information included in the reviewed reports will not be relied on in the future by our firm. All reviewed information and prepared reports will be kept in our archived work files upon completion of the assignment. 6. Statement of Conflict of Interest As you are aware, we are currently retained by the City to undertake the Seaton Neighbourhood Planning Review. This assignment will be a continuing role as your consultant and therefore we do not foresee any conflict of interest with the role. 7. Schedule for Review Based on our understanding that the City has been given a 2 month review time for the NFSSRs .through the timeline agreed to amongst the parties to the OMB appeals of the neighbourhood plans and that our review will be consolidated with the City's overall review of the reports, we suggest the following schedule based on a receipt of the NFSSRs on November 30, 2011: Item Duration 1 Review of background documents and preparation Weeks 1 - 3 (3 weeks) of review matrix and report templates to the City's satisfaction 2 Initial review of the six NFSSRs review (including Weeks 4 - 10 (7 weeks, on-going coordination with the City as required) excluding the week between and provision of draft reports to the City Christmas and New Years 3 City review of the draft reports Week 11 1 (1 week) We recognize this is a very short timeframe for review. We will need to discuss this further with City staff. 4 Update of the draft reports if required and Issue to Week 12 (1 week) the City The above schedule is approximate. We will endeavour to complete the reviews in Item 2 as soon as possible, with 7 weeks being the maximum timeframe. Work will commence by December 2011. Fee Based on the potential variability of the scope of work associated with this assignment, we propose to proceed on a time basis based on our hourly rates included in the attached ATTACHMENT #--2!- rOREPORT#~4-// of 12, 1 0 '1 Sorensen Gravely Lowes ;,X Planning Associates Inc. page 12 Appendix A. For your budgeting purposes, we estimate the cost will be $82,930 including disbursements plus $10,840 HST based on the following breakdown: Item Estimated HST Total Fee Preparation $6,900 $900 $7,800 NFSSR Review 6 reports) - Introduction and Existing Conditions $12,210 $1,590 113,800 - Municipal Servicing and Grading $6,000 $780 $6,780 - SWM Strategy $27,000 $3,540 $30,540 - Summary and Future Study $2,520 $330 $2,850 Requirements - Report Preparation $13,200 $1,740 $14,940 - 4 Meetings $15,100 $1,960 $17,060 Total $82,930 $10,840 $93,770 Fees and disbursements will be subject to H.S.T. Recoverable expenses assumed to be included in the fee above include travel ($0.52/lon), courier charges, printing of reports and final drawings, and purchased documents. Expenses will be billed at cost. We note that this fee estimate is consistent with the anticipated scope of work above and excludes further meetings with the City and authoring engineers or additional reviews of resubmitted reports. We look forward to the opportunity of providing our services for this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours very truly, SORENSEN GRAVELY LOWES PLANNING ASSOCIATES INC. PAw-, MCIP, ItPP Principal cc: Steve Schaefer, SCS Consulting Group Attachments: Appendix A - SCS Fee Schedule Appendix B - SCS Fee Agreement Conditions Curriculum Vitae