The Corporation of the City…

The Corporation of the City of Barrie's Environmental Compliance Unit (City) has reviewed the ERO proposal and has the following discussion comments to be taken into consideration:

1. Section 3.4 – the following should be changed to “the RMM’s described therein and outlined in Part 1 of the CPU are necessary to prevent, eliminate or ameliorate an Adverse Effect on the Property.
a. The City suggests the above wording as there are concerns for what actions will be required to ameliorate off-Site Adverse Effects.

2. Section 4.2.4 – Land Use Restrictions state that “At no time shall there be privately owned greenspace/landscaped areas on the Property. All greenspace/landscaped areas of the Property are common areas and are to be managed through Property Management Oversight.”
a. It has been proposed that a portion of the property will be given back to the City for park land use, how will this condition be achieved with a change in ownership for this portion? And what will be provided to the City to absolve them of any liabilities as a result of potential or inferred inherited contamination from the current property owner?

3. Section 4.2.5 – Soil and Groundwater Management Plan – d. mentions provisions of stormwater to be directed to the municipal sanitary sewer as a form of pre-treatment – this provision must be removed as the City will not accept discharges of stormwater into the sanitary sewer. Provisions shall be made to pre-treat discharges and direct back to the storm sewer ensuring compliance with the current version of the City of Barrie’s Sewer Use By-law and PWQO.

4. Section 4.2.7 – Future Site Development - The CPU states that all impacted soil, GW, sediment encountered during future site development that was not addressed under the RA must be delineated and remediated in keeping with the requirements and assumptions of the RA.
a. The City requires a drawing with an explanation of what areas were not addressed in the RA in order to adequately comment on future Site Plan applications etc.

5. Section 4.2.10 – Soil Vapour Intrusion Mitigation System should also be submitted to the City for review and approval before implementation.

6. Section 4.2.10.1.2 – Sub-Slab Foundation layer details should be submitted to the City for review and approval before implementation.

7. Section 4.2.10.1.3 – Soil Vapour Venting layer details should be submitted to the City for review and approval before implementation.
a. Will this be included as part of the building permit application?
b. Where will this RMM be captured for review/comment by the City?

8. Section 4.2.10.1.4 – Soil Vapour Barrier Membrane details should be submitted to the City for review and approval before implementation.
a. Will this be included as part of the building permit application?
b. Where will this RMM be captured for review/comment by the City?

9. Section 4.2.10.1.5 – Vent Risers details should be submitted to the City for review and approval before implementation.
a. Will this be included as part of the building permit application?
b. Where will this RMM be captured for review/comment by the City?

10. Section 4.2.10.1.10 – As Constructed Plan should be submitted to the City for records of the Site specifications and installed SVIMS.

11. Section 4.2.11 d. states that the mechanical ventilation system for the storage garage is designed to provide, during operating hours, a continuous supply of outdoor air. What are the operating hours? If the storage garage is intended to occupy residential vehicles, the operating hours should be 24/7, therefore recommend that the mechanical ventilation system should be designed to provide 24/7 continuous supply of outdoor air.

12. Figure K.1 outlined the area requiring a physical barrier, a portion of this area appears to fall within the park land that will be given to the City at a later date. How will this effect the Landscape plans and park land use? How will or could the City be liable for inheriting potential contamination?

13. The Site had proposed a LID-type structure in the temporary parking lot, based on the draft CPU, modifications of stormwater management runoff may be required.

14. All inspection and monitoring programs that are required under this CPU a copy should be provided to the City.

15. All reports regarding inspections and monitoring programs that are a requirement of this CPU a copy should be provided to the City

16. Table 1.1 outlines the recommended Property Specific Standards
a. For Groundwater – every parameter has a suggested increase concentration, however every parameter has the potential for off-Site Exceedances – The City is requesting some type of additional RMM to prevent/ameliorate all off-Site potential adverse impacts.
b. For sediment – PAH’s and some metals (Table 1.1) has a suggested increase concentration, however they also have the potential for off-Site Exceedances – The City is requesting some type of additional RMM to prevent/ameliorate any off-Site potential adverse impacts.

17. The Risk Assessment Report prepared by GHD, dated June 18, 2021, states that one of the objectives of the Risk Assessment is to develop a Risk Management Plan. The City should be provided this Plan for review and comments.

18. Based on the proposed CPU, will the RMM require increased modifications to accommodate the southern portion of the site that will be dedicated green space as an environmental protection zone associated with Bunkers Creek, following development?